As in most places, things always seem to move a bit slower over the summer months in D.C., with some portion of federal agencies’ staff or management inevitably on vacation at some point, making planning and decision making more difficult. Adding sequester-induced budget cuts and associated mandatory days off into the equation only adds to delays and uncertainty. From a drinking water perspective, the result has been very limited movement on the regulatory agenda, with most work being performed internally, and with limited public interaction, at EPA’s Office of Water.
Following the submission of the final report from the Science Advisory Board’s (SAB’s) Perchlorate Advisory Panel on setting a maximum contaminant level goal for perchlorate in drinking water, EPA continues to work on “getting the science right” prior to issuing a perchlorate rule proposal. The key issue EPA continues to assess is how a revised perchlorate model published in the journal Toxicological Sciences, “Evaluation of Perturbations in Serum Thyroid Hormones during Human Pregnancy due to Dietary Iodide and Perchlorate Exposure using a Biologically Based Dose Response Model,” impacts regulatory evaluations in light of the SAB recommendations. The new model incorporates many of the SAB recommendations on a preferred modeling approach and indicates that EPA’s current reference dose for perchlorate (0.7 micrograms per kilogram bodyweight per day) is adequately protective of public health, a finding that would support EPA’s original 2009 decision not to regulate perchlorate. EPA personnel have stated that they are evaluating the revised modeling approach and assessing how it may be used in support of a rule proposal. EPA’s regulatory agenda still lists a perchlorate proposal date of December 2013, but the need to finish the evaluation process and complete several key steps in the administrative review process continues to make that goal unrealistic.
Following initial announcements that it was pausing in its development of Lead and Copper Rule (LCR) revisions to pursue additional stakeholder collaboration and input, the Office of Water conducted preliminary outreach to gauge feedback on the best process to use going forward. The greater level of consensus that can be reached among all stakeholders prior to a rule proposal going forward, the smoother the process will inevitably be. But it is unclear at this point how rigorous a collaboration process EPA has the funds to undertake, and staff have not yet decided on a preferred path forward. Additional stakeholder collaboration has also been proposed for developing regulations to address Carcinogenic Volatile Organic Compounds as a group, but plans have yet to be solidified on that process.
Overall, new information on regulatory development processes has been scarce. Additional information on regulatory timelines is expected to be forthcoming when D.C. returns to life after Labor Day, and AMWA will pass along any new information as it becomes available.