Guam EPA board directs staff to work with GWA and public water systems on interim action level implementation

The Guam Environmental Protection Agency board voted to direct agency staff to work with the Guam Waterworks Authority and other public water systems on implementation of the agency's interim action level for an unregulated contaminant and to return to the board with recommendations.

Board members debated whether to rescind last month's adoption of the interim action level, open the implementation timeline for revision, or proceed while staff and utilities develop an implementation plan. A motion to have the agency coordinate with GWA and public water systems and report back passed after a voice vote.

Board discussion focused on three practical questions: whether to rescind the prior adoption or proceed while revising implementation; how long the revision process could take; and how implementation and required notifications would apply across different public water systems. One board member said two procedural options existed: "1 is a motion to rescind and address the process. 2 is to go forward with suggestion of, counsel that the 2 agencies work together in revising the implementation plan." That board member later made the formal motion directing staff to work with GWA and other public water systems.

Agency staff described implementation as varying by system. Staff said monitoring and study plans must be submitted and approved before a system's monitoring and required notifications would begin, and that approval of those plans determines the launch date for implementation. A staff speaker noted, "We approve that. And then once we approve it, then we will respond. This is when we are gonna start the the launch." The board asked whether implementation would take effect "upon approval" or have different effective dates for each system; staff replied each system's timing depends on its approved monitoring plan.

Members pressed on notification timing and tier definitions. The transcript includes references to a two-tier standard used to set different notification thresholds (commonly described in discussion as "tier 1" and "tier 2") and numeric levels discussed in the meeting, including references to "0.2," "0.5," and a lower figure that was rendered during the meeting as "0.02." The board also discussed a 24-hour notification possibility tied to higher-tier exceedances and a 30-day window tied to a lower-tier standard; participants linked the tier values to risk profiles from toxicology review. One staff speaker said the toxicologists had recommended the two different values based on differing risk profiles and that the interim action level had been set to a conservative baseline while additional data are collected.

Some board members objected to a prolonged revision process, saying it should not take a year to return with recommendations. One member said the effort "could take 5 minutes" or could move slowly, and another asked for a deadline for returning to the board. The motion as adopted did not set a deadline; the board asked staff to return with recommendations and clarifications, and members discussed the possibility of a faster reconsideration process if warranted.

On procedure, several speakers noted the board had adopted the interim action level the prior week and that the current vote was limited to directing staff to coordinate on implementation rather than rescinding the earlier adoption. A board member summarized: the motion "has nothing to do with that" (rescinding) and called for a voice vote. The board recorded the motion as approved by voice vote.

Next steps: staff will work with GWA and other public water systems to clarify implementation details, monitoring-plan requirements, and notification timing and will report back to the board with recommended implementation steps. The board did not set a specific return date in the motion and left open whether the board will schedule a timeline for reconsideration of the interim action level following the staff's report.