Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 5-Draft, 37948-37972 [2021-15121]
Download as PDF
37948
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Technology Transfer and Advancement
Act of 1995 (15 U.S.C. 272 note) because
application of those requirements would
be inconsistent with the CAA; and
• Do not provide EPA with the
discretionary authority to address, as
appropriate, disproportionate human
health or environmental effects, using
practicable and legally permissible
methods, under Executive Order 12898
(59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994).
The SIP is not approved to apply on
any Indian reservation land or in any
other area where EPA or an Indian tribe
has demonstrated that a tribe has
jurisdiction. In those areas of Indian
country, the rule does not have tribal
implications as specified by Executive
Order 13175 (65 FR 67249, November 9,
2000), nor will it impose substantial
direct costs on tribal governments or
preempt tribal law.
For South Carolina, because this
proposed action merely proposes to
approve state law as meeting Federal
requirements and does not impose
additional requirements beyond those
imposed by state law, this action for the
state of South Carolina does not have
Tribal implications as specified by
Executive Order 13175 (65 FR 67249,
November 9, 2000). Therefore, this
proposed action will not impose
substantial direct costs on Tribal
governments or preempt Tribal law. The
Catawba Indian Nation Reservation is
located within the boundary of York
County, South Carolina. Pursuant to the
Catawba Indian Claims Settlement Act,
S.C. Code Ann. 27–16–120 (Settlement
Act), ‘‘all state and local environmental
laws and regulations apply to the
Catawba Indian Nation and Reservation
and are fully enforceable by all relevant
state and local agencies and
authorities.’’ The Catawba Indian Nation
also retains authority to impose
regulations applying higher
environmental standards to the
Reservation than those imposed by state
law or local governing bodies, in
accordance with the Settlement Act.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 52
Environmental protection, Air
pollution control, Intergovernmental
relations, Nitrogen dioxide, Ozone,
Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements, Volatile organic
compounds.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq
Dated: July 12, 2021.
John Blevins,
Acting Regional Administrator, Region 4.
[FR Doc. 2021–15097 Filed 7–16–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Part 141
[EPA–HQ–OW–2018–0594; FRL–7251–01–
OW]
Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate
List 5—Draft
Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability; request
for comments.
AGENCY:
The U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing a
draft list of contaminants that are
currently not subject to any proposed or
promulgated national primary drinking
water regulations for public review and
comment. These contaminants are
known or anticipated to occur in public
water systems and may require
regulation under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA). This draft list is the
Fifth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL
5) published by the agency since the
SDWA amendments of 1996. The Draft
CCL 5 includes 66 chemicals, 3
chemical groups (per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS),
cyanotoxins, and disinfection
byproducts) and 12 microbial
contaminants. EPA seeks comment on
the Draft CCL 5 and on improvements
implemented in the CCL 5 process for
consideration in developing future
CCLs.
SUMMARY:
Comments must be received on
or before September 17, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments,
identified by Docket ID Number EPA–
HQ–OW–2018–0594, by any of the
following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov (our preferred
method). Follow the online instructions
for submitting comments.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, EPA Docket Center, Water
Docket, Environmental Protection
Agency, Mail code: 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20460.
Hand Delivery/Courier (by scheduled
appointment only): EPA Docket Center,
WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301
Constitution Ave. NW, Washington, DC
20004. The Docket Center’s hours of
operations are 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.,
Monday through Friday (except federal
holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received
must include the Docket ID No. EPA–
HQ–OW–2018–0594 for this
rulemaking. Comments received may be
posted without change to https://
DATES:
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For
detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information
on the rulemaking process, see the
‘‘Public Participation’’ heading of the
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of
this document. Out of an abundance of
caution for members of the public and
our staff, the EPA Docket Center and
Reading Room are closed to the public,
with limited exceptions, to reduce the
risk of transmitting COVID–19. Our
Docket Center staff will continue to
provide remote customer service via
email, phone, and webform. We
encourage the public to submit
comments via https://
www.regulations.gov, as there may be
delay in processing mail. Hand
deliveries and couriers may be received
by scheduled appointment only. For
further information of EPA Docket
Center Services and the current status,
please visit us online at https://
www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For
information on chemical contaminants
contact Kesha Forrest, Office of Ground
Water and Drinking Water, Standards
and Risk Management Division, at (202)
564–3632 or email forrest.kesha@
epa.gov. For information on microbial
contaminants contact Nicole Tucker,
Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water, Standards and Risk Management
Division, at (202) 564–1946 or email
tucker.nicole@epa.gov.
For more information visit https://
www.epa.gov/ccl.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. Does this action impose any
requirements on public water systems?
B. Public Participation
C. What should I consider as I prepare my
comments for EPA?
II. Purpose, Background, and Statutory
Requirements of This Action
A. What is the purpose of this action?
B. Background and Statutory Requirements
for CCL, Regulatory Determinations and
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule
1. Contaminant Candidate List
2. Regulatory Determinations
3. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule
C. Interrelationship of the CCL, Regulatory
Determinations, and Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring
D. Summary of Previous CCLs and
Regulatory Determinations
1. The First Contaminant Candidate List
2. The Regulatory Determinations for CCL
1 Contaminants
3. The Second Contaminant Candidate List
4. The Regulatory Determinations for CCL
2 Contaminants
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
5. The Third Contaminant Candidate List
6. The Regulatory Determinations for CCL
3 Contaminants
7. The Fourth Contaminant Candidate List
8. The Regulatory Determinations for CCL
4 Contaminants
E. Summary of the Approach Used To
Identify Contaminants for the Draft CCL
5
1. Chemical Contaminants
2. Microbial Contaminants
F. What is included on the Draft CCL 5?
III. Developing the Draft CCL 5
A. Approach Used To Identify Chemical
Candidates for the Draft CCL 5
1. Building the Chemical Universe
2. Screening Chemicals to a PCCL
a. Screening the Chemical Universe
b. Publicly Nominated Chemicals
c. Chemicals Excluded From the PCCL
i. Regulatory Determinations
ii. Canceled Pesticides
d. Summary of the PCCL
3. Classification of PCCL Chemicals To
Select the Draft CCL
a. Supplemental Data Collection
i. Occurrence
ii. Health Effects
b. Calculated Data Elements
i. Health Reference Levels and CCL
Screening Levels
ii. Final Hazard Quotients
iii. Attribute Scores
c. Evaluation Team Listing Decision
Process
d. Logistic Regression
e. Chemical Groups on the Draft CCL 5
B. Approach Used To Identify Microbial
Candidates for the Draft CCL 5
1. Building the Microbial Universe
2. Screening the Microbial Universe to the
PCCL
3. The PCCL to Draft CCL Process
a. Waterborne Disease Outbreak (WBDO)
Protocol
b. Occurrence Protocol
c. Health Effects Protocol
d. Combining Protocol Scores to Rank
Pathogens
e. Selection of the Draft CCL Microbes
f. Organisms Covered by Existing
Regulations
C. Summary of Nominated Candidates for
the Draft CCL 5
1. Data Sources for the Nominated
Chemical and Microbial Contaminants
a. Chemical Nominations
b. Microbial Nominations
2. Listing Outcomes for the Nominated
Chemical Contaminants
3. Listing Outcomes for the Nominated
Microbial Contaminants
D. Data Availability Assessment for the
Draft CCL 5 Chemicals
IV. Request for Comments
V. EPA’s Next Steps
VI. References
I. General Information
A. Does this action impose any
requirements on public water systems?
The Draft Contaminant Candidate List
5 (CCL 5) and the Final CCL 5, when
published, will not impose any
requirements on regulated entities.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
B. Public Participation
Submit your comments, identified by
Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2018–
0594, at https://www.regulations.gov
(our preferred method), or the other
methods identified in the ADDRESSES
section of this document. Once
submitted, comments cannot be edited
or removed from the docket. EPA may
publish any comment received to its
public docket. Do not submit
electronically any information you
consider to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
whose disclosure is restricted by statute.
Multimedia submissions (audio, video,
etc.) must be accompanied by a written
comment. The written comment is
considered the official comment and
should include discussion of all points
you wish to make. EPA will generally
not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary
submission (i.e., on the web, cloud, or
other file sharing system). For
additional submission methods, the full
EPA public comment policy,
information about CBI or multimedia
submissions, and general guidance on
making effective comments, please visit
https://www.epa.gov/dockets/
commenting-epa-dockets.
EPA is temporarily suspending its
Docket Center and Reading Room for
public visitors, with limited exceptions,
to reduce the risk of transmitting
COVID–19. Our Docket Center Staff will
continue to provide remote customer
service via email, phone, and webform.
We encourage the public to submit
comments via https://
www.regulations.gov/ as there may be a
delay in processing mail. Hand
deliveries or couriers will be received
by scheduled appointment only. For
further information and updates on EPA
Docket Center services, please visit us
online at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
EPA continues to carefully monitor
information from the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC), local area
health departments, and our federal
partners so that we can respond rapidly
as conditions change regarding COVID–
19.
C. What should I consider as I prepare
my comments for EPA?
You may find the following
suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
Explain your views as clearly as
possible.
Describe any assumptions that you
used.
Provide any technical information
and/or data you used that support your
views.
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37949
Provide full references for any peer
reviewed publication you used that
support your views.
Provide specific examples to illustrate
your concerns.
Offer alternatives.
Make sure to submit your comments
by the comment period deadline. To
ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify
the appropriate docket identification
number in the subject line on the first
page of your response. It would also be
helpful if you provided the name, date,
and Federal Register citation related to
your comments.
II. Purpose, Background, and Statutory
Requirements of This Action
This section briefly summarizes the
purpose of this action, the statutory
requirements, previous activities related
to the CCL and the approach used to
develop the Draft CCL 5.
A. What is the purpose of this action?
The purpose of this action is to
present EPA’s Draft CCL 5 and the
rationale for the selection process used
to make the list. This Draft CCL 5, when
finalized, is subsequently used to make
regulatory determinations on whether to
regulate at least five contaminants from
the CCL with national primary drinking
water regulations (NPDWRs) under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA),
section 1412(b)(1)(B)(ii). This action
only addresses the Draft CCL 5. The
regulatory determinations process for
contaminants on the CCL is a separate
agency action. EPA requests comment
on the Draft CCL 5 and on
improvements implemented in the CCL
5 process for consideration in
developing future CCLs.
B. Background and Statutory
Requirements for CCL, Regulatory
Determinations and Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring
1. Contaminant Candidate List
SDWA section 1412(b)(1)(B)(i), as
amended in 1996, requires EPA to
publish the CCL every five years. The
SDWA specifies that the list must
include contaminants that are not
subject to any proposed or promulgated
NPDWRs, are known or anticipated to
occur in public water systems (PWSs),
and may require regulation under the
SDWA. The unregulated contaminants
considered for listing shall include, but
not be limited to, hazardous substances
identified in section 101(14) of the
Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, and substances
registered as pesticides under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
37950
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The SDWA
directs EPA to consider the health
effects and occurrence information for
unregulated contaminants to identify
those contaminants that present the
greatest public health concern related to
exposure from drinking water. The
statute further directs EPA to take into
consideration the effect of contaminants
upon subgroups that comprise a
meaningful portion of the general
population (such as infants, children,
pregnant women, the elderly, and
individuals with a history of serious
illness or other subpopulations) that are
identifiable as being at greater risk of
adverse health effects due to exposure to
contaminants in drinking water than the
general population. EPA considers agerelated subgroups as ‘‘lifestages’’ in
reference to a distinguishable time
frame in an individual’s life
characterized by unique and relatively
stable behavioral and/or physiological
characteristics that are associated with
development and growth. Thus,
childhood is viewed as a sequence of
stages, from conception through fetal
development, infancy and adolescence
(see https://www2.epa.gov/children/
early-life-stages).
2. Regulatory Determinations
SDWA section 1412(b)(1)(B)(ii), as
amended in 1996, requires EPA, at fiveyear intervals, to make determinations
of whether or not to regulate no fewer
than five contaminants from the CCL.
The 1996 SDWA Amendments specify
three criteria to determine whether a
contaminant may require regulation:
The contaminant may have an adverse
effect on the health of persons;
The contaminant is known to occur or
there is a substantial likelihood that the
contaminant will occur in public water
systems with a frequency and at levels of
public health concern; and
In the sole judgment of the Administrator,
regulation of such contaminant presents a
meaningful opportunity for health risk
reduction for persons served by public water
systems.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
If, after considering public comment on
a preliminary determination, EPA
makes a determination to regulate a
contaminant, the agency will initiate the
process to propose an NPDWR.1 In that
case, the statutory time frame provides
for EPA proposal of a regulation within
1 An
NPDWR is a legally enforceable standard
that applies to public water systems. An NPDWR
sets a legal limit (called a maximum contaminant
level or MCL) or specifies a certain treatment
technique for public water systems for a specific
contaminant or group of contaminants. The MCL is
the highest level of a contaminant that is allowed
in drinking water and is set as close to the MCLG
as feasible, using the best available treatment
technology and taking cost into consideration.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
24 months and action on a final
regulation within 18 months of
proposal.
3. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule
SDWA section 1445(a)(2), as amended
in 1996, requires that once every five
years, beginning in 1999, EPA issues a
new list of no more than 30 unregulated
contaminants to be monitored in
drinking water by PWSs. Monitoring is
required by all PWSs serving more than
10,000 persons. The SDWA, as amended
by America’s Water Infrastructure Act of
2018, expands the requirements of the
program and specifies that, subject to
availability of appropriations and
laboratory capacity, the UCMR program
shall include all systems serving
between 3,300 and 10,000 persons and
a nationally representative sample of
PWSs serving fewer than 3,300 persons.
The program would continue to require
monitoring by PWSs serving more than
10,000 persons. The SDWA also
requires EPA to enter the monitoring
data into the publicly available National
Contaminant Occurrence Database
(NCOD). This national occurrence data
is used to inform regulatory decisions
for emerging contaminants in drinking
water. Since the development of the
UCMR program, EPA has issued four
UCMRs. The UCMR 1 was published in
the Federal Register on September 17,
1999 (64 FR 50556, USEPA, 1999), and
required monitoring for 26
contaminants from 2001 to 2005. The
UCMR 2 was published in the Federal
Register on January 4, 2007 (72 FR 368,
USEPA, 2007), and required monitoring
for 25 contaminants from 2008 to 2010.
The UCMR 3 was published in the
Federal Register on May 2, 2012 (77 FR
26072, USEPA, 2012a), and required
monitoring for 30 contaminants: 28
chemicals and two viruses from 2013 to
2015. The UCMR 4 was published in the
Federal Register on December 20, 2016
(81 FR 92666, USEPA, 2016a), and
required monitoring for 30
contaminants from 2018 to 2020.
Seventeen of the contaminants being
monitored under the UCMR 4 were
included on the CCL 4 and 13 chemicals
or chemical groups monitored under the
UCMR 4 are included on the Draft CCL
5. EPA published the UCMR 5 proposal
in the Federal Register on March 11,
2021 (86 FR 13846, USEPA, 2021a). The
proposed UCMR 5 would require
monitoring for 29 per- and
polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and
lithium in drinking water from 2023 to
2025. The Draft CCL 5 includes all of
the contaminants that are proposed for
monitoring on the UCMR 5.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
C. Interrelationship of the CCL,
Regulatory Determinations, and
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
The CCL is the first step in the SDWA
regulatory framework for screening and
evaluating the subset of contaminants
that may require future regulation. The
CCL serves as the initial screening of
potential contaminants to consider for
regulatory determinations. However,
inclusion on the CCL does not mean
that any particular contaminant will
necessarily be regulated in the future.
The UCMR provides a mechanism to
obtain nationally representative
occurrence data for contaminants in
drinking water. Historically, most
unregulated contaminants chosen by
EPA for monitoring have been selected
from the CCL. When selecting
contaminants for monitoring under the
UCMR, EPA considers the availability of
health effects data and the need for
national occurrence data for
contaminants, as well as analytical
method availability, availability of
analytical standards, sampling costs,
and laboratory capacity to support a
nationwide monitoring program. The
contaminant occurrence data collected
under the UCMR serves to better inform
future CCLs and regulatory
determinations. Contaminants on the
CCL are evaluated based on health
effects and occurrence information and
those contaminants with sufficient
information to make a regulatory
determination are then evaluated based
on the three statutory criteria in SDWA
section 1412(b)(1), to determine whether
a regulation is required (called a
positive determination) or not required
(called a negative determination). Under
the SDWA, EPA must make regulatory
determinations for at least five
contaminants listed on the CCL every
five years. For those contaminants
without sufficient information to allow
EPA to make a regulatory determination,
the agency encourages research to
provide the information needed to fill
the data gaps to determine whether to
regulate the contaminant.
This action addresses only the CCL 5
and not the UCMR or regulatory
determinations.
D. Summary of Previous CCLs and
Regulatory Determinations
1. The First Contaminant Candidate List
The first CCL (CCL 1) was published
on March 2, 1998 (63 FR 10274, USEPA,
1998). The CCL 1 was developed based
on recommendations by the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council
(NDWAC) and reviewed by technical
experts. It contained 50 chemicals and
10 microbial contaminants/groups.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
2. The Regulatory Determinations for
CCL 1 Contaminants
EPA published its final regulatory
determinations for a subset of
contaminants listed on the CCL 1 on
July 18, 2003 (68 FR 42898, USEPA,
2003). EPA identified 9 contaminants
from the 60 contaminants listed on the
CCL 1 that had sufficient data and
information available to make regulatory
determinations. The nine contaminants
were Acanthamoeba, aldrin, dieldrin,
hexachlorobutadiene, manganese,
metribuzin, naphthalene, sodium, and
sulfate. EPA determined that no
regulatory action was appropriate or
necessary for any of the nine
contaminants at that time. EPA
subsequently issued guidance on
Acanthamoeba and Health Advisories
for manganese, sodium, and sulfate.
3. The Second Contaminant Candidate
List
EPA published the Final CCL 2 on
February 24, 2005 (70 FR 9071, USEPA,
2005). EPA carried forward the 51
remaining chemical and microbial
contaminants from the CCL 1 (that did
not have regulatory determinations) to
the CCL 2.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
4. The Regulatory Determinations for
CCL 2 Contaminants
EPA published its final regulatory
determinations for a subset of
contaminants listed on the CCL 2 on
July 30, 2008 (73 FR 44251, USEPA,
2008). EPA identified 11 contaminants
from the 51 contaminants listed on the
CCL 2 that had sufficient data and
information available to make regulatory
determinations. The 11 contaminants
were boron, the dacthal mono- and diacid degradates, 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis (pchlorophenyl) ethylene (DDE), 1,3dichloropropene, 2,4-dinitrotoluene,
2,6-dinitrotoluene, s-ethyl
propylthiocarbamate (EPTC), fonofos,
terbacil, and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane.
EPA made a final determination that no
regulatory action was appropriate or
necessary for any of the 11
contaminants. New or updated Health
Advisories were subsequently issued
for: Boron, the dacthal degradates, 2,4dinitrotoluene, 2,6-dinitrotoluene, and
1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
5. The Third Contaminant Candidate
List
EPA published the Final CCL 3 on
October 8, 2009 (74 FR 51850, USEPA,
2009). In developing the CCL 3, EPA
implemented an improved, stepwise
process which built on the previous
CCL process and was based on expert
input and recommendations from the
National Academy of Sciences’ National
Research Council (NRC), the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council
(NDWAC), and the Science Advisory
Board (SAB). The CCL 3 contained 104
chemicals or chemical groups and 12
microbial contaminants.
6. The Regulatory Determinations for
CCL 3 Contaminants
On February 11, 2011, EPA published
in the Federal Register (76 FR 7762,
USEPA, 2011) a determination that
perchlorate (a CCL 3 contaminant) met
the criteria for regulating a contaminant
under the SDWA based upon the
information available at that time. On
January 4, 2016, EPA published in the
Federal Register (81 FR 13, USEPA,
2016b) final determinations not to
regulate four additional CCL 3
contaminants—dimethoate, 1,3dinitrobenzene, terbufos and terbufos
sulfone.
EPA published a proposed
rulemaking for perchlorate in the
Federal Register on June 26, 2019 (85
FR 43990, USEPA, 2019a), and sought
public input on regulatory alternatives
for perchlorate, including withdrawal of
the previous regulatory determination.
Based on the evaluation of public
comments, and review of the updated
scientific data, EPA withdrew the 2011
regulatory determination and made a
final determination not to regulate
perchlorate on July 21, 2020 (85 FR
43990, USEPA, 2020). EPA is reviewing
this final determination in accordance
with President Biden’s Executive Order
No. 13990 (86 FR 7037, Executive Office
of the President, 2021).
7. The Fourth Contaminant Candidate
List
EPA published the Final CCL 4 in the
Federal Register on November 17, 2016
(81 FR 81099, USEPA, 2016c). The Final
CCL 4 contained 97 chemicals or
chemical groups and 12 microbial
contaminants. All contaminants listed
on the Final CCL 4 were carried forward
from CCL 3, except for manganese and
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37951
nonylphenol, which were nominated by
the public to be included on the CCL 4.
For information about publicly
nominated contaminants for the CCL 5,
see Section III.C.1 of this document.
8. The Regulatory Determinations for
CCL 4 Contaminants
On March 3, 2021, EPA published
final regulatory determinations for eight
contaminants on the CCL 4 (86 FR
12272, USEPA, 2021b). EPA made final
determinations to regulate
perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in
drinking water and to not regulate six
contaminants 1,1-dichloroethane,
acetochlor, methyl bromide
(bromomethane), metolachlor,
nitrobenzene, and 1,3,5-Trinitro-1,3,5triazinane (RDX).
E. Summary of the Approach Used To
Identify Contaminants for the Draft CCL
5
In developing the Draft CCL 5, EPA
followed the stepwise process used in
developing the CCL 3 and CCL 4, which
was based on expert input and
recommendations from the SAB, NRC
and NDWAC. Note that EPA used an
abbreviated process for the CCL 4 by
carrying forward the CCL 3
contaminants (81 FR 81099, USEPA,
2016c). In each cycle of the CCL, EPA
attempts to improve the CCL
development process in response to
comments from the SAB and the public.
Therefore, in developing the Draft CCL
5, EPA implemented improvements to
the CCL process to better identify,
screen, and classify potential drinking
water contaminants. EPA’s approach
utilizes the best available data to
characterize the occurrence and adverse
health risks a chemical may pose from
potential drinking water exposure.
Exhibit 1 illustrates a generalized 3step process EPA applied to both
chemical and microbial contaminants
for the Draft CCL 5. The agency began
with a large Universe of contaminants,
screened it down to a Preliminary CCL
5, then finally selected the Draft CCL 5.
The specific execution of particular
steps differed in detail for the chemical
and microbial contaminants. Each step
of the Draft CCL 5 process and
associated number of chemical and
microbial contaminants are described in
Section III of this document.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
37952
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Exhibit 1-Generalized Draft CCL 5 Development Process and Contaminant Counts
Number of
Chemical
Contaminants
Number of
Microbial
Contaminants
~22,000
1,435
275
35
66 + 3
1. Chemical Contaminants
EPA followed 3 three-step process
illustrated in Exhibit 1 to identify
chemicals for inclusion on the Draft
CCL 5. These steps included:
Step 1. Building a broad universe of
potential drinking water contaminants
(called the CCL 5 Chemical Universe).
EPA evaluated 134 data sources and
identified 43 that were related to
potential drinking water chemical
contaminants and met established CCL
assessment factors. From these data
sources, EPA identified and extracted
occurrence and health effects data for
the 21,894 chemicals that form the CCL
5 Chemical Universe.
Step 2. Screening the CCL 5 Chemical
Universe to identify a list of chemicals
that should be further evaluated (called
the Preliminary CCL 5 (PCCL 5)). EPA
established and applied a data-driven
screening points system to identify and
prioritize a subset of chemicals with the
greatest potential for public health
concern. The agency also incorporated
publicly nominated chemicals to the
PCCL 5.
Step 3. Classifying PCCL 5 chemicals
to select the Draft CCL 5 chemicals. EPA
compiled occurrence and health effects
information for use by two evaluation
teams of EPA scientists. The evaluation
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
teams reviewed this information for
each chemical before reaching a group
decision on whether to list a chemical
on the Draft CCL 5.
A more detailed description of the
processes used to develop the Draft CCL
5 of chemicals using these steps can be
found in the Technical Support
Document for the Draft Fifth
Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 5)—
Chemical Contaminants (USEPA,
2021c).
2. Microbial Contaminants
EPA followed the 3-step process
illustrated in Exhibit 1 to identify
microbes for inclusion on the Draft CCL
5. For microbial contaminants, these
steps included:
Step 1. Building a broad universe of
all microbes that may cause human
disease.
Step 2. Screening that universe of
microbial contaminants to produce a
PCCL 5.
Step 3. Selecting the Draft CCL 5
microbial list by ranking the PCCL 5
contaminants based on occurrence in
drinking water (including waterborne
disease outbreaks) and human health
effects.
This approach is similar to that used
by EPA for the CCL 3, with updates
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
12
made to the microbial screening process
in response to SAB and stakeholder
comments. EPA re-examined all 12
microbial exclusionary screening
criteria used in previous CCLs and
modified one criterion for the CCL 5.
More details on the screening process
are presented in the Technical Support
Document for the Draft Fifth Candidate
List (CCL 5)—Microbial Contaminants
(USEPA, 2021d). (Note, referred to as
the Microbial Technical Support
Document thereafter.)
F. What is included on the Draft CCL 5?
The Draft CCL 5 includes 81
contaminants or groups (Exhibits 2a, 2b,
and 2c). The list is comprised of 69
chemicals or chemical groups and 12
microbes. The 69 chemicals or chemical
groups include 66 chemicals
recommended for listing following an
improved process to evaluate the PCCL,
one group of cyanotoxins, one group of
disinfection byproducts (DBPs), and one
group of PFAS chemicals. The 12
microbes include 8 bacteria, 3 viruses,
and 1 protozoa recommended for listing
based on the scores for waterborne
disease outbreaks, occurrence, health
effects, and recommendations from
various experts.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
EP19JY21.002
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
chemical
groups
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37953
EXHIBIT 2a—CHEMICAL CONTAMINANTS ON THE DRAFT CCL 5
CASRN 1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Chemical name
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ..................................................................................................................................
1,4-Dioxane ...................................................................................................................................................
17-alpha ethynyl estradiol .............................................................................................................................
2,4-Dinitrophenol ...........................................................................................................................................
2-Aminotoluene .............................................................................................................................................
2-Hydroxyatrazine .........................................................................................................................................
4-Nonylphenol (all isomers) ..........................................................................................................................
6-Chloro-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine ...............................................................................................................
Acephate .......................................................................................................................................................
Acrolein ..........................................................................................................................................................
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha-HCH) .................................................................................................
Anthraquinone ...............................................................................................................................................
Bensulide .......................................................................................................................................................
Bisphenol A ...................................................................................................................................................
Boron .............................................................................................................................................................
Bromoxynil .....................................................................................................................................................
Carbaryl .........................................................................................................................................................
Carbendazim (MBC) ......................................................................................................................................
Chlordecone (Kepone) ..................................................................................................................................
Chlorpyrifos ...................................................................................................................................................
Cobalt ............................................................................................................................................................
Cyanotoxins 3 .................................................................................................................................................
Deethylatrazine ..............................................................................................................................................
Desisopropyl atrazine ....................................................................................................................................
Desvenlafaxine ..............................................................................................................................................
Diazinon .........................................................................................................................................................
Dicrotophos ...................................................................................................................................................
Dieldrin ..........................................................................................................................................................
Dimethoate ....................................................................................................................................................
Disinfection byproducts (DBPs) 4 ..................................................................................................................
Diuron ............................................................................................................................................................
Ethalfluralin ....................................................................................................................................................
Ethoprop ........................................................................................................................................................
Fipronil ...........................................................................................................................................................
Fluconazole ...................................................................................................................................................
Flufenacet ......................................................................................................................................................
Fluometuron ..................................................................................................................................................
Iprodione ........................................................................................................................................................
Lithium ...........................................................................................................................................................
Malathion .......................................................................................................................................................
Manganese ....................................................................................................................................................
Methomyl .......................................................................................................................................................
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) ......................................................................................................................
Methylmercury ...............................................................................................................................................
Molybdenum ..................................................................................................................................................
Norflurazon ....................................................................................................................................................
Oxyfluorfen ....................................................................................................................................................
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) 5 ..............................................................................................
Permethrin .....................................................................................................................................................
Phorate ..........................................................................................................................................................
Phosmet ........................................................................................................................................................
Phostebupirim ................................................................................................................................................
Profenofos .....................................................................................................................................................
Propachlor .....................................................................................................................................................
Propanil .........................................................................................................................................................
Propargite ......................................................................................................................................................
Propazine ......................................................................................................................................................
Propoxur ........................................................................................................................................................
Quinoline .......................................................................................................................................................
Tebuconazole ................................................................................................................................................
Terbufos ........................................................................................................................................................
Thiamethoxam ...............................................................................................................................................
Tri-allate .........................................................................................................................................................
Tribufos ..........................................................................................................................................................
Tributyl phosphate .........................................................................................................................................
Trimethylbenzene (1,2,4-) .............................................................................................................................
Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) ..........................................................................................................
Tungsten ........................................................................................................................................................
Vanadium ......................................................................................................................................................
96–18–4
123–91–1
57–63–6
51–28–5
95–53–4
2163–68–0
25154–52–3
3397–62–4
30560–19–1
107–02–8
319–84–6
84–65–1
741–58–2
80–05–7
7440–42–8
1689–84–5
63–25–2
10605–21–7
143–50–0
2921–88–2
7440–48–4
Multiple
6190–65–4
1007–28–9
93413–62–8
333–41–5
141–66–2
60–57–1
60–51–5
Multiple
330–54–1
55283–68–6
13194–48–4
120068–37–3
86386–73–4
142459–58–3
2164–17–2
36734–19–7
7439–93–2
121–75–5
7439–96–5
16752–77–5
1634–04–4
22967–92–6
7439–98–7
27314–13–2
42874–03–3
Multiple
52645–53–1
298–02–2
732–11–6
96182–53–5
41198–08–7
1918–16–7
709–98–8
2312–35–8
139–40–2
114–26–1
91–22–5
107534–96–3
13071–79–9
153719–23–4
2303–17–5
78–48–8
126–73–8
95–63–6
115–96–8
7440–33–7
7440–62–2
DTXSID 2
DTXSID9021390
DTXSID4020533
DTXSID5020576
DTXSID0020523
DTXSID1026164
DTXSID6037807
DTXSID3021857
DTXSID1037806
DTXSID8023846
DTXSID5020023
DTXSID2020684
DTXSID3020095
DTXSID9032329
DTXSID7020182
DTXSID3023922
DTXSID3022162
DTXSID9020247
DTXSID4024729
DTXSID1020770
DTXSID4020458
DTXSID1031040
Multiple
DTXSID5037494
DTXSID0037495
DTXSID40869118
DTXSID9020407
DTXSID9023914
DTXSID9020453
DTXSID7020479
Multiple
DTXSID0020446
DTXSID8032386
DTXSID4032611
DTXSID4034609
DTXSID3020627
DTXSID2032552
DTXSID8020628
DTXSID3024154
DTXSID5036761
DTXSID4020791
DTXSID2024169
DTXSID1022267
DTXSID3020833
DTXSID9024198
DTXSID1024207
DTXSID8024234
DTXSID7024241
Multiple
DTXSID8022292
DTXSID4032459
DTXSID5024261
DTXSID1032482
DTXSID3032464
DTXSID4024274
DTXSID8022111
DTXSID4024276
DTXSID3021196
DTXSID7021948
DTXSID1021798
DTXSID9032113
DTXSID2022254
DTXSID2034962
DTXSID5024344
DTXSID1024174
DTXSID3021986
DTXSID6021402
DTXSID5021411
DTXSID8052481
DTXSID2040282
1 Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN) is a unique identifier assigned by the Chemical Abstracts Service (a division of the
American Chemical Society) to every chemical substance (organic and inorganic compounds, polymers, elements, nuclear particles, etc.) in the
open scientific literature. It contains up to 10 digits, seperated by hyphens into three parts.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
37954
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
2 Distributed Structure Searchable Toxicity Substance Identifiers (DTXSID) is a unique substance identifier used in EPA’s CompTox Chemicals
database, where a substance can be any single chemical, mixture or polymer.
3 Toxins naturally produced and released by some species of cyanobacteria (previously known as ‘‘blue-green algae’’). The group of
cyanotoxins includes, but is not limited to: Anatoxin-a, cylindrospermopsin, microcystins, and saxitoxin.
4 This group includes 23 unregulated DBPs as shown in Exhibit 2b.
5 This group is inclusive of any PFAS (except for PFOA and PFOS). For the purposes of this document, the structural definition of PFAS includes per- and polyfluorinated substances that structurally contain the unit R-(CF2)-C(F)(R′)R″. Both the CF2 and CF moieties are saturated
carbons and none of the R groups (R, R′ or R″) can be hydrogen (USEPA, 2021f).
EXHIBIT 2b—UNREGULATED DBPS IN THE DBP GROUP ON THE DRAFT CCL 5
Chemical name
CASRN
Haloacetic Acids:
Bromochloroacetic acid (BCAA) ............................................................................................................
Bromodichloroacetic acid (BDCAA) .......................................................................................................
Dibromochloroacetic acid (DBCAA) .......................................................................................................
Tribromoacetic acid (TBAA) ...................................................................................................................
Haloacetonitriles:
Dichloroacetonitrile (DCAN) ...................................................................................................................
Dibromoacetonitrile (DBAN) ...................................................................................................................
Halonitromethanes:
Bromodichloronitromethane (BDCNM) ..................................................................................................
Chloropicrin (trichloronitromethane, TCNM) ..........................................................................................
Dibromochloronitromethane (DBCNM) ..................................................................................................
Iodinated Trihalomethanes:
Bromochloroiodomethane (BCIM) ..........................................................................................................
Bromodiiodomethane (BDIM) .................................................................................................................
Chlorodiiodomethane (CDIM) ................................................................................................................
Dibromoiodomethane (DBIM) ................................................................................................................
Dichloroiodomethane (DCIM) .................................................................................................................
Iodoform (triiodomethane, TIM) .............................................................................................................
Nitrosamines:
Nitrosodibutylamine (NDBA) ..................................................................................................................
N-Nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) ..............................................................................................................
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) ...........................................................................................................
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine (NDPA) ........................................................................................................
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine (NDPhA) .........................................................................................................
Nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR) ......................................................................................................................
Others:
Chlorate ..................................................................................................................................................
Formaldehyde ........................................................................................................................................
EXHIBIT 2c—MICROBIAL
CONTAMINANTS ON THE DRAFT CCL 5
Microbial
class
Microbial name
Adenovirus ..................................
Caliciviruses ................................
Campylobacter jejuni ..................
Escherichia coli (O157) ..............
Enteroviruses ..............................
Helicobacter pylori ......................
Legionella pneumophila ..............
Mycobacterium abscessus .........
Mycobacterium avium .................
Naegleria fowleri .........................
Pseudomonas aeruginosa ..........
Shigella sonnei ...........................
Virus.
Virus.
Bacteria.
Bacteria.
Virus.
Bacteria.
Bacteria.
Bacteria.
Bacteria.
Protozoa.
Bacteria.
Bacteria.
III. Developing the Draft CCL 5
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
A. Approach Used To Identify Chemical
Candidates for the Draft CCL 5
The SDWA directs EPA to consider
health effects and occurrence
information on unregulated
contaminants to identify those that
present the greatest public health
concern related to exposure from
drinking water. EPA gathered this
information into a data directory that
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
supports the evaluation of contaminants
over the three steps of the CCL 5
development process, as outlined in
Section II.E.1 of this document.
1. Building the Chemical Universe
The goal of the first step of the CCL
5 development process for chemical
candidates is to identify a broad
universe of potential drinking water
contaminants. EPA began the CCL 5
development process by compiling data
sources to identify chemicals that would
form a broad CCL 5 Chemical Universe
(e.g., a list of contaminants identified
through health and occurrence data
sources that are relevant, complete,
retrievable, and not redundant). EPA
compiled data sources identified from
the CCL 3 and the CCL 4, along with
data sources recommended by the CCL
5 EPA workgroup and subject matter
experts. Information on how EPA
addressed data sources provided
through the public nomination process
is described in Section III.C.1 of this
document. As a result of this effort, EPA
identified 134 potential data sources
and further assessed their potential use
for the CCL 5 development process. EPA
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
DTXSID
5589–96–8
71133–14–7
631–64–1
75–96–7
DTXSID4024642
DTXSID4024644
DTXSID3031151
DTXSID6021668
3018–12–0
3252–43–5
DTXSID3021562
DTXSID3024940
918–01–4
76–96–2
1184–89–0
DTXSID4021509
DTXSID0020315
DTXSID00152114
34970–00–8
557–95–9
638–73–3
557–68–6
594–04–7
75–47–8
DTXSID4021503
DTXSID70204235
DTXSID20213251
DTXSID60208040
DTXSID7021570
DTXSID4020743
924–16–3
55–18–5
62–75–9
621–64–7
86–30–6
930–55–2
DTXSID2021026
DTXSID2021028
DTXSID7021029
DTXSID6021032
DTXSID6021030
DTXSID8021062
14866–68–3
50–00–0
DTXSID3073137
DTXSID7020637
accessed each potential data source
online and evaluated them using the
following assessment factors:
Relevance: The data source contains
information on demonstrated or
potential health effects, occurrence, or
potential occurrence of contaminants
using surrogate information (e.g.,
environmental release, environmental
fate and transport properties);
Completeness: The data source either
(a) has been peer-reviewed, or (b)
provides a description of the data,
information on how the data were
obtained, and contact information
regarding the data source;
Redundancy: The data source does
not contain information identical to
other more comprehensive data sources
also being considered; and,
Retrievability: The data are formatted
for automated retrieval (e.g., data are
stored in a tabular format) and publicly
accessible.
Out of the 134 potential data sources,
43 met all four assessment factors and
were therefore considered ‘‘primary data
sources’’ that were used to build the
CCL 5 Chemical Universe. Data sources
that met the first three assessment
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
factors but were not retrievable were set
aside as potential supplemental sources,
some of which were used as part of the
CCL 5 classification process, as
discussed further in this section as well
as Sections III.A.4 and III.C of this
document. More information on how
data sources were assessed and
extracted is provided in Sections 2.2
and 2.3, respectively, of the Chemical
Technical Support Document (USEPA,
2021c).
EPA downloaded data from the 43
primary data sources and categorized
them as sources of health effects
(Exhibit 3) or occurrence (Exhibit 4)
data. In total, 21,894 chemicals were
identified from the 43 primary data
sources.
Out of the 43 primary data sources,
EPA identified 17 sources of health
effects data that met the assessment
factors of relevance, completeness,
redundancy, and retrievability. One
additional health effects data source, the
37955
Hazardous Substances Data Bank
(HSDB), did not meet the retrievability
factor but was designated as a primary
data source. The HSDB is a data rich
source, and the only source of Lethal
Dose, 50% (LD50s) for the CCL 5
development process.
Therefore, additional effort was taken
to extract this data, as was done with
the CCL 3 development process
(USEPA, 2009a). These 18 data sources,
listed in Exhibit 3, include both
qualitative and quantitative data.
EXHIBIT 3—CCL 5 HEALTH EFFECTS PRIMARY DATA SOURCES
Agency or author 1
Data source
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Minimal
Risk Levels (MRLs).
Cancer Potency Data Bank ......................................................................
Drinking Water Standards and Health Advisory Tables ..........................
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Quality .....................................
Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality ......................................................
Hazardous Substances Data Bank ..........................................................
Health-Based Screening Levels (HBSLs) ................................................
Human Health-Based Water Guidance Table ..........................................
Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides ..............................................
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) ..............................................
International Agency for Research on Cancer Classifications .................
Maximum Recommended Daily Dose (MRDD) Database .......................
National Recommended Water Quality Criteria—Human Health Criteria
National Toxicology Program (NTP) Cancer Classifications ...................
Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity Values (PPRTVs) ...........................
Screening Levels for Pharmaceuticals .....................................................
Toxicity Criteria Database ........................................................................
Toxicity Reference Database (ToxRefDB) ...............................................
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
National Library of Medicine, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services (HHS).
EPA.
Health Canada.
World Health Organization (WHO).
National Library of Medicine, HHS.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Minnesota Department of Health.
EPA.
EPA.
WHO.
U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
EPA.
HHS.
EPA.
FDA Drugs@FDA database, National Institutes of Health (NIH)
DailyMed Database.
California Environmental Protection Agency (CalEPA) Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment.
EPA
1 References for the data sources listed in Exhibit 3 are provided in Appendix N of the Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA,
2021c).
EPA identified 25 sources of
occurrence related data that met the
assessment factors of relevance,
completeness, redundancy, and
retrievability. These data sources, listed
in Exhibit 4, include both qualitative
and quantitative data.
EXHIBIT 4—CCL 5 OCCURRENCE PRIMARY DATA SOURCES
Agency or author 1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Data source
ATSDR Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
Substance Priority List.
Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Results ......................................................................................
‘‘Concentrations of prioritized pharmaceuticals in effluents from 50 large wastewater treatment
plants in the US and implications for risk estimation’’.
Disinfection By-product Information Collection Rule (DBP ICR) ...................................................
‘‘Evaluating the extent of pharmaceuticals in surface waters of the United States using a National-scale Rivers and Streams Assessment survey’’.
‘‘Expanded target-chemical analysis reveals extensive mixed-organic-contaminant exposure in
U.S. streams’’.
Federal Insecticide Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) List .................................................
‘‘Legacy and emerging perfluoroalkyl substances are important emerging water contaminants
in the Cape Fear River Watershed of North Carolina’’.
National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) .....................................................
National Inorganics and Radionuclides Survey (NIRS) .................................................................
National Water Information System (NWIS) ..................................................................................
National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) .............................................................................
‘‘Nationwide reconnaissance of contaminants of emerging concern in source and treated drinking waters of the United States’’.
‘‘Nationwide reconnaissance of contaminants of emerging concern in source and treated drinking waters of the United States: Pharmaceuticals’’.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
CDC.
EPA.
Kostich et al. 2014.
EPA.
Batt et al. 2016.
Bradley et al. 2017.
EPA.
Sun et al. 2016.
CDC.
EPA.
Water Quality Portal, USGS.
Water Quality Portal, USGS.
Glassmeyer et al. 2017.
Furlong et al. 2017.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
37956
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
EXHIBIT 4—CCL 5 OCCURRENCE PRIMARY DATA SOURCES—Continued
Agency or author 1
Data source
Pesticide Data Program .................................................................................................................
Pesticide Use Estimates ................................................................................................................
‘‘Pharmaceutical manufacturing facility discharges can substantially increase the pharmaceutical load to US wastewaters’’.
‘‘Predicting variability of aquatic concentrations of human pharmaceuticals’’ ...............................
‘‘Reconnaissance of mixed organic and inorganic chemicals in private and public supply
tapwaters at selected residential and workplace sites in the United States’’.
Surface Water Database (SURF) ..................................................................................................
‘‘Suspect screening and non-targeted analysis of drinking water using point-of-use filters’’ ........
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI) .....................................................................................................
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR) Cycles 1–3 ..................................................
UCMR Cycle 4 ...............................................................................................................................
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring-State (UCM-State) Rounds 1 and 2 ..................................
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
USGS.
Scott et al. 2018.
Kostich et al. 2010.
Bradley et al. 2018.
California Department of Pesticide Regulation.
Newton et al. 2018.
EPA.
EPA.
EPA.
EPA.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1 References for the data sources listed in Exhibit 4 are provided in Appendix N of the Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA,
2021c).
To ensure consistency and accuracy
of the data across such a large data
directory with a multitude of sources,
EPA utilized the Distributed Structure—
Searchable Toxicity Substance
Identifiers (DTXSIDs) and tools
provided in EPA’s CompTox Chemicals
Dashboard (Williams et al., 2017). This
dashboard provides easy access to
results from several models developed
by EPA and others that predict toxicity
endpoints, physicochemical properties,
and environmental fate and exposure
parameters for specific chemicals, as
well as tools to efficiently and
accurately match chemicals with
DTXSIDs. With these tools and
identifiers, EPA was able to match a
chemical that may have been reported
differently (i.e., with different names or
other identifiers) across CCL 5 data
sources to one DTXSID. EPA linked
these identifiers with descriptors that
characterize toxicological and
occurrence information, referred to as
‘‘data elements,’’ to ensure that data for
each chemical would be available for
use in later steps of the CCL 5
development process. EPA also
considered the CompTox Chemicals
Dashboard as a supplemental data
source, as described in Section 2.4.3 of
the Chemical Technical Support
Document (USEPA, 2021c).
While building the CCL 5 Chemical
Universe, EPA took several steps to
ensure that the chemical identifiers
were accurate, and that the data
elements gathered across sources were
uniform and comparable, as described
in Section 2.4.4 of the Chemical
Technical Support Document (USEPA,
2021c). The result of the first step of the
CCL 5 development process was the
CCL 5 Chemical Universe that provided
a starting point for screening chemicals
for inclusion on the PCCL 5, as
described in Section III.A.2 of this
document.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
At later stages in the CCL 5
development process, EPA also
collected data from supplemental data
sources, which, along with data from
the 43 primary data sources, was used
to aid in further evaluation of chemicals
for listing on the Draft CCL 5. As
described in Section 2.2.3 of the
Chemical Technical Support Document
(USEPA, 2021c), supplemental sources
were used to fill data gaps as part of the
CCL 5 classification step (see Section
III.A.3 of this document). For example,
EPA conducted literature searches to
identify peer-reviewed studies that are
considered supplemental data sources
to aid in the evaluations of chemicals of
interest (see Section III.A.3.a of this
document). Supplemental data could
also come from sources cited in public
nominations (see Section III.C of this
document). While these sources could
most often not be efficiently or
effectively incorporated into the
screening process, they were often an
important source of detail and
description that supported CCL 5 listing
decisions. This effort to combine data
collected from primary data sources
along with data from supplemental data
sources resulted in the most
comprehensive data compilation for
universe chemicals collected for any
CCL iteration to date. For more
information about the specific iterative
steps taken to build the CCL 5 Chemical
Universe, see Chapter 2 of the Chemical
Technical Support Document (USEPA,
2021c).
2. Screening Chemicals to a PCCL
The goal of the second step of the CCL
5 development process was to screen
chemicals for inclusion on the PCCL 5
using the data compiled in Step 1. The
PCCL 5 is comprised of the top scoring
universe chemicals that were advanced
for further evaluation and publicly
nominated chemicals. A number of top
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
scoring chemicals and publicly
nominated chemicals were not included
on the PCCL 5 because they had ongoing
agency actions or did not warrant
further evaluation, such as canceled
pesticides as described in this section.
a. Screening the Chemical Universe
EPA developed a screening process to
determine which contaminants require
further consideration through the PCCL
to CCL step. EPA modified the CCL 3
screening process for this CCL cycle to
accommodate new data types and
sources that have become available, but
maintained the framework of screening
chemicals to the PCCL based on their
available toxicity properties and
occurrence data (USEPA, 2009b). To
screen chemicals for the CCL 5, EPA
developed a transparent and
reproducible scoring rubric and pointbased screening system. This pointbased screening system is an
improvement over the Toxicity
Categories and Occurrence Hierarchies
developed for the CCL 3 (USEPA,
2009b) because it incorporates data from
all the available data elements identified
for use in screening rather than relying
on an individual data element that
indicates the highest toxicity or
occurrence for a chemical.
EPA developed a scoring rubric to
assign points across health effects and
occurrence data elements based on (1)
the relevance of the data element to
drinking water exposure and (2) the
relative toxicity or relative occurrence
indicated by the value of a chemical’s
data element compared to the values of
that data element for all other
chemicals, as described here and in
more detail in Section 3.2 of the
Chemical Technical Support Document
(USEPA, 2021c). EPA used this scoring
rubric to assign points to health effects
and occurrence data elements and
calculate cumulative point scores,
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
called ‘‘screening scores,’’ for each
chemical. EPA then used these
screening scores as a tool to prioritize
chemicals along with statistical models
and analyses to inform the PCCL 5. The
statistical models and analyses are
described in Section III.A.4.d of this
document and Section 4.6 of the
Chemical Technical Support Document
(USEPA, 2021c). During the CCL 5
development process, EPA compiled 68
different data elements that could be
assigned points or used as
supplementary data for individual
chemicals. Of these 68 data elements,
EPA assigned points to 22 data elements
related to health effects and 13 data
elements related to occurrence, but did
not assign points to the remaining 33
data elements. Generally, EPA did not
assign points to data elements if:
The data element was not available for a
large number of chemicals.
The data element was not considered
highly relevant to hazards associated with
drinking water.
The data element required chemicalspecific data manipulation (e.g., unit
conversions requiring chemical molecular
weight) and/or was not comparable to others
in the universe.
Another data element extracted from the
same data source and describing the same
data was assigned points.
Or, the data element was not relevant to
unregulated chemicals.
Many of the data elements assigned
points in CCL 5 are the same data
elements that were used in the CCL 3
screening and classification processes.
These data elements include health
effects information such as categories of
cancer classifications and toxicity
values (e.g., Reference Dose (RfD), No
Observed Adverse Effect Level
(NOAEL), Lowest Observed Adverse
Effect Level (LOAEL), and Lethal Dose,
50% (LD50)), as well as occurrence
information such as measures of
chemical concentration and frequency
of detections in drinking water,
production volume, and chemical
release data. There are also new data
elements related to both health and
occurrence endpoints that EPA included
in the CCL 5 screening process that were
not available in a retrievable format or
not used in previous CCL cycles,
including National Health and Nutrition
Examination Survey (NHANES)
biomonitoring data and results from
EPA’s ToxCast in vitro screening assays.
EPA designed the CCL 5 screening
process to accommodate quantitative,
calculated, and descriptive types of
data. A full list of the data elements
assigned points for the CCL 5 screening
process is described in Chapter 3 of the
Chemical Technical Support Document
(USEPA, 2021c).
37957
EPA divided the CCL 5 health effects
and occurrence data elements that were
assigned points into five categories,
referred to as ‘‘tiers,’’ based on the
relevance of the data to public health
concerns over drinking water exposure.
Tier 1 contains data most relevant to
understanding potential drinking water
risk and Tier 5 contains data that
provide indirect indication of potential
risk associated with drinking water
exposure. For example, Tier 1 health
effects data elements include RfD,
cancer slope factor (CSF), and chronic
benchmark value, which are generally
only available for chemicals that have
relevant risk or hazard assessments from
at least one health agency. Tier 1
occurrence data element is the screening
Hazard Quotient (sHQ), a calculated
data element based on the ratio of the
maximum concentration of a chemical
in finished drinking water (the
occurrence element most applicable to
drinking water risk) to the lowest (i.e.,
most health-protective) health screening
level for a chemical (see Section 3.2 of
the Chemical Technical Support
Document (USEPA, 2021c) for more
details). The list of data elements
assigned points for CCL 5 screening
purposes and their corresponding tier is
presented in Exhibit 5.
EXHIBIT 5—TIERS OF HEALTH AND OCCURRENCE DATA ELEMENTS ASSIGNED POINTS DURING THE CCL 5 SCREENING
PROCESS
Tier
Data element
Health Effects Data Elements
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
1
2
3
4
................
................
................
................
Tier 5 ................
Reference dose (RfD), cancer slope factor (CSF), chronic benchmark.
Chronic no observed adverse effect level (NOAEL), chronic lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL).
Numeric cancer classification,1 subchronic benchmark, subchronic RfD.
Acute benchmark, acute RfD, subchronic NOAEL, subchronic LOAEL, MRDD, mined literature for neurotoxins,2 human
neurotoxicants,2 developmental neurotoxins,2 developmental neurotoxins (in vivo),2 androgen receptor chemicals.2
TD50, LD50, percent active in ToxCast assays,2 PubMed articles.2
Occurrence Data Elements
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
Tier
1
2
3
4
5
................
................
................
................
................
Screening hazard quotient.
National finished water detection rates.
National ambient water detection rates, non-national finished water detection rates.
Non-national ambient water detection rates.
Chemical release quantity, estimated pesticide application rate, chemical production volume, presence on FIFRA and
CERCLA lists, NHANES blood, urine, and serum concentrations, OPERA model biodegradation half-life.2
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1 EPA converted categorial cancer classifications to a numeric scheme (1–3) which were assigned screening points. See Section 2.4.4 of the
Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021c) for more information.
2 These data elements were extracted from the CompTox Chemicals Dashboard.
A more detailed discussion on the
inclusion and exclusion of data
elements for point assignment is
included in Chapter 3 of the Chemical
Technical Support Document (USEPA,
2021c).
For a specific chemical, the number of
points assigned to each individual data
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
element depends on the relative toxicity
or relative occurrence indicated by the
data element compared to values of that
data element available for all other
chemicals in the universe. Further
descriptions of data element category
calculations and point assignments can
be found in Section 3.3.2 of the
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Chemical Technical Support Document
(USEPA, 2021c). Altogether, a chemical
can receive points for each data element
in every tier. The lower tiers of
information are assigned fewer points
because the data elements included in
these tiers are considered less relevant
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
37958
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
to hazards associated with chemical
exposure via drinking water.
EPA developed the screening points
system to ensure the agency considers
chemicals of emerging concern in
drinking water in addition to wellstudied chemicals with more robust
human health and drinking water
occurrence data. The point system
allows a chemical with limited health
effects data, but high occurrence, to be
included on the PCCL 5. Similarly, a
chemical with limited or no drinking
water occurrence data but with health
effects information potentially
indicating higher toxicity could also be
included in the PCCL. The screening
score for a chemical is the sum of health
effects and occurrence points assigned
for each data element. The maximum
screening score a chemical could be
assigned is 14,050.
EPA identified the 250 highest scoring
chemicals for inclusion in the PCCL 5
and further evaluation for listing on the
Draft CCL 5. This resulted in all
chemicals scoring at or above 3,320
points were advanced for further
consideration for the Draft CCL 5.
Because three chemicals (2,4Dinitrophenol, Phosmet, and 4Androstene-3,17-dione) have the same
screening score of 3,320, a total of 252
chemicals were advanced for further
consideration and potential inclusion
on the PCCL 5 (Note: The 252 chemicals
are referred to as the ‘‘top 250’’ in this
document). EPA validated the selection
of the top 250 highest scoring chemicals
and the screening score framework
using a statistical modeling approach. A
complete description of the results of
this approach can be found in Section
4.6 of the Chemical Technical Support
Document (USEPA, 2021c).
b. Publicly Nominated Chemicals
EPA added 53 publicly nominated
chemicals to the 252 highest scoring
chemicals to be included on the PCCL.
Publicly nominated chemicals are
described further in Section III.C of this
document and Section 3.6 of the
Chemical Technical Support Document
(USEPA, 2021c).
c. Chemicals Excluded From the PCCL
i. Regulatory Determinations
In March 2021, under the fourth
Regulatory Determination process, EPA
made final regulatory determinations for
eight chemicals including: PFOS; PFOA;
1,1-dichloroethane; acetochlor; methyl
bromide (bromomethane); metolachlor;
nitrobenzene; and RDX (86 FR 12272,
USEPA, 2021b). EPA also made a
preliminary positive determination on
strontium under the third Regulatory
Determination process (79 FR 62715,
USEPA, 2014). Therefore, EPA excluded
these nine chemicals from the PCCL 5.
ii. Canceled Pesticides
EPA evaluated canceled pesticides
and excluded those that are not
persistent in the environment from the
PCCL 5. The persistence and occurrence
of canceled pesticides were evaluated
by their biodegradation half-life, end-ofuse date, and the timeframe of
monitoring data in finished and/or
ambient water. Canceled pesticides
were assigned a persistence score based
on the scale described in EPA’s 2012
TSCA Work Plan Chemicals: Methods
Document (USEPA, 2012b). Canceled
pesticides’ biodegradation half-life
information was downloaded from
EPA’s CompTox Chemicals Dashboard.
Based on half-life ranges, a persistence
score of 1 to 3 was assigned to each
canceled pesticide with 1 indicative of
lowest persistence and 3 highest
persistence. A canceled pesticide
received a persistence score of 1, 2, or
3 if its half-life was less than two
months, greater than or equal to two
months, or greater than six months,
respectively.
Additionally, end-of-use dates of
canceled pesticides were compared to
the dates of occurrence monitoring data
in finished and/or ambient water. Only
the occurrence monitoring data
collected after the end-of-use dates were
used to determine if a canceled
pesticide had any detects and/or data
spikes that would pose a public health
concern. A canceled pesticide was
included in the PCCL if it received a
persistence score of 3 and had detects in
finished or ambient water, or if it
received a score of 1 or 2 but had detects
in finished water. A canceled pesticide
was excluded from the PCCL if it
received a score of 1 or 2 and had no
detects in finished water or no or few
detects in ambient water.
In total, 26 canceled pesticides were
assessed for persistence. Four
pesticides, including dieldrin, aldrin,
chlordecone (kepone), and ethion, were
assigned a persistence score of 3 and
showed detects in finished or ambient
water; thus, they were included in the
PCCL 5. Alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane,
although received a persistence score of
1, was also included in the PCCL 5
because it had detects in the UCMR 4
occurrence data (collected 2018–2019).
Alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane is an
organochloride, which is one of the
isomers of hexachlorocyclohexane, and
is a byproduct of the production of the
canceled insecticide lindane.
The 21 remaining pesticides were
assigned a score of 2 or 1 and showed
no or very few detections in finished or
ambient water; and therefore were
excluded from the PCCL 5. Their
finished or ambient water monitoring
results were consistent with the low
persistence scores, indicating that these
canceled pesticides are likely of low
public health concern.
d. Summary of the PCCL
The resulting PCCL 5 is comprised of
a total of 275 chemicals. As shown in
Exhibit 6, the PCCL 5 includes 252 of
the highest scoring chemicals and 53
publicly nominated chemicals, of which
30 were excluded because they had
other ongoing agency actions or did not
warrant further evaluation. A summary
of the PCCL 5 is included in Section 3.8
of the Chemical Technical Support
Document (USEPA, 2021c).
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
EXHIBIT 6—CHEMICAL COUNTS ON DRAFT PCCL 5 AND DRAFT CCL 5
Counting process
Number of
chemicals
Highest scoring chemicals (screened from Universe) .................................................
(+) Add public nominated chemicals (not screened) ...................................................
(¥) Exclude chemicals with Regulatory Determinations .............................................
(¥) Exclude canceled pesticides .................................................................................
(¥) Exclude Disinfection Byproducts (listed as a chemical group instead) ................
(¥) Exclude cyanotoxins (listed as a chemical group instead) ...................................
(¥) Exclude PFAS (listed as a chemical group instead) ............................................
(¥) Exclude public nominated chemicals lacking occurrence Data ............................
Evaluation Teams’ Listing Recommendation ...............................................................
Draft CCL 5 Chemicals .........................................................................................
252
53
9
21
23
7
18
13
........................
........................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
Total count
275 (PCCL).
214 (Reviewed by Evaluation Teams).
66.
66 and 3 groups.
19JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
3. Classification of PCCL Chemicals To
Select the Draft CCL
In the third step of the CCL 5 process,
chemical contaminants screened to the
PCCL 5 in Step 2 passed through a
classification process. Classification is
the process by which the agency
incorporates the knowledge and
evaluation of EPA scientists, referred to
as ‘‘chemical evaluators,’’ to narrow the
PCCL down to a draft CCL. During this
process, chemical evaluators assessed
health and occurrence data on the PCCL
5 chemical contaminants and reached a
consensus on whether to recommend
them for listing on the Draft CCL 5.
To facilitate the classification process,
EPA conducted health and occurrence
literature searches to gather
supplemental data for the remaining
PCCL 5 chemicals. For more
information, see Sections III.A.3.i and
III.C.2 of this document, and Section
4.2.1.1 of the Chemical Technical
Support Document (USEPA, 2021c).
Literature searches acquired
supplemental health effects and/or
occurrence data from qualifying studies
that may not have been available in a
retrievable format during the
identification of the universe. The
supplemental data resources
encountered during the literature
searches were compiled by chemical,
and relevant health effects and
occurrence data metrics were imported
into a standardized document format,
called the Contaminant Information
Sheet (CIS) (USEPA, 2021e).
EPA formed two evaluation teams to
review the qualifying health effects and
occurrence information provided in
supplemental studies and on the CISs to
make consensus listing
recommendations for the PCCL 5
chemicals. Each evaluation team was
composed of seven chemical evaluators
with professional experience and
expertise in relevant technical fields,
including public health, public policy,
toxicology, chemistry, biology, and
pesticide exposure.
The supplemental studies provided to
the chemical evaluators during the
review process can be found in the EPA
docket at https://www.regulations.gov
(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2018–
0594). The CISs can be viewed in the
Technical Support Document for the
Draft Fifth Contaminant Candidate List
(CCL 5)—Contaminant Information
Sheets, hereafter referred to as the CIS
Technical Support Document (USEPA,
2021e).
The following sections provide a
detailed explanation of the classification
process broken down into individual
components.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
a. Supplemental Data Collection
Primary data sources play a crucial
role in the entire CCL process (see
Section III.A.1 of this document);
however, it is often necessary to gather
and extract data from supplemental
sources to aid in further evaluation of
chemicals for listing on the Draft CCL 5.
As described in Section III.A.1 of this
document, EPA assessed data sources
for potential use in the CCL 5
development process and set aside, as
supplemental sources, those that met
the relevance, completeness, and
redundancy assessment factors but were
not retrievable. EPA utilized these
supplemental sources to fill data gaps as
part of the CCL classification process.
EPA also identified supplemental
sources from data sources cited in
public nominations (see Section III.C.1
of this document) and conducted
literature searches to identify further
supplemental occurrence and health
effects data as described in this section.
i. Occurrence
For PCCL 5 chemicals that reached
the classification step but lacked
national drinking water data within the
last 10 years, EPA conducted a search of
peer-reviewed literature relevant to the
occurrence of contaminants in drinking
water to identify studies that provided
supplemental occurrence data for
drinking water or ambient water not
captured in the primary data sources.
The literature review was limited to
journal articles published between 2010
and 2020.
Each of the supplemental data sources
was reviewed to determine the
availability of data for any of the PCCL
5 chemicals that required further
evaluation through the CCL 5
classification process. EPA identified
and compiled 12 supplemental
literature sources for contaminant
occurrence in drinking and ambient
water. All supplemental occurrence data
identified through the literature search
were included in the CISs. More
information on CISs can be found in
Section III.A.4.c of this document and in
the CIS Technical Support Document
(USEPA, 2021e).
EPA’s occurrence literature search
was conducted in a systematic manner
to fill the occurrence data gaps for
contaminants on the PCCL. For
example, EPA did not conduct
occurrence literature searches for PCCL
chemicals that had national drinking
water occurrence data from the UCMR
3 or UCMR 4. These chemicals were
considered to already have the best
available occurrence data to inform
whether a contaminant was known to
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37959
occur in public water systems and
therefore supplemental drinking or
ambient water occurrence data was not
needed. A full description of the
occurrence literature search protocol
and a list of supplemental occurrence
literature utilized for CCL 5 can be
found in the Appendix E of the
Chemical Technical Support Document
(USEPA, 2021c). In addition to
supplemental occurrence data extracted
through a targeted literature search, EPA
compiled additional occurrence data
from the 2006 Community Water
Systems Survey (CWSS) (USEPA, 2009c;
2009d), EPA’s Third Six-Year Review
(SYR 3) (USEPA, 2017), and modeled
concentrations from EPA’s Office of
Pesticide Programs (OPP).
The 2006 CWSS gathered data on the
financial and operating characteristics
of a random sample of CWSs
nationwide. Systems serving more than
500,000 people were included in the
sample, and systems in that size
category were surveyed about
concentrations of unregulated
contaminants in their raw and finished
water. EPA supplemented the data set
by gathering additional information on
contaminant occurrence at the systems
in this size category from publicly
available sources. The 2006 CWSS was
used as supplemental source for the
CCL 5 because the information is not
statistically representative for the
purpose of the CCL evaluation. For the
SYR 3, EPA requested, through an
Information Collection Request (ICR),
that primacy agencies voluntarily
submit drinking water compliance
monitoring data collected during 2006–
2011 to EPA. Some primacy agencies
submitted occurrence data for
unregulated contaminants in addition to
the data on regulated contaminants.
EPA extracted drinking water data on
PCCL 5 chemicals from the SYR 3 ICR
data, and supplemented these data by
downloading additional publicly
available monitoring data from state
websites. These data were used as a
supplemental data source and were
included on the CISs.
Modeled concentration data were
gathered for pesticides on the PCCL 5
that lack nationally representative
drinking and/or nationally
representative ambient water data. The
modeled concentrations, known as
estimated environmental concentrations
(EECs) or estimated drinking water
concentrations (EDWCs), of pesticides
in water are often included in EPA’s
OPP registration and re-registration
evaluation documentation, but are not
in a retrievable format that could be
efficiently extracted for all CCL 5
Chemical Universe pesticides.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
37960
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Specific information on the
systematic occurrence literature review,
SYR 3 ICR, and state occurrence
monitoring data sets, 2006 CWSS data
set, and OPP modeled concentrations
used in the Draft CCL 5 can be found in
Section 4.2.1 of the Chemical Technical
Support Document (USEPA, 2021c).
The data search efforts did not yield
occurrence data for 13 publicly
nominated chemicals that were lacking
occurrence data in the CCL 5 Chemical
Universe. As a result, these chemicals
were not evaluated for listing on the
Draft CCL 5 (Exhibit 6). More
information is provided on this decision
in Section III.C.2 of this document and
Section 4.2.1.1 of the Chemical
Technical Support Document (USEPA,
2021c).
ii. Health Effects
EPA developed the rapid systematic
review (RSR) protocol to identify
supplemental health effects data for
PCCL 5 chemicals. The RSR process
encompassed the identification of
health effects information, including
epidemiological and toxicological data,
as well as physiologically-based
pharmacokinetic models, and
subsequent extraction of relevant data
elements (i.e., NOAELs and LOAELs)
that could be used to derive toxicity
values and CCL Screening Levels,
further described in Section III.A.4.b.i of
this document. The CCL 5 RSR process
was designed to allow for screening and
data synthesis of a large number of
chemicals in a relatively short time
frame. As such, the RSR process was
comprised of:
A targeted chemical-specific literature
search;
Machine learning-based screening to
identify relevant literature;
A streamlined full-text review and
study quality evaluation of relevant
literature; and,
Data extraction components of
traditional systematic reviews.
Studies targeted by the RSR literature
search included those deemed relevant
to health effects found in animal models
after repeated oral exposure lasting at
least 28 days. Epidemiological studies
were also identified and catalogued for
future use (i.e., for Regulatory
Determination). If available, NOAELs
and LOAELs, along with their
corresponding health effects, were
extracted from all relevant studies.
These toxicity values were populated on
the CISs and were used as a
supplemental source of information for
chemical evaluators to understand
potential health effects that could result
from chronic exposure to PCCL 5
chemicals. A detailed description of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
RSR process can be found in Section
4.2.1 of the Chemical Technical Support
Document (USEPA, 2021c).
b. Calculated Data Elements
i. Health Reference Levels and CCL
Screening Levels
Health Reference Levels (HRLs) and
CCL Screening Levels are referred to
collectively as ‘‘health concentrations.’’
Health concentrations are nonregulatory health-based toxicity values,
expressed as concentrations of a
contaminant in drinking water (in mg/L),
which a person could consume over a
lifetime and be unlikely to experience
adverse health effects. HRLs are based
on data elements (toxicity values
including RfD, population-adjusted dose
(PAD), CSF, etc.) extracted from
‘‘qualifying’’ health assessments, peerreviewed, publicly available health
assessments published by EPA and
other health agencies. Assessments used
to derive HRLs generally follow
methodology that is consistent with
EPA’s current guidelines and guidance
documents, are externally reviewed by
experts in the field, and have been used
during EPA regulatory efforts in the
past. CCL Screening Levels are based on
data elements (toxicity values including
RfD equivalents, CSF equivalents, etc.)
extracted from ‘‘non-qualifying’’ health
assessments, publicly available
assessments that are published by
health agencies and provide valuable
health information, but do not
necessarily follow standard EPA
methodologies and/or are not externally
peer-reviewed. Alternatively, CCL
Screening Levels can be based on data
elements (NOAEL or LOAEL) extracted
from peer-reviewed studies identified
through the CCL 5 RSR process
previously described.
The process for determining the
toxicity value most appropriate for use
in deriving the health concentration is
similar to the process EPA uses for
Regulatory Determination. Generally,
EPA relies on its most recently
published health assessment as the
source of these toxicity values unless a
qualifying assessment from another
source incorporates new scientific
information published after the
publication date of the most recent EPA
health assessment. If no qualifying
health assessments are available, EPA
extracts toxicity values from the most
recently published non-qualifying
health assessment. If no qualifying or
non-qualifying health assessments are
available, EPA relies on toxicity values
extracted from studies identified
through the health effects RSR process.
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
For carcinogens, the derived health
concentration is the one-in-a-million
cancer risk expressed as a drinking
water concentration. For noncarcinogens, health concentrations are
obtained by dividing the RfD (or
equivalent) by an exposure factor, also
known as the drinking water intake
(DWI), and multiplying by a 20%
relative source contribution (USEPA,
2000). All health concentrations were
converted to units of mg/L to compare
with CCL 5 occurrence concentrations
and for use in derivation of the final
Hazard Quotient. If a chemical had no
available qualifying or non-qualifying
health assessments or studies identified
through the RSR process, or the
available health assessments did not
provide toxicity values, EPA did not
derive a health concentration.
The health concentration used to
derive the hazard quotient is presented
on the summary page of the CIS
alongside the critical effect and data
element from which it was derived. EPA
also provides health concentrations
derived from supplementary
assessments on the second page of the
CIS as additional resources. Refer to
Section 4.3.1 of the Chemical Technical
Support Document (USEPA, 2021c) for
more information about the sources and
process for derivation of CCL 5 health
concentrations.
ii. Final Hazard Quotients
Final hazard quotients (fHQ) are an
important metric used in the evaluation
of PCCL chemicals during the
classification step. The fHQ is the ratio
of a chemical’s 90th percentile (of
detections) water concentration over its
health concentration (HRL or CCL
screening level) at which no adverse
effects are expected to occur. The fHQ
serves as a benchmark for chemical
evaluators to gauge the potential level of
concern posed by the exposure to each
chemical in drinking water.
A relatively higher fHQ value for a
given chemical can generally be
interpreted as an increase to the level of
concern for exposure to the chemical in
drinking water; as the ratio increases
beyond 0, the expected exposure
concerns also increase; an fHQ value
equal to or greater than 1.0 indicates a
chemical with water concentration
exceeding its health concentration.
EPA followed the CCL 3 and CCL 4
protocol to select the concentration
input values for the ratio as closely as
possible while incorporating newly
available data sources. Depending on
data availability, the fHQ was calculated
by first using the 90th percentile of
detections from national drinking water
monitoring data sources, such as UCMR.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
If the 90th percentile was not available,
EPA used the next highest percentile
(95th or 99th) or maximum reported
concentration value. For contaminants
that lacked finished water data but had
robust ambient water monitoring data
from sources such as NAWQA, the ratio
was developed by using the ambient
water concentration. Similarly, if the
90th percentile was not available, the
next highest percentile or maximum
reported concentration was used. If no
measured water data were available,
EPA used modeled water data for
pesticides developed by EPA’s OPP to
calculate the fHQ. For contaminants
with no water data (either measured or
modeled), the occurrence to health
concentration ratio could not be
calculated and the entry for the fHQ was
left blank on the CIS.
Similarly, HRLs were the preferred
health concentration used to derive the
fHQ. If a chemical did not have data
available to calculate an HRL, a CCL
screening level was used to derive the
fHQ. For chemicals with no relevant
health effects data (i.e., no HRL or CCL
screening level), the occurrence to
health concentration ratio could not be
calculated and the entry for the fHQ was
left blank on the CIS.
A more detailed description of the
protocol used to calculate the final
hazard quotients for CCL 5 can be found
in Section 4.3.2 the Chemical Technical
Support Document (USEPA, 2021c).
iii. Attribute Scores
During the CCL process, EPA
evaluates relatively new and emerging
contaminants not currently subject to
EPA drinking water regulations. Some
of these contaminants do not have
readily available information on their
health effects in humans and animal
models and/or their occurrence in
water. Recognizing the need to establish
consistent relationships and enable
comparison among different types of
data, EPA developed a scaling system of
attribute scores for the CCL 3 based on
recommendations from the National
Academy of Science’s National Research
Council (NRC, 2001) and the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council
(NDWAC, 2004). Attributes are defined
as the properties used to categorize
contaminants based on their potential to
cause adverse health effects and occur
in drinking water. The associated scores
for these attributes provide a consistent,
comparative framework for evaluation
purposes that accommodate a variety of
input data.
The health effects of a contaminant
are categorized using the attributes of
potency and severity, while the actual
or potential occurrence of a contaminant
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
is categorized using the attributes of
prevalence and magnitude.
Potency reflects the potential for a
chemical to cause adverse health effects
based on the dose required to elicit the
most sensitive adverse effect. Severity is
a descriptive measure of the adverse
health effect associated with the
potency score. Unlike the other
attributes, which are numerical, severity
is categorical; contaminants are assigned
to one of eight severity categories (noncancer effects, no adverse effects,
cosmetic effects, carcinogen with a
linear mode of action, carcinogen with
a mutagenic mode of action, carcinogen
with a non-linear mode of action,
reproductive and developmental effects,
or reduced longevity) depending on the
reported health endpoint.
Prevalence provides some indicator of
how widespread the occurrence of the
contaminant is in the environment, such
as the percentage of public water
systems or sample locations in a study
reporting detections.
Magnitude describes the quantity of a
contaminant that may be in the
environment (e.g., median concentration
of detections or pounds applied
annually). When direct occurrence data
are not available, EPA uses PersistenceMobility data as surrogate indicators of
potential occurrence of a contaminant.
Persistence-Mobility is defined by
chemical properties that measure or
estimate environmental fate
characteristics of a contaminant and
affect their likelihood to occur in water.
EPA used the attribute scoring
developed for CCL 3 to evaluate PCCL
5 chemicals, with some adjustments
made to the calibrations for potency and
descriptions for severity. Those
adjustments, along with the scoring
scales and categories, are explained in
detail in the Chemical Technical
Support Document (USEPA, 2021c).
c. Evaluation Team Listing Decision
Process
The EPA scientists on the two
evaluation teams shared a broad range
of professional experience and expertise
across the agency and with the CCL
process. These ‘‘chemical evaluators’’
were provided training, which included
a detailed overview of the goals and
general principles of the CCL process,
types of data, and materials compiled to
aid in evaluating chemicals for listing,
the evaluation process steps, and the
format of the discussion meetings. Of
the 275 PCCL 5 chemicals, the
evaluation teams reviewed 214
chemicals (Exhibit 6). The evaluation
teams did not review 7 cyanotoxins, 23
DBPs, and 18 PFAS chemicals because
they were listed as three chemical
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37961
groups on the Draft CCL 5 (as discussed
further in Section III.A.3.e of this
document). Additionally, the evaluation
teams did not evaluate the 13 publicly
nominated chemicals due to lack of
occurrence data.
The chemical evaluators on the two
evaluation teams met over 20 times
between March 19 and July 2, 2020, to
discuss their individual reviews and
reach consensus listing decisions as a
group for batches of approximately 10–
20 chemicals per batch. To prepare for
these discussion meetings, the chemical
evaluators independently reviewed the
relevant health effects and occurrence
information on CISs for each chemical
in a batch. For each chemical on the
PCCL 5 that was evaluated for potential
listing, a CIS was developed to
summarize the data and assist the
chemical evaluators in making listing
recommendations for the Draft CCL 5.
Each CIS presents the health and
occurrence data gathered from primary
and supplemental data sources, as well
as health and occurrence statistical
measures described in Section III.A.4.b
of this document. CISs also include
additional information about the
contaminant, such as the identity of the
contaminant and its usage, whether it
was subject to past negative regulatory
determinations, listed on past CCLs, and
publicly nominated for the CCL 5. Due
to the inclusion of more data in the CCL
5 process, CISs for the Draft CCL 5
contain more information than those of
past CCLs. CISs for contaminants
evaluated for the Draft CCL 5 and
further information on what data the
CISs provide can be found in the CIS
Technical Support Document (USEPA,
2021e).
Upon completing their independent
reviews, the chemical evaluators
submitted their listing decisions along
with written justifications through a
survey tool. The results from the survey
were collected and tabulated before
each facilitated group discussion.
Numerical values were assigned to the
individual evaluator’s listing decision
for each chemical (i.e., 1 = No List, 2 =
No List?, 3 = List?, and 4 = List) so that
an average listing decision could be
calculated. A question mark (?) signified
that the chemical evaluator was leaning
toward listing (List?) or toward not
listing (No List?) but had some
uncertainty. These average listing
decisions helped inform the facilitator
and the chemical evaluators of their
collective decisions and guided the
teams towards making the final listing
recommendations for each chemical. In
total, the evaluation teams
recommended 66 chemicals for listing
on the Draft CCL 5. A more detailed
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
37962
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
description of the team listing process
can be found in Section 4.5 of the
Chemical Technical Support Document
(USEPA, 2021c).
d. Logistic Regression
EPA conducted statistical analyses
and developed a simple logistic
regression model to validate the
selection of the top 250 highest scoring
chemicals for inclusion on the PCCL 5
and provide diagnostic feedback on the
screening system during the evaluation
team meetings. EPA hypothesized that
screening scores have a positive
association with listing decisions, and
that the higher the screening score of a
PCCL 5 chemical, the higher the
probability of the chemical being
recommended for listing by the
evaluation teams. Additional analyses
and logistic regression models were
developed to further examine the
efficacy of the screening scores and to
determine additional factors, such as
fHQs and health and occurrence
attribute scores, associated with listing
decisions.
The simple logistic regression models
the statistical relationship between
screening scores and the evaluation
teams’ list or not list decision. The
model was used to obtain probabilities
of listing at the highest screening score
(top of the PCCL 5) and screening score
directly below the PCCL 5 top 250.
Results of this analysis indicate
chemicals with higher screening scores
are more likely to be listed than
chemicals with lower screening scores.
The predicted mean probability of
listing at the top of the PCCL 5 is 0.90
and at the screening score directly
below the PCCL 5 top 250 is 0.12. A full
description of the modeling approach
and results can be found in Section
4.6.2 of the Chemical Technical Support
Document (USEPA, 2021c).
Following the evaluation team
decisions, EPA explored other factors
that may have impacted listing
decisions and further evaluated how
well the screening scores performed as
a predictor of listing decisions. To
accomplish this, EPA compiled a
dataset that contained the chemical
screening scores, health effects and
occurrence attribute scores, fHQs, and
other information. See Section 4.6.1 of
the Chemical Technical Support
Document (USEPA, 2021c) for details on
the compiled dataset used in the
statistical analyses. The first step of the
analysis was to calculate descriptive
statistics for each variable stratified by
listing decision. Next, several simple
logistic regression models were
explored to obtain odds ratios (OR) and
establish statistical significance of the
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
predictor variables. Lastly, an area
under the curve–receiver operator
characteristic (AUC–ROC) curve
analysis was conducted to examine the
performance of simple logistic
regression models and multivariable
logistic models as predictors of listing
decisions. The results of the simple
logistic regression found the screening
scores, attributes scores, and fHQs
(adjusted for outliers) to be statistically
significant predictors of listing
decisions. The AUC–ROC analysis
provided further evidence that the
screening scores were a moderate-togood predictor of listing decisions (AUC
= 0.72) and led to the discovery of a
multivariable logistic regression model
that was a very good-to-excellent
predictor of listing decisions (AUC =
0.89). A complete description of the
results of the statistical analyses
conducted for the Draft CCL 5 can be
found in Section 4.6 of the Chemical
Technical Support Document (USEPA,
2021c).
e. Chemical Groups on the Draft CCL 5
In addition to the 66 chemicals
recommended for listing on the Draft
CCL 5 by the evaluation teams (Exhibit
6), EPA proposes to list three chemical
groups (cyanotoxins, DBPs, and PFAS)
instead of listing them as individual
chemicals. These chemical groups have
been identified as agency priorities and
contaminants of concern for drinking
water under other EPA actions. Listing
these three chemical groups on the Draft
CCL 5 does not necessarily mean that
EPA will make subsequent regulatory
decisions for the entire group. EPA will
evaluate scientific data on the listed
groups, subgroups, and individual
contaminants included in the group to
inform any regulatory determinations
for the group, subgroup, or individual
contaminants in the group. Addressing
the public health concerns of
cyanotoxins in drinking water remains a
priority as specified in the 2015 Algal
Toxin Risk Assessment and
Management Strategic Plan for Drinking
Water (USEPA, 2015). Cyanotoxins are
toxins naturally produced and released
by some species of cyanobacteria
(previously known as ‘‘blue-green
algae’’), were listed on the CCL 3 and
CCL 4 as a group. EPA is listing a
cyanotoxin group on the Draft CCL 5,
identical to the CCL 3 and CCL 4 listing.
The group of cyanotoxins includes, but
is not limited to: Anatoxin-a,
cylindrospermopsin, microcystins, and
saxitoxin. Cyanotoxins were also
monitored under the UCMR 4.
EPA is also proposing to list 23
unregulated DBPs (as shown in Exhibit
2b) as a group on the Draft CCL 5. DBPs
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
are formed when disinfectants react
with naturally-occurring materials in
water. Under the Stage 2 Disinfectants
and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, there
are currently 11 regulated DBPs from
three subgroups that include four
trihalomethanes, five haloacetic acids,
and two inorganic compounds (bromate
and chlorite). Under the Six-Year
Review 3 (SYR 3), EPA identified 10
regulated DBPs (all but bromate) as
‘‘candidates for revision’’ (USEPA,
2017). For the Draft CCL 5, the group of
23 unregulated DBPs were either
publicly nominated or among the top
250 chemicals. Listing these
unregulated DBPs as a group on the
Draft CCL 5 would be consistent with
the decision that EPA has identified a
number of microbial and disinfection
byproduct (MDBP) drinking water
regulations as candidates for revision in
the agency’s SYR 3 .
PFAS are a class of synthetic
chemicals that are most commonly used
to make products resistant to water,
heat, and stains and are consequently
found in industrial and consumer
products like clothing, food packaging,
cookware, cosmetics, carpeting, and
fire-fighting foam (AAAS, 2020; USEPA,
2018b). Over 4,000 PFAS have been
manufactured and used globally since
the 1940s (USEPA, 2019b), which
would make listing PFAS individually
on the Draft CCL 5 difficult and
challenging. EPA proposes to list PFAS
as a group inclusive of any PFAS
(except for PFOA and PFOS). For the
purposes of this document, the
structural definition of PFAS includes
per- and polyfluorinated substances that
structurally contain the unit R-(CF2)C(F)(R′)R″. Both the CF2 and CF
moieties are saturated carbons and none
of the R groups (R, R′ or R″) can be
hydrogen (USEPA, 2021f). This proposal
is responsive to public nominations
which stated that EPA should ‘‘include
PFAS chemicals as a class on CCL 5.’’
This action is in keeping with the
agency’s commitment to better
understand and ultimately reduce the
potential risks caused by this broad
class of chemicals. Including the broad
group of PFAS on the Draft CCL 5
demonstrates the agency’s commitment
to prioritizing and building a strong
foundation of science on PFAS while
working to harmonize multiple
authorities to address the impacts of
PFAS on public health and the
environment. EPA is also committed to
a flexible approach and working
collaboratively with states, tribes, water
systems, and local communities that
have been impacted by PFAS.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
37963
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
B. Approach Used To Identify Microbial
Candidates for the Draft CCL 5
1. Building the Microbial Universe
EPA defined the microbial Universe
for the CCL 5 as all known human
pathogens. The microbial Universe was
built on the CCL 3 and the CCL 4
Universe of 1,425 pathogens. EPA
conducted a literature search, sought
input from subject matter experts, and
reviewed nominations for additional
microbes to add to the Universe. As a
result, 14 organisms were added to the
CCL 5 Microbial Universe (Exhibit 7).
Changes to nomenclature of the
microbes were made as necessary (in
most cases combining two species into
one organism group), making the total
number of organisms in the microbial
Universe 1,435. The full CCL 5
microbial Universe list is available in
the Technical Support Document for the
Draft fifth Contaminant Candidate List
(CCL 5)—Microbial Contaminants
(USEPA, 2021d).
EXHIBIT 7—MICROBIAL CONTAMINANTS cause drinking water-related diseases
ADDED TO THE MICROBIAL UNIVERSE resulting from ingestion of, inhalation
of, or dermal contact with drinking
FOR THE CCL 5—Continued
Microbe
class
Microbial contaminant
Human bocavirus .........................
Human coronavirus SARS–CoV–
2.
KI polyomavirus ............................
Kobuvirus ......................................
Lujo virus ......................................
Parovovirus 4 ...............................
WU polyomavirus .........................
Botrytsis cinerea ...........................
Epiccocum purpurascens .............
Virus.
Virus.
Virus.
Virus.
Virus.
Virus.
Virus.
Fungi.
Fungi.
2. Screening the Microbial Universe to
the PCCL
During the CCL 3 process, EPA
developed 12 screening criteria (Exhibit
8) to focus the Universe of all human
pathogens to only those pathogens that
could be transmitted through drinking
water. Screening is based on a
pathogen’s epidemiology, geographical
EXHIBIT 7—MICROBIAL CONTAMINANTS distribution, and biological properties in
ADDED TO THE MICROBIAL UNIVERSE their host and in the environment. All
pathogens that are not excluded by any
FOR THE CCL 5
screening criteria are moved to the
Microbe
PCCL. In addition, any pathogen
Microbial contaminant
class
documented to cause disease
transmitted through drinking water
Alloscardovia omnicolens ............. Bacteria.
regardless of the screening criteria, is
Elizabethkingia anophelis ............. Bacteria.
also considered for the PCCL. The
Neoehrlichia mikurensis ............... Bacteria.
screening criteria restrict the microbial
Parachlamydia acanthamoebae ... Bacteria.
PCCL to human pathogens that may
Waddia chondrophila .................... Bacteria.
water. For the Draft CCL 5, EPA reevaluated the screening criteria for
applicability to microbes and reviewed
certain criterion in depth per
recommendations received from the
SAB and stakeholders during the
development of the CCL 3 and the CCL
4. In particular, Criterion 1 (anaerobes),
Criterion 9 (natural habitat is in the
environment without epidemiological
evidence of drinking water-related
disease) and Criterion 10 (not endemic
to North America) were closely reevaluated based on previous comments
for the CCL 3 and the CCL 4 from
NDWAC, SAB, and the public. Upon
further evaluation, EPA did not find
supporting evidence to modify Criterion
1 and Criterion 10.
EPA modified the screening Criterion
9 to include pathogens on the PCCL
with nosocomial infections where
drinking water is implicated due to
recent increases in and recognition of
antimicrobial resistance and nosocomial
infections. Modifying Criterion 9
addresses a SAB comment that the
screening criteria for the CCL 4
microbial process were too restrictive.
As a result, Criterion 9 was modified to
include pathogens that cause
nosocomial infections where drinking
water is implicated so that it is less
restrictive.
EXHIBIT 8—SCREENING CRITERIA FOR PATHOGENS
All anaerobes.
Obligate intracellular fastidious pathogens.
Transmitted by contact with blood or body fluids.
Transmitted by vectors.
Indigenous to the gastrointestinal tract, skin and mucous membranes.
Transmitted solely by respiratory secretions.
Life cycle incompatible with drinking water transmission.
Drinking water-related transmission is not implicated.
Natural habitat is in the environment without epidemiological evidence of drinking water-related disease and without evidence of drinking
water-related nosocomial infection.
Not endemic to North America.
Represented by a pathogen for the entire genus or species (that are closely related).
Current taxonomy changed from taxonomy used in Universe.
Bolded text indicates the modification made to Criterion 9.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Based upon the screening criteria,
1,400 of the 1,435 pathogens were
excluded; therefore 35 pathogens
advanced to the PCCL. The results of the
screening process are summarized in
Exhibit 9. The criteria and results of the
screening process are discussed in
greater detail in the Technical Support
Document for the Draft Fifth
Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 5)—
Microbial Contaminants (USEPA,
2021d).
EXHIBIT 9—APPLICATION OF 12 SCREENING CRITERIA TO PATHOGENS IN THE MICROBIAL CCL UNIVERSE
Screening criteria and number of pathogens screened out per criterion
Pathogen
class
Total
Bacteria ...
Viruses ....
Protozoa 2
Helminths
545 ...........................
225 ...........................
66 .............................
286 ...........................
1
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
121
0
0
0
Jkt 253001
2
3
16
0
0
0
10
29
1
0
PO 00000
4
5
38
104
29
25
121
0
3
0
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
6
7
7
20
0
0
0
1
4
105
Sfmt 4702
8
9
29
20
7
0
10
150
0
7
0
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
11
2
36
0
156
19JYP1
28
8
6
0
Pathogens
screened
out
12
5
0
0
0
527
218
59
286
On
PCCL
1 18
7
7
0
37964
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
EXHIBIT 9—APPLICATION OF 12 SCREENING CRITERIA TO PATHOGENS IN THE MICROBIAL CCL UNIVERSE—Continued
Screening criteria and number of pathogens screened out per criterion
Pathogens
screened
out
Pathogen
class
Total
Fungi .......
313 ...........................
0
0
0
0
12
3
0
0
295
0
0
0
310
3
1,435 ........................
121
16
40
196
136
30
110
56
452
194
42
5
1,400
35
Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
On
PCCL
1 NTM
are included on the PCCL as a group.
2 Cryptosporidium and Giardia (both protozoa) are considered to be regulated by the Long Term Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT–2); even though counted in the
Microbial universe, they were not evaluated for screening.
3. The PCCL to Draft CCL Process
Pathogens on the PCCL were scored
for placement on the Draft CCL 5. In
developing the CCL 3, EPA devised a
scoring system to assign a numerical
value to each pathogen on the PCCL.
Each pathogen on the PCCL was scored
using three scoring protocols, one
protocol each for waterborne disease
outbreaks (WBDO), occurrence in
drinking water, and health effects. The
higher of the WBDO score or the
occurrence score was added to the
normalized health effects score to
produce a composite pathogen score.
Pathogens receiving high scores were
considered for placement on the CCL.
EPA normalized the health effects
score so that occurrence and health
effects had equal weight in determining
the ranking of the Draft CCL. The equal
weighting of occurrence and health
effects information closely mirrors the
risk estimate methods used by EPA in
drinking water regulation development.
This scoring system prioritizes and
restricts the number of pathogens on the
CCL to only those that have been
strongly associated with drinking waterrelated disease. Pathogens that scored
low will remain on the PCCL until
additional occurrence data,
epidemiological surveillance data, or
health effects data become available to
support their reevaluation. It is
important to note that pathogens for
which there are no documented WBDO
in drinking water earn a low score
under the protocols. Pathogens that
have caused a WBDO and have health
effects data are rank higher than
pathogens that only have health effect
data but no evidence of a WBDO. The
following sections describe the three
protocols used to score the pathogens on
the PCCL and the process by which the
scores are combined.
a. Waterborne Disease Outbreak
(WBDO) Protocol
The Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC), EPA, and the Council
of State and Territorial Epidemiologists
(CSTE) have maintained a collaborative
surveillance system for collecting and
periodically reporting data related to
occurrence and causes of WBDOs since
1971. In recent years, CDC has
developed National Outbreak Reporting
System (NORS) (CDC, 2020a) for WBDO
reporting, in collaboration with CSTE
and EPA, to improve the quality,
quantity, and availability of data
submitted to the Waterborne Disease
and Outbreak Surveillance System
(WBDOSS). For the Draft CCL 5, EPA
used CDC’s NORS as the primary data
source for the WBDO protocol. Reports
from the CDC system were published
periodically in Morbidity and Mortality
Weekly Report (MMWR) until 2017. For
the CCL 3 and the CCL 4, EPA used
MMWRs for the WBDO protocol.
For the Draft CCL 5, EPA used CDC’s
NORS for more recent outbreak
information due to the most recent
MMWR being published in 2014. For
the WBDO protocol (Exhibit 10), a
pathogen is scored as having a WBDO(s)
in the U.S. if that pathogen is listed in
a CDC waterborne disease drinking
water surveillance summary (i.e., on
NORS from 2009–2017). Outbreaks that
occurred in 2009 and after were used to
capture microbes causing concern since
the publication of the CCL 3. A
pathogen with multiple WBDOs listed
by CDC was given the highest score
under this protocol. In addition, EPA
scored non-CDC reported WBDOs and
WBDOs outside the U.S. with lower
scores. WBDOs outside the U.S. were
scored when information was available
from World Health Organization or
other peer-reviewed publications.
In addition, CDC and EPA
acknowledge that the WBDOs reported
in the surveillance system represent
only a portion of the burden of illness
associated with drinking water exposure
(CDC, 2008). The surveillance
information does not include endemic
waterborne disease risks, nor are
reliable estimates available of the
number of unrecognized WBDOs and
associated cases of illness. Therefore,
EPA also considered the non-CDC data
as indicating a WBDO (even though
CDC did not list it in their NORS) if the
data showed a link between human
illness defined by a common water
source, a common time period of
exposure and/or similar symptoms.
Additionally, EPA considered the use of
molecular typing methods to link
patients and environmental isolates.
EXHIBIT 10—WATERBORNE DISEASE OUTBREAK SCORING PROTOCOL
Category
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Has
Has
Has
Has
Has
Score
caused multiple (2 or more) documented WBDOs in the U.S. as reported by CDC surveillance between 2009–2017 ...................
caused at least one documented WBDO in the U.S. as reported by CDC surveillance 2009–2017 .................................................
caused documented WBDOs at any time in the U.S. .........................................................................................................................
caused documented WBDOs in countries other than the U.S. ...........................................................................................................
never caused WBDOs in any country, but has been epidemiologically associated with water-related disease ................................
b. Occurrence Protocol
The second attribute of the scoring
process evaluates the occurrence of a
pathogen in drinking water and source
water. Because water-related illness may
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
also occur in the absence of recognized
outbreaks, EPA scored the occurrence
(direct detection) of microbes using
cultural, immunochemical, or molecular
detection of pathogens in drinking water
under the Occurrence Protocol (Exhibit
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
5
4
3
2
1
11). Occurrence characterizes pathogen
introduction, survival, and distribution
in the environment. Occurrence implies
that pathogens are present in water and
that they may be capable of surviving
and moving through water to cause
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
illness in persons exposed to drinking
water by ingestion, inhalation, or
dermal contact.
Pathogen occurrence is considered
broadly to include treated drinking
water, and all waters using a drinking
water source for recreational purposes,
ground water, and surface water bodies.
This attribute does not characterize the
extent to which a pathogen’s occurrence
37965
poses a public health threat from
drinking water exposure.
EXHIBIT 11—OCCURRENCE AND HEALTH EFFECTS SCORING PROTOCOLS FOR PATHOGENS
Category
Score
Occurrence Scoring Protocol:
Detected in drinking water in the U.S.
Detected in source water in the U.S.
Not detected in the U.S.
Health Effects Scoring Protocol:
Does the organism cause significant mortality (>1/1,000 cases)? ......................................................................................................
Does the organism cause pneumonia, meningitis, hepatitis, encephalitis, endocarditis, cancer, or other severe manifestations of
illness necessitating long term hospitalization (>week)? .................................................................................................................
Does the illness result in long term or permanent dysfunction or disability (e.g., sequelae)? ............................................................
Does the illness require short term hospitalization? (2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
3
2
1
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
scoring protocols for WBDOs,
occurrence, and health effects. These
protocols are designed in a hierarchical
manner so that each pathogen is
evaluated using the same criteria and
that the criteria range for each protocol
varies from high to low significance.
The three attribute scores are then
combined into a total score.
EPA scored pathogens first using the
WBDO and occurrence protocols, and
then selected the higher score of the two
scores. Selection of the higher score
from the WBDO or occurrence protocol
elevates pathogens that have been
detected in drinking water or source
water in the U.S. (occurrence score of 2
or 3) above pathogens that have caused
WBDOs in other countries but not in the
U.S. (WBDO score of 2).
The CCL selection process placed
more weight on pathogens causing
recent WBDOs than on those detected in
drinking water without documented
waterborne disease from that exposure.
Direct detection of pathogens indicates
the potential for waterborne
transmission of disease. Documented
WBDOs provide an additional weight of
evidence that illness was transmitted
and that there was a waterborne route of
exposure.
Next, pathogens were scored using the
Health Effects Protocol. The pathogen’s
score for the general population was
added to the highest score among the
four sensitive populations to produce a
sum score between 2 and 14.
Finally, EPA normalizes the Health
Effects score and WBDO/Occurrence
score because these are of equal
importance. The highest possible score
for WBDO/Occurrence is 5 and the
highest possible Health Effects score is
14. To equalize this imbalance, EPA
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
37966
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
multiplies the health effect score by
5/14. Combining health effects data with
the WBDO/occurrence data by adding
the scores from these protocols provides
a system that evaluates both the severity
of potential disease and the potential
magnitude of exposure through drinking
water. Exhibit 12 presents the scores for
all the 35 PCCL pathogens.
EXHIBIT 12—SCORES FOR ALL THE PCCL 5 PATHOGENS
Pathogen
Ranking
Naegleria fowleri ......................................................................................
Legionella pneumophila ...........................................................................
Escherichia coli (O157) ............................................................................
Pseudomonas aeruginosa .......................................................................
Helicobacter pylori ...................................................................................
Campylobacter jejuni ...............................................................................
Mycobacterium abcessus ........................................................................
Shigella sonnei ........................................................................................
Caliciviruses .............................................................................................
Mycobacterium avium ..............................................................................
Adenovirus ...............................................................................................
Enterovirus ...............................................................................................
Pantoea agglomerans ..............................................................................
Hepatitis A virus .......................................................................................
Arcobacter butzleri ...................................................................................
Fusarium solani ........................................................................................
Nontuberculous Mycobacteria (NTM) ......................................................
Hepatitis E virus .......................................................................................
Cyclospora cayetanensis .........................................................................
Rotavirus ..................................................................................................
Salmonella enterica .................................................................................
Toxoplasma gondii ...................................................................................
Aspergillus fumigatus group ....................................................................
Entamoeba histolytica ..............................................................................
Exophiala jeanselmei ...............................................................................
Vibrio cholerae .........................................................................................
Aeromonas hydrophila .............................................................................
Plesiomonas shigelloides .........................................................................
Blastocystis hominis .................................................................................
Acinetobacter baumannii .........................................................................
Comanonas testosteroni ..........................................................................
Yersinia enterocolitica ..............................................................................
Astrovirus .................................................................................................
Microsporidia ............................................................................................
Isospora belli ............................................................................................
1 Total
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
Occurrence
Normalized
health
score
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
2
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
1
3
3
3
3
3
3
1
2
2
3
2
2
1
5.0
3.6
3.2
3.2
5.0
2.5
3.2
3.2
2.1
2.9
3.6
3.6
2.5
3.2
2.1
2.9
2.9
3.6
2.5
2.5
2.5
3.2
2.1
2.1
2.1
2.1
1.8
1.8
0.7
2.5
2.5
1.4
1.4
1.4
1.1
5
5
5
5
1
5
4
4
5
4
2
2
4
3
4
1
3
2
3
2
3
2
1
3
1
3
1
3
4
1
1
3
2
1
2
Total
score 1
10.0
8.6
8.2
8.2
8.0
7.5
7.2
7.2
7.1
6.9
6.6
6.6
6.5
6.2
6.1
5.9
5.9
5.6
5.5
5.5
5.5
5.2
5.1
5.1
5.1
5.1
4.8
4.8
4.7
4.5
4.5
4.4
3.4
3.4
3.1
Score = Normalized Health Score + the higher of WBDO or Occurrence.
e. Selection of the Draft CCL Microbes
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
WBDO
The 35 PCCL pathogens, listed in
Exhibit 12, are ranked according to an
equal weighting of their summed scores
for normalized health effects and the
higher of the individual scores for
WBDO and occurrence in drinking
water. EPA believes this ranking
indicates the most important pathogens
to consider for the Draft CCL 5. To
determine which of the 35 PCCL
pathogens should be the highest priority
for EPA’s drinking water program and
included on the Draft CCL 5, EPA
considered scientific factors and the
opportunity to advance public health
protection. The factors included the
PCCL scores for WBDO, occurrence, and
health effects; and comments and
recommendations from the various
expert panels, including EPA’s internal
workgroup and CDC subject matter
experts. The evaluation prioritizes the
pathogens that provide the best
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
opportunities to advance public health
protection. After consideration of these
factors, EPA has decided to include in
the Draft CCL 5 the 12 highest ranked
pathogens shown in Exhibit 12. The
selection of microbial pathogens for the
CCL 5 was similar to the method used
for the CCL 3 and the CCL 4 with the
exception that with the CCL 5, there
were no ‘‘natural’’ break points in the
ranked scores for the 35 pathogens.
EPA believes that the overall rankings
strongly reflect the best available
scientific data and high quality expert
input employed in the CCL selection
process, and therefore should be
important factors in helping to identify
the top priority pathogens for the Draft
CCL 5.
f. Organisms Covered by Existing
Regulations
According to Section 1412(b)(1) of the
1996 SDWA Amendments, EPA must
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
select CCL contaminants that ‘‘at the
time of publication, are not subject to
any proposed or promulgated national
primary drinking water regulation.’’ In
promulgating regulations for
contaminants in drinking water, EPA
can set either a legal limit (maximum
contaminant level or MCL) and require
monitoring for the contaminant in
drinking water or, for those
contaminants that are difficult to
measure, EPA can establish a treatment
technique requirement. The Surface
Water Treatment Rule (54 FR 27486,
USEPA, 1989a) established maximum
contaminant level goals (MCLGs) of zero
for Legionella, Giardia, and viruses
because any amount of exposure to
these contaminants represents some
public health risk. Since measuring
disease-causing microbes in drinking
water was not considered to be feasible
at the time of the development of the
SWTR, EPA established treatment
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
technique requirements for these
contaminants. The purpose of
subsequent treatment technique
requirements (Interim Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule (63 FR 69478,
USEPA 1998a), Long Term 1 Surface
Water Treatment Rule (67 FR 1813,
USEPA, 2002a), and the Long Term 2
Surface Water Treatment Rule (71 FR
654, USEPA, 2006a), which included an
MCLG of zero for Cryptosporidium, is to
reduce disease incidence associated
with Cryptosporidium and other
pathogenic microorganisms in drinking
water. These rules apply to all public
water systems that use surface water or
ground water under the direct influence
of surface water.
The Ground Water Rule (GWR) (71 FR
65573; USEPA, 2006c) set treatment
technique requirements to control for
viruses (and pathogenic bacteria)
because it was not feasible to monitor
for viruses (or pathogenic bacteria) in
drinking water. Under the GWR, if
systems detect total coliforms in the
distribution system, they are required to
monitor for a fecal indicator (E. coli,
coliphage, or enterococci) in the source
water. If fecal contamination is found in
the source water, the system must take
remedial action to address
contamination.
EPA considered Legionella and
specific viruses in CCL even though
they are regulated under the Surface
Water Treatment Rules (SWTR). In this
draft document, EPA proposes to
specifically list Legionella
pneumophila, the primary pathogenic
bacterium, on the Draft CCL 5 because
it has been identified in numerous
WBDOs and is the most common cause
of reported drinking water-associated
outbreaks in the U.S. Furthermore,
reported Legionnaires’ disease has
increased 10-fold in the last 20 years
(CDC, 2020b). A recent National
Academies of Science report estimated
52,000–70,000 cases of Legionnaires’
disease annually, with 3–30% mortality
(NASEM, 2020).
EPA is also proposing to list certain
viruses on the Draft CCL 5. Viruses
include a wide range of taxa and
different viral taxa have been implicated
in various WBDOs for which EPA did
not have dose response or treatment
data when promulgating its treatment
technique requirements.
Even though there are MCLGs for
Legionella and viruses, and these
contaminants are subject to limitations
as a class through the treatment
techniques under the Surface Water
Treatment Rules, there are no
monitoring, treatment, or notification
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
requirements within those NPDWRs that
are specific to Legionella pneumophila
or the specific viruses listed on CCL5
(although systems may use coliphage for
source water monitoring for ground
water systems). Therefore, EPA
considers Legionella pneumophila and
the specific viruses listed on CCL5 to be
unregulated contaminants for purposes
of eligibility for the CCL. Additionally,
EPA received public nomination for
viruses and Legionella for the Draft CCL
5, with Legionella pneumophila
receiving the highest number of
nominations.
C. Summary of Nominated Candidates
for the Draft CCL 5
EPA sought public nominations in a
Federal Register notice on October 5,
2018, for unregulated chemical and
microbial contaminants to be
considered for possible inclusion in the
CCL 5 (83 FR 50364, USEPA, 2018a). In
accordance with the SDWA, which
directs EPA to consider health effects
and occurrence information when
deciding whether to place contaminants
on the CCL, EPA asked that nominations
include responses to the following
questions:
What is the contaminant’s name, CAS
registry number, and/or common
synonym (if applicable)? Please do not
nominate a contaminant that is already
subject to a national primary drinking
water regulation.
What are the data that you believe
support the conclusion that the
contaminant is known or anticipated to
occur in public water systems? For
example, provide information that
shows measured occurrence of the
contaminant in drinking water or
measured occurrence in sources of
drinking water or provide information
that shows the contaminant is released
in the environment or is manufactured
in large quantities and has a potential
for contaminating sources of drinking
water. Please provide the source of this
information with complete citations for
published information (i.e., author(s),
title, journal, and date) or contact
information for the primary investigator.
What are the data that you believe
support the conclusion that the
contaminant may require regulation?
For example, provide information that
shows the contaminant may have an
adverse health effect on the general
population or that the contaminant is
potentially harmful to subgroups that
comprise a meaningful proportion of the
population (such as children, pregnant
women, the elderly, individuals with a
history of serious illness, or others).
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
37967
Please provide the source of this
information with complete citations for
published information (i.e., author(s),
title, journal, and date) or contact
information for the primary investigator.
EPA compiled and reviewed the
information from the nominations
process to identify the contaminants
nominated and any sources of
supporting data submitted that could be
used to supplement the data gathered by
EPA to inform selection of the Draft CCL
5.
EPA received nominations for 89
unique contaminants for the CCL 5,
including 73 chemicals and 16
microbes. Nominated contaminants
included chemicals used in commerce,
pesticides, disinfection byproducts,
pharmaceuticals, naturally occurring
elements, biological toxins, and
waterborne pathogens. Contaminants
nominated for consideration for the CCL
5 are shown in Exhibit 13.
EPA received nominations from 29
different organizations and/or
individuals. There were three general
types of nominations: specific
individual chemicals, specific
individual organisms, and groups of
contaminants (e.g., PFAS). Seven
chemicals and eight microbes were
nominated by more than one
organization or individual. Legionella
pneumophila received the most
nominations, nominated by 18
organizations or individuals. Among
chemicals, perfluorononanoic acid
(PFNA), PFOS, and PFOA received the
most nominations, each nominated by
three organizations or individuals. In
addition to individual contaminants,
groups of contaminants were
nominated, such as brominated
haloacetic acids known as ‘‘HAA6Br,’’
cyanotoxins, GenX chemicals
(hexafluoropropylene oxide dimer acid
(HFPO–DA) and its ammonium salt), all
the PFAS approved by the EPA Method
537.1, PFAS, and the top 200 prescribed
drugs of 2016 and their parents and
metabolites. A public commenter also
proposed that all CCL 4 contaminants be
retained on the CCL 5.
EPA also received recommendations
for the CCL process. All public
nominations can be viewed in the EPA
docket at https://www.regulations.gov
(Docket ID No. EPA–HQ–OW–2018–
0594). A more detailed summary of the
nomination process is included in
Section 3.6 of the Chemical Technical
Support Document (USEPA, 2021c) and
in Section 2.1 of the Microbial
Technical Support Document (USEPA,
2021d).
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
37968
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
EXHIBIT 13—CONTAMINANTS NOMINATED FOR CONSIDERATION ON THE DRAFT CCL 5: NOMINATED CHEMICAL
CONTAMINANT
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Chemical name
CASRN
1,1-Dichloroethane ........................................................................................................................................
1,4-Dioxane ...................................................................................................................................................
1-Phenylacetone 1 .........................................................................................................................................
2-(N-Methylperfluorooctane sulfonamido)acetic acid (Me-PFOSA-AcOH) ...................................................
2-(N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamido) acetic acid (Et-PFOSA-AcOH) .....................................................
2-[(8-Chloro-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8-Hexadecafluorooctyl)oxy]-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane-1-sulfonic
acid (11Cl-PF3OUdS).
3-Hydroxycarbofuran .....................................................................................................................................
3-Monoacetylmorphine 1 ................................................................................................................................
4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA) ...........................................................................................
6-Monoacetylmorphine 1 ................................................................................................................................
Ammonium perfluoro-2-methyl-3-oxahexanoate ...........................................................................................
Anatoxin A .....................................................................................................................................................
Azinphos-methyl ............................................................................................................................................
Benzoic acid 1 ................................................................................................................................................
Benzoic acid glucuronide 1 ............................................................................................................................
Bromochloroacetic acid (BCAA) ....................................................................................................................
Bromochloroiodomethane (BCIM) .................................................................................................................
Bromodichloroacetic acid (BDCAA) ..............................................................................................................
Bromodichloronitromethane (BDCNM) ..........................................................................................................
Bromodiiodomethane (BDIM) ........................................................................................................................
Chlorate .........................................................................................................................................................
Chlorodibromoacetic acid (CDBAA) ..............................................................................................................
Chloro-diiodo-methane (CDIM) .....................................................................................................................
Chloropicrin (trichloro-nitromethane; TCNM) ................................................................................................
Chlorpyrifos ...................................................................................................................................................
Cylindrospermopsin .......................................................................................................................................
Dibromochloronitromethane (DBCNM) .........................................................................................................
Dibromoiodomethane (DBIM) ........................................................................................................................
Dichloroiodomethane (DCIM) ........................................................................................................................
Fluoxetine ......................................................................................................................................................
Gemfibrozil ....................................................................................................................................................
Heroin ............................................................................................................................................................
Hippuric acid 1 ...............................................................................................................................................
Hydromorphone 1 ...........................................................................................................................................
Hydromorphone-3-glucuronide 1 ....................................................................................................................
Hydroxyamphetamide 1 .................................................................................................................................
Isodrin (Pholedrine, 4-Hydroxymethamphetamine) 1 ....................................................................................
Manganese ....................................................................................................................................................
Methamphetamine 1 .......................................................................................................................................
Microcystin LA ...............................................................................................................................................
Microcystin LR ...............................................................................................................................................
Microcystin LW ..............................................................................................................................................
Microcystin RR ..............................................................................................................................................
Microcystin YR ..............................................................................................................................................
Molybdenum ..................................................................................................................................................
Morphine ........................................................................................................................................................
Morphine-3-glucuronide .................................................................................................................................
Morphine-6-glucuronide 1 ..............................................................................................................................
N-Nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA) ......................................................................................................................
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA) ..................................................................................................................
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine (NDPA) ..............................................................................................................
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine (NDPhA) .................................................................................................................
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR) .........................................................................................................................
Perfluoro(2-((6-chlorohexyl)oxy)ethanesulfonic acid) (9Cl-PF3ONS) ...........................................................
Perfluoro-2-methyl-3-oxahexanoic acid .........................................................................................................
Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS) ...........................................................................................................
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA) .........................................................................................................................
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDeA/PFDA) ........................................................................................................
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA) ...............................................................................................................
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA) .................................................................................................................
Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS) ........................................................................................................
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA) ...................................................................................................................
Perfluoronononanoic acid (PFNA) ................................................................................................................
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide (PFOSA) ..........................................................................................................
Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS) ...........................................................................................................
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) .....................................................................................................................
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTA) ..............................................................................................................
Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA) ..............................................................................................................
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUA/PFUnA) ....................................................................................................
Phenylpropanolamine 1 ..................................................................................................................................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
DTXSID
75–34–3
123–91–1
103–79–7
2355–31–9
2991–50–6
763051–92–9
DTXSID1020437
DTXSID4020533
DTXSID1059280
DTXSID10624392
DTXSID5062760
DTXSID40892507
16655–82–6
29593–26–8
919005–14–4
2784–73–8
62037–80–3
64285–06–9
86–50–0
65–85–0
19237–53–7
5589–96–8
34970–00–8
71133–14–7
918–01–4
557–95–9
14866–68–3
5278–95–5
638–73–3
76–06–2
2921–88–2
143545–90–8
1184–89–0
593–94–2
594–04–7
5491–89–3
25812–30–0
561–27–3
495–69–2
466–99–9
No CASRN
103–86–6
465–73–6
7439–96–5
537–46–2
96180–79–9
101043–37–2
No CASRN
111755–37–4
101064–48–6
7439–98–7
57–27–2
20290–09–9
20290–10–2
55–18–5
62–75–9
621–64–7
86–30–6
930–55–2
756426–58–1
13252–13–6
375–73–5
375–22–4
335–76–2
307–55–1
375–85–9
355–46–4
307–24–4
375–95–1
754–91–6
1763–23–1
335–67–1
376–06–7
72629–94–8
2058–94–8
37577–28–9
DTXSID2037506
DTXSID30183774
DTXSID40881350
DTXSID60182154
DTXSID40108559
DTXSID50867064
DTXSID3020122
DTXSID6020143
DTXSID90940901
DTXSID4024642
DTXSID9021502
DTXSID4024644
DTXSID4021509
DTXSID70204235
DTXSID3073137
DTXSID3031151
DTXSID20213251
DTXSID0020315
DTXSID4020458
DTXSID2031083
DTXSID00152114
DTXSID60208040
DTXSID7021570
DTXSID7023067
DTXSID0020652
DTXSID6046761
DTXSID9046073
DTXSID8023133
NO_DTXSID
DTXSID3023134
DTXSID7042065
DTXSID2024169
DTXSID8037128
DTXSID3031656
DTXSID3031654
DTXSID70891285
DTXSID40880085
DTXSID00880086
DTXSID1024207
DTXSID9023336
DTXSID80174157
DTXSID40174158
DTXSID2021028
DTXSID7021029
DTXSID6021032
DTXSID6021030
DTXSID8021062
DTXSID80892506
DTXSID70880215
DTXSID5030030
DTXSID4059916
DTXSID3031860
DTXSID8031861
DTXSID1037303
DTXSID7040150
DTXSID3031862
DTXSID8031863
DTXSID3038939
DTXSID3031864
DTXSID8031865
DTXSID3059921
DTXSID90868151
DTXSID8047553
DTXSID4023466
19JYP1
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
37969
EXHIBIT 13—CONTAMINANTS NOMINATED FOR CONSIDERATION ON THE DRAFT CCL 5: NOMINATED CHEMICAL
CONTAMINANT—Continued
Chemical name
CASRN
Strontium .......................................................................................................................................................
Tribromoacetic acid (TBAA) ..........................................................................................................................
Triiodomethane (TIM) ....................................................................................................................................
7440–24–6
75–96–7
75–47–8
DTXSID
DTXSID3024312
DTXSID6021668
DTXSID4020743
1 Thirteen nominated chemicals did not have available water occurrence data, even after a systematic literature search was conducted, and
therefore were not evaluated for listing on the Draft CCL 5. See Section 4.2.1.1 of the Chemical Technical Support Document for more
information.
NOMINATED MICROBIAL CONTAMINANTS 5 process (see Section III.A.3 of this
Microbial name
Adenovirus.
Aeromonas hydrophila.
Caliciviruses.
Campylobacter jejuni.
Enterovirus.
Escherichia coli (0157).
Helicobacter pylori.
Hepatitis A virus.
Legionella pneumophila.
Mycobacterium species predominantly found
in drinking water.
Mycobacterium avium.
Naegleria fowleri.
Non-tuberculous Mycobacterium (NTM).
Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Salmonella enterica.
Shigella sonnei.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1. Data Sources for the Nominated
Chemical and Microbial Contaminants
a. Chemical Nominations
EPA reviewed the public nominations
for the 73 chemicals and determined
which nominated chemicals were
already included in the CCL 5 Chemical
Universe and which ones were not. If a
chemical was already part of the CCL 5
Chemical Universe, this meant that EPA
had identified and extracted health
effects and occurrence data on this
chemical from primary data sources in
Step 1, Building the Chemical Universe.
However, most of these chemicals did
not have sufficiently high screening
scores and therefore required additional
data to evaluate them. For the
nominated chemicals that were not
included in the CCL 5 Chemical
Universe, they would require further
data collection to be evaluated for
listing on the Draft CCL 5. To identify
additional data for these nominated
chemicals, EPA assessed data sources
cited with public nominations using the
assessment factors described in Section
III.A.1 of this document and extracted
health effects and occurrence data from
sources that were relevant, complete,
and not redundant. Sources that met
these three assessment factors were
considered supplemental data sources
and could serve as references to fill any
data gaps for particular chemical
contaminants during Step 3 of the CCL
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
document). EPA also conducted
literature searches to identify additional
health effects and occurrence data; more
information can be found on the
literature searches in Section III.A.3.a of
this document and in Chapter 4 of the
Chemical Technical Support Document
(USEPA, 2021c). A complete list of
supplemental sources can be found in
Appendix B of the Chemical Technical
Support Document (USEPA, 2021c).
b. Microbial Nominations
EPA reviewed the nominated
microbial contaminants and the
supporting information provided by
nominators to determine if any new data
were provided that had not been
previously evaluated. EPA also
collected additional data for the
nominated microbial contaminants,
when available, from both the CCL 3
and CCL 4 data sources that had been
updated and from literature searches
covering the time between the CCL 4
and the CCL 5 (2016–2019). If new data
were available, EPA screened and
scored the microbial contaminants
nominated for CCL 5 using the same
process that was used for the CCL 3 and
the CCL 4. There were no new publicly
nominated microbial data sources for
the CCL 5. A more detailed description
of the data sources used to evaluate
microbial contaminants for the Draft
CCL 5 can be found in the Microbial
Technical Support Document (USEPA,
2021d).
2. Listing Outcomes for the Nominated
Chemical Contaminants
EPA reviewed the nominated
chemical contaminants and identified
which chemicals were (i) not already on
the PCCL 5, and (ii) not subject to
proposed or promulgated NPDWRs, and
needed to be considered for further
analysis. EPA did not add publicly
nominated groups like ‘‘the top 200
most prescribed drugs in 2016 and their
parents and metabolites’’ to the PCCL 5
because health effects and occurrence
data must be linked to specific
individual contaminants in order to be
evaluated. However, individual
chemicals in a nominated group could
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
still be listed on the PCCL if they were
also nominated individually or if they
were part of the CCL 5 Chemical
Universe and screened to the PCCL.
EPA could not identify occurrence
data for 13 nominated chemicals
(Exhibit 13) from either primary or
supplemental data sources nor was data
provided in the public nominations.
Without available data regarding
measured occurrence in water or
relevant data provided by the
nominators, the two evaluation teams
agreed that they could not determine
whether these chemicals were likely to
present the greatest public health
concern through drinking water
exposure and therefore should not
advance further in the CCL 5 process.
However, some were evaluated for
possible research needs (see Chapter 5
of the Chemical Technical Support
Document; USEPA, 2021c). More
detailed information about how
nominated chemicals were considered
for the Draft CCL 5 can be found in
Section 3.6 of the Chemical Technical
Support Document (USEPA, 2021c).
Four publicly nominated chemicals
were included on the Draft CCL 5 as a
result of evaluation team listing
decisions, including 1,4-dioxane,
chlorpyrifos, manganese, and
molybdenum. In addition, 43 nominated
chemicals consisting of 7 cyanotoxins,
18 DBPs, and 18 PFAS chemicals were
included in the three chemical groups
listed on the Draft CCL 5 (e.g., the
cyanotoxin, DBP, and PFAS groups).
The PFAS group is inclusive of any
PFAS, except for PFOA and PFOS.
Although PFOA and PFOS were
nominated, EPA has made a positive
final regulatory determination for these
two chemicals; and therefore, did not
include them in the PFAS group.
3. Listing Outcomes for the Nominated
Microbial Contaminants
All the microbes nominated for the
CCL 5, with the exception of Salmonella
enterica, and Aeromonas hydrophila,
and Hepatitis A, are listed on the Draft
CCL 5. Salmonella enterica, Aeromonas
hydrophila and Hepatitis A did not
produce sufficient composite scores to
place them on the Draft CCL 5.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
37970
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
Although Salmonella enterica and
Hepatitis A have numerous WBDOs, the
route of exposure was not explicitly
waterborne. Non-tuberculous
Mycobacterium (NTM) and
Mycobacterium (species broadly found
in drinking water) were nominated for
the CCL 5 and are not listed on the Draft
CCL 5 as a group; instead, they were
listed as Mycobacterium avium and
Mycobacterium abscessus, two species
of NTM that are found in drinking
water.
D. Data Availability Assessment for the
Draft CCL 5 Chemicals
In an effort to provide the current data
availability of the Draft CCL 5
contaminants with respect to
occurrence, health effects, and
analytical methods data, EPA provides a
summary table (Exhibit 14) depicting
chemicals categorized into six groups
depending upon the availability of their
occurrence data and health assessment.
EPA did not assess data availability for
individual chemicals of the
cyanotoxins, DBPs and PFAS groups
because the availability of health effects
and occurrence data varies with
individual chemicals in each group. The
agency is addressing these groups
broadly in drinking water based on a
subset of chemicals in these groups that
are known to occur in public water
systems and may cause adverse health
effects.
EXHIBIT 14—DATA AVAILABILITY/INFORMATION FOR THE DRAFT CCL 5 CONTAMINANTS
CASRN
DTXSID
Common name
Best available occurrence data
Is an
analytical
method
available?
Is a health
assessment
available?
A. Contaminants with Nationally Representative Finished Water Occurrence Data and Qualifying Health Assessments
96–18–4 ................
123–91–1 ..............
319–84–6 ..............
7440–42–8 ............
63–25–2 ................
2921–88–2 ............
7440–48–4 ............
60–57–1 ................
330–54–2 ..............
13194–84–4 ..........
7439–93–2 ............
7439–96–5 ............
7439–98–7 ............
42874–03–3 ..........
52645–53–1 ..........
41198–08–7 ..........
1918–16–7 ............
91–22–5 ................
107534–96–3 ........
78–48–8 ................
7440–62–2 ............
95–53–4 ................
51–28–5 ................
DTXSID9021390
DTXSID4020533
DTXSID2020684
DTXSID3023922
DTXSID9020247
DTXSID4020458
DTXSID1031040
DTXSID9020453
DTXSID0020446
DTXSID4032611
DTXSID5036761
DTXSID2024169
DTXSID1024207
DTXSID7024241
DTXSID8022292
DTXSID3032464
DTXSID4024274
DTXSID1021798
DTXSID9032113
DTXSID1024174
DTXSID2040282
DTXSID1026164
DTXSID0020523
1,2,3-Trichloropropane ........................................
1,4-dioxane ..........................................................
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane .............................
Boron ...................................................................
Carbaryl ...............................................................
Chlorpyrifos ..........................................................
Cobalt ..................................................................
Dieldrin .................................................................
Diuron ..................................................................
Ethoprop ..............................................................
Lithium .................................................................
Manganese ..........................................................
Molybdenum ........................................................
Oxyfluorfen ..........................................................
Permethrin ...........................................................
Profenofos ...........................................................
Propachlor ...........................................................
Quinoline ..............................................................
Tebuconazole ......................................................
Tribufos ................................................................
Vanadium .............................................................
2-Aminotoluene ....................................................
2,4-Dinitrophenol .................................................
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
B. Contaminants with Non-Nationally Representative Finished Water Occurrence Data and Qualifying Health Assessments
2163–68–0 ............
120068–37–3 ........
121–74–5 ..............
36734–19–7 ..........
298–02–2 ..............
27314–13 ..............
2303–17–5 ............
139–40–2 ..............
1689–84–5 ............
2312–35–8 ............
141–66–2 ..............
709–98–8 ..............
153719–23–4 ........
10605–21–7 ..........
55283–68 ..............
3397624 ................
96182535 ..............
114261 ..................
732116 ..................
2164–17–2 ............
DTXSID6037807
DTXSID4034609
DTXSID4020791
DTXSID3024154
DTXSID4032459
DTXSID8024234
DTXSID5024344
DTXSID3021196
DTXSID3022162
DTXSID4024276
DTXSID9023914
DTXSID8022111
DTXSID2034962
DTXSID4024729
DTXSID8032386
DTXSID1037806
DTXSID1032482
DTXSID7021948
DTXSID5024261
DTXSID8020628
2-Hydroxyatrazine ................................................
Fipronil .................................................................
Malathion .............................................................
Iprodione ..............................................................
Phorate ................................................................
Norflurazon ..........................................................
Tri-allate ...............................................................
Propazine .............................................................
Bromoxynil ...........................................................
Propargite ............................................................
Dicrotophos ..........................................................
Propanil ................................................................
Thiamethoxam .....................................................
Carbendazim (MBC) ............................................
Ethalfluralin ..........................................................
Diaminochlorotriazine (DACT) .............................
Tebupirimfos ........................................................
Propoxur ..............................................................
Phosmet ...............................................................
Fluometuron .........................................................
Non-National
Non-National
Non-National
Non-National
Non-National
Non-National
Non-National
Non-National
Non-National
Non-National
Non-National
Non-National
Non-National
Non-National
Non-National
Non-National
Non-National
Non-National
Non-National
Non-National
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Finished
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
....
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
No.
No.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
C. Contaminant with Nationally Representative Finished Water Occurrence Data Lacking Qualifying Health Assessments
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
1634–04–4 ............
DTXSID3020833
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE) ............................
National Finished Water ............
No ......................
Yes.
D. Contaminants with Qualifying Health Assessments Lacking Finished Water Occurrence Data
3397–62–4 ............
30560–19–1 ..........
84–65–1 ................
6190–65–4 ............
3397–62–4 ............
333–41–5 ..............
60–51–5 ................
VerDate Sep<11>2014
DTXSID1037806
DTXSID8023846
DTXSID3020095
DTXSID5037494
DTXSID0037495
DTXSID9020407
DTXSID7020479
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
6-Chloro-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine .....................
Acephate ..............................................................
Anthraquinone .....................................................
Deethylatrazine ....................................................
Desisopropyl atrazine ..........................................
Diazinon ...............................................................
Dimethoate ..........................................................
Jkt 253001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4702
National
National
National
National
National
National
National
I
Sfmt 4702
Ambient
Ambient
Ambient
Ambient
Ambient
Ambient
Ambient
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
Water
............
............
............
............
............
............
............
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
I
Yes.
Yes.
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
37971
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
EXHIBIT 14—DATA AVAILABILITY/INFORMATION FOR THE DRAFT CCL 5 CONTAMINANTS—Continued
CASRN
DTXSID
142459–58–3 ........
22967–92–6 ..........
13071–79–9 ..........
126–73–8 ..............
103476–24–0 ........
7440–33–7 ............
107–02–8 ..............
95–63–6 ................
80–05–7 ................
143–50–0 ..............
741–58–2 ..............
16752–77–5 ..........
DTXSID2032552
DTXSID9024198
DTXSID2022254
DTXSID3021986
DTXSID5021411
DTXSID8052481
DTXSID5020023
DTXSID6021402
DTXSID7020182
DTXSID1020770
DTXSID9032329
DTXSID1022267
Common name
Best available occurrence data
Flufenacet (Thiaflumide) ......................................
Methylmercury .....................................................
Terbufos ...............................................................
Tributyl phosphate (TNBP) ..................................
Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP) .................
Tungsten ..............................................................
Acrolein ................................................................
Trimethylbenzene (1,2,4-) ...................................
Bisphenol A .........................................................
Chlordecone (Kepone)2 .......................................
Bensulide .............................................................
Methomyl .............................................................
National Ambient Water ............
National Ambient Water ............
National Ambient Water ............
National Ambient Water ............
National Ambient Water ............
National Ambient Water ............
National Ambient Water ............
National Ambient Water ............
National Ambient Water ............
Non-national Ambient Water .....
Non-national Ambient Water .....
Non-National Finished Water ....
Is a health
assessment
available?
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
....................
Is an
analytical
method
available?
No.
No.
Yes.
No.
No.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
No.
Yes.
Yes.
Yes.
E. Contaminants Lacking Nationally Representative Finished Water Occurrence Data and Qualifying Health Assessments
104–40–5 ..............
DTXSID3021857
4-Nonylphenol (all isomers) .................................
Non-National Finished Water ....
No ......................
86386–73–4 ..........
93413628 ..............
DTXSID3020627
DTXSID40869118
Fluconazole .........................................................
Desvenlafaxine ....................................................
Non-National Finished Water ....
Non-National Finished Water ....
No ......................
No ......................
Method in review.
No.
No.
Key to Exhibit
National = Occurrence data that are nationally representative are available
Non-National = Occurrence data that are not nationally representative are available
Note: Data availability was not assessed for cyanotoxins, DBPs and PFAS.
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
Contaminants in Group A have
nationally representative finished
drinking water occurrence data and
qualifying health assessments.
Contaminants in Group B have finished
drinking water occurrence data that is
not nationally representative and
qualifying health assessments.
Contaminants in groups C, D, and E lack
either a qualifying health assessment or
finished water occurrence data and have
more substantial data needs.
In addition, EPA assessed the data
availability of the PCCL 5 chemicals that
are not included on the Draft CCL 5. For
more information on EPA methodology
to identify data availability and
summary tables, see Section 5.3 of the
Chemical Technical Support Document
(USEPA, 2021c).
IV. Request for Comments
The purpose of this document is to
present the Draft CCL 5. EPA seeks
comments on the following:
A. Contaminants selected for the Draft
CCL 5, including any supporting data
that can be used in developing the Final
CCL 5.
B. Data that EPA obtained and
evaluated for developing the Draft CCL
5 may be found in the Chemical
Technical Support Document and
Microbial Technical Support Document
located in the docket for this document.
C. The improvements EPA
implemented in the CCL 5 process.
EPA will take these comments into
consideration when developing future
CCLs. EPA will consider all information
and comments received in determining
the Final CCL 5, in the development of
future CCLs, and in the agency’s efforts
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
to set drinking water priorities in the
future.
V. EPA’s Next Steps
Between now and the publication of
the Final CCL 5, EPA will evaluate
comments received during the public
comment period for this document,
consult with EPA’s Science Advisory
Board, and prepare the Final CCL 5
considering this input.
VI. References
American Association for the Advancement
of Science (AAAS). 2020. Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in
Drinking Water. Available on the
internet at: https://www.aaas.org/
programs/epi-center/pfas.
Carroll, K.C., Pfaller, M.A., Landry, M.L.,
McAdam, A.J., Patel, R., Richter, S.S. and
Warnock, David W. (ed). 2019. Manual of
Clinical Microbiology, Twelfth Edition.
CDC. 2008. Surveillance for Waterborne
Disease and Outbreaks Associated with
Drinking Water and Water not Intended
for Drinking—United States, 2005–2006.
MMWR 57 (SS–9).
CDC, 2020a. National Outbreak Reporting
System (NORS)—United States, 2009–
2017.
CDC, 2020b. Legionella (Legionnaires’
Disease and Pontiac Fever). https://
cdc.gov/legionella/about/history.html.
Executive Office of the President. 2021.
Protecting Public Health and the
Environment and Restoring Science To
Tackle the Climate Crisis; Federal
Register. Vol. 86, E.O. 13990. p. 7037,
January 20, 2021.
Murray, P.R., E.J. Baron, J.H. Jorgensen, M.L.
Landry, and M.A. Pfaller (ed.). 2011.
Manual of Clinical Microbiology, 10th
Edition, ASM Press, Washington, DC.
National Academies of Sciences,
Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).
PO 00000
Frm 00036
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
2020. Management of Legionella in
Water Systems. The National Academies
Press, Washington, DC.
National Drinking Water Advisory Council
(NDWAC). 2004. National Drinking
Water Advisory Council Report on the
CCL Classification Process to the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency.
Available on the internet at: https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/
2015-11/documents/report_ccl_ndwac_
07-06-04.pdf.
National Research Council (NRC). 2001.
Classifying Drinking Water
Contaminants for Regulatory
Consideration. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1998. Announcement of the
Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate
List; Notice. Federal Register. Vol. 63,
No. 40. p. 10274, March 2, 1998.
USEPA. 1999. Revisions to the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation for
Public Water Systems. Federal Register.
Vol. 64, No. 180, p. 50556, September 17,
1999.
USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving
Ambient Water Quality Criteria for the
Protection of Human Health (2000).
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/
files/2018-10/documents/methodologywqc-protection-hh-2000.pdf.
USEPA. 2003. Announcement of Regulatory
Determinations for Priority
Contaminants on the Drinking Water
Contaminant Candidate List. Federal
Register. Vol. 68, No. 138. p. 42898, July
18, 2003.
USEPA. 2005. Drinking Water Contaminant
Candidate List 2; Final Notice. Federal
Register. Vol. 70, No. 36. p. 9071,
February 24, 2005.
USEPA. 2007. Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Regulation (UCMR) for
Public Water Systems Revisions;
Correction. Federal Register. Vol. 72, No.
19, p. 4328, January 30, 2007.
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
lotter on DSK11XQN23PROD with PROPOSALS1
37972
Federal Register / Vol. 86, No. 135 / Monday, July 19, 2021 / Proposed Rules
USEPA. 2008. Drinking Water: Regulatory
Determinations Regarding Contaminants
on the Second Drinking Water
Contaminant Candidate List. Federal
Register. Vol. 73, No. 174. p. 44251, July
30, 2008.
USEPA. 2009a. Final Contaminant Candidate
List 3 Chemicals: Identifying the
Universe. EPA 815–R09–006. August
2009.
USEPA. 2009b. Final Contaminant Candidate
List 3 Chemicals: Screening to a PCCL.
EPA. 815–R09–007. August 2009.
USEPA. 2009c. Community Water System
Survey 2006. Volume 1: Overview. EPA
815–R–09–001. February 2009.
USEPA. 2009d. Community Water System
Survey 2006. Volume II: Detailed Tables
and Survey Methodology. EPA 815–R–
09–002. May 2009.
USEPA. 2009e. Drinking Water Contaminant
Candidate List 3—Final. Federal
Register. Vol. 74, No. 194. p. 51850,
October 8, 2009.
USEPA. 2011. Drinking Water: Regulatory
Determination on Perchlorate. Federal
Register. Vol. 76, No. 29. p. 7762,
February 11, 2011.
USEPA. 2012a. Revisions to the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
(UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems.
Federal Register. Vol. 77, No. 85. p.
26071, May 2, 2012.
USEPA. 2012b. TSCA Work Plan Chemicals:
Methods Document. February 2012.
Available on the internet at: https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/
2014-03/documents/work_plan_
methods_document_web_final.pdf.
USEPA. 2014. Announcement of Preliminary
Regulatory Determination for
Contaminants on the Third Drinking
Water Contaminant Candidate List.
Federal Register. Vol. 79, No. 202, p.
62716, October 20, 2014.
USEPA. 2015. Algal Toxin Risk Assessment
and Management Strategic Plan for
Drinking Water, Strategy Submitted to
Congress to Meet the Requirements of
P.L. 114–45. EPA 810–R–04–003.
USEPA. 2016a. Revisions to the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
(UCMR 4) for Public Water Systems.
Federal Register. Vol. 81, No. 244. p.
92666, December 20, 2016.
USEPA. 2016b. Final Regulatory
Determinations on the Third Drinking
Water Contaminant Candidate List.
Federal Register. Vol. 81, No. 1. P. 13–
19, January 4, 2016.
USEPA. 2016c. Drinking Water Contaminant
Candidate List 4-Final. Federal Register.
Vol. 81, No. 222. P. 81099, November 17,
2016.
USEPA. 2017. Analysis of Occurrence Data
from the Third Six-Year Review of
Existing National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations: Chemical Phase
Rules and Radionuclides Rules. EPA–
810–R–16–014. December 2016.
USEPA. 2018a. Request for Nominations of
Drinking Water Contaminants for the
Fifth Contaminant Candidate List.
Notice. Federal Register. Vol. 83, No.
194. p. 50364, October 5, 2018.
VerDate Sep<11>2014
17:26 Jul 16, 2021
Jkt 253001
USEPA. 2018b. Basic Information on PFAS.
Available at: https://www.epa.gov/pfas/
basic-information-pfas.
USEPA. 2019a. Drinking Water: Final Action
on Perchlorate. Federal Register. Vol. 84,
No. 123, p. 30524. June 26, 2019.
USEPA. 2019b. EPA’s Per- and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
Action Plan. EPA 823–R–18–004,
February 2019. Available at: https://
www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/
2019-02/documents/pfas_action_plan_
021319_508compliant_1.pdf.
USEPA. 2020. Drinking Water: Perchlorate.
Federal Register. Vol. 85, No. 140, p.
43990, July 2020. EPA–HQ–OW–2018–
0780–0302.
USEPA. 2021a. Revisions to the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Regulation
(UCMR 5) for Public Water Systems.
Federal Register. Vol. 86, No. 46. p.
13846, March 11, 2021.
USEPA. 2021b. Announcement of Final
Regulatory Determinations for
Contaminants on the Fourth Drinking
Water Contaminant Candidate List.
Federal Register. Vol. 86, No. 40, p.
12272, March 3, 2021. EPA–HQ–OW–
2019–0583.
USEPA. 2021c. Technical Support Document
for the Draft Fifth Contaminant
Candidate List (CCL 5)—Chemical
Contaminants. EPA 815–R–21–005, July
2021.
USEPA. 2021d. Technical Support Document
for the Draft Fifth Contaminant
Candidate List (CCL 5)—Microbial
Contaminants. EPA 815–R–21–007, July
2021.
USEPA. 2021e. Technical Support Document
for the Draft Fifth Contaminant
Candidate List (CCL 5)—Contaminant
Information Sheets. EPA 815–R–21–006,
July 2021.
USEPA. 2021f. TSCA Section 8(a)(7)
Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements for Perfluoroalkyl and
Polyfluoroalkyl Substances. Proposed
Rule. 86 FR 33926. June 28, 2021.
Williams, A.J., C.M. Grulke, J. Edwards, A.D.
McEachran, K. Mansouri, N.C. Baker, G.
Patlewicz, I. Shah, J.F. Wambaugh, R.S.
Judson, and A.M. Richard. 2017. The
CompTox Chemistry Dashboard: a
community data resource for
environmental chemistry. Journal of
Cheminformatics. 9:61. doi:10.1186/
s13321–017–0247–6.
Radhika Fox,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2021–15121 Filed 7–16–21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560–50–P
PO 00000
Frm 00037
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS
COMMISSION
47 CFR Parts 1 and 73
[AU Docket No. 21–284; DA 21–801; FR ID
37717]
Auction of Construction Permits for
Low Power Television and TV
Translator Stations; Comment Sought
on Competitive Bidding Procedures for
Auction 111
Federal Communications
Commission.
ACTION: Proposed rule; proposed auction
procedures.
AGENCY:
The Office of Economics and
Analytics and the Media Bureau
announce a closed auction of
construction permits for new or
modified low power television (LPTV)
stations and TV translator stations
(collectively, LPTV/translator stations).
This document seeks comment on the
procedures to be used for this auction,
which is designated as Auction 111.
DATES: Comments are due on or before
August 3, 2021, and reply comments are
due on or before August 13, 2021.
Bidding in this auction is expected to
commence in February 2022.
ADDRESSES: Interested parties may file
comments or reply comments in AU
Docket No. 21–284. Comments may be
filed using the Commission’s Electronic
Comment Filing System (ECFS). All
filings in response to the Auction 111
Comment Public Notice must refer to
AU Docket No. 21–284.
• Electronic Filers: Comments may be
filed electronically using the internet by
accessing the ECFS at https://
www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
• Paper Filers: Parties who choose to
file by paper must file an original and
one copy of each filing.
• Filings in response to the Public
Notice can be sent by commercial
courier or by first-class or overnight U.S.
Postal Service mail. All filings must be
addressed to the Commission’s
Secretary, Office of the Secretary,
Federal Communications Commission
• Commercial deliveries (other than
U.S. Postal Service Express Mail and
Priority Mail) must be sent to 9050
Junction Dr., Annapolis Junction, MD
20701.
• U.S. Postal Service first-class,
Express, or Priority mail must be
addressed to 45 L Street NE,
Washington, DC 20554.
• Until further notice, the
Commission no longer accepts any hand
or messenger delivered filings. This is a
temporary measure taken to help protect
the health and safety of individuals, and
SUMMARY:
E:\FR\FM\19JYP1.SGM
19JYP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 86, Number 135 (Monday, July 19, 2021)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 37948-37972]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2021-15121]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 141
[EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0594; FRL-7251-01-OW]
Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 5--Draft
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Notice of availability; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is publishing a
draft list of contaminants that are currently not subject to any
proposed or promulgated national primary drinking water regulations for
public review and comment. These contaminants are known or anticipated
to occur in public water systems and may require regulation under the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). This draft list is the Fifth
Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 5) published by the agency since the
SDWA amendments of 1996. The Draft CCL 5 includes 66 chemicals, 3
chemical groups (per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS),
cyanotoxins, and disinfection byproducts) and 12 microbial
contaminants. EPA seeks comment on the Draft CCL 5 and on improvements
implemented in the CCL 5 process for consideration in developing future
CCLs.
DATES: Comments must be received on or before September 17, 2021.
ADDRESSES: You may send comments, identified by Docket ID Number EPA-
HQ-OW-2018-0594, by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://www.regulations.gov (our
preferred method). Follow the online instructions for submitting
comments.
Mail: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA Docket Center,
Water Docket, Environmental Protection Agency, Mail code: 28221T, 1200
Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery/Courier (by scheduled appointment only): EPA Docket
Center, WJC West Building, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution Ave. NW,
Washington, DC 20004. The Docket Center's hours of operations are 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday (except federal holidays).
Instructions: All submissions received must include the Docket ID
No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0594 for this rulemaking. Comments received may be
posted without change to https://www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided. For detailed instructions on sending
comments and additional information on the rulemaking process, see the
``Public Participation'' heading of the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION
section of this document. Out of an abundance of caution for members of
the public and our staff, the EPA Docket Center and Reading Room are
closed to the public, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center staff will continue to provide
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the
public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov, as there may
be delay in processing mail. Hand deliveries and couriers may be
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information of EPA
Docket Center Services and the current status, please visit us online
at https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For information on chemical
contaminants contact Kesha Forrest, Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water, Standards and Risk Management Division, at (202) 564-3632 or
email [email protected]. For information on microbial contaminants
contact Nicole Tucker, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water,
Standards and Risk Management Division, at (202) 564-1946 or email
[email protected].
For more information visit https://www.epa.gov/ccl.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Table of Contents
I. General Information
A. Does this action impose any requirements on public water
systems?
B. Public Participation
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
II. Purpose, Background, and Statutory Requirements of This Action
A. What is the purpose of this action?
B. Background and Statutory Requirements for CCL, Regulatory
Determinations and Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
1. Contaminant Candidate List
2. Regulatory Determinations
3. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
C. Interrelationship of the CCL, Regulatory Determinations, and
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
D. Summary of Previous CCLs and Regulatory Determinations
1. The First Contaminant Candidate List
2. The Regulatory Determinations for CCL 1 Contaminants
3. The Second Contaminant Candidate List
4. The Regulatory Determinations for CCL 2 Contaminants
[[Page 37949]]
5. The Third Contaminant Candidate List
6. The Regulatory Determinations for CCL 3 Contaminants
7. The Fourth Contaminant Candidate List
8. The Regulatory Determinations for CCL 4 Contaminants
E. Summary of the Approach Used To Identify Contaminants for the
Draft CCL 5
1. Chemical Contaminants
2. Microbial Contaminants
F. What is included on the Draft CCL 5?
III. Developing the Draft CCL 5
A. Approach Used To Identify Chemical Candidates for the Draft
CCL 5
1. Building the Chemical Universe
2. Screening Chemicals to a PCCL
a. Screening the Chemical Universe
b. Publicly Nominated Chemicals
c. Chemicals Excluded From the PCCL
i. Regulatory Determinations
ii. Canceled Pesticides
d. Summary of the PCCL
3. Classification of PCCL Chemicals To Select the Draft CCL
a. Supplemental Data Collection
i. Occurrence
ii. Health Effects
b. Calculated Data Elements
i. Health Reference Levels and CCL Screening Levels
ii. Final Hazard Quotients
iii. Attribute Scores
c. Evaluation Team Listing Decision Process
d. Logistic Regression
e. Chemical Groups on the Draft CCL 5
B. Approach Used To Identify Microbial Candidates for the Draft
CCL 5
1. Building the Microbial Universe
2. Screening the Microbial Universe to the PCCL
3. The PCCL to Draft CCL Process
a. Waterborne Disease Outbreak (WBDO) Protocol
b. Occurrence Protocol
c. Health Effects Protocol
d. Combining Protocol Scores to Rank Pathogens
e. Selection of the Draft CCL Microbes
f. Organisms Covered by Existing Regulations
C. Summary of Nominated Candidates for the Draft CCL 5
1. Data Sources for the Nominated Chemical and Microbial
Contaminants
a. Chemical Nominations
b. Microbial Nominations
2. Listing Outcomes for the Nominated Chemical Contaminants
3. Listing Outcomes for the Nominated Microbial Contaminants
D. Data Availability Assessment for the Draft CCL 5 Chemicals
IV. Request for Comments
V. EPA's Next Steps
VI. References
I. General Information
A. Does this action impose any requirements on public water systems?
The Draft Contaminant Candidate List 5 (CCL 5) and the Final CCL 5,
when published, will not impose any requirements on regulated entities.
B. Public Participation
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-
0594, at https://www.regulations.gov (our preferred method), or the
other methods identified in the ADDRESSES section of this document.
Once submitted, comments cannot be edited or removed from the docket.
EPA may publish any comment received to its public docket. Do not
submit electronically any information you consider to be Confidential
Business Information (CBI) or other information whose disclosure is
restricted by statute. Multimedia submissions (audio, video, etc.) must
be accompanied by a written comment. The written comment is considered
the official comment and should include discussion of all points you
wish to make. EPA will generally not consider comments or comment
contents located outside of the primary submission (i.e., on the web,
cloud, or other file sharing system). For additional submission
methods, the full EPA public comment policy, information about CBI or
multimedia submissions, and general guidance on making effective
comments, please visit https://www.epa.gov/dockets/commenting-epa-dockets.
EPA is temporarily suspending its Docket Center and Reading Room
for public visitors, with limited exceptions, to reduce the risk of
transmitting COVID-19. Our Docket Center Staff will continue to provide
remote customer service via email, phone, and webform. We encourage the
public to submit comments via https://www.regulations.gov/ as there may
be a delay in processing mail. Hand deliveries or couriers will be
received by scheduled appointment only. For further information and
updates on EPA Docket Center services, please visit us online at
https://www.epa.gov/dockets.
EPA continues to carefully monitor information from the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), local area health departments,
and our federal partners so that we can respond rapidly as conditions
change regarding COVID-19.
C. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?
You may find the following suggestions helpful for preparing your
comments:
Explain your views as clearly as possible.
Describe any assumptions that you used.
Provide any technical information and/or data you used that support
your views.
Provide full references for any peer reviewed publication you used
that support your views.
Provide specific examples to illustrate your concerns.
Offer alternatives.
Make sure to submit your comments by the comment period deadline.
To ensure proper receipt by EPA, identify the appropriate docket
identification number in the subject line on the first page of your
response. It would also be helpful if you provided the name, date, and
Federal Register citation related to your comments.
II. Purpose, Background, and Statutory Requirements of This Action
This section briefly summarizes the purpose of this action, the
statutory requirements, previous activities related to the CCL and the
approach used to develop the Draft CCL 5.
A. What is the purpose of this action?
The purpose of this action is to present EPA's Draft CCL 5 and the
rationale for the selection process used to make the list. This Draft
CCL 5, when finalized, is subsequently used to make regulatory
determinations on whether to regulate at least five contaminants from
the CCL with national primary drinking water regulations (NPDWRs) under
the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), section 1412(b)(1)(B)(ii). This
action only addresses the Draft CCL 5. The regulatory determinations
process for contaminants on the CCL is a separate agency action. EPA
requests comment on the Draft CCL 5 and on improvements implemented in
the CCL 5 process for consideration in developing future CCLs.
B. Background and Statutory Requirements for CCL, Regulatory
Determinations and Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
1. Contaminant Candidate List
SDWA section 1412(b)(1)(B)(i), as amended in 1996, requires EPA to
publish the CCL every five years. The SDWA specifies that the list must
include contaminants that are not subject to any proposed or
promulgated NPDWRs, are known or anticipated to occur in public water
systems (PWSs), and may require regulation under the SDWA. The
unregulated contaminants considered for listing shall include, but not
be limited to, hazardous substances identified in section 101(14) of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of 1980, and substances registered as pesticides under the
Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
[[Page 37950]]
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). The SDWA directs EPA to consider the health
effects and occurrence information for unregulated contaminants to
identify those contaminants that present the greatest public health
concern related to exposure from drinking water. The statute further
directs EPA to take into consideration the effect of contaminants upon
subgroups that comprise a meaningful portion of the general population
(such as infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly, and
individuals with a history of serious illness or other subpopulations)
that are identifiable as being at greater risk of adverse health
effects due to exposure to contaminants in drinking water than the
general population. EPA considers age-related subgroups as
``lifestages'' in reference to a distinguishable time frame in an
individual's life characterized by unique and relatively stable
behavioral and/or physiological characteristics that are associated
with development and growth. Thus, childhood is viewed as a sequence of
stages, from conception through fetal development, infancy and
adolescence (see https://www2.epa.gov/children/early-life-stages).
2. Regulatory Determinations
SDWA section 1412(b)(1)(B)(ii), as amended in 1996, requires EPA,
at five-year intervals, to make determinations of whether or not to
regulate no fewer than five contaminants from the CCL. The 1996 SDWA
Amendments specify three criteria to determine whether a contaminant
may require regulation:
The contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of
persons;
The contaminant is known to occur or there is a substantial
likelihood that the contaminant will occur in public water systems
with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and
In the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such
contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health risk
reduction for persons served by public water systems.
If, after considering public comment on a preliminary determination,
EPA makes a determination to regulate a contaminant, the agency will
initiate the process to propose an NPDWR.\1\ In that case, the
statutory time frame provides for EPA proposal of a regulation within
24 months and action on a final regulation within 18 months of
proposal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An NPDWR is a legally enforceable standard that applies to
public water systems. An NPDWR sets a legal limit (called a maximum
contaminant level or MCL) or specifies a certain treatment technique
for public water systems for a specific contaminant or group of
contaminants. The MCL is the highest level of a contaminant that is
allowed in drinking water and is set as close to the MCLG as
feasible, using the best available treatment technology and taking
cost into consideration.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
3. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule
SDWA section 1445(a)(2), as amended in 1996, requires that once
every five years, beginning in 1999, EPA issues a new list of no more
than 30 unregulated contaminants to be monitored in drinking water by
PWSs. Monitoring is required by all PWSs serving more than 10,000
persons. The SDWA, as amended by America's Water Infrastructure Act of
2018, expands the requirements of the program and specifies that,
subject to availability of appropriations and laboratory capacity, the
UCMR program shall include all systems serving between 3,300 and 10,000
persons and a nationally representative sample of PWSs serving fewer
than 3,300 persons. The program would continue to require monitoring by
PWSs serving more than 10,000 persons. The SDWA also requires EPA to
enter the monitoring data into the publicly available National
Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD). This national occurrence data
is used to inform regulatory decisions for emerging contaminants in
drinking water. Since the development of the UCMR program, EPA has
issued four UCMRs. The UCMR 1 was published in the Federal Register on
September 17, 1999 (64 FR 50556, USEPA, 1999), and required monitoring
for 26 contaminants from 2001 to 2005. The UCMR 2 was published in the
Federal Register on January 4, 2007 (72 FR 368, USEPA, 2007), and
required monitoring for 25 contaminants from 2008 to 2010. The UCMR 3
was published in the Federal Register on May 2, 2012 (77 FR 26072,
USEPA, 2012a), and required monitoring for 30 contaminants: 28
chemicals and two viruses from 2013 to 2015. The UCMR 4 was published
in the Federal Register on December 20, 2016 (81 FR 92666, USEPA,
2016a), and required monitoring for 30 contaminants from 2018 to 2020.
Seventeen of the contaminants being monitored under the UCMR 4 were
included on the CCL 4 and 13 chemicals or chemical groups monitored
under the UCMR 4 are included on the Draft CCL 5. EPA published the
UCMR 5 proposal in the Federal Register on March 11, 2021 (86 FR 13846,
USEPA, 2021a). The proposed UCMR 5 would require monitoring for 29 per-
and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) and lithium in drinking water
from 2023 to 2025. The Draft CCL 5 includes all of the contaminants
that are proposed for monitoring on the UCMR 5.
C. Interrelationship of the CCL, Regulatory Determinations, and
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
The CCL is the first step in the SDWA regulatory framework for
screening and evaluating the subset of contaminants that may require
future regulation. The CCL serves as the initial screening of potential
contaminants to consider for regulatory determinations. However,
inclusion on the CCL does not mean that any particular contaminant will
necessarily be regulated in the future.
The UCMR provides a mechanism to obtain nationally representative
occurrence data for contaminants in drinking water. Historically, most
unregulated contaminants chosen by EPA for monitoring have been
selected from the CCL. When selecting contaminants for monitoring under
the UCMR, EPA considers the availability of health effects data and the
need for national occurrence data for contaminants, as well as
analytical method availability, availability of analytical standards,
sampling costs, and laboratory capacity to support a nationwide
monitoring program. The contaminant occurrence data collected under the
UCMR serves to better inform future CCLs and regulatory determinations.
Contaminants on the CCL are evaluated based on health effects and
occurrence information and those contaminants with sufficient
information to make a regulatory determination are then evaluated based
on the three statutory criteria in SDWA section 1412(b)(1), to
determine whether a regulation is required (called a positive
determination) or not required (called a negative determination). Under
the SDWA, EPA must make regulatory determinations for at least five
contaminants listed on the CCL every five years. For those contaminants
without sufficient information to allow EPA to make a regulatory
determination, the agency encourages research to provide the
information needed to fill the data gaps to determine whether to
regulate the contaminant.
This action addresses only the CCL 5 and not the UCMR or regulatory
determinations.
D. Summary of Previous CCLs and Regulatory Determinations
1. The First Contaminant Candidate List
The first CCL (CCL 1) was published on March 2, 1998 (63 FR 10274,
USEPA, 1998). The CCL 1 was developed based on recommendations by the
National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) and reviewed by
technical experts. It contained 50 chemicals and 10 microbial
contaminants/groups.
[[Page 37951]]
2. The Regulatory Determinations for CCL 1 Contaminants
EPA published its final regulatory determinations for a subset of
contaminants listed on the CCL 1 on July 18, 2003 (68 FR 42898, USEPA,
2003). EPA identified 9 contaminants from the 60 contaminants listed on
the CCL 1 that had sufficient data and information available to make
regulatory determinations. The nine contaminants were Acanthamoeba,
aldrin, dieldrin, hexachlorobutadiene, manganese, metribuzin,
naphthalene, sodium, and sulfate. EPA determined that no regulatory
action was appropriate or necessary for any of the nine contaminants at
that time. EPA subsequently issued guidance on Acanthamoeba and Health
Advisories for manganese, sodium, and sulfate.
3. The Second Contaminant Candidate List
EPA published the Final CCL 2 on February 24, 2005 (70 FR 9071,
USEPA, 2005). EPA carried forward the 51 remaining chemical and
microbial contaminants from the CCL 1 (that did not have regulatory
determinations) to the CCL 2.
4. The Regulatory Determinations for CCL 2 Contaminants
EPA published its final regulatory determinations for a subset of
contaminants listed on the CCL 2 on July 30, 2008 (73 FR 44251, USEPA,
2008). EPA identified 11 contaminants from the 51 contaminants listed
on the CCL 2 that had sufficient data and information available to make
regulatory determinations. The 11 contaminants were boron, the dacthal
mono- and di-acid degradates, 1,1-dichloro-2,2-bis (p-chlorophenyl)
ethylene (DDE), 1,3-dichloropropene, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 2,6-
dinitrotoluene, s-ethyl propylthiocarbamate (EPTC), fonofos, terbacil,
and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane. EPA made a final determination that no
regulatory action was appropriate or necessary for any of the 11
contaminants. New or updated Health Advisories were subsequently issued
for: Boron, the dacthal degradates, 2,4-dinitrotoluene, 2,6-
dinitrotoluene, and 1,1,2,2-tetrachloroethane.
5. The Third Contaminant Candidate List
EPA published the Final CCL 3 on October 8, 2009 (74 FR 51850,
USEPA, 2009). In developing the CCL 3, EPA implemented an improved,
stepwise process which built on the previous CCL process and was based
on expert input and recommendations from the National Academy of
Sciences' National Research Council (NRC), the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council (NDWAC), and the Science Advisory Board (SAB). The CCL
3 contained 104 chemicals or chemical groups and 12 microbial
contaminants.
6. The Regulatory Determinations for CCL 3 Contaminants
On February 11, 2011, EPA published in the Federal Register (76 FR
7762, USEPA, 2011) a determination that perchlorate (a CCL 3
contaminant) met the criteria for regulating a contaminant under the
SDWA based upon the information available at that time. On January 4,
2016, EPA published in the Federal Register (81 FR 13, USEPA, 2016b)
final determinations not to regulate four additional CCL 3
contaminants--dimethoate, 1,3-dinitrobenzene, terbufos and terbufos
sulfone.
EPA published a proposed rulemaking for perchlorate in the Federal
Register on June 26, 2019 (85 FR 43990, USEPA, 2019a), and sought
public input on regulatory alternatives for perchlorate, including
withdrawal of the previous regulatory determination. Based on the
evaluation of public comments, and review of the updated scientific
data, EPA withdrew the 2011 regulatory determination and made a final
determination not to regulate perchlorate on July 21, 2020 (85 FR
43990, USEPA, 2020). EPA is reviewing this final determination in
accordance with President Biden's Executive Order No. 13990 (86 FR
7037, Executive Office of the President, 2021).
7. The Fourth Contaminant Candidate List
EPA published the Final CCL 4 in the Federal Register on November
17, 2016 (81 FR 81099, USEPA, 2016c). The Final CCL 4 contained 97
chemicals or chemical groups and 12 microbial contaminants. All
contaminants listed on the Final CCL 4 were carried forward from CCL 3,
except for manganese and nonylphenol, which were nominated by the
public to be included on the CCL 4. For information about publicly
nominated contaminants for the CCL 5, see Section III.C.1 of this
document.
8. The Regulatory Determinations for CCL 4 Contaminants
On March 3, 2021, EPA published final regulatory determinations for
eight contaminants on the CCL 4 (86 FR 12272, USEPA, 2021b). EPA made
final determinations to regulate perfluorooctanesulfonic acid (PFOS)
and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) in drinking water and to not regulate
six contaminants 1,1-dichloroethane, acetochlor, methyl bromide
(bromomethane), metolachlor, nitrobenzene, and 1,3,5-Trinitro-1,3,5-
triazinane (RDX).
E. Summary of the Approach Used To Identify Contaminants for the Draft
CCL 5
In developing the Draft CCL 5, EPA followed the stepwise process
used in developing the CCL 3 and CCL 4, which was based on expert input
and recommendations from the SAB, NRC and NDWAC. Note that EPA used an
abbreviated process for the CCL 4 by carrying forward the CCL 3
contaminants (81 FR 81099, USEPA, 2016c). In each cycle of the CCL, EPA
attempts to improve the CCL development process in response to comments
from the SAB and the public. Therefore, in developing the Draft CCL 5,
EPA implemented improvements to the CCL process to better identify,
screen, and classify potential drinking water contaminants. EPA's
approach utilizes the best available data to characterize the
occurrence and adverse health risks a chemical may pose from potential
drinking water exposure.
Exhibit 1 illustrates a generalized 3-step process EPA applied to
both chemical and microbial contaminants for the Draft CCL 5. The
agency began with a large Universe of contaminants, screened it down to
a Preliminary CCL 5, then finally selected the Draft CCL 5. The
specific execution of particular steps differed in detail for the
chemical and microbial contaminants. Each step of the Draft CCL 5
process and associated number of chemical and microbial contaminants
are described in Section III of this document.
[[Page 37952]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP19JY21.002
1. Chemical Contaminants
EPA followed 3 three-step process illustrated in Exhibit 1 to
identify chemicals for inclusion on the Draft CCL 5. These steps
included:
Step 1. Building a broad universe of potential drinking water
contaminants (called the CCL 5 Chemical Universe). EPA evaluated 134
data sources and identified 43 that were related to potential drinking
water chemical contaminants and met established CCL assessment factors.
From these data sources, EPA identified and extracted occurrence and
health effects data for the 21,894 chemicals that form the CCL 5
Chemical Universe.
Step 2. Screening the CCL 5 Chemical Universe to identify a list of
chemicals that should be further evaluated (called the Preliminary CCL
5 (PCCL 5)). EPA established and applied a data-driven screening points
system to identify and prioritize a subset of chemicals with the
greatest potential for public health concern. The agency also
incorporated publicly nominated chemicals to the PCCL 5.
Step 3. Classifying PCCL 5 chemicals to select the Draft CCL 5
chemicals. EPA compiled occurrence and health effects information for
use by two evaluation teams of EPA scientists. The evaluation teams
reviewed this information for each chemical before reaching a group
decision on whether to list a chemical on the Draft CCL 5.
A more detailed description of the processes used to develop the
Draft CCL 5 of chemicals using these steps can be found in the
Technical Support Document for the Draft Fifth Contaminant Candidate
List (CCL 5)--Chemical Contaminants (USEPA, 2021c).
2. Microbial Contaminants
EPA followed the 3-step process illustrated in Exhibit 1 to
identify microbes for inclusion on the Draft CCL 5. For microbial
contaminants, these steps included:
Step 1. Building a broad universe of all microbes that may cause
human disease.
Step 2. Screening that universe of microbial contaminants to
produce a PCCL 5.
Step 3. Selecting the Draft CCL 5 microbial list by ranking the
PCCL 5 contaminants based on occurrence in drinking water (including
waterborne disease outbreaks) and human health effects.
This approach is similar to that used by EPA for the CCL 3, with
updates made to the microbial screening process in response to SAB and
stakeholder comments. EPA re-examined all 12 microbial exclusionary
screening criteria used in previous CCLs and modified one criterion for
the CCL 5. More details on the screening process are presented in the
Technical Support Document for the Draft Fifth Candidate List (CCL 5)--
Microbial Contaminants (USEPA, 2021d). (Note, referred to as the
Microbial Technical Support Document thereafter.)
F. What is included on the Draft CCL 5?
The Draft CCL 5 includes 81 contaminants or groups (Exhibits 2a,
2b, and 2c). The list is comprised of 69 chemicals or chemical groups
and 12 microbes. The 69 chemicals or chemical groups include 66
chemicals recommended for listing following an improved process to
evaluate the PCCL, one group of cyanotoxins, one group of disinfection
byproducts (DBPs), and one group of PFAS chemicals. The 12 microbes
include 8 bacteria, 3 viruses, and 1 protozoa recommended for listing
based on the scores for waterborne disease outbreaks, occurrence,
health effects, and recommendations from various experts.
[[Page 37953]]
Exhibit 2a--Chemical Contaminants on the Draft CCL 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical name CASRN \1\ DTXSID \2\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,2,3-Trichloropropane................................. 96-18-4 DTXSID9021390
1,4-Dioxane............................................ 123-91-1 DTXSID4020533
17-alpha ethynyl estradiol............................. 57-63-6 DTXSID5020576
2,4-Dinitrophenol...................................... 51-28-5 DTXSID0020523
2-Aminotoluene......................................... 95-53-4 DTXSID1026164
2-Hydroxyatrazine...................................... 2163-68-0 DTXSID6037807
4-Nonylphenol (all isomers)............................ 25154-52-3 DTXSID3021857
6-Chloro-1,3,5-triazine-2,4-diamine.................... 3397-62-4 DTXSID1037806
Acephate............................................... 30560-19-1 DTXSID8023846
Acrolein............................................... 107-02-8 DTXSID5020023
alpha-Hexachlorocyclohexane (alpha-HCH)................ 319-84-6 DTXSID2020684
Anthraquinone.......................................... 84-65-1 DTXSID3020095
Bensulide.............................................. 741-58-2 DTXSID9032329
Bisphenol A............................................ 80-05-7 DTXSID7020182
Boron.................................................. 7440-42-8 DTXSID3023922
Bromoxynil............................................. 1689-84-5 DTXSID3022162
Carbaryl............................................... 63-25-2 DTXSID9020247
Carbendazim (MBC)...................................... 10605-21-7 DTXSID4024729
Chlordecone (Kepone)................................... 143-50-0 DTXSID1020770
Chlorpyrifos........................................... 2921-88-2 DTXSID4020458
Cobalt................................................. 7440-48-4 DTXSID1031040
Cyanotoxins \3\........................................ Multiple Multiple
Deethylatrazine........................................ 6190-65-4 DTXSID5037494
Desisopropyl atrazine.................................. 1007-28-9 DTXSID0037495
Desvenlafaxine......................................... 93413-62-8 DTXSID40869118
Diazinon............................................... 333-41-5 DTXSID9020407
Dicrotophos............................................ 141-66-2 DTXSID9023914
Dieldrin............................................... 60-57-1 DTXSID9020453
Dimethoate............................................. 60-51-5 DTXSID7020479
Disinfection byproducts (DBPs) \4\..................... Multiple Multiple
Diuron................................................. 330-54-1 DTXSID0020446
Ethalfluralin.......................................... 55283-68-6 DTXSID8032386
Ethoprop............................................... 13194-48-4 DTXSID4032611
Fipronil............................................... 120068-37-3 DTXSID4034609
Fluconazole............................................ 86386-73-4 DTXSID3020627
Flufenacet............................................. 142459-58-3 DTXSID2032552
Fluometuron............................................ 2164-17-2 DTXSID8020628
Iprodione.............................................. 36734-19-7 DTXSID3024154
Lithium................................................ 7439-93-2 DTXSID5036761
Malathion.............................................. 121-75-5 DTXSID4020791
Manganese.............................................. 7439-96-5 DTXSID2024169
Methomyl............................................... 16752-77-5 DTXSID1022267
Methyl tert-butyl ether (MTBE)......................... 1634-04-4 DTXSID3020833
Methylmercury.......................................... 22967-92-6 DTXSID9024198
Molybdenum............................................. 7439-98-7 DTXSID1024207
Norflurazon............................................ 27314-13-2 DTXSID8024234
Oxyfluorfen............................................ 42874-03-3 DTXSID7024241
Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances (PFAS) \5\......... Multiple Multiple
Permethrin............................................. 52645-53-1 DTXSID8022292
Phorate................................................ 298-02-2 DTXSID4032459
Phosmet................................................ 732-11-6 DTXSID5024261
Phostebupirim.......................................... 96182-53-5 DTXSID1032482
Profenofos............................................. 41198-08-7 DTXSID3032464
Propachlor............................................. 1918-16-7 DTXSID4024274
Propanil............................................... 709-98-8 DTXSID8022111
Propargite............................................. 2312-35-8 DTXSID4024276
Propazine.............................................. 139-40-2 DTXSID3021196
Propoxur............................................... 114-26-1 DTXSID7021948
Quinoline.............................................. 91-22-5 DTXSID1021798
Tebuconazole........................................... 107534-96-3 DTXSID9032113
Terbufos............................................... 13071-79-9 DTXSID2022254
Thiamethoxam........................................... 153719-23-4 DTXSID2034962
Tri-allate............................................. 2303-17-5 DTXSID5024344
Tribufos............................................... 78-48-8 DTXSID1024174
Tributyl phosphate..................................... 126-73-8 DTXSID3021986
Trimethylbenzene (1,2,4-).............................. 95-63-6 DTXSID6021402
Tris(2-chloroethyl) phosphate (TCEP)................... 115-96-8 DTXSID5021411
Tungsten............................................... 7440-33-7 DTXSID8052481
Vanadium............................................... 7440-62-2 DTXSID2040282
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Chemical Abstracts Service Registry Number (CASRN) is a unique identifier assigned by the Chemical Abstracts
Service (a division of the American Chemical Society) to every chemical substance (organic and inorganic
compounds, polymers, elements, nuclear particles, etc.) in the open scientific literature. It contains up to
10 digits, seperated by hyphens into three parts.
[[Page 37954]]
\2\ Distributed Structure Searchable Toxicity Substance Identifiers (DTXSID) is a unique substance identifier
used in EPA's CompTox Chemicals database, where a substance can be any single chemical, mixture or polymer.
\3\ Toxins naturally produced and released by some species of cyanobacteria (previously known as ``blue-green
algae''). The group of cyanotoxins includes, but is not limited to: Anatoxin-a, cylindrospermopsin,
microcystins, and saxitoxin.
\4\ This group includes 23 unregulated DBPs as shown in Exhibit 2b.
\5\ This group is inclusive of any PFAS (except for PFOA and PFOS). For the purposes of this document, the
structural definition of PFAS includes per- and polyfluorinated substances that structurally contain the unit
R-(CF2)-C(F)(R')R''. Both the CF2 and CF moieties are saturated carbons and none of the R groups (R, R' or
R'') can be hydrogen (USEPA, 2021f).
Exhibit 2b--Unregulated DBPs in the DBP Group on the Draft CCL 5
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical name CASRN DTXSID
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Haloacetic Acids:
Bromochloroacetic acid (BCAA)...................... 5589-96-8 DTXSID4024642
Bromodichloroacetic acid (BDCAA)................... 71133-14-7 DTXSID4024644
Dibromochloroacetic acid (DBCAA)................... 631-64-1 DTXSID3031151
Tribromoacetic acid (TBAA)......................... 75-96-7 DTXSID6021668
Haloacetonitriles:
Dichloroacetonitrile (DCAN)........................ 3018-12-0 DTXSID3021562
Dibromoacetonitrile (DBAN)......................... 3252-43-5 DTXSID3024940
Halonitromethanes:
Bromodichloronitromethane (BDCNM).................. 918-01-4 DTXSID4021509
Chloropicrin (trichloronitromethane, TCNM)......... 76-96-2 DTXSID0020315
Dibromochloronitromethane (DBCNM).................. 1184-89-0 DTXSID00152114
Iodinated Trihalomethanes:
Bromochloroiodomethane (BCIM)...................... 34970-00-8 DTXSID4021503
Bromodiiodomethane (BDIM).......................... 557-95-9 DTXSID70204235
Chlorodiiodomethane (CDIM)......................... 638-73-3 DTXSID20213251
Dibromoiodomethane (DBIM).......................... 557-68-6 DTXSID60208040
Dichloroiodomethane (DCIM)......................... 594-04-7 DTXSID7021570
Iodoform (triiodomethane, TIM)..................... 75-47-8 DTXSID4020743
Nitrosamines:
Nitrosodibutylamine (NDBA)......................... 924-16-3 DTXSID2021026
N-Nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA)....................... 55-18-5 DTXSID2021028
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA)...................... 62-75-9 DTXSID7021029
N-Nitrosodi-n-propylamine (NDPA)................... 621-64-7 DTXSID6021032
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine (NDPhA)..................... 86-30-6 DTXSID6021030
Nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR).......................... 930-55-2 DTXSID8021062
Others:
Chlorate........................................... 14866-68-3 DTXSID3073137
Formaldehyde....................................... 50-00-0 DTXSID7020637
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Exhibit 2c--Microbial Contaminants on the Draft CCL 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microbial name Microbial class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adenovirus................................. Virus.
Caliciviruses.............................. Virus.
Campylobacter jejuni....................... Bacteria.
Escherichia coli (O157).................... Bacteria.
Enteroviruses.............................. Virus.
Helicobacter pylori........................ Bacteria.
Legionella pneumophila..................... Bacteria.
Mycobacterium abscessus.................... Bacteria.
Mycobacterium avium........................ Bacteria.
Naegleria fowleri.......................... Protozoa.
Pseudomonas aeruginosa..................... Bacteria.
Shigella sonnei............................ Bacteria.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Developing the Draft CCL 5
A. Approach Used To Identify Chemical Candidates for the Draft CCL 5
The SDWA directs EPA to consider health effects and occurrence
information on unregulated contaminants to identify those that present
the greatest public health concern related to exposure from drinking
water. EPA gathered this information into a data directory that
supports the evaluation of contaminants over the three steps of the CCL
5 development process, as outlined in Section II.E.1 of this document.
1. Building the Chemical Universe
The goal of the first step of the CCL 5 development process for
chemical candidates is to identify a broad universe of potential
drinking water contaminants. EPA began the CCL 5 development process by
compiling data sources to identify chemicals that would form a broad
CCL 5 Chemical Universe (e.g., a list of contaminants identified
through health and occurrence data sources that are relevant, complete,
retrievable, and not redundant). EPA compiled data sources identified
from the CCL 3 and the CCL 4, along with data sources recommended by
the CCL 5 EPA workgroup and subject matter experts. Information on how
EPA addressed data sources provided through the public nomination
process is described in Section III.C.1 of this document. As a result
of this effort, EPA identified 134 potential data sources and further
assessed their potential use for the CCL 5 development process. EPA
accessed each potential data source online and evaluated them using the
following assessment factors:
Relevance: The data source contains information on demonstrated or
potential health effects, occurrence, or potential occurrence of
contaminants using surrogate information (e.g., environmental release,
environmental fate and transport properties);
Completeness: The data source either (a) has been peer-reviewed, or
(b) provides a description of the data, information on how the data
were obtained, and contact information regarding the data source;
Redundancy: The data source does not contain information identical
to other more comprehensive data sources also being considered; and,
Retrievability: The data are formatted for automated retrieval
(e.g., data are stored in a tabular format) and publicly accessible.
Out of the 134 potential data sources, 43 met all four assessment
factors and were therefore considered ``primary data sources'' that
were used to build the CCL 5 Chemical Universe. Data sources that met
the first three assessment
[[Page 37955]]
factors but were not retrievable were set aside as potential
supplemental sources, some of which were used as part of the CCL 5
classification process, as discussed further in this section as well as
Sections III.A.4 and III.C of this document. More information on how
data sources were assessed and extracted is provided in Sections 2.2
and 2.3, respectively, of the Chemical Technical Support Document
(USEPA, 2021c).
EPA downloaded data from the 43 primary data sources and
categorized them as sources of health effects (Exhibit 3) or occurrence
(Exhibit 4) data. In total, 21,894 chemicals were identified from the
43 primary data sources.
Out of the 43 primary data sources, EPA identified 17 sources of
health effects data that met the assessment factors of relevance,
completeness, redundancy, and retrievability. One additional health
effects data source, the Hazardous Substances Data Bank (HSDB), did not
meet the retrievability factor but was designated as a primary data
source. The HSDB is a data rich source, and the only source of Lethal
Dose, 50% (LD50s) for the CCL 5 development process.
Therefore, additional effort was taken to extract this data, as was
done with the CCL 3 development process (USEPA, 2009a). These 18 data
sources, listed in Exhibit 3, include both qualitative and quantitative
data.
Exhibit 3--CCL 5 Health Effects Primary Data Sources
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data source Agency or author 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Centers for Disease Control and
Registry (ATSDR) Minimal Risk Levels Prevention (CDC).
(MRLs).
Cancer Potency Data Bank............... National Library of Medicine,
U.S. Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS).
Drinking Water Standards and Health EPA.
Advisory Tables.
Guidelines for Canadian Drinking Water Health Canada.
Quality.
Guidelines for Drinking-Water Quality.. World Health Organization
(WHO).
Hazardous Substances Data Bank......... National Library of Medicine,
HHS.
Health-Based Screening Levels (HBSLs).. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS).
Human Health-Based Water Guidance Table Minnesota Department of Health.
Human Health Benchmarks for Pesticides. EPA.
Integrated Risk Information System EPA.
(IRIS).
International Agency for Research on WHO.
Cancer Classifications.
Maximum Recommended Daily Dose (MRDD) U.S. Food and Drug
Database. Administration (FDA).
National Recommended Water Quality EPA.
Criteria--Human Health Criteria.
National Toxicology Program (NTP) HHS.
Cancer Classifications.
Provisional Peer-Reviewed Toxicity EPA.
Values (PPRTVs).
Screening Levels for Pharmaceuticals... FDA [email protected] database,
National Institutes of Health
(NIH) DailyMed Database.
Toxicity Criteria Database............. California Environmental
Protection Agency (CalEPA)
Office of Environmental Health
Hazard Assessment.
Toxicity Reference Database (ToxRefDB). EPA
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ References for the data sources listed in Exhibit 3 are provided in
Appendix N of the Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021c).
EPA identified 25 sources of occurrence related data that met the
assessment factors of relevance, completeness, redundancy, and
retrievability. These data sources, listed in Exhibit 4, include both
qualitative and quantitative data.
Exhibit 4--CCL 5 Occurrence Primary Data Sources
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Data source Agency or author \1\
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ATSDR Comprehensive Environmental CDC.
Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) Substance Priority List.
Chemical Data Reporting (CDR) Results.... EPA.
``Concentrations of prioritized Kostich et al. 2014.
pharmaceuticals in effluents from 50
large wastewater treatment plants in the
US and implications for risk
estimation''.
Disinfection By-product Information EPA.
Collection Rule (DBP ICR).
``Evaluating the extent of Batt et al. 2016.
pharmaceuticals in surface waters of the
United States using a National-scale
Rivers and Streams Assessment survey''.
``Expanded target-chemical analysis Bradley et al. 2017.
reveals extensive mixed-organic-
contaminant exposure in U.S. streams''.
Federal Insecticide Fungicide, and EPA.
Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) List.
``Legacy and emerging perfluoroalkyl Sun et al. 2016.
substances are important emerging water
contaminants in the Cape Fear River
Watershed of North Carolina''.
National Health and Nutrition Examination CDC.
Survey (NHANES).
National Inorganics and Radionuclides EPA.
Survey (NIRS).
National Water Information System (NWIS). Water Quality Portal, USGS.
National Water-Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Water Quality Portal, USGS.
``Nationwide reconnaissance of Glassmeyer et al. 2017.
contaminants of emerging concern in
source and treated drinking waters of
the United States''.
``Nationwide reconnaissance of Furlong et al. 2017.
contaminants of emerging concern in
source and treated drinking waters of
the United States: Pharmaceuticals''.
[[Page 37956]]
Pesticide Data Program................... U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA).
Pesticide Use Estimates.................. USGS.
``Pharmaceutical manufacturing facility Scott et al. 2018.
discharges can substantially increase
the pharmaceutical load to US
wastewaters''.
``Predicting variability of aquatic Kostich et al. 2010.
concentrations of human
pharmaceuticals''.
``Reconnaissance of mixed organic and Bradley et al. 2018.
inorganic chemicals in private and
public supply tapwaters at selected
residential and workplace sites in the
United States''.
Surface Water Database (SURF)............ California Department of Pesticide Regulation.
``Suspect screening and non-targeted Newton et al. 2018.
analysis of drinking water using point-
of-use filters''.
Toxics Release Inventory (TRI)........... EPA.
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule EPA.
(UCMR) Cycles 1-3.
UCMR Cycle 4............................. EPA.
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring-State EPA.
(UCM-State) Rounds 1 and 2.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ References for the data sources listed in Exhibit 4 are provided in Appendix N of the Chemical Technical
Support Document (USEPA, 2021c).
To ensure consistency and accuracy of the data across such a large
data directory with a multitude of sources, EPA utilized the
Distributed Structure--Searchable Toxicity Substance Identifiers
(DTXSIDs) and tools provided in EPA's CompTox Chemicals Dashboard
(Williams et al., 2017). This dashboard provides easy access to results
from several models developed by EPA and others that predict toxicity
endpoints, physicochemical properties, and environmental fate and
exposure parameters for specific chemicals, as well as tools to
efficiently and accurately match chemicals with DTXSIDs. With these
tools and identifiers, EPA was able to match a chemical that may have
been reported differently (i.e., with different names or other
identifiers) across CCL 5 data sources to one DTXSID. EPA linked these
identifiers with descriptors that characterize toxicological and
occurrence information, referred to as ``data elements,'' to ensure
that data for each chemical would be available for use in later steps
of the CCL 5 development process. EPA also considered the CompTox
Chemicals Dashboard as a supplemental data source, as described in
Section 2.4.3 of the Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA,
2021c).
While building the CCL 5 Chemical Universe, EPA took several steps
to ensure that the chemical identifiers were accurate, and that the
data elements gathered across sources were uniform and comparable, as
described in Section 2.4.4 of the Chemical Technical Support Document
(USEPA, 2021c). The result of the first step of the CCL 5 development
process was the CCL 5 Chemical Universe that provided a starting point
for screening chemicals for inclusion on the PCCL 5, as described in
Section III.A.2 of this document.
At later stages in the CCL 5 development process, EPA also
collected data from supplemental data sources, which, along with data
from the 43 primary data sources, was used to aid in further evaluation
of chemicals for listing on the Draft CCL 5. As described in Section
2.2.3 of the Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021c),
supplemental sources were used to fill data gaps as part of the CCL 5
classification step (see Section III.A.3 of this document). For
example, EPA conducted literature searches to identify peer-reviewed
studies that are considered supplemental data sources to aid in the
evaluations of chemicals of interest (see Section III.A.3.a of this
document). Supplemental data could also come from sources cited in
public nominations (see Section III.C of this document). While these
sources could most often not be efficiently or effectively incorporated
into the screening process, they were often an important source of
detail and description that supported CCL 5 listing decisions. This
effort to combine data collected from primary data sources along with
data from supplemental data sources resulted in the most comprehensive
data compilation for universe chemicals collected for any CCL iteration
to date. For more information about the specific iterative steps taken
to build the CCL 5 Chemical Universe, see Chapter 2 of the Chemical
Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021c).
2. Screening Chemicals to a PCCL
The goal of the second step of the CCL 5 development process was to
screen chemicals for inclusion on the PCCL 5 using the data compiled in
Step 1. The PCCL 5 is comprised of the top scoring universe chemicals
that were advanced for further evaluation and publicly nominated
chemicals. A number of top scoring chemicals and publicly nominated
chemicals were not included on the PCCL 5 because they had ongoing
agency actions or did not warrant further evaluation, such as canceled
pesticides as described in this section.
a. Screening the Chemical Universe
EPA developed a screening process to determine which contaminants
require further consideration through the PCCL to CCL step. EPA
modified the CCL 3 screening process for this CCL cycle to accommodate
new data types and sources that have become available, but maintained
the framework of screening chemicals to the PCCL based on their
available toxicity properties and occurrence data (USEPA, 2009b). To
screen chemicals for the CCL 5, EPA developed a transparent and
reproducible scoring rubric and point-based screening system. This
point-based screening system is an improvement over the Toxicity
Categories and Occurrence Hierarchies developed for the CCL 3 (USEPA,
2009b) because it incorporates data from all the available data
elements identified for use in screening rather than relying on an
individual data element that indicates the highest toxicity or
occurrence for a chemical.
EPA developed a scoring rubric to assign points across health
effects and occurrence data elements based on (1) the relevance of the
data element to drinking water exposure and (2) the relative toxicity
or relative occurrence indicated by the value of a chemical's data
element compared to the values of that data element for all other
chemicals, as described here and in more detail in Section 3.2 of the
Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021c). EPA used this
scoring rubric to assign points to health effects and occurrence data
elements and calculate cumulative point scores,
[[Page 37957]]
called ``screening scores,'' for each chemical. EPA then used these
screening scores as a tool to prioritize chemicals along with
statistical models and analyses to inform the PCCL 5. The statistical
models and analyses are described in Section III.A.4.d of this document
and Section 4.6 of the Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA,
2021c). During the CCL 5 development process, EPA compiled 68 different
data elements that could be assigned points or used as supplementary
data for individual chemicals. Of these 68 data elements, EPA assigned
points to 22 data elements related to health effects and 13 data
elements related to occurrence, but did not assign points to the
remaining 33 data elements. Generally, EPA did not assign points to
data elements if:
The data element was not available for a large number of
chemicals.
The data element was not considered highly relevant to hazards
associated with drinking water.
The data element required chemical-specific data manipulation
(e.g., unit conversions requiring chemical molecular weight) and/or
was not comparable to others in the universe.
Another data element extracted from the same data source and
describing the same data was assigned points.
Or, the data element was not relevant to unregulated chemicals.
Many of the data elements assigned points in CCL 5 are the same
data elements that were used in the CCL 3 screening and classification
processes. These data elements include health effects information such
as categories of cancer classifications and toxicity values (e.g.,
Reference Dose (RfD), No Observed Adverse Effect Level (NOAEL), Lowest
Observed Adverse Effect Level (LOAEL), and Lethal Dose, 50% (LD50)), as
well as occurrence information such as measures of chemical
concentration and frequency of detections in drinking water, production
volume, and chemical release data. There are also new data elements
related to both health and occurrence endpoints that EPA included in
the CCL 5 screening process that were not available in a retrievable
format or not used in previous CCL cycles, including National Health
and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) biomonitoring data and
results from EPA's ToxCast in vitro screening assays. EPA designed the
CCL 5 screening process to accommodate quantitative, calculated, and
descriptive types of data. A full list of the data elements assigned
points for the CCL 5 screening process is described in Chapter 3 of the
Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021c).
EPA divided the CCL 5 health effects and occurrence data elements
that were assigned points into five categories, referred to as
``tiers,'' based on the relevance of the data to public health concerns
over drinking water exposure. Tier 1 contains data most relevant to
understanding potential drinking water risk and Tier 5 contains data
that provide indirect indication of potential risk associated with
drinking water exposure. For example, Tier 1 health effects data
elements include RfD, cancer slope factor (CSF), and chronic benchmark
value, which are generally only available for chemicals that have
relevant risk or hazard assessments from at least one health agency.
Tier 1 occurrence data element is the screening Hazard Quotient (sHQ),
a calculated data element based on the ratio of the maximum
concentration of a chemical in finished drinking water (the occurrence
element most applicable to drinking water risk) to the lowest (i.e.,
most health-protective) health screening level for a chemical (see
Section 3.2 of the Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021c)
for more details). The list of data elements assigned points for CCL 5
screening purposes and their corresponding tier is presented in Exhibit
5.
Exhibit 5--Tiers of Health and Occurrence Data Elements Assigned Points
During the CCL 5 Screening Process
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier Data element
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Health Effects Data Elements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1................... Reference dose (RfD), cancer slope factor
(CSF), chronic benchmark.
Tier 2................... Chronic no observed adverse effect level
(NOAEL), chronic lowest observed adverse
effect level (LOAEL).
Tier 3................... Numeric cancer classification,\1\ subchronic
benchmark, subchronic RfD.
Tier 4................... Acute benchmark, acute RfD, subchronic NOAEL,
subchronic LOAEL, MRDD, mined literature for
neurotoxins,\2\ human neurotoxicants,\2\
developmental neurotoxins,\2\ developmental
neurotoxins (in vivo),\2\ androgen receptor
chemicals.\2\
Tier 5................... TD50, LD50, percent active in ToxCast
assays,\2\ PubMed articles.\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occurrence Data Elements
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier 1................... Screening hazard quotient.
Tier 2................... National finished water detection rates.
Tier 3................... National ambient water detection rates, non-
national finished water detection rates.
Tier 4................... Non-national ambient water detection rates.
Tier 5................... Chemical release quantity, estimated
pesticide application rate, chemical
production volume, presence on FIFRA and
CERCLA lists, NHANES blood, urine, and serum
concentrations, OPERA model biodegradation
half-life.\2\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ EPA converted categorial cancer classifications to a numeric scheme
(1-3) which were assigned screening points. See Section 2.4.4 of the
Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021c) for more
information.
\2\ These data elements were extracted from the CompTox Chemicals
Dashboard.
A more detailed discussion on the inclusion and exclusion of data
elements for point assignment is included in Chapter 3 of the Chemical
Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021c).
For a specific chemical, the number of points assigned to each
individual data element depends on the relative toxicity or relative
occurrence indicated by the data element compared to values of that
data element available for all other chemicals in the universe. Further
descriptions of data element category calculations and point
assignments can be found in Section 3.3.2 of the Chemical Technical
Support Document (USEPA, 2021c). Altogether, a chemical can receive
points for each data element in every tier. The lower tiers of
information are assigned fewer points because the data elements
included in these tiers are considered less relevant
[[Page 37958]]
to hazards associated with chemical exposure via drinking water.
EPA developed the screening points system to ensure the agency
considers chemicals of emerging concern in drinking water in addition
to well-studied chemicals with more robust human health and drinking
water occurrence data. The point system allows a chemical with limited
health effects data, but high occurrence, to be included on the PCCL 5.
Similarly, a chemical with limited or no drinking water occurrence data
but with health effects information potentially indicating higher
toxicity could also be included in the PCCL. The screening score for a
chemical is the sum of health effects and occurrence points assigned
for each data element. The maximum screening score a chemical could be
assigned is 14,050.
EPA identified the 250 highest scoring chemicals for inclusion in
the PCCL 5 and further evaluation for listing on the Draft CCL 5. This
resulted in all chemicals scoring at or above 3,320 points were
advanced for further consideration for the Draft CCL 5. Because three
chemicals (2,4-Dinitrophenol, Phosmet, and 4-Androstene-3,17-dione)
have the same screening score of 3,320, a total of 252 chemicals were
advanced for further consideration and potential inclusion on the PCCL
5 (Note: The 252 chemicals are referred to as the ``top 250'' in this
document). EPA validated the selection of the top 250 highest scoring
chemicals and the screening score framework using a statistical
modeling approach. A complete description of the results of this
approach can be found in Section 4.6 of the Chemical Technical Support
Document (USEPA, 2021c).
b. Publicly Nominated Chemicals
EPA added 53 publicly nominated chemicals to the 252 highest
scoring chemicals to be included on the PCCL. Publicly nominated
chemicals are described further in Section III.C of this document and
Section 3.6 of the Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021c).
c. Chemicals Excluded From the PCCL
i. Regulatory Determinations
In March 2021, under the fourth Regulatory Determination process,
EPA made final regulatory determinations for eight chemicals including:
PFOS; PFOA; 1,1-dichloroethane; acetochlor; methyl bromide
(bromomethane); metolachlor; nitrobenzene; and RDX (86 FR 12272, USEPA,
2021b). EPA also made a preliminary positive determination on strontium
under the third Regulatory Determination process (79 FR 62715, USEPA,
2014). Therefore, EPA excluded these nine chemicals from the PCCL 5.
ii. Canceled Pesticides
EPA evaluated canceled pesticides and excluded those that are not
persistent in the environment from the PCCL 5. The persistence and
occurrence of canceled pesticides were evaluated by their
biodegradation half-life, end-of-use date, and the timeframe of
monitoring data in finished and/or ambient water. Canceled pesticides
were assigned a persistence score based on the scale described in EPA's
2012 TSCA Work Plan Chemicals: Methods Document (USEPA, 2012b).
Canceled pesticides' biodegradation half-life information was
downloaded from EPA's CompTox Chemicals Dashboard. Based on half-life
ranges, a persistence score of 1 to 3 was assigned to each canceled
pesticide with 1 indicative of lowest persistence and 3 highest
persistence. A canceled pesticide received a persistence score of 1, 2,
or 3 if its half-life was less than two months, greater than or equal
to two months, or greater than six months, respectively.
Additionally, end-of-use dates of canceled pesticides were compared
to the dates of occurrence monitoring data in finished and/or ambient
water. Only the occurrence monitoring data collected after the end-of-
use dates were used to determine if a canceled pesticide had any
detects and/or data spikes that would pose a public health concern. A
canceled pesticide was included in the PCCL if it received a
persistence score of 3 and had detects in finished or ambient water, or
if it received a score of 1 or 2 but had detects in finished water. A
canceled pesticide was excluded from the PCCL if it received a score of
1 or 2 and had no detects in finished water or no or few detects in
ambient water.
In total, 26 canceled pesticides were assessed for persistence.
Four pesticides, including dieldrin, aldrin, chlordecone (kepone), and
ethion, were assigned a persistence score of 3 and showed detects in
finished or ambient water; thus, they were included in the PCCL 5.
Alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane, although received a persistence score of
1, was also included in the PCCL 5 because it had detects in the UCMR 4
occurrence data (collected 2018-2019). Alpha-hexachlorocyclohexane is
an organochloride, which is one of the isomers of
hexachlorocyclohexane, and is a byproduct of the production of the
canceled insecticide lindane.
The 21 remaining pesticides were assigned a score of 2 or 1 and
showed no or very few detections in finished or ambient water; and
therefore were excluded from the PCCL 5. Their finished or ambient
water monitoring results were consistent with the low persistence
scores, indicating that these canceled pesticides are likely of low
public health concern.
d. Summary of the PCCL
The resulting PCCL 5 is comprised of a total of 275 chemicals. As
shown in Exhibit 6, the PCCL 5 includes 252 of the highest scoring
chemicals and 53 publicly nominated chemicals, of which 30 were
excluded because they had other ongoing agency actions or did not
warrant further evaluation. A summary of the PCCL 5 is included in
Section 3.8 of the Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021c).
Exhibit 6--Chemical Counts on Draft PCCL 5 and Draft CCL 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
Counting process chemicals Total count
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Highest scoring chemicals 252 275 (PCCL).
(screened from Universe).
(+) Add public nominated chemicals 53
(not screened).
(-) Exclude chemicals with 9
Regulatory Determinations.
(-) Exclude canceled pesticides... 21
(-) Exclude Disinfection 23 214 (Reviewed by
Byproducts (listed as a chemical Evaluation Teams).
group instead).
(-) Exclude cyanotoxins (listed as 7
a chemical group instead).
(-) Exclude PFAS (listed as a 18
chemical group instead).
(-) Exclude public nominated 13
chemicals lacking occurrence Data.
Evaluation Teams' Listing .............. 66.
Recommendation.
Draft CCL 5 Chemicals......... .............. 66 and 3 groups.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 37959]]
3. Classification of PCCL Chemicals To Select the Draft CCL
In the third step of the CCL 5 process, chemical contaminants
screened to the PCCL 5 in Step 2 passed through a classification
process. Classification is the process by which the agency incorporates
the knowledge and evaluation of EPA scientists, referred to as
``chemical evaluators,'' to narrow the PCCL down to a draft CCL. During
this process, chemical evaluators assessed health and occurrence data
on the PCCL 5 chemical contaminants and reached a consensus on whether
to recommend them for listing on the Draft CCL 5.
To facilitate the classification process, EPA conducted health and
occurrence literature searches to gather supplemental data for the
remaining PCCL 5 chemicals. For more information, see Sections
III.A.3.i and III.C.2 of this document, and Section 4.2.1.1 of the
Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021c).
Literature searches acquired supplemental health effects and/or
occurrence data from qualifying studies that may not have been
available in a retrievable format during the identification of the
universe. The supplemental data resources encountered during the
literature searches were compiled by chemical, and relevant health
effects and occurrence data metrics were imported into a standardized
document format, called the Contaminant Information Sheet (CIS) (USEPA,
2021e).
EPA formed two evaluation teams to review the qualifying health
effects and occurrence information provided in supplemental studies and
on the CISs to make consensus listing recommendations for the PCCL 5
chemicals. Each evaluation team was composed of seven chemical
evaluators with professional experience and expertise in relevant
technical fields, including public health, public policy, toxicology,
chemistry, biology, and pesticide exposure.
The supplemental studies provided to the chemical evaluators during
the review process can be found in the EPA docket at https://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0594). The CISs can
be viewed in the Technical Support Document for the Draft Fifth
Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 5)--Contaminant Information Sheets,
hereafter referred to as the CIS Technical Support Document (USEPA,
2021e).
The following sections provide a detailed explanation of the
classification process broken down into individual components.
a. Supplemental Data Collection
Primary data sources play a crucial role in the entire CCL process
(see Section III.A.1 of this document); however, it is often necessary
to gather and extract data from supplemental sources to aid in further
evaluation of chemicals for listing on the Draft CCL 5. As described in
Section III.A.1 of this document, EPA assessed data sources for
potential use in the CCL 5 development process and set aside, as
supplemental sources, those that met the relevance, completeness, and
redundancy assessment factors but were not retrievable. EPA utilized
these supplemental sources to fill data gaps as part of the CCL
classification process. EPA also identified supplemental sources from
data sources cited in public nominations (see Section III.C.1 of this
document) and conducted literature searches to identify further
supplemental occurrence and health effects data as described in this
section.
i. Occurrence
For PCCL 5 chemicals that reached the classification step but
lacked national drinking water data within the last 10 years, EPA
conducted a search of peer-reviewed literature relevant to the
occurrence of contaminants in drinking water to identify studies that
provided supplemental occurrence data for drinking water or ambient
water not captured in the primary data sources. The literature review
was limited to journal articles published between 2010 and 2020.
Each of the supplemental data sources was reviewed to determine the
availability of data for any of the PCCL 5 chemicals that required
further evaluation through the CCL 5 classification process. EPA
identified and compiled 12 supplemental literature sources for
contaminant occurrence in drinking and ambient water. All supplemental
occurrence data identified through the literature search were included
in the CISs. More information on CISs can be found in Section III.A.4.c
of this document and in the CIS Technical Support Document (USEPA,
2021e).
EPA's occurrence literature search was conducted in a systematic
manner to fill the occurrence data gaps for contaminants on the PCCL.
For example, EPA did not conduct occurrence literature searches for
PCCL chemicals that had national drinking water occurrence data from
the UCMR 3 or UCMR 4. These chemicals were considered to already have
the best available occurrence data to inform whether a contaminant was
known to occur in public water systems and therefore supplemental
drinking or ambient water occurrence data was not needed. A full
description of the occurrence literature search protocol and a list of
supplemental occurrence literature utilized for CCL 5 can be found in
the Appendix E of the Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA,
2021c). In addition to supplemental occurrence data extracted through a
targeted literature search, EPA compiled additional occurrence data
from the 2006 Community Water Systems Survey (CWSS) (USEPA, 2009c;
2009d), EPA's Third Six-Year Review (SYR 3) (USEPA, 2017), and modeled
concentrations from EPA's Office of Pesticide Programs (OPP).
The 2006 CWSS gathered data on the financial and operating
characteristics of a random sample of CWSs nationwide. Systems serving
more than 500,000 people were included in the sample, and systems in
that size category were surveyed about concentrations of unregulated
contaminants in their raw and finished water. EPA supplemented the data
set by gathering additional information on contaminant occurrence at
the systems in this size category from publicly available sources. The
2006 CWSS was used as supplemental source for the CCL 5 because the
information is not statistically representative for the purpose of the
CCL evaluation. For the SYR 3, EPA requested, through an Information
Collection Request (ICR), that primacy agencies voluntarily submit
drinking water compliance monitoring data collected during 2006-2011 to
EPA. Some primacy agencies submitted occurrence data for unregulated
contaminants in addition to the data on regulated contaminants. EPA
extracted drinking water data on PCCL 5 chemicals from the SYR 3 ICR
data, and supplemented these data by downloading additional publicly
available monitoring data from state websites. These data were used as
a supplemental data source and were included on the CISs.
Modeled concentration data were gathered for pesticides on the PCCL
5 that lack nationally representative drinking and/or nationally
representative ambient water data. The modeled concentrations, known as
estimated environmental concentrations (EECs) or estimated drinking
water concentrations (EDWCs), of pesticides in water are often included
in EPA's OPP registration and re-registration evaluation documentation,
but are not in a retrievable format that could be efficiently extracted
for all CCL 5 Chemical Universe pesticides.
[[Page 37960]]
Specific information on the systematic occurrence literature
review, SYR 3 ICR, and state occurrence monitoring data sets, 2006 CWSS
data set, and OPP modeled concentrations used in the Draft CCL 5 can be
found in Section 4.2.1 of the Chemical Technical Support Document
(USEPA, 2021c).
The data search efforts did not yield occurrence data for 13
publicly nominated chemicals that were lacking occurrence data in the
CCL 5 Chemical Universe. As a result, these chemicals were not
evaluated for listing on the Draft CCL 5 (Exhibit 6). More information
is provided on this decision in Section III.C.2 of this document and
Section 4.2.1.1 of the Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA,
2021c).
ii. Health Effects
EPA developed the rapid systematic review (RSR) protocol to
identify supplemental health effects data for PCCL 5 chemicals. The RSR
process encompassed the identification of health effects information,
including epidemiological and toxicological data, as well as
physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models, and subsequent extraction
of relevant data elements (i.e., NOAELs and LOAELs) that could be used
to derive toxicity values and CCL Screening Levels, further described
in Section III.A.4.b.i of this document. The CCL 5 RSR process was
designed to allow for screening and data synthesis of a large number of
chemicals in a relatively short time frame. As such, the RSR process
was comprised of:
A targeted chemical-specific literature search;
Machine learning-based screening to identify relevant literature;
A streamlined full-text review and study quality evaluation of
relevant literature; and,
Data extraction components of traditional systematic reviews.
Studies targeted by the RSR literature search included those deemed
relevant to health effects found in animal models after repeated oral
exposure lasting at least 28 days. Epidemiological studies were also
identified and catalogued for future use (i.e., for Regulatory
Determination). If available, NOAELs and LOAELs, along with their
corresponding health effects, were extracted from all relevant studies.
These toxicity values were populated on the CISs and were used as a
supplemental source of information for chemical evaluators to
understand potential health effects that could result from chronic
exposure to PCCL 5 chemicals. A detailed description of the RSR process
can be found in Section 4.2.1 of the Chemical Technical Support
Document (USEPA, 2021c).
b. Calculated Data Elements
i. Health Reference Levels and CCL Screening Levels
Health Reference Levels (HRLs) and CCL Screening Levels are
referred to collectively as ``health concentrations.'' Health
concentrations are non-regulatory health-based toxicity values,
expressed as concentrations of a contaminant in drinking water (in
[mu]g/L), which a person could consume over a lifetime and be unlikely
to experience adverse health effects. HRLs are based on data elements
(toxicity values including RfD, population-adjusted dose (PAD), CSF,
etc.) extracted from ``qualifying'' health assessments, peer-reviewed,
publicly available health assessments published by EPA and other health
agencies. Assessments used to derive HRLs generally follow methodology
that is consistent with EPA's current guidelines and guidance
documents, are externally reviewed by experts in the field, and have
been used during EPA regulatory efforts in the past. CCL Screening
Levels are based on data elements (toxicity values including RfD
equivalents, CSF equivalents, etc.) extracted from ``non-qualifying''
health assessments, publicly available assessments that are published
by health agencies and provide valuable health information, but do not
necessarily follow standard EPA methodologies and/or are not externally
peer-reviewed. Alternatively, CCL Screening Levels can be based on data
elements (NOAEL or LOAEL) extracted from peer-reviewed studies
identified through the CCL 5 RSR process previously described.
The process for determining the toxicity value most appropriate for
use in deriving the health concentration is similar to the process EPA
uses for Regulatory Determination. Generally, EPA relies on its most
recently published health assessment as the source of these toxicity
values unless a qualifying assessment from another source incorporates
new scientific information published after the publication date of the
most recent EPA health assessment. If no qualifying health assessments
are available, EPA extracts toxicity values from the most recently
published non-qualifying health assessment. If no qualifying or non-
qualifying health assessments are available, EPA relies on toxicity
values extracted from studies identified through the health effects RSR
process.
For carcinogens, the derived health concentration is the one-in-a-
million cancer risk expressed as a drinking water concentration. For
non-carcinogens, health concentrations are obtained by dividing the RfD
(or equivalent) by an exposure factor, also known as the drinking water
intake (DWI), and multiplying by a 20% relative source contribution
(USEPA, 2000). All health concentrations were converted to units of
[mu]g/L to compare with CCL 5 occurrence concentrations and for use in
derivation of the final Hazard Quotient. If a chemical had no available
qualifying or non-qualifying health assessments or studies identified
through the RSR process, or the available health assessments did not
provide toxicity values, EPA did not derive a health concentration.
The health concentration used to derive the hazard quotient is
presented on the summary page of the CIS alongside the critical effect
and data element from which it was derived. EPA also provides health
concentrations derived from supplementary assessments on the second
page of the CIS as additional resources. Refer to Section 4.3.1 of the
Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021c) for more information
about the sources and process for derivation of CCL 5 health
concentrations.
ii. Final Hazard Quotients
Final hazard quotients (fHQ) are an important metric used in the
evaluation of PCCL chemicals during the classification step. The fHQ is
the ratio of a chemical's 90th percentile (of detections) water
concentration over its health concentration (HRL or CCL screening
level) at which no adverse effects are expected to occur. The fHQ
serves as a benchmark for chemical evaluators to gauge the potential
level of concern posed by the exposure to each chemical in drinking
water.
A relatively higher fHQ value for a given chemical can generally be
interpreted as an increase to the level of concern for exposure to the
chemical in drinking water; as the ratio increases beyond 0, the
expected exposure concerns also increase; an fHQ value equal to or
greater than 1.0 indicates a chemical with water concentration
exceeding its health concentration.
EPA followed the CCL 3 and CCL 4 protocol to select the
concentration input values for the ratio as closely as possible while
incorporating newly available data sources. Depending on data
availability, the fHQ was calculated by first using the 90th percentile
of detections from national drinking water monitoring data sources,
such as UCMR.
[[Page 37961]]
If the 90th percentile was not available, EPA used the next highest
percentile (95th or 99th) or maximum reported concentration value. For
contaminants that lacked finished water data but had robust ambient
water monitoring data from sources such as NAWQA, the ratio was
developed by using the ambient water concentration. Similarly, if the
90th percentile was not available, the next highest percentile or
maximum reported concentration was used. If no measured water data were
available, EPA used modeled water data for pesticides developed by
EPA's OPP to calculate the fHQ. For contaminants with no water data
(either measured or modeled), the occurrence to health concentration
ratio could not be calculated and the entry for the fHQ was left blank
on the CIS.
Similarly, HRLs were the preferred health concentration used to
derive the fHQ. If a chemical did not have data available to calculate
an HRL, a CCL screening level was used to derive the fHQ. For chemicals
with no relevant health effects data (i.e., no HRL or CCL screening
level), the occurrence to health concentration ratio could not be
calculated and the entry for the fHQ was left blank on the CIS.
A more detailed description of the protocol used to calculate the
final hazard quotients for CCL 5 can be found in Section 4.3.2 the
Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021c).
iii. Attribute Scores
During the CCL process, EPA evaluates relatively new and emerging
contaminants not currently subject to EPA drinking water regulations.
Some of these contaminants do not have readily available information on
their health effects in humans and animal models and/or their
occurrence in water. Recognizing the need to establish consistent
relationships and enable comparison among different types of data, EPA
developed a scaling system of attribute scores for the CCL 3 based on
recommendations from the National Academy of Science's National
Research Council (NRC, 2001) and the National Drinking Water Advisory
Council (NDWAC, 2004). Attributes are defined as the properties used to
categorize contaminants based on their potential to cause adverse
health effects and occur in drinking water. The associated scores for
these attributes provide a consistent, comparative framework for
evaluation purposes that accommodate a variety of input data.
The health effects of a contaminant are categorized using the
attributes of potency and severity, while the actual or potential
occurrence of a contaminant is categorized using the attributes of
prevalence and magnitude.
Potency reflects the potential for a chemical to cause adverse
health effects based on the dose required to elicit the most sensitive
adverse effect. Severity is a descriptive measure of the adverse health
effect associated with the potency score. Unlike the other attributes,
which are numerical, severity is categorical; contaminants are assigned
to one of eight severity categories (non-cancer effects, no adverse
effects, cosmetic effects, carcinogen with a linear mode of action,
carcinogen with a mutagenic mode of action, carcinogen with a non-
linear mode of action, reproductive and developmental effects, or
reduced longevity) depending on the reported health endpoint.
Prevalence provides some indicator of how widespread the occurrence
of the contaminant is in the environment, such as the percentage of
public water systems or sample locations in a study reporting
detections.
Magnitude describes the quantity of a contaminant that may be in
the environment (e.g., median concentration of detections or pounds
applied annually). When direct occurrence data are not available, EPA
uses Persistence-Mobility data as surrogate indicators of potential
occurrence of a contaminant. Persistence-Mobility is defined by
chemical properties that measure or estimate environmental fate
characteristics of a contaminant and affect their likelihood to occur
in water.
EPA used the attribute scoring developed for CCL 3 to evaluate PCCL
5 chemicals, with some adjustments made to the calibrations for potency
and descriptions for severity. Those adjustments, along with the
scoring scales and categories, are explained in detail in the Chemical
Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021c).
c. Evaluation Team Listing Decision Process
The EPA scientists on the two evaluation teams shared a broad range
of professional experience and expertise across the agency and with the
CCL process. These ``chemical evaluators'' were provided training,
which included a detailed overview of the goals and general principles
of the CCL process, types of data, and materials compiled to aid in
evaluating chemicals for listing, the evaluation process steps, and the
format of the discussion meetings. Of the 275 PCCL 5 chemicals, the
evaluation teams reviewed 214 chemicals (Exhibit 6). The evaluation
teams did not review 7 cyanotoxins, 23 DBPs, and 18 PFAS chemicals
because they were listed as three chemical groups on the Draft CCL 5
(as discussed further in Section III.A.3.e of this document).
Additionally, the evaluation teams did not evaluate the 13 publicly
nominated chemicals due to lack of occurrence data.
The chemical evaluators on the two evaluation teams met over 20
times between March 19 and July 2, 2020, to discuss their individual
reviews and reach consensus listing decisions as a group for batches of
approximately 10-20 chemicals per batch. To prepare for these
discussion meetings, the chemical evaluators independently reviewed the
relevant health effects and occurrence information on CISs for each
chemical in a batch. For each chemical on the PCCL 5 that was evaluated
for potential listing, a CIS was developed to summarize the data and
assist the chemical evaluators in making listing recommendations for
the Draft CCL 5. Each CIS presents the health and occurrence data
gathered from primary and supplemental data sources, as well as health
and occurrence statistical measures described in Section III.A.4.b of
this document. CISs also include additional information about the
contaminant, such as the identity of the contaminant and its usage,
whether it was subject to past negative regulatory determinations,
listed on past CCLs, and publicly nominated for the CCL 5. Due to the
inclusion of more data in the CCL 5 process, CISs for the Draft CCL 5
contain more information than those of past CCLs. CISs for contaminants
evaluated for the Draft CCL 5 and further information on what data the
CISs provide can be found in the CIS Technical Support Document (USEPA,
2021e).
Upon completing their independent reviews, the chemical evaluators
submitted their listing decisions along with written justifications
through a survey tool. The results from the survey were collected and
tabulated before each facilitated group discussion. Numerical values
were assigned to the individual evaluator's listing decision for each
chemical (i.e., 1 = No List, 2 = No List?, 3 = List?, and 4 = List) so
that an average listing decision could be calculated. A question mark
(?) signified that the chemical evaluator was leaning toward listing
(List?) or toward not listing (No List?) but had some uncertainty.
These average listing decisions helped inform the facilitator and the
chemical evaluators of their collective decisions and guided the teams
towards making the final listing recommendations for each chemical. In
total, the evaluation teams recommended 66 chemicals for listing on the
Draft CCL 5. A more detailed
[[Page 37962]]
description of the team listing process can be found in Section 4.5 of
the Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021c).
d. Logistic Regression
EPA conducted statistical analyses and developed a simple logistic
regression model to validate the selection of the top 250 highest
scoring chemicals for inclusion on the PCCL 5 and provide diagnostic
feedback on the screening system during the evaluation team meetings.
EPA hypothesized that screening scores have a positive association with
listing decisions, and that the higher the screening score of a PCCL 5
chemical, the higher the probability of the chemical being recommended
for listing by the evaluation teams. Additional analyses and logistic
regression models were developed to further examine the efficacy of the
screening scores and to determine additional factors, such as fHQs and
health and occurrence attribute scores, associated with listing
decisions.
The simple logistic regression models the statistical relationship
between screening scores and the evaluation teams' list or not list
decision. The model was used to obtain probabilities of listing at the
highest screening score (top of the PCCL 5) and screening score
directly below the PCCL 5 top 250. Results of this analysis indicate
chemicals with higher screening scores are more likely to be listed
than chemicals with lower screening scores. The predicted mean
probability of listing at the top of the PCCL 5 is 0.90 and at the
screening score directly below the PCCL 5 top 250 is 0.12. A full
description of the modeling approach and results can be found in
Section 4.6.2 of the Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA,
2021c).
Following the evaluation team decisions, EPA explored other factors
that may have impacted listing decisions and further evaluated how well
the screening scores performed as a predictor of listing decisions. To
accomplish this, EPA compiled a dataset that contained the chemical
screening scores, health effects and occurrence attribute scores, fHQs,
and other information. See Section 4.6.1 of the Chemical Technical
Support Document (USEPA, 2021c) for details on the compiled dataset
used in the statistical analyses. The first step of the analysis was to
calculate descriptive statistics for each variable stratified by
listing decision. Next, several simple logistic regression models were
explored to obtain odds ratios (OR) and establish statistical
significance of the predictor variables. Lastly, an area under the
curve-receiver operator characteristic (AUC-ROC) curve analysis was
conducted to examine the performance of simple logistic regression
models and multivariable logistic models as predictors of listing
decisions. The results of the simple logistic regression found the
screening scores, attributes scores, and fHQs (adjusted for outliers)
to be statistically significant predictors of listing decisions. The
AUC-ROC analysis provided further evidence that the screening scores
were a moderate-to-good predictor of listing decisions (AUC = 0.72) and
led to the discovery of a multivariable logistic regression model that
was a very good-to-excellent predictor of listing decisions (AUC =
0.89). A complete description of the results of the statistical
analyses conducted for the Draft CCL 5 can be found in Section 4.6 of
the Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021c).
e. Chemical Groups on the Draft CCL 5
In addition to the 66 chemicals recommended for listing on the
Draft CCL 5 by the evaluation teams (Exhibit 6), EPA proposes to list
three chemical groups (cyanotoxins, DBPs, and PFAS) instead of listing
them as individual chemicals. These chemical groups have been
identified as agency priorities and contaminants of concern for
drinking water under other EPA actions. Listing these three chemical
groups on the Draft CCL 5 does not necessarily mean that EPA will make
subsequent regulatory decisions for the entire group. EPA will evaluate
scientific data on the listed groups, subgroups, and individual
contaminants included in the group to inform any regulatory
determinations for the group, subgroup, or individual contaminants in
the group. Addressing the public health concerns of cyanotoxins in
drinking water remains a priority as specified in the 2015 Algal Toxin
Risk Assessment and Management Strategic Plan for Drinking Water
(USEPA, 2015). Cyanotoxins are toxins naturally produced and released
by some species of cyanobacteria (previously known as ``blue-green
algae''), were listed on the CCL 3 and CCL 4 as a group. EPA is listing
a cyanotoxin group on the Draft CCL 5, identical to the CCL 3 and CCL 4
listing. The group of cyanotoxins includes, but is not limited to:
Anatoxin-a, cylindrospermopsin, microcystins, and saxitoxin.
Cyanotoxins were also monitored under the UCMR 4.
EPA is also proposing to list 23 unregulated DBPs (as shown in
Exhibit 2b) as a group on the Draft CCL 5. DBPs are formed when
disinfectants react with naturally-occurring materials in water. Under
the Stage 2 Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, there are
currently 11 regulated DBPs from three subgroups that include four
trihalomethanes, five haloacetic acids, and two inorganic compounds
(bromate and chlorite). Under the Six-Year Review 3 (SYR 3), EPA
identified 10 regulated DBPs (all but bromate) as ``candidates for
revision'' (USEPA, 2017). For the Draft CCL 5, the group of 23
unregulated DBPs were either publicly nominated or among the top 250
chemicals. Listing these unregulated DBPs as a group on the Draft CCL 5
would be consistent with the decision that EPA has identified a number
of microbial and disinfection byproduct (MDBP) drinking water
regulations as candidates for revision in the agency's SYR 3 .
PFAS are a class of synthetic chemicals that are most commonly used
to make products resistant to water, heat, and stains and are
consequently found in industrial and consumer products like clothing,
food packaging, cookware, cosmetics, carpeting, and fire-fighting foam
(AAAS, 2020; USEPA, 2018b). Over 4,000 PFAS have been manufactured and
used globally since the 1940s (USEPA, 2019b), which would make listing
PFAS individually on the Draft CCL 5 difficult and challenging. EPA
proposes to list PFAS as a group inclusive of any PFAS (except for PFOA
and PFOS). For the purposes of this document, the structural definition
of PFAS includes per- and polyfluorinated substances that structurally
contain the unit R-(CF2)-C(F)(R')R''. Both the CF2 and CF moieties are
saturated carbons and none of the R groups (R, R' or R'') can be
hydrogen (USEPA, 2021f). This proposal is responsive to public
nominations which stated that EPA should ``include PFAS chemicals as a
class on CCL 5.'' This action is in keeping with the agency's
commitment to better understand and ultimately reduce the potential
risks caused by this broad class of chemicals. Including the broad
group of PFAS on the Draft CCL 5 demonstrates the agency's commitment
to prioritizing and building a strong foundation of science on PFAS
while working to harmonize multiple authorities to address the impacts
of PFAS on public health and the environment. EPA is also committed to
a flexible approach and working collaboratively with states, tribes,
water systems, and local communities that have been impacted by PFAS.
[[Page 37963]]
B. Approach Used To Identify Microbial Candidates for the Draft CCL 5
1. Building the Microbial Universe
EPA defined the microbial Universe for the CCL 5 as all known human
pathogens. The microbial Universe was built on the CCL 3 and the CCL 4
Universe of 1,425 pathogens. EPA conducted a literature search, sought
input from subject matter experts, and reviewed nominations for
additional microbes to add to the Universe. As a result, 14 organisms
were added to the CCL 5 Microbial Universe (Exhibit 7).
Changes to nomenclature of the microbes were made as necessary (in
most cases combining two species into one organism group), making the
total number of organisms in the microbial Universe 1,435. The full CCL
5 microbial Universe list is available in the Technical Support
Document for the Draft fifth Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 5)--
Microbial Contaminants (USEPA, 2021d).
Exhibit 7--Microbial Contaminants Added to the Microbial Universe for
the CCL 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microbial contaminant Microbe class
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alloscardovia omnicolens................... Bacteria.
Elizabethkingia anophelis.................. Bacteria.
Neoehrlichia mikurensis.................... Bacteria.
Parachlamydia acanthamoebae................ Bacteria.
Waddia chondrophila........................ Bacteria.
Human bocavirus............................ Virus.
Human coronavirus SARS-CoV-2............... Virus.
KI polyomavirus............................ Virus.
Kobuvirus.................................. Virus.
Lujo virus................................. Virus.
Parovovirus 4.............................. Virus.
WU polyomavirus............................ Virus.
Botrytsis cinerea.......................... Fungi.
Epiccocum purpurascens..................... Fungi.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Screening the Microbial Universe to the PCCL
During the CCL 3 process, EPA developed 12 screening criteria
(Exhibit 8) to focus the Universe of all human pathogens to only those
pathogens that could be transmitted through drinking water. Screening
is based on a pathogen's epidemiology, geographical distribution, and
biological properties in their host and in the environment. All
pathogens that are not excluded by any screening criteria are moved to
the PCCL. In addition, any pathogen documented to cause disease
transmitted through drinking water regardless of the screening
criteria, is also considered for the PCCL. The screening criteria
restrict the microbial PCCL to human pathogens that may cause drinking
water-related diseases resulting from ingestion of, inhalation of, or
dermal contact with drinking water. For the Draft CCL 5, EPA re-
evaluated the screening criteria for applicability to microbes and
reviewed certain criterion in depth per recommendations received from
the SAB and stakeholders during the development of the CCL 3 and the
CCL 4. In particular, Criterion 1 (anaerobes), Criterion 9 (natural
habitat is in the environment without epidemiological evidence of
drinking water-related disease) and Criterion 10 (not endemic to North
America) were closely re-evaluated based on previous comments for the
CCL 3 and the CCL 4 from NDWAC, SAB, and the public. Upon further
evaluation, EPA did not find supporting evidence to modify Criterion 1
and Criterion 10.
EPA modified the screening Criterion 9 to include pathogens on the
PCCL with nosocomial infections where drinking water is implicated due
to recent increases in and recognition of antimicrobial resistance and
nosocomial infections. Modifying Criterion 9 addresses a SAB comment
that the screening criteria for the CCL 4 microbial process were too
restrictive. As a result, Criterion 9 was modified to include pathogens
that cause nosocomial infections where drinking water is implicated so
that it is less restrictive.
Exhibit 8--Screening Criteria for Pathogens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
All anaerobes.
Obligate intracellular fastidious pathogens.
Transmitted by contact with blood or body fluids.
Transmitted by vectors.
Indigenous to the gastrointestinal tract, skin and mucous membranes.
Transmitted solely by respiratory secretions.
Life cycle incompatible with drinking water transmission.
Drinking water-related transmission is not implicated.
Natural habitat is in the environment without epidemiological evidence
of drinking water-related disease and without evidence of drinking
water-related nosocomial infection.
Not endemic to North America.
Represented by a pathogen for the entire genus or species (that are
closely related).
Current taxonomy changed from taxonomy used in Universe.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bolded text indicates the modification made to Criterion 9.
Based upon the screening criteria, 1,400 of the 1,435 pathogens
were excluded; therefore 35 pathogens advanced to the PCCL. The results
of the screening process are summarized in Exhibit 9. The criteria and
results of the screening process are discussed in greater detail in the
Technical Support Document for the Draft Fifth Contaminant Candidate
List (CCL 5)--Microbial Contaminants (USEPA, 2021d).
Exhibit 9--Application of 12 Screening Criteria to Pathogens in the Microbial CCL Universe
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Screening criteria and number of pathogens screened out per criterion Pathogens
Pathogen class Total ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ screened On PCCL
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 out
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bacteria.................................. 545......................... 121 16 10 38 121 7 0 29 150 2 28 5 527 \1\ 18
Viruses................................... 225......................... 0 0 29 104 0 20 1 20 0 36 8 0 218 7
Protozoa \2\.............................. 66.......................... 0 0 1 29 3 0 4 7 7 0 6 0 59 7
Helminths................................. 286......................... 0 0 0 25 0 0 105 0 0 156 0 0 286 0
[[Page 37964]]
Fungi..................................... 313......................... 0 0 0 0 12 3 0 0 295 0 0 0 310 3
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total................................. 1,435....................... 121 16 40 196 136 30 110 56 452 194 42 5 1,400 35
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ NTM are included on the PCCL as a group.
\2\ Cryptosporidium and Giardia (both protozoa) are considered to be regulated by the Long Term Surface Water Treatment Rule (LT-2); even though counted in the Microbial universe, they were
not evaluated for screening.
3. The PCCL to Draft CCL Process
Pathogens on the PCCL were scored for placement on the Draft CCL 5.
In developing the CCL 3, EPA devised a scoring system to assign a
numerical value to each pathogen on the PCCL. Each pathogen on the PCCL
was scored using three scoring protocols, one protocol each for
waterborne disease outbreaks (WBDO), occurrence in drinking water, and
health effects. The higher of the WBDO score or the occurrence score
was added to the normalized health effects score to produce a composite
pathogen score. Pathogens receiving high scores were considered for
placement on the CCL.
EPA normalized the health effects score so that occurrence and
health effects had equal weight in determining the ranking of the Draft
CCL. The equal weighting of occurrence and health effects information
closely mirrors the risk estimate methods used by EPA in drinking water
regulation development. This scoring system prioritizes and restricts
the number of pathogens on the CCL to only those that have been
strongly associated with drinking water-related disease. Pathogens that
scored low will remain on the PCCL until additional occurrence data,
epidemiological surveillance data, or health effects data become
available to support their reevaluation. It is important to note that
pathogens for which there are no documented WBDO in drinking water earn
a low score under the protocols. Pathogens that have caused a WBDO and
have health effects data are rank higher than pathogens that only have
health effect data but no evidence of a WBDO. The following sections
describe the three protocols used to score the pathogens on the PCCL
and the process by which the scores are combined.
a. Waterborne Disease Outbreak (WBDO) Protocol
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), EPA, and the
Council of State and Territorial Epidemiologists (CSTE) have maintained
a collaborative surveillance system for collecting and periodically
reporting data related to occurrence and causes of WBDOs since 1971. In
recent years, CDC has developed National Outbreak Reporting System
(NORS) (CDC, 2020a) for WBDO reporting, in collaboration with CSTE and
EPA, to improve the quality, quantity, and availability of data
submitted to the Waterborne Disease and Outbreak Surveillance System
(WBDOSS). For the Draft CCL 5, EPA used CDC's NORS as the primary data
source for the WBDO protocol. Reports from the CDC system were
published periodically in Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report (MMWR)
until 2017. For the CCL 3 and the CCL 4, EPA used MMWRs for the WBDO
protocol.
For the Draft CCL 5, EPA used CDC's NORS for more recent outbreak
information due to the most recent MMWR being published in 2014. For
the WBDO protocol (Exhibit 10), a pathogen is scored as having a
WBDO(s) in the U.S. if that pathogen is listed in a CDC waterborne
disease drinking water surveillance summary (i.e., on NORS from 2009-
2017). Outbreaks that occurred in 2009 and after were used to capture
microbes causing concern since the publication of the CCL 3. A pathogen
with multiple WBDOs listed by CDC was given the highest score under
this protocol. In addition, EPA scored non-CDC reported WBDOs and WBDOs
outside the U.S. with lower scores. WBDOs outside the U.S. were scored
when information was available from World Health Organization or other
peer-reviewed publications.
In addition, CDC and EPA acknowledge that the WBDOs reported in the
surveillance system represent only a portion of the burden of illness
associated with drinking water exposure (CDC, 2008). The surveillance
information does not include endemic waterborne disease risks, nor are
reliable estimates available of the number of unrecognized WBDOs and
associated cases of illness. Therefore, EPA also considered the non-CDC
data as indicating a WBDO (even though CDC did not list it in their
NORS) if the data showed a link between human illness defined by a
common water source, a common time period of exposure and/or similar
symptoms. Additionally, EPA considered the use of molecular typing
methods to link patients and environmental isolates.
Exhibit 10--Waterborne Disease Outbreak Scoring Protocol
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Score
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Has caused multiple (2 or more) documented WBDOs in the U.S. 5
as reported by CDC surveillance between 2009-2017...........
Has caused at least one documented WBDO in the U.S. as 4
reported by CDC surveillance 2009-2017......................
Has caused documented WBDOs at any time in the U.S........... 3
Has caused documented WBDOs in countries other than the U.S.. 2
Has never caused WBDOs in any country, but has been 1
epidemiologically associated with water-related disease.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
b. Occurrence Protocol
The second attribute of the scoring process evaluates the
occurrence of a pathogen in drinking water and source water. Because
water-related illness may also occur in the absence of recognized
outbreaks, EPA scored the occurrence (direct detection) of microbes
using cultural, immunochemical, or molecular detection of pathogens in
drinking water under the Occurrence Protocol (Exhibit 11). Occurrence
characterizes pathogen introduction, survival, and distribution in the
environment. Occurrence implies that pathogens are present in water and
that they may be capable of surviving and moving through water to cause
[[Page 37965]]
illness in persons exposed to drinking water by ingestion, inhalation,
or dermal contact.
Pathogen occurrence is considered broadly to include treated
drinking water, and all waters using a drinking water source for
recreational purposes, ground water, and surface water bodies. This
attribute does not characterize the extent to which a pathogen's
occurrence poses a public health threat from drinking water exposure.
Exhibit 11--Occurrence and Health Effects Scoring Protocols for
Pathogens
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Score
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Occurrence Scoring Protocol:
Detected in drinking water in the U.S. 3
Detected in source water in the U.S. 2
Not detected in the U.S. 1
Health Effects Scoring Protocol:
Does the organism cause significant mortality (>1/1,000 7
cases)?.................................................
Does the organism cause pneumonia, meningitis, hepatitis, 6
encephalitis, endocarditis, cancer, or other severe
manifestations of illness necessitating long term
hospitalization (>week)?................................
Does the illness result in long term or permanent 5
dysfunction or disability (e.g., sequelae)?.............
Does the illness require short term hospitalization? 4
(https://www.regulations.gov (Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0594). A more
detailed summary of the nomination process is included in Section 3.6
of the Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021c) and in
Section 2.1 of the Microbial Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021d).
[[Page 37968]]
Exhibit 13--Contaminants Nominated for Consideration on the Draft CCL 5: Nominated Chemical Contaminant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chemical name CASRN DTXSID
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1,1-Dichloroethane..................................... 75-34-3 DTXSID1020437
1,4-Dioxane............................................ 123-91-1 DTXSID4020533
1-Phenylacetone \1\.................................... 103-79-7 DTXSID1059280
2-(N-Methylperfluorooctane sulfonamido)acetic acid (Me- 2355-31-9 DTXSID10624392
PFOSA-AcOH).
2-(N-Ethyl perfluorooctane sulfonamido) acetic acid (Et- 2991-50-6 DTXSID5062760
PFOSA-AcOH).
2-[(8-Chloro-1,1,2,2,3,3,4,4,5,5,6,6,7,7,8,8- 763051-92-9 DTXSID40892507
Hexadecafluorooctyl)oxy]-1,1,2,2-tetrafluoroethane-1-
sulfonic acid (11Cl-PF3OUdS).
3-Hydroxycarbofuran.................................... 16655-82-6 DTXSID2037506
3-Monoacetylmorphine \1\............................... 29593-26-8 DTXSID30183774
4,8-Dioxa-3H-perfluorononanoic acid (ADONA)............ 919005-14-4 DTXSID40881350
6-Monoacetylmorphine \1\............................... 2784-73-8 DTXSID60182154
Ammonium perfluoro-2-methyl-3-oxahexanoate............. 62037-80-3 DTXSID40108559
Anatoxin A............................................. 64285-06-9 DTXSID50867064
Azinphos-methyl........................................ 86-50-0 DTXSID3020122
Benzoic acid \1\....................................... 65-85-0 DTXSID6020143
Benzoic acid glucuronide \1\........................... 19237-53-7 DTXSID90940901
Bromochloroacetic acid (BCAA).......................... 5589-96-8 DTXSID4024642
Bromochloroiodomethane (BCIM).......................... 34970-00-8 DTXSID9021502
Bromodichloroacetic acid (BDCAA)....................... 71133-14-7 DTXSID4024644
Bromodichloronitromethane (BDCNM)...................... 918-01-4 DTXSID4021509
Bromodiiodomethane (BDIM).............................. 557-95-9 DTXSID70204235
Chlorate............................................... 14866-68-3 DTXSID3073137
Chlorodibromoacetic acid (CDBAA)....................... 5278-95-5 DTXSID3031151
Chloro-diiodo-methane (CDIM)........................... 638-73-3 DTXSID20213251
Chloropicrin (trichloro-nitromethane; TCNM)............ 76-06-2 DTXSID0020315
Chlorpyrifos........................................... 2921-88-2 DTXSID4020458
Cylindrospermopsin..................................... 143545-90-8 DTXSID2031083
Dibromochloronitromethane (DBCNM)...................... 1184-89-0 DTXSID00152114
Dibromoiodomethane (DBIM).............................. 593-94-2 DTXSID60208040
Dichloroiodomethane (DCIM)............................. 594-04-7 DTXSID7021570
Fluoxetine............................................. 5491-89-3 DTXSID7023067
Gemfibrozil............................................ 25812-30-0 DTXSID0020652
Heroin................................................. 561-27-3 DTXSID6046761
Hippuric acid \1\...................................... 495-69-2 DTXSID9046073
Hydromorphone \1\...................................... 466-99-9 DTXSID8023133
Hydromorphone-3-glucuronide \1\........................ No CASRN NO_DTXSID
Hydroxyamphetamide \1\................................. 103-86-6 DTXSID3023134
Isodrin (Pholedrine, 4-Hydroxymethamphetamine) \1\..... 465-73-6 DTXSID7042065
Manganese.............................................. 7439-96-5 DTXSID2024169
Methamphetamine \1\.................................... 537-46-2 DTXSID8037128
Microcystin LA......................................... 96180-79-9 DTXSID3031656
Microcystin LR......................................... 101043-37-2 DTXSID3031654
Microcystin LW......................................... No CASRN DTXSID70891285
Microcystin RR......................................... 111755-37-4 DTXSID40880085
Microcystin YR......................................... 101064-48-6 DTXSID00880086
Molybdenum............................................. 7439-98-7 DTXSID1024207
Morphine............................................... 57-27-2 DTXSID9023336
Morphine-3-glucuronide................................. 20290-09-9 DTXSID80174157
Morphine-6-glucuronide \1\............................. 20290-10-2 DTXSID40174158
N-Nitrosodiethylamine (NDEA)........................... 55-18-5 DTXSID2021028
N-Nitrosodimethylamine (NDMA).......................... 62-75-9 DTXSID7021029
N-Nitroso-di-n-propylamine (NDPA)...................... 621-64-7 DTXSID6021032
N-Nitrosodiphenylamine (NDPhA)......................... 86-30-6 DTXSID6021030
N-Nitrosopyrrolidine (NPYR)............................ 930-55-2 DTXSID8021062
Perfluoro(2-((6-chlorohexyl)oxy)ethanesulfonic acid) 756426-58-1 DTXSID80892506
(9Cl-PF3ONS).
Perfluoro-2-methyl-3-oxahexanoic acid.................. 13252-13-6 DTXSID70880215
Perfluorobutane sulfonic acid (PFBS)................... 375-73-5 DTXSID5030030
Perfluorobutyric acid (PFBA)........................... 375-22-4 DTXSID4059916
Perfluorodecanoic acid (PFDeA/PFDA).................... 335-76-2 DTXSID3031860
Perfluorododecanoic acid (PFDoA)....................... 307-55-1 DTXSID8031861
Perfluoroheptanoic acid (PFHpA)........................ 375-85-9 DTXSID1037303
Perfluorohexane sulfonic acid (PFHxS).................. 355-46-4 DTXSID7040150
Perfluorohexanoic acid (PFHxA)......................... 307-24-4 DTXSID3031862
Perfluoronononanoic acid (PFNA)........................ 375-95-1 DTXSID8031863
Perfluorooctanesulfonamide (PFOSA)..................... 754-91-6 DTXSID3038939
Perfluorooctane sulfonic acid (PFOS)................... 1763-23-1 DTXSID3031864
Perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).......................... 335-67-1 DTXSID8031865
Perfluorotetradecanoic acid (PFTA)..................... 376-06-7 DTXSID3059921
Perfluorotridecanoic acid (PFTrDA)..................... 72629-94-8 DTXSID90868151
Perfluoroundecanoic acid (PFUA/PFUnA).................. 2058-94-8 DTXSID8047553
Phenylpropanolamine \1\................................ 37577-28-9 DTXSID4023466
[[Page 37969]]
Strontium.............................................. 7440-24-6 DTXSID3024312
Tribromoacetic acid (TBAA)............................. 75-96-7 DTXSID6021668
Triiodomethane (TIM)................................... 75-47-8 DTXSID4020743
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Thirteen nominated chemicals did not have available water occurrence data, even after a systematic
literature search was conducted, and therefore were not evaluated for listing on the Draft CCL 5. See Section
4.2.1.1 of the Chemical Technical Support Document for more information.
Nominated Microbial Contaminants
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Microbial name
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adenovirus.
Aeromonas hydrophila.
Caliciviruses.
Campylobacter jejuni.
Enterovirus.
Escherichia coli (0157).
Helicobacter pylori.
Hepatitis A virus.
Legionella pneumophila.
Mycobacterium species predominantly found in drinking water.
Mycobacterium avium.
Naegleria fowleri.
Non-tuberculous Mycobacterium (NTM).
Pseudomonas aeruginosa.
Salmonella enterica.
Shigella sonnei.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Data Sources for the Nominated Chemical and Microbial Contaminants
a. Chemical Nominations
EPA reviewed the public nominations for the 73 chemicals and
determined which nominated chemicals were already included in the CCL 5
Chemical Universe and which ones were not. If a chemical was already
part of the CCL 5 Chemical Universe, this meant that EPA had identified
and extracted health effects and occurrence data on this chemical from
primary data sources in Step 1, Building the Chemical Universe.
However, most of these chemicals did not have sufficiently high
screening scores and therefore required additional data to evaluate
them. For the nominated chemicals that were not included in the CCL 5
Chemical Universe, they would require further data collection to be
evaluated for listing on the Draft CCL 5. To identify additional data
for these nominated chemicals, EPA assessed data sources cited with
public nominations using the assessment factors described in Section
III.A.1 of this document and extracted health effects and occurrence
data from sources that were relevant, complete, and not redundant.
Sources that met these three assessment factors were considered
supplemental data sources and could serve as references to fill any
data gaps for particular chemical contaminants during Step 3 of the CCL
5 process (see Section III.A.3 of this document). EPA also conducted
literature searches to identify additional health effects and
occurrence data; more information can be found on the literature
searches in Section III.A.3.a of this document and in Chapter 4 of the
Chemical Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021c). A complete list of
supplemental sources can be found in Appendix B of the Chemical
Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021c).
b. Microbial Nominations
EPA reviewed the nominated microbial contaminants and the
supporting information provided by nominators to determine if any new
data were provided that had not been previously evaluated. EPA also
collected additional data for the nominated microbial contaminants,
when available, from both the CCL 3 and CCL 4 data sources that had
been updated and from literature searches covering the time between the
CCL 4 and the CCL 5 (2016-2019). If new data were available, EPA
screened and scored the microbial contaminants nominated for CCL 5
using the same process that was used for the CCL 3 and the CCL 4. There
were no new publicly nominated microbial data sources for the CCL 5. A
more detailed description of the data sources used to evaluate
microbial contaminants for the Draft CCL 5 can be found in the
Microbial Technical Support Document (USEPA, 2021d).
2. Listing Outcomes for the Nominated Chemical Contaminants
EPA reviewed the nominated chemical contaminants and identified
which chemicals were (i) not already on the PCCL 5, and (ii) not
subject to proposed or promulgated NPDWRs, and needed to be considered
for further analysis. EPA did not add publicly nominated groups like
``the top 200 most prescribed drugs in 2016 and their parents and
metabolites'' to the PCCL 5 because health effects and occurrence data
must be linked to specific individual contaminants in order to be
evaluated. However, individual chemicals in a nominated group could
still be listed on the PCCL if they were also nominated individually or
if they were part of the CCL 5 Chemical Universe and screened to the
PCCL.
EPA could not identify occurrence data for 13 nominated chemicals
(Exhibit 13) from either primary or supplemental data sources nor was
data provided in the public nominations. Without available data
regarding measured occurrence in water or relevant data provided by the
nominators, the two evaluation teams agreed that they could not
determine whether these chemicals were likely to present the greatest
public health concern through drinking water exposure and therefore
should not advance further in the CCL 5 process. However, some were
evaluated for possible research needs (see Chapter 5 of the Chemical
Technical Support Document; USEPA, 2021c). More detailed information
about how nominated chemicals were considered for the Draft CCL 5 can
be found in Section 3.6 of the Chemical Technical Support Document
(USEPA, 2021c).
Four publicly nominated chemicals were included on the Draft CCL 5
as a result of evaluation team listing decisions, including 1,4-
dioxane, chlorpyrifos, manganese, and molybdenum. In addition, 43
nominated chemicals consisting of 7 cyanotoxins, 18 DBPs, and 18 PFAS
chemicals were included in the three chemical groups listed on the
Draft CCL 5 (e.g., the cyanotoxin, DBP, and PFAS groups). The PFAS
group is inclusive of any PFAS, except for PFOA and PFOS. Although PFOA
and PFOS were nominated, EPA has made a positive final regulatory
determination for these two chemicals; and therefore, did not include
them in the PFAS group.
3. Listing Outcomes for the Nominated Microbial Contaminants
All the microbes nominated for the CCL 5, with the exception of
Salmonella enterica, and Aeromonas hydrophila, and Hepatitis A, are
listed on the Draft CCL 5. Salmonella enterica, Aeromonas hydrophila
and Hepatitis A did not produce sufficient composite scores to place
them on the Draft CCL 5.
[[Page 37970]]
Although Salmonella enterica and Hepatitis A have numerous WBDOs, the
route of exposure was not explicitly waterborne. Non-tuberculous
Mycobacterium (NTM) and Mycobacterium (species broadly found in
drinking water) were nominated for the CCL 5 and are not listed on the
Draft CCL 5 as a group; instead, they were listed as Mycobacterium
avium and Mycobacterium abscessus, two species of NTM that are found in
drinking water.
D. Data Availability Assessment for the Draft CCL 5 Chemicals
In an effort to provide the current data availability of the Draft
CCL 5 contaminants with respect to occurrence, health effects, and
analytical methods data, EPA provides a summary table (Exhibit 14)
depicting chemicals categorized into six groups depending upon the
availability of their occurrence data and health assessment. EPA did
not assess data availability for individual chemicals of the
cyanotoxins, DBPs and PFAS groups because the availability of health
effects and occurrence data varies with individual chemicals in each
group. The agency is addressing these groups broadly in drinking water
based on a subset of chemicals in these groups that are known to occur
in public water systems and may cause adverse health effects.
Exhibit 14--Data Availability/Information for the Draft CCL 5 Contaminants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Best available Is a health assessment Is an analytical method
CASRN DTXSID Common name occurrence data available? available?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A. Contaminants with Nationally Representative Finished Water Occurrence Data and Qualifying Health Assessments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
96-18-4................... DTXSID9021390 1,2,3- National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Trichloropropane. Water.
123-91-1.................. DTXSID4020533 1,4-dioxane.......... National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
319-84-6.................. DTXSID2020684 alpha- National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Hexachlorocyclohexan Water.
e.
7440-42-8................. DTXSID3023922 Boron................ National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
63-25-2................... DTXSID9020247 Carbaryl............. National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
2921-88-2................. DTXSID4020458 Chlorpyrifos......... National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
7440-48-4................. DTXSID1031040 Cobalt............... National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
60-57-1................... DTXSID9020453 Dieldrin............. National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
330-54-2.................. DTXSID0020446 Diuron............... National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
13194-84-4................ DTXSID4032611 Ethoprop............. National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
7439-93-2................. DTXSID5036761 Lithium.............. National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
7439-96-5................. DTXSID2024169 Manganese............ National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
7439-98-7................. DTXSID1024207 Molybdenum........... National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
42874-03-3................ DTXSID7024241 Oxyfluorfen.......... National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
52645-53-1................ DTXSID8022292 Permethrin........... National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
41198-08-7................ DTXSID3032464 Profenofos........... National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
1918-16-7................. DTXSID4024274 Propachlor........... National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
91-22-5................... DTXSID1021798 Quinoline............ National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
107534-96-3............... DTXSID9032113 Tebuconazole......... National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
78-48-8................... DTXSID1024174 Tribufos............. National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
7440-62-2................. DTXSID2040282 Vanadium............. National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
95-53-4................... DTXSID1026164 2-Aminotoluene....... National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
51-28-5................... DTXSID0020523 2,4-Dinitrophenol.... National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Contaminants with Non-Nationally Representative Finished Water Occurrence Data and Qualifying Health Assessments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2163-68-0................. DTXSID6037807 2-Hydroxyatrazine.... Non-National Finished Yes..................... No.
Water.
120068-37-3............... DTXSID4034609 Fipronil............. Non-National Finished Yes..................... No.
Water.
121-74-5.................. DTXSID4020791 Malathion............ Non-National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
36734-19-7................ DTXSID3024154 Iprodione............ Non-National Finished Yes..................... No.
Water.
298-02-2.................. DTXSID4032459 Phorate.............. Non-National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
27314-13.................. DTXSID8024234 Norflurazon.......... Non-National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
2303-17-5................. DTXSID5024344 Tri-allate........... Non-National Finished Yes..................... No.
Water.
139-40-2.................. DTXSID3021196 Propazine............ Non-National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
1689-84-5................. DTXSID3022162 Bromoxynil........... Non-National Finished Yes..................... No.
Water.
2312-35-8................. DTXSID4024276 Propargite........... Non-National Finished Yes..................... No.
Water.
141-66-2.................. DTXSID9023914 Dicrotophos.......... Non-National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
709-98-8.................. DTXSID8022111 Propanil............. Non-National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
153719-23-4............... DTXSID2034962 Thiamethoxam......... Non-National Finished Yes..................... No.
Water.
10605-21-7................ DTXSID4024729 Carbendazim (MBC).... Non-National Finished Yes..................... No.
Water.
55283-68.................. DTXSID8032386 Ethalfluralin........ Non-National Finished Yes..................... No.
Water.
3397624................... DTXSID1037806 Diaminochlorotriazine Non-National Finished Yes..................... No.
(DACT). Water.
96182535.................. DTXSID1032482 Tebupirimfos......... Non-National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
114261.................... DTXSID7021948 Propoxur............. Non-National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
732116.................... DTXSID5024261 Phosmet.............. Non-National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
2164-17-2................. DTXSID8020628 Fluometuron.......... Non-National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
C. Contaminant with Nationally Representative Finished Water Occurrence Data Lacking Qualifying Health Assessments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1634-04-4................. DTXSID3020833 Methyl tert-butyl National Finished No...................... Yes.
ether (MTBE). Water.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Contaminants with Qualifying Health Assessments Lacking Finished Water Occurrence Data
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
3397-62-4................. DTXSID1037806 6-Chloro-1,3,5- National Ambient Yes..................... Yes.
triazine-2,4-diamine. Water.
30560-19-1................ DTXSID8023846 Acephate............. National Ambient Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
84-65-1................... DTXSID3020095 Anthraquinone........ National Ambient Yes..................... No.
Water.
6190-65-4................. DTXSID5037494 Deethylatrazine...... National Ambient Yes..................... No.
Water.
3397-62-4................. DTXSID0037495 Desisopropyl atrazine National Ambient Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
333-41-5.................. DTXSID9020407 Diazinon............. National Ambient Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
60-51-5................... DTXSID7020479 Dimethoate........... National Ambient Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
[[Page 37971]]
142459-58-3............... DTXSID2032552 Flufenacet National Ambient Yes..................... No.
(Thiaflumide). Water.
22967-92-6................ DTXSID9024198 Methylmercury........ National Ambient Yes..................... No.
Water.
13071-79-9................ DTXSID2022254 Terbufos............. National Ambient Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
126-73-8.................. DTXSID3021986 Tributyl phosphate National Ambient Yes..................... No.
(TNBP). Water.
103476-24-0............... DTXSID5021411 Tris(2-chloroethyl) National Ambient Yes..................... No.
phosphate (TCEP). Water.
7440-33-7................. DTXSID8052481 Tungsten............. National Ambient Yes..................... No.
Water.
107-02-8.................. DTXSID5020023 Acrolein............. National Ambient Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
95-63-6................... DTXSID6021402 Trimethylbenzene National Ambient Yes..................... Yes.
(1,2,4-). Water.
80-05-7................... DTXSID7020182 Bisphenol A.......... National Ambient Yes..................... No.
Water.
143-50-0.................. DTXSID1020770 Chlordecone Non-national Ambient Yes..................... Yes.
(Kepone)\2\. Water.
741-58-2.................. DTXSID9032329 Bensulide............ Non-national Ambient Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
16752-77-5................ DTXSID1022267 Methomyl............. Non-National Finished Yes..................... Yes.
Water.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E. Contaminants Lacking Nationally Representative Finished Water Occurrence Data and Qualifying Health Assessments
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
104-40-5.................. DTXSID3021857 4-Nonylphenol (all Non-National Finished No...................... Method in review.
isomers). Water.
86386-73-4................ DTXSID3020627 Fluconazole.......... Non-National Finished No...................... No.
Water.
93413628.................. DTXSID40869118 Desvenlafaxine....... Non-National Finished No...................... No.
Water.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Key to Exhibit
National = Occurrence data that are nationally representative are available
Non-National = Occurrence data that are not nationally representative are available
Note: Data availability was not assessed for cyanotoxins, DBPs and PFAS.
Contaminants in Group A have nationally representative finished
drinking water occurrence data and qualifying health assessments.
Contaminants in Group B have finished drinking water occurrence data
that is not nationally representative and qualifying health
assessments. Contaminants in groups C, D, and E lack either a
qualifying health assessment or finished water occurrence data and have
more substantial data needs.
In addition, EPA assessed the data availability of the PCCL 5
chemicals that are not included on the Draft CCL 5. For more
information on EPA methodology to identify data availability and
summary tables, see Section 5.3 of the Chemical Technical Support
Document (USEPA, 2021c).
IV. Request for Comments
The purpose of this document is to present the Draft CCL 5. EPA
seeks comments on the following:
A. Contaminants selected for the Draft CCL 5, including any
supporting data that can be used in developing the Final CCL 5.
B. Data that EPA obtained and evaluated for developing the Draft
CCL 5 may be found in the Chemical Technical Support Document and
Microbial Technical Support Document located in the docket for this
document.
C. The improvements EPA implemented in the CCL 5 process.
EPA will take these comments into consideration when developing
future CCLs. EPA will consider all information and comments received in
determining the Final CCL 5, in the development of future CCLs, and in
the agency's efforts to set drinking water priorities in the future.
V. EPA's Next Steps
Between now and the publication of the Final CCL 5, EPA will
evaluate comments received during the public comment period for this
document, consult with EPA's Science Advisory Board, and prepare the
Final CCL 5 considering this input.
VI. References
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). 2020.
Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) in Drinking Water.
Available on the internet at: https://www.aaas.org/programs/epi-center/pfas.
Carroll, K.C., Pfaller, M.A., Landry, M.L., McAdam, A.J., Patel, R.,
Richter, S.S. and Warnock, David W. (ed). 2019. Manual of Clinical
Microbiology, Twelfth Edition.
CDC. 2008. Surveillance for Waterborne Disease and Outbreaks
Associated with Drinking Water and Water not Intended for Drinking--
United States, 2005-2006. MMWR 57 (SS-9).
CDC, 2020a. National Outbreak Reporting System (NORS)--United
States, 2009-2017.
CDC, 2020b. Legionella (Legionnaires' Disease and Pontiac Fever).
https://cdc.gov/legionella/about/history.html.
Executive Office of the President. 2021. Protecting Public Health
and the Environment and Restoring Science To Tackle the Climate
Crisis; Federal Register. Vol. 86, E.O. 13990. p. 7037, January 20,
2021.
Murray, P.R., E.J. Baron, J.H. Jorgensen, M.L. Landry, and M.A.
Pfaller (ed.). 2011. Manual of Clinical Microbiology, 10th Edition,
ASM Press, Washington, DC.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM).
2020. Management of Legionella in Water Systems. The National
Academies Press, Washington, DC.
National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC). 2004. National
Drinking Water Advisory Council Report on the CCL Classification
Process to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Available on
the internet at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-11/documents/report_ccl_ndwac_07-06-04.pdf.
National Research Council (NRC). 2001. Classifying Drinking Water
Contaminants for Regulatory Consideration. National Academy Press,
Washington, DC.
USEPA. 1998. Announcement of the Drinking Water Contaminant
Candidate List; Notice. Federal Register. Vol. 63, No. 40. p. 10274,
March 2, 1998.
USEPA. 1999. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation for Public Water Systems. Federal Register. Vol. 64, No.
180, p. 50556, September 17, 1999.
USEPA. 2000. Methodology for Deriving Ambient Water Quality Criteria
for the Protection of Human Health (2000). https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2018-10/documents/methodology-wqc-protection-hh-2000.pdf.
USEPA. 2003. Announcement of Regulatory Determinations for Priority
Contaminants on the Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List.
Federal Register. Vol. 68, No. 138. p. 42898, July 18, 2003.
USEPA. 2005. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 2; Final
Notice. Federal Register. Vol. 70, No. 36. p. 9071, February 24,
2005.
USEPA. 2007. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Regulation (UCMR)
for Public Water Systems Revisions; Correction. Federal Register.
Vol. 72, No. 19, p. 4328, January 30, 2007.
[[Page 37972]]
USEPA. 2008. Drinking Water: Regulatory Determinations Regarding
Contaminants on the Second Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate
List. Federal Register. Vol. 73, No. 174. p. 44251, July 30, 2008.
USEPA. 2009a. Final Contaminant Candidate List 3 Chemicals:
Identifying the Universe. EPA 815-R09-006. August 2009.
USEPA. 2009b. Final Contaminant Candidate List 3 Chemicals:
Screening to a PCCL. EPA. 815-R09-007. August 2009.
USEPA. 2009c. Community Water System Survey 2006. Volume 1:
Overview. EPA 815-R-09-001. February 2009.
USEPA. 2009d. Community Water System Survey 2006. Volume II:
Detailed Tables and Survey Methodology. EPA 815-R-09-002. May 2009.
USEPA. 2009e. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 3--Final.
Federal Register. Vol. 74, No. 194. p. 51850, October 8, 2009.
USEPA. 2011. Drinking Water: Regulatory Determination on
Perchlorate. Federal Register. Vol. 76, No. 29. p. 7762, February
11, 2011.
USEPA. 2012a. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation (UCMR 3) for Public Water Systems. Federal Register. Vol.
77, No. 85. p. 26071, May 2, 2012.
USEPA. 2012b. TSCA Work Plan Chemicals: Methods Document. February
2012. Available on the internet at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-03/documents/work_plan_methods_document_web_final.pdf.
USEPA. 2014. Announcement of Preliminary Regulatory Determination
for Contaminants on the Third Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate
List. Federal Register. Vol. 79, No. 202, p. 62716, October 20,
2014.
USEPA. 2015. Algal Toxin Risk Assessment and Management Strategic
Plan for Drinking Water, Strategy Submitted to Congress to Meet the
Requirements of P.L. 114-45. EPA 810-R-04-003.
USEPA. 2016a. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation (UCMR 4) for Public Water Systems. Federal Register. Vol.
81, No. 244. p. 92666, December 20, 2016.
USEPA. 2016b. Final Regulatory Determinations on the Third Drinking
Water Contaminant Candidate List. Federal Register. Vol. 81, No. 1.
P. 13-19, January 4, 2016.
USEPA. 2016c. Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List 4-Final.
Federal Register. Vol. 81, No. 222. P. 81099, November 17, 2016.
USEPA. 2017. Analysis of Occurrence Data from the Third Six-Year
Review of Existing National Primary Drinking Water Regulations:
Chemical Phase Rules and Radionuclides Rules. EPA-810-R-16-014.
December 2016.
USEPA. 2018a. Request for Nominations of Drinking Water Contaminants
for the Fifth Contaminant Candidate List. Notice. Federal Register.
Vol. 83, No. 194. p. 50364, October 5, 2018.
USEPA. 2018b. Basic Information on PFAS. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/pfas/basic-information-pfas.
USEPA. 2019a. Drinking Water: Final Action on Perchlorate. Federal
Register. Vol. 84, No. 123, p. 30524. June 26, 2019.
USEPA. 2019b. EPA's Per- and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS)
Action Plan. EPA 823-R-18-004, February 2019. Available at: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2019-02/documents/pfas_action_plan_021319_508compliant_1.pdf.
USEPA. 2020. Drinking Water: Perchlorate. Federal Register. Vol. 85,
No. 140, p. 43990, July 2020. EPA-HQ-OW-2018-0780-0302.
USEPA. 2021a. Revisions to the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation (UCMR 5) for Public Water Systems. Federal Register. Vol.
86, No. 46. p. 13846, March 11, 2021.
USEPA. 2021b. Announcement of Final Regulatory Determinations for
Contaminants on the Fourth Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate
List. Federal Register. Vol. 86, No. 40, p. 12272, March 3, 2021.
EPA-HQ-OW-2019-0583.
USEPA. 2021c. Technical Support Document for the Draft Fifth
Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 5)--Chemical Contaminants. EPA 815-
R-21-005, July 2021.
USEPA. 2021d. Technical Support Document for the Draft Fifth
Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 5)--Microbial Contaminants. EPA 815-
R-21-007, July 2021.
USEPA. 2021e. Technical Support Document for the Draft Fifth
Contaminant Candidate List (CCL 5)--Contaminant Information Sheets.
EPA 815-R-21-006, July 2021.
USEPA. 2021f. TSCA Section 8(a)(7) Reporting and Recordkeeping
Requirements for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances.
Proposed Rule. 86 FR 33926. June 28, 2021.
Williams, A.J., C.M. Grulke, J. Edwards, A.D. McEachran, K.
Mansouri, N.C. Baker, G. Patlewicz, I. Shah, J.F. Wambaugh, R.S.
Judson, and A.M. Richard. 2017. The CompTox Chemistry Dashboard: a
community data resource for environmental chemistry. Journal of
Cheminformatics. 9:61. doi:10.1186/s13321-017-0247-6.
Radhika Fox,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water.
[FR Doc. 2021-15121 Filed 7-16-21; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P