    [House Hearing, 110 Congress]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                      EMERGING CONTAMINANTS IN U.S. WATERS

    =======================================================================

                                   (110-171)

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                SUBCOMMITTEE ON
                        WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

                                     OF THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                       TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE
                            HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                           ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS

                                 SECOND SESSION

                                   __________

                               SEPTEMBER 18, 2008

                                   __________

                           Printed for the use of the
                 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

                       U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
    45-022 PDF                  WASHINGTON : 2008
    ----------------------------------------------------------------------
    For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
    Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov  Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512�091800
    Fax: (202) 512�092104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402�090001

                 COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

                     JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota, Chairman

    NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia,   JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    Vice Chair                           DON YOUNG, Alaska
    PETER A. DeFAZIO, Oregon             THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    Columbia                             WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
    JERROLD NADLER, New York             VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    CORRINE BROWN, Florida               STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio
    BOB FILNER, California               FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas         JERRY MORAN, Kansas
    GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi             GARY G. MILLER, California
    ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland         ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
    ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California        HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
    LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa             Carolina
    TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania             TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
    RICK LARSEN, Washington              SAM GRAVES, Missouri
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
    TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York          JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine            SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West
    BRIAN HIGGINS, New York              Virginia
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania
    JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado            MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania
    DANIEL LIPINSKI, Illinois            TED POE, Texas
    NICK LAMPSON, Texas                  DAVID G. REICHERT, Washington
    ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio               CONNIE MACK, Florida
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
    BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa                York
    JASON ALTMIRE, Pennsylvania          LYNN A WESTMORELAND, Georgia
    TIMOTHY J. WALZ, Minnesota           CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
    HEATH SHULER, North Carolina         Louisiana
    MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York          JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizona           CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
    CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania  THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
    JOHN J. HALL, New York               MARY FALLIN, Oklahoma
    STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin               VERN BUCHANAN, Florida
    STEVE COHEN, Tennessee               ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
    JERRY McNERNEY, California
    LAURA A. RICHARDSON, California
    ALBIO SIRES, New Jersey
    DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland

                                      (ii)

    ?

                Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment

                    EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas, Chairwoman

    GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi             JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    BRIAN BAIRD, Washington              JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
    JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois          WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland
    TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York          VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan
    BRIAN HIGGINS, New York              FRANK A. LoBIONDO, New Jersey
    RUSS CARNAHAN, Missouri              GARY G. MILLER, California
    JOHN T. SALAZAR, Colorado            ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina
    MAZIE K. HIRONO, Hawaii              HENRY E. BROWN, Jr., South
    HEATH SHULER, North Carolina         Carolina
    HARRY E. MITCHELL, Arizaon           TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
    JOHN J. HALL, New York               BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania
    STEVE KAGEN, Wisconsin               CONNIE MACK, Florida
    JERRY MCNERNEY, California, Vice     JOHN R. `RANDY' KUHL, Jr., New
    Chair                                York
    ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of   CHARLES W. BOUSTANY, Jr.,
    Columbia                             Louisiana
    BOB FILNER, California               JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio
    ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California        CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan
    MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts    THELMA D. DRAKE, Virginia
    GRACE F. NAPOLITANO, California      ROBERT E. LATTA, Ohio
    MICHAEL A. ARCURI, New York          JOHN L. MICA, Florida
    DONNA F. EDWARDS, Maryland             (Ex Officio)
    JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota
      (Ex Officio)

                                     (iii)

                                    CONTENTS

                                                                       Page

    Summary of Subject Matter........................................    vi

                                   TESTIMONY

    DeFur, Peter, Research Associate Professor, Center for
      Environmental Studies, Virginia Commonwealth University,
      Richmond, Virginia.............................................     6
    Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin, Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S.
      Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C...............     6
    Guidotti, Tee L., Chair, Department of Environmental and
      Occupational Health, School of Public Health and Health
      Services, The George Washington University, Washington, D.C....     6
    Larsen, Matthew, Associate Director for Water, United States
      Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, accompanied by Herb
      Buxton, Program Coordinator, Toxics Program, United States
      Geological Survey, West Trenton, New Jersey....................     6
    Linn, Keith, Environmental Specialist, Northeast Ohio Regional
      Sewer District, Cleveland, Ohio, testifying on behalf of the
      National Association of Clean Water Agencies...................     6
    Littell, David, Commissioner, Maine Department of Environmental
      Protection, Chair, Cross Media Committee, Environmental Council
      of the States, Augusta, Maine..................................     6
    McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, a Representative in Congress from the
      State of New York..............................................     3

              PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

    Carnahan, Hon. Russ, of Missouri.................................    30
    Costello, Hon. Jerry F., of Illinois.............................    31
    Johnson, Hon. Eddie Bernice, of Texas............................    33
    McCarthy, Hon. Carolyn, of New York..............................    37
    Mitchell, Hon. Harry E., of Arizona..............................    42
    Oberstar, Hon. James L., of Minnesota............................    44

                   PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

    DeFur, Peter.....................................................    48
    Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin..........................................    55
    Guidotti, Tee L..................................................    67
    Larsen, Matthew..................................................    85
    Linn, Keith......................................................    96
    Littell, David...................................................   102

                      STATEMENTS SUBMITTED FOR THE RECORD

    Larsen, Matthew, Associate Director for Water, United States
      Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia, response for request for
      information from Rep. Napolitano...............................    94

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.001

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.002

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.003

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.004

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.005

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.006

    [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.007

                HEARING ON EMERGING CONTAMINANTS IN U.S. WATERS

                                  ----------

                         Thursday, September 18, 2008,

                      House of Representatives,
        Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure,
               Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The Subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m., in
    Room 2167, Rayburn House Office Building, the Honorable Eddie
    Bernice Johnson [Chairwoman of the Subcommittee] presiding.
        Ms. Johnson. I would like to call the Subcommittee to
    order. This afternoon, we will be holding a hearing on emerging
    contaminants in U.S. waters, and we will try to move
    expeditiously for those who are operating under time
    constraints.
        Today's hearing looks at the extensive range of emerging
    contaminants that are present in our surface waters. Many of
    these substances are either unregulated or under-regulated and
    include toxic chemicals, pesticides, pharmaceuticals, and nano-
    materials.
        As many of you know, I spent my early years as a nurse--and
    we have a nurse facing us out there--and it is from that
    experience that I have been very mindful of threats, especially
    unnecessary threats, to human health.
        However, I am concerned with the growing body of evidence
    on the presence of toxic chemicals and their byproducts in the
    Nation's waters and question just how safe our waters actually
    are, especially to human health over the long term.
        While the Clean Water Act was successful in controlling
    some substances, it is clear that today's contaminants of
    concern are not the pollutants of yesteryear. For example,
    there are currently 80,000 chemicals in use. This is a three-
    fold increase from 1941 to 1995. Eight thousand of these are
    known to be carcinogenics.
        One would hope that all of these 8,000 cancer-causing
    poisons are somehow addressed under Federal and State
    authorities, including the Clean Water Act. Shockingly, this is
    not the case. It seems that less than 300 chemicals have permit
    limits. Today's hearing provides us the opportunity to ask why
    this is the case.
        It is not as if emerging contaminants are new issues of
    concern for either the Congress or the EPA. In 1996, through
    the Food Quality Protection and Safe Drinking Water Acts, the
    Congress instructed EPA to develop a screening program to
    determine if certain chemicals and compounds disrupt hormones
    in humans. In the 12 years since this mandate was put forward,
    the Agency has not begun to test any chemicals under this
    program, despite the potential for these chemicals and
    compounds to cause great harms to individuals, especially to
    children and pregnant women
        Testimony from the U.S. Geological Survey will demonstrate
    that these endocrine disrupting chemicals, and many other toxic
    substances, are in our surface waters. Not only have they been
    demonstrated to harm aquatic life, they have the grave
    potential to harm humans.
        I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today about
    how these chemicals, these emerging contaminants, are getting
    into our waters.
        Our former Defense Secretary, Don Rumsfeld, famously
    stated: ``There are known knowns. There are known unknowns. But
    there are also unknown unknowns.''
        While perhaps it is a clever quip, we certainly saw how a
    reliance on such platitudes rendered our situation in Iraq
    during his tenure. We would certainly hope that our Nation's
    Environmental Protection Agency is not taking the same approach
    with regards to unregulated toxic chemicals.
        Frankly, when it comes to the health of the very young, to
    pregnant woman, and to the elderly, there is no excuse for not
    knowing.
        I look forward to the testimony from our witnesses today on
    this very important hearing. I now yield to the Subcommittee's
    Ranking Member, Mr. Boozman.
        Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. First of all, I want
    to congratulate you and Dr. Ehlers and the staff for the
    passage yesterday of the Great Lakes Legacy Act. That is
    something that I think that the Subcommittee can be very, very
    proud of, and we appreciate your leadership.
        Today, the Subcommittee begins to explore a new and
    important topic: micro pollutants in U.S. waters, sometimes
    referred to as contaminants of emerging concern.
        With the advent of better detection equipment, we are
    discovering a number of chemicals in our water that previously
    we have not considered. These substances may be naturally
    occurring or they may be manmade. Of those that are manmade,
    many are associated with human, industrial, and agricultural
    waste, including antibiotics, other prescription drugs,
    steroids, reproductive hormones, personal care products,
    products of oil use and combustion, pesticides, fire
    retardants, solvents, and the list goes on and on.
        These chemicals have been found in surface water downstream
    of urban center and livestock production areas. Many of these
    compounds seem to survive wastewater treatment. Some of these
    substances have also been found in the untreated drinking water
    sources for several U.S. cities. Where they are found, the
    concentrations of these chemicals so far has been relatively
    low and being compared to finding a drop of pollution in an
    Olympic-size swimming pool. Such low concentrations may not
    have any adverse human health effects, but we do not know how
    long these concentrations will remain low.
        We know that current drinking water and wastewater
    treatment processes are not designed to remove many of these
    substances, including pharmaceuticals. We know that at high
    concentrations, many of these contaminants have an adverse
    effect on the environment and on human health. We know very
    little about the chronic effect of low doses over extended
    periods of time.
        While there is a lot we do not know about the potential
    effects these substances might be having, we do know for
    certain that proper use of pharmaceuticals and industrial
    chemicals have enriched the quality of our lives and our
    Nation's economy. These are benefits that we certainly want to
    preserve. It would appear to me that there is a lot we do not
    know about the presence of these substances and to what degree
    they are actually a threat to human health and the environment.
    We certainly need to know a lot more before we decide on any
    regulatory course of action.
        I hope to learn more from the hearing today from this panel
    of expert witnesses. Hopefully, they can help us understand
    what is already known and what we still need to know about
    contaminants of emerging concerns in U.S. waters.
        I yield back, Madam Chair.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        We will ask all Members to file their statements and they
    will be a part of the permanent record. We will go directly to
    our witnesses, since we are starting late.
        I am pleased to have a distinguished Member of the House
    testifying on our first panel, Congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy,
    from the State of New York.
        Your full statement will be placed into the record, and if
    you can keep your comments to five minutes, we would appreciate
    it. And consistent with the Subcommittee practice, Members will
    not receive questions following the testimony, but, if we have
    some, we will contact you later. You may proceed.

     TESTIMONY OF THE HONORABLE CAROLYN MCCARTHY, A REPRESENTATIVE
                 IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

        Ms. McCarthy. Thank you, Chairwoman Eddie Bernice Johnson,
    and I want to thank Ranking Member John Boozman and Members of
    the Committee for holding this hearing and inviting me to
    testify.
        I commend the Chairwoman for all your hard work to keep our
    Nation's waters clean; not just by holding this hearing, but
    also moving the Water Resources Development Act and Beach
    Protection Act, important legislation to ensure that our
    beaches are safe for swimming, which the House took up before
    we entered the summer beach season.
        I appreciate the opportunity to testify before you
    specifically about pharmaceuticals in our Nation's waters.
        As you know, when the House took up H.R. 2357, the Beach
    Protection Act of 2007, I offered and withdrew an amendment to
    the bill. We engaged in a colloquy about pharmaceutical
    products in our Nation's waters. I asked that hearings be held,
    and we agreed to work together on legislation to address this
    issue. That brings us here today, and I commend the Committee
    for acknowledging that we must begin to understand this
    important issue so that our constituents can feel confident
    when they are drinking clean, safe water.
        An Associated Press study from March brought to light the
    fact that pharmaceuticals have been found in the drinking water
    supply of at least 41 million Americans. Last week, the AP did
    a follow-up study that found that even more Americans were
    affected by the contaminated water, approximately 46 million.
        In my State of New York, health officials found heart
    medicine, infection fighters, estrogen, mood stabilizers, and a
    tranquilizer in the upstate water supply. Six pharmaceuticals
    were found in the drinking water right here in Washington, D.C.
    We don't know how the pharmaceuticals enter the water supply,
    but it is likely that some medications that are not fully
    absorbed by the body may have passed into the water through
    human waste. In some other cases, unused pills may have simply
    been flushed down in the toilet. Additionally, some
    agricultural products and medications may have run off into the
    groundwater supplies.
        In addition to antibiotics and steroids, EPA has identified
    over 100 individual pharmaceutical and personal care products
    in environmental samples and in drinking water. Wastewater
    treatment plants appear to be unable to completely remove
    pharmaceutical products from the water. The presence of the
    pharmaceuticals in our Nation's waters raise serious questions
    about the effects on humans and on wildlife.
        I, along with my colleagues Representative Tammy Baldwin of
    Wisconsin and Allyson Schwartz of Pennsylvania, have introduced
    legislation that would require the EPA to conduct a study on
    the presence and source of pharmaceuticals and personal care
    products in our Nation's water.
        Pharmaceuticals and personal care products include
    prescription and over-the-counter therapeutic drugs,
    veterinarian drugs, fragrances, lotions, and cosmetics, as well
    as products used to enhance growth of health of livestock.
        H.R. 6820, the Water Assessment and Treatment Evaluation
    Research Study Act of 2008, or the WATER Study Act, includes a
    three-part report to be carried out by EPA working with other
    relevant Federal agencies. An initial report, due in one year
    after the bill is passed, calls for an analysis of what
    pharmaceuticals and personal care products are in the water,
    where they come from, and how we can regularly monitor for
    them.
        An interim report due in three years looks at the effects
    the products have on human and animal health, as well as
    methods to remove the products from our drinking water supply.
    A final report asks for an analysis of the long-term effects on
    human exposure to pharmaceutical products in our waters and the
    levels at which the products in our waters become harmful.
        The report is broken into three pieces because many
    interested groups explained the difficulty in completing a
    report from all the elements too soon, but some items we can
    know pretty quickly and can begin to respond to them in a
    better matter. Furthermore, initial results will prompt
    responses from the scientific community, which can also help
    form the basis of the items to be studied in the future
    reports.
        The final report asks for an update on all the findings
    from the initial and the second reports. The report will be
    used as part of the Government's efforts to better understand
    the effects pharmaceuticals in our waters have on human health
    and aquatic wildlife.
        I want to stress that my legislation is not intended to
    make any presumptions or accusations, or even say that a
    problem does exist. We are just looking for more information so
    we can make better informed choices and eventually move towards
    more sensible policies. Hopefully, the study will give us more
    information about the presence, source, and effects of the
    products that are in the water so we can begin efforts to
    ensure that the water is safe.
        We need to find out how these contaminants got in the
    water, what the risks are, and what steps we need to take to
    solve the problem. We need to know how are the pharmaceuticals
    entering the water supply? How much is in the water? What else
    is in the water that we do not know about yet? What are the
    effects on human health and plant life? What is the best way to
    dispose of pharmaceuticals? And how should we great water that
    has been contaminated with these products?
        How is existing Federal legislation, such as the Clean
    Water Act and Safe Drinking Water, sufficient to address the
    new products that we are finding?
        It is vital that Congress take up and champion the cause of
    keeping our coastal recreation and drinking water safe. This is
    a public health issue and we must act before the presence of
    pharmaceutical products reaches a crisis level. This study is a
    first and very important step in the process of addressing this
    issue. We need to accurately assess the risks of these
    contaminants in the water because some experts have suggested
    that the problem will only increase. We have seen a 12 percent
    rise over the last five years alone.
        I know that my bill, H.R. 6820, has been referred to the
    Energy and Commerce Committee because it focuses so much on
    addressing safe drinking water in specific, but I do recognize
    that this Committee handles the Clean Water Act, so it is
    important that we look at all of our Nation's waters as well,
    including source water, to see where the problem begins. We
    can't fully address safe drinking water without looking at the
    whole entire water system.
        I look forward to working with all of you, including the
    EPA, the water treatment companies, the drug companies,
    agricultural interests, and others to combat this issue. Before
    dropping the bill, we reached out to many different parties and
    will continue to talk. I know that we can come to an agreement
    on this issue, including efforts to educate people about safe
    disposal of medication.
        Just on a side, as all of us, you know, we go to the
    doctor, we get a prescription drug and we find, after a day or
    two, that we can't take that drug--maybe we have a reaction to
    it--and you have 40 pills. I asked the doctor, what can I do
    with the pills. He didn't know. So they are still sitting in my
    medicine cabinet because I don't want to dispose of them any
    more because I am afraid they will get into our water system.
        Madam Chairwoman, I again commend the Committee for holding
    this very important hearing, would be happy to answer any
    questions, and look forward to working with you and the
    Committee as we go forward. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. We will not have
    questions for you. Thank you very much for coming.
        Our second panel of witnesses consists of EPA's Assistant
    Administrator of Water, Mr. Benjamin Grumbles; Dr. Matthew
    Larsen of USGS. Dr. Larsen is the Assistant Director for Water
    at the USGS and is accompanied today by Mr. Herb Buxton, the
    Program Coordinator of the Toxics Program at USGS; Mr. David
    Littell from the State of Maine's Department of Environmental
    Protection. I am going to ask him to start testimony first
    because he has to leave.
        Following him will be Mr. Keith Linn, Environmental
    Specialist of the Northeast Ohio Environmental Sewer District,
    and Mr. Linn will be testifying on behalf of the National
    Association of Clean Water Agencies. We will then hear from Dr.
    Tee Guidotti, Chair of the Department of Environmental and
    Occupational Health at the George Washington University. Our
    final witness on the second panel is Mr. Peter deFur, Research
    Associate Professor from the Center of Environmental Studies at
    the Virginia Commonwealth University.
        Your full statements will be placed in the record, and we
    ask that you try to limit your testimony to five minutes as a
    courtesy of the other witnesses. Again, we will proceed with
    Mr. Littell.

     TESTIMONY OF DAVID LITTELL, COMMISSIONER, MAINE DEPARTMENT OF
        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, CHAIR, CROSS MEDIA COMMITTEE,
       ENVIRONMENTAL COUNCIL OF THE STATES, AUGUSTA, MAINE; THE
    HONORABLE BENJAMIN GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER,
    U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, WASHINGTON, D.C.; MATTHEW
    LARSEN, ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR FOR WATER, UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL
     SURVEY, RESTON, VIRGINIA, ACCOMPANIED BY HERB BUXTON, PROGRAM
     COORDINATOR, TOXICS PROGRAM, UNITED STATES GEOLOGICAL SURVEY,
    WEST TRENTON, NEW JERSEY; KEITH LINN, ENVIRONMENTAL SPECIALIST,
       NORTHEAST OHIO REGIONAL SEWER DISTRICT, CLEVELAND, OHIO,
    TESTIFYING ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CLEAN WATER
     AGENCIES; TEE L. GUIDOTTI, CHAIR, DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL
      AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH, SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND HEALTH
     SERVICES, THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, WASHINGTON, D.C.;
       AND PETER DEFUR, RESEARCH ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, CENTER FOR
       ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES, VIRGINIA COMMONWEALTH UNIVERSITY,
                           RICHMOND, VIRGINIA

        Mr. Littell. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Johnson, Ranking
    Member Boozman, Members of the Committee. Thank you for
    accommodating my schedule. I am David Littell, Commissioner of
    the Maine Department of Environmental Protection. Thank you for
    inviting me here to testify on Maine's experience with emerging
    contaminants.
        As a representative of the States, I hope to leave you
    today considering three issues. One is that the States simply
    do not have sufficient information nor resources to fully
    understand the human or environmental impacts of emerging
    contaminants in the waste streams, our waters, or our
    ecosystems. Two, there are certain characteristics of some
    substances that suggest a need for caution. Those substances
    are particularly carcinogens, reproductive and developmental
    toxics, endocrine disruptors, persistent and very persistent
    substances and biocumulative and very bioaccumulative
    substances. Third, the States have established, in some cases,
    common sense and very practical innovative approaches to
    dealing with some of these issues outside the regular
    regulatory construct, and we will commend some of those
    approaches to the Federal level as well.
        Maine's scientific and regulatory community has been
    looking at what we are calling emerging contaminants for well
    over a decade now. In 1995, Dr. Beverly Paigen, a scientist at
    Maine's internationally renowned Jackson Laboratory, discussed
    endocrine-disrupting chemicals in a technical paper prepared
    for the Maine Environmental Priorities Project.
        In that paper she noted concerns regarding biological,
    human, and wildlife impacts, including increased incidents of
    certain cancers, particularly reproductive impacts including
    human reproductive impacts, and congenital abnormalities, among
    other factors. As a result of that paper, Maine joined with
    USGS and the EPA to conduct limited sampling in Maine that
    supplemented the national sampling to determine to what extent
    some of these emerging contaminants of concern were in our
    waters.
        In 2002, Maine submitted samples to U.S. EPA Region I for
    wastewater effluents and associated receiving water discharges
    in eight locations in Maine. These were scanned for only six
    emerging contaminants. In the majority of these samples,
    detectable amounts of certain contaminants were found in the
    majority of the samples, particularly, bisphenol-A was
    detected, triclocarban, which is an antibacterial agent in
    soaps, and detectable amounts of an emulsifier used in
    detergents and pesticides were found. In addition, in the
    majority of samples, one or more estrogen-like compounds were
    detected.
        In 2005, Maine also dedicated a portion of our limited
    funding to study the presence of estrogenic compounds in the
    effluent of three publicly owned treatment plants on the
    Penobscot River. In each of these discharges from our public
    sewer treatment plants, effluent was determined to be
    estrogenic when it was discharged to the Penobscot River.
        What is the significance of these limited efforts today?
    Well, the significance is, although the data is sparse, we have
    clearly determined that wastewater discharges in receiving
    water bodies have levels of some emerging contaminants which
    could impact at a biological level aquatic life. That is a
    significant concern.
        Furthermore, we do not know what the cumulative effect is
    of multiple contaminants such as endocrine disruptors which are
    discharged to water bodies.
        In addition, impacted populations can be difficult to
    predict, and let me use a particular example from Maine to
    illustrate that. Maine has been studying the impact of mercury
    in our ecosystems since at least 1980, significantly. The
    conventional wisdom until very recently was that mercury issues
    were primarily aquatic ecosystem issues, the belief being that
    mercury was deposited in rainwater, as well as snow, into our
    aquatic ecosystems and worked its way up the food chain,
    ultimately ending up at the top end predator species--eagles,
    loons, and, of course, humans.
        Very recently, the BioDiversity Institute in Maine
    conducted extensive samples of 23 different bird species--ocean
    species, coastal wetland species, upland species, and inland
    wetland species. What they found is that certain species that
    have no direct contact with the aquatic ecosystem had mercury
    levels that were much higher than were expected. So we now know
    that we have a terrestrial ecosystem problem with mercury,
    where we don't entirely understand the mechanism of fate and
    transport and how the mercury is getting into the birds, but we
    clearly have an issue that until very recently we didn't
    realize we had in our terrestrial ecosystem.
        In addition, persistence, fate, and transport can be hard
    to predict, and by way of example of that I would offer the DDT
    example. Maine banned DDT four decades ago, and the United
    States followed in 1972. Despite that, we still have three
    river systems in Northern Maine that are under fishing
    advisories for DDT, and, of course, the situation is more
    significant nationally.
        In short, there is a lot that we don't know when gaging the
    significance of the release of many of these potential emerging
    contaminants into our ecosystems.
        What we do know is that there is an ongoing need for
    additional research needs to determine the environmental and
    human health impacts of these contaminants when they are
    released into the environment, also, to determine the human
    health toxicology and the eco-toxicology of these contaminants.
    Along the way, we have observed, as Ranking Member Boozman said
    in his opening statement, that wastewater treatment plants do
    not do a good job of treating for many of these contaminants.
    They are not designed to do so and, in many cases, they simply
    do not do so.
        However, there are other alternatives besides the
    traditional Clean Water Act approaches to controlling some of
    these contaminants. At the State level, we and other States
    have pioneered product stewardship initiatives, and
    particularly in the area of pharmaceuticals, in 2003, Maine was
    the first State to pass legislation authorizing a mail-in
    rebate program for unused pharmaceuticals.
        Since then, many entities have worked on the details of
    working that out because, as you might imagine, with
    pharmaceuticals they are a little bit different, some of them
    are controlled substances, so the drug enforcement authorities
    had particular concerns with how the program was designed and
    my own agency had concern because some of them qualified as
    hazardous waste, so they had to be dealt with a little bit
    differently than some other product stewardship initiatives.
        Nonetheless, we have successfully ironed out all the
    details and, in 2007, the U.S. EPA awarded a $150,000 grant to
    the University of Maine's Center for Aging, which launched a
    statewide mail-in rebate program. We expect that rebate program
    to remove 3,000 pounds of unused pharmaceuticals from our waste
    streams in Maine. Those 3,000 pounds of pharmaceuticals will
    not go into our water of the United States or water of the
    State of Maine, which is our groundwater.
        Maine's experience can be replicated and expanded
    nationally. In May of 2008, the international pharmaceutical
    company Roche publicized financial incentives to ensure that
    unused and outdated products are returned by retailers and
    others in the supply chain. Roche participates in
    pharmaceutical take-back programs in the EU and encourages
    those types of programs in the United States, but more could be
    done to work on those types of programs.
        While the overall structure of the Clean Water Act does not
    inhibit our work in this area and it is possible to use the
    traditional water quality criteria for individual toxics under
    the Clean Water Act, it is probably more effective to institute
    product stewardship initiatives to prevent these contaminants
    from entering the waste stream in the first place.
        In addition, I would respectfully submit that revisions to
    the Toxic Substance and Control Act would help ensure that the
    toxicity of the human health toxicity, as well as ecological
    toxicity, is better defined for existing chemicals that are in
    commerce and new chemicals before they are introduced in
    commerce.
        With that, I am happy to answer any questions the Committee
    might have, and, again, thank you for asking us to testify
    today.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much. We will ask the Committee
    Members to submit questions to you later, since it is just
    about time for you to walk out.
        Mr. Littell. Thank you, Congresswoman.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you.
        We will now go back to our regular order and ask Mr.
    Grumbles to start his testimony.
        Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Madam Chair and Congressman
    Boozman. It is always an honor to appear before the Committee.
    I just want to say, if this does end up being one of the last
    times to appear before the Committee, what an honor it has been
    to work with you all. You identify the right issues, the key
    concerns, and that is what today is all about. EPA is concerned
    about pharmaceuticals and personal care products in water, but
    we are also concerned that utilities and communities not divert
    their resources and efforts away from higher priorities and
    risks.
        Therefore, EPA has developed a comprehensive four-pronged
    approach to deal with this emerging concern of different types
    of contaminants that are not currently regulated, particularly
    pharmaceuticals and various personal care products. The first
    prong, one of the most fundamental, is to strengthen the
    science. We all know, and I am sure that this panel will
    understand that there is a lot for us to learn. We need to help
    close the gap between what we know what we don't know and what
    we need to know.
        The Agency is carrying out extensive studies and surveys at
    a national level and at a regional level to help close gaps in
    that first prong. I just want to mention a few of them. One of
    them is that we are conducting a study at nine sewage treatment
    plants to better understand what is going into the plant for
    treatment and what is coming out of the discharge. We have also
    conducted a pilot study on fish tissue looking for the presence
    of pharmaceuticals and other personal care products in fish
    tissue in five effluent-dominated streams across the U.S.
        Madam Chair, we are also conducting a national survey of
    sewage sludge from 74 randomly-selected wastewater treatment
    plants to determine whether contaminants occur in biosolids
    and, if so, at what concentrations. We have also carried out
    and will continue to issue grants to various organizations and
    work with research foundations and universities, including the
    University of Florida and Duke University. We are working with
    them and providing funding to help get answers to questions
    involving different types of contaminants of emerging concern.
        Madam Chair, we are also conducting something that is
    extremely important to the Agency, and that is to build upon
    the fish tissue studies that we have currently conducted. That
    is why we are expanding the scope of our surveys under the
    National Rivers and Streams Assessment to monitor for fish
    tissue and water samples at 154 developed and urban sites so
    that we can have a statistically representative estimate of the
    occurrence of pharmaceuticals and personal care products in
    fish tissue.
        We are also working, Madam Chair, with the National
    Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences. A
    critical question all of us are asking is to what extent does
    this present a risk to human health. So EPA will be working
    with the National Academy of Sciences and convening a workshop
    in December to help us all answer some of those fundamental
    questions about potential risks to human health.
        I would just reiterate to the Members and to the public
    that, so far, we do not have much evidence or information that
    there is a risk to human health. But I also would underscore
    that U.S. EPA is very concerned about potential impacts,
    impacts that we, USGS, and others have seen on aquatic life.
        Madam Chair, the second prong, in addition to strengthening
    the science, is to improve the public understanding and risk
    communication. We have established a Web site to provide
    information on the work that we are doing and to help
    utilities, health professionals, and the general public better
    understand and to put into proper context the nature of this
    risk, and we will continue to reach out to all our stakeholders
    and partners at the State level, at the local level, and in the
    private sector to underscore the importance of this issue and
    to improve upon risk communication.
        The third prong that we are focused on at U.S. EPA at a
    national level is identifying partnership and stewardship
    opportunities. We know that, as we wait for more information to
    come in for a verdict to be rendered from the scientific jury,
    we know that actions should be taken now. One of the key steps
    is to do more in terms of product stewardship. I am calling
    upon the pharmaceutical industry to do more to focus more on
    product stewardship. I think all of us can do more in the
    spirit of pollution prevention.
        The EPA, the Office of National Drug Control Policy, and
    the Department of Health and Human Services has issued
    guidelines to help the public better understand that the toilet
    should not be treated as a trash can. We also recognize that
    there are lists of certain pharmaceuticals that may currently
    be labeled to be flushed down the toilet. We are working with
    various agencies to revise that list, but pollution prevention
    and stewardship are key.
        One of the most important things all of us can be doing,
    including this Committee, is to get out the word to the public
    that take-back programs and voluntary collection campaigns can
    be critically important and a good way to protect the waterways
    as we gather more scientific information.
        Mr. Chairman, the fourth prong, a critically important one,
    is using regulatory tools. We know, at EPA, that regulations
    are needed, in addition to stewardship and partnership
    programs. I want to mention very quickly that there are several
    extremely important regulatory efforts underway that could lead
    to potential regulations under the Clean Water Act.
        One of them is under our effluent guidelines program, which
    involves conducting a comprehensive survey, gathering
    information on disposal practices for the health services
    industry--hospitals, nursing homes, veterinary clinics. EPA is
    watching the health services industry. We are going to work
    with them. We want all of them to work together to move the
    ball forward for more effective and appropriate disposal of
    unused pharmaceuticals and personal care products.
        We are also working to revise aquatic life criteria_a
    technical term under the Clean Water Act_which is also
    critically important. It means developing assessment
    methodologies so that we can do a more advanced job of
    translating endocrine disruption, gender-bending effects on
    aquatic life, and translate that into the standards program
    under the Clean Water Act. A third area is the Contaminant
    Candidate Listing process under the Safe Drinking Water Act. We
    are looking very closely at potential pharmaceuticals and
    personal care products being added to the lists of potential
    contaminants that would, in the future, be subject to maximum
    contaminant levels.
        The bottom line, Mr. Chairman, is that the U.S. EPA is
    taking this matter very seriously. We are using a four-pronged
    approach. We know that we need to work with USGS and other
    Federal partners. We need to work with all of the governmental
    and non-governmental organizations to move forward and address
    these emerging contaminants in the most responsible and
    effective way possible, and I look forward to answering any
    questions the colleagues of the Committee may have. Thank you.
        Mr. Taylor. [Presiding] Thank you very much, Dr. Grumbles.
        We are now joined by Dr. Matthew Larsen of the USGS. Dr.
    Larsen is the Associate Director for Water at USGS. He is
    accompanied today by Mr. Herb Buxton, the Program Coordinator
    of the Toxics Program at USGS. Dr. Larsen is recognized for
    five minutes.
        Mr. Larsen. Thank you, Congressman Taylor and Congressman
    Boozman and Members of the Subcommittee for the opportunity to
    provide the views of the U.S. Geological Survey Department of
    Interior on emerging contaminants in the environment.
        The observed presence of emerging contaminants in the
    environment has prompted public interest regarding potential
    adverse ecological effects and potential contamination of
    drinking water. Public awareness of the ways we handle and
    dispose of chemicals has increased. Industries are pursuing
    improved waste treatment technologies and management practices
    that are effective at removing these trace organic chemicals
    from surface and groundwater and waste products.
        The USGS studies a wide range of chemicals referred to as
    emerging contaminants. These chemicals include human and
    veterinary pharmaceuticals, detergents, fragrances, fire
    retardants, disinfectants, plastics, and insect repellents. The
    chemicals of greatest interest include those that enter the
    environment via human and animal waste.
        Many of these chemicals are a new focus for environmental
    research because they are used in relatively small quantities
    and were therefore not expected to be of significant
    environmental concern. They have been detected increasingly in
    the environment at very low levels. Despite these low levels,
    investigation is needed to determine if there are potential
    adverse environmental and human health effects.
        Although detection is an important component of the
    environmental assessment, ecological and human health
    assessments of the levels and mixtures observed in the
    environment are also essential. Research and monitoring by the
    USGS and others have demonstrated that many trace organic
    chemicals associated with human and animal waste have been
    entering the environment for as long as we have used them. The
    manner in which we handle and dispose of our waste can
    concentrate these chemicals in some environmental settings to
    levels that may be an ecological health concern.
        In 1998, the USGS initiated research on emerging
    contaminants. By 2002, a USGS study had documented the presence
    of these chemicals in the Nation's streams and largely defined
    this issue in the United States. Since 2002, the USGS has
    published more than 160 reports--some of which I have here--
    that document the occurrence, concentration, and mixtures of
    these chemicals in various environmental settings, including
    stream and well water, stream sediments, and soil amended with
    manure and biosolids. These reports also demonstrate the
    comparative contributions from various sources, including
    wastewater treatment plants, livestock production and animal
    feedstock waste, aquaculture, septic systems, combined sewer
    overflows, and industrial discharges.
        The USGS continues to conduct research on emerging
    contaminants in the environment. Our research priorities
    include assessing chemical loads from various sources,
    including industrial facilities, as well as the occurrence of
    emerging contaminants in waters that are the source of drinking
    water. Other research priorities include ecological effects
    such as fish endocrine disruption in streams enriched with
    wastewaters and the comparative performance of various water
    and waste treatment processes to remove emerging contaminants.
        The USGS conducts this research with a number of partner
    Federal agencies, including the EPA, Centers for Disease
    Control and Prevention, Fish and Wildlife Service, and the
    National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. The USGS, EPA,
    and FDA co-chair the Federal Interagency Work Group on
    Pharmaceuticals in the Environment and the USGS participates in
    the Endocrine Disruption Work Group, both under the auspices of
    the Committee on Environment and Natural Resources of the
    National Science and Technology Council. These work groups have
    further increased coordination of Federal research.
        Thousands of potential emerging contaminants are used in
    our homes and places of work to improve our health and quality
    of life. USGS focuses research on those chemicals that are
    likely to be of environmental concern. Investigations of
    adverse health effects must consider the actual levels and
    mixtures of chemicals that organisms are exposed to in the
    environment. The results of USGS studies of environmental
    occurrence are used by many scientists to guide human and
    ecological health effect studies to assure that actual
    environmental conditions are being tested.
        Thank you, Mr. Chair and the Subcommittee, for the
    opportunity to present this testimony.
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Doctor.
        Our next speaker will be Mr. Keith Linn, Environmental
    Specialist with the Northeast Ohio Environmental Sewer
    District. Mr. Linn will be testifying on behalf of the National
    Association of Clean Water Agencies.
        Mr. Linn, you are recognized for five minutes.
        Mr. Linn. Congressman Taylor, Ranking Member Boozman, and
    Members of the Subcommittee, thank you for the opportunity to
    provide testimony on the emerging contaminants making their way
    into the Nation's waters. My name is Keith Linn, and I am an
    environmental specialist for the Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer
    District in Cleveland, Ohio. I am testifying on behalf of
    NACWA, which represents the interests of municipal wastewater
    agencies nationwide.
        The purpose of this testimony is to provide the
    Subcommittee with a sense of the state of science on emerging
    contaminants and the major data gaps that still exist, to
    explain the increasing public and media attention this issue is
    receiving, and to explain that sound science, not fear, must be
    applied to this issue about which we still have so much to
    understand.
        These compounds are often described as emerging
    contaminants, despite the fact that many have been in the
    environment for a long time, ever since society began producing
    and using them. However, human use of the products containing
    them is expanding, meaning that more of these products are
    ending up in the environment.
        While households and individuals represent a huge non-
    regulated source of these products, other significant sources
    include manufacturing, retailers, hospitals, veterinary
    operations, landfills, and meat processors, just to name a few.
    However, no one has been able to confidently rank the relative
    contribution from each of these categories or their relative
    risks to human health in the environment.
        Increasingly sophisticated technology is revealing the
    presence of chemical compounds at lower and lower trace levels,
    down to nanograms per liter concentrations. A person would have
    to drink two Olympic-size swimming pools of untreated water
    from Cleveland's Cuyahoga River daily to ingest as much as a
    single therapeutic dose of an antibiotic detected in the river.
    Stated another way, these concentrations are so small that they
    are roughly equivalent to one second in the last 10,000 years,
    that is, a single second in the time from the earth's last ice
    age until now.
        Yet, presence alone is fostering awareness of and anxiety
    about emerging contaminants. The Associated Press released
    several stories earlier this year that focused on trace amounts
    of pharmaceuticals and other compounds in the drinking water of
    24 cities. The question is whether trace concentrations of
    these emerging contaminants in the Nation's waters have a
    negative environmental or human health impact, and what the
    respective roles should be for manufacturers, retailers, users,
    and wastewater and drinking water utilities.
        However, identifying which emerging contaminants are of the
    greatest concern is exceedingly difficult, as many of these
    compounds are designed to have effects at low concentrations.
    Additionally, there is little or no data on the ecological
    toxicity of most of these compounds, and performing chemical
    analyses on all of them would be prohibitively expensive. We
    need to recognize that we can never have enough data to prove
    the absolute safety of contaminants, as it is impossible to
    prove a negative.
        Nonetheless, when people read or hear reports of possible
    effects in fish, they often become concerned about similar
    effects occurring in humans. This issue could be significant
    for wastewater utilities if regulations and subsequent
    technology standards arise out of a public perception that a
    problem exists.
        The Northeast Ohio Regional Sewer District is actively
    involved nationally through membership on the NACWA Emerging
    Contaminants Work Group and on the Water Environment Research
    Foundation's Trace Organics Issue Area Team. Locally, the Sewer
    District has spearheaded the creation of a multi-agency used
    medication work group. This local work group has developed an
    outreach campaign to educate the public on proper medication
    disposal methods and it seeks to establish a regular and legal
    medication collection initiative.
        NACWA has been involved in efforts to remove from commerce
    potentially harmful products that add little or no practical
    value, such as soaps and detergents containing triclosan. NACWA
    has also participated in discussions with EPA on permethrin-
    impregnated clothing and copper and silver biocides that may
    create problems for aquatic life. The Association has
    established a partnership with the Product Stewardship
    Institute to develop a comprehensive approach for managing the
    disposal of unused pharmaceuticals and personal care products,
    and many of NACWA's member agencies have established
    pharmaceutical take-back programs to keep these compounds out
    of the environment altogether.
        However, product stewardship initiatives such as drug take-
    back programs face numerous barriers, including Federal
    narcotics laws and guidelines that continue to advise certain
    prescription drugs be flushed into the sewer system. At the
    same time, EPA and other regulatory agencies may ultimately
    require utilities to remove these same drugs from their
    wastewater effluent. Clearly, preventing illicit drug use must
    be of a priority, but NACWA feels strongly that there are
    better ways of managing prescription drugs without resorting to
    disposal in the sewer system.
        In addition, NACWA strongly encourages Congress to address
    other emerging contaminants in a cooperative manner with the
    regulated community. Before regulation of any contaminants can
    be contemplated, EPA must first answer whether, and at what
    levels, these compounds can reasonably be expected to result in
    effects on human health or the environment. Substantially
    greater funding for the appropriate research is needed before
    broad national regulatory strategies are implemented. In the
    meantime, opportunities exist for collaboration and innovation,
    including research, community collections, take-back programs,
    and aggressive public education campaigns.
        Thank you for your time and the opportunity to testify
    before the Committee. I would be happy to answer any questions
    you may submit.
        Ms. Johnson. [Presiding] Thank you very much.
        Mr. Guidotti.
        Mr. Guidotti. Thank you very much. Chairwoman Johnson and
    honorable Members, I am Tee Guidotti. I have retired as chair,
    but I remain Professor in Environmental and Occupational Health
    at the George Washington University School of Public Health and
    Health Services. I am here today representing only myself,
    however.
        Advanced testing technology has quantified the amounts, but
    neither the levels nor the range of contaminants should be a
    surprise to us; we have known that these substances are in
    water. It shouldn't be any surprise, either, that these
    substances are present, that they exist wherever there is an
    upstream source. At present, these levels are probably not
    enough to affect human health, but, if levels rise for any of a
    number of reasons, this possibility cannot be ruled out for the
    future.
        Why would they rise? Well, for one thing, the population is
    aging. More and more people are taking medications. For
    another, there are changing patterns of prescriptions. So the
    burden of pharmaceuticals is likely to not only increase, but
    to change in terms of its pattern. And the population of
    various communities are increasing, so that upstream loading of
    the waterways is likely to increase.
        I see two issues, two broad issues. One are trace organics,
    particularly pharmaceutical agents, which are widely dispersed.
    And I would include, by the way, silver and copper
    nanoparticles, because I think that this is an emerging issue
    that we are going to see much more of in personal care products
    and in hygienic products. The other problem is emerging
    contaminants of a more restricted nature.
        For the pharmaceuticals and similar trace organics, I think
    that we need a comprehensive program on a national level. I
    think that we need a commitment and comprehensive programs to
    enforce watershed protection and upstream source protection;
    and this may involve land use planning, because this is not the
    only issue that affects watershed integrity and upstream
    protection. We clearly need take-back programs and we need
    coordination with DEA. A great deal has already been said about
    this, I won't repeat it. We need a well designed evaluation and
    monitoring program to determine national trends for the loading
    of trace organics in source water.
        We don't need individual utilities to invest valuable funds
    that could better be used to treat the source and to create
    mitigation technologies as their infrastructure needs are met,
    rather than to conduct monitoring programs in each individual
    city and drinking water system. Personally, I think that would
    be a waste of resources. We know that we need to know the
    general trend; we don't need every single utility to do it for
    themselves.
        We need a research program that is robust and cost-
    effective looking at multivalent water treatment technologies
    that break down and remove a broad spectrum of contaminants,
    because many of these contaminants are, at present, best
    removed through singular and rather expensive technologies that
    only work for a limited range of chemicals. And we need the
    deployment of technologies to remove contaminants, which I
    personally think is best done as a program of continuous
    improvement as infrastructure needs are taken care of, rather
    than a crash program, which would be much more expensive and
    which would change priorities from other more pressing issues
    with respect to water quality.
        That is one set of problems. Another set of problems are
    emerging contaminants of a more restricted nature, and this
    includes quite a long list. It is in my written remarks, I
    won't repeat the list right here. But these point source
    emerging contaminants need to be handled differently. Generally
    speaking, they are local problems. We need systematic research
    and tracking where they are most likely to occur, and the
    solution for these issues is more likely to be local and
    targeted, rather than a minimal to a national strategy.
        Finally, the last thing I would like to say is that we need
    to be aware that the recognition of other very heterogeneous
    sets of water pollutants raises another issue which should be
    considered, and that is the issue of simultaneous compliance.
    As we have seen with the lead issue, where compliance with the
    disinfection byproduct rule inadvertently pushed many utilities
    into water chemistry secondary effects, which forced them out
    of compliance with the lead and copper rule, we need to have a
    more integrated approach. We need to have a research that looks
    at the compatibility of various regulations in water quality.
    The best way to do this, I think, is to adopt new regulatory
    models if there are multi-contaminant and multiple risks.
        We need to think through the integration of the Clean Water
    Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, rather than having the
    current fragmentary system, which is quite different with each
    State. We need to conduct research from the utilities point of
    view and on local water chemistry to better embed public health
    research in the regulatory frameworks and monitoring, and
    acknowledge the role of education and communication for the
    informed public.
        I just want to say one thing very quickly in closing, and
    that is that there is an aura of uncertainty and, if you will,
    anxiety about water that I think, to a large extent, is
    exaggerated, and we are beginning to see this in opposition to
    disinfection in drinking water, which is a catastrophic
    potential move if that movement ever gained force. People are
    becoming cynical about their water. I think we need steps and I
    think we need risk communication strategies to reassure them,
    educate them properly, and to alleviate these concerns.
        Thank you.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Mr. deFur.
        Mr. deFur. Thank you very much. Good afternoon, Chairwoman
    Johnson and Members of the Committee. I appreciate the
    opportunity to present testimony on emerging contaminants in
    the surface waters of the United States and present some of my
    perspectives on how the Clean Water Act may be improved.
        I am Peter deFur. I am an Environmental Scientist and a
    Research Associate Professor at Virginia Commonwealth
    University, although my comments are my own and do not
    represent the position of VCU or any other organization with
    which I am affiliated.
        Your timing with this hearing is absolutely impeccable. It
    was only two days ago that the Food and Drug Administration
    held a public hearing on one of the emerging contaminants,
    bisphenol-A, or BPA, expressing some of the great controversy
    over the scientific evaluation and whether uncertainty means
    that you proceed with caution or you proceed full steam ahead.
        But to go back to two historical examples over this issue,
    it was 1991 when researchers demonstrated that compounds could
    come out of plasticware, they could leach out and cause
    biological effects in an experimental situation and beyond the
    laboratory. Where were those compounds going if they were
    coming out of the plasticware when the plasticware was being
    washed?
        The next piece of historical information that is important
    is when scientists in Britain discovered that fish were having
    hormonal problems and they realized that male fish had female
    characteristics. Putting those fish in cage downstream from the
    effluent of sewage treatment plants, male fish were becoming
    feminized through something that was coming from those. As a
    result, we had investigations, many of them conducted by U.S.
    researchers, including USGS, to identify what is coming out of
    our effluents, not just from sewage treatment plants, but from
    other facilities, and it turned out a number of those were
    hormonally-active agents and we began to look at what else is
    in those.
        You have already heard from USGS about the great variety of
    compounds that are present not only in our Nation's waters, but
    in some of the discharges that we can identify. Those compounds
    are not just pharmaceutical agents. They are not just from
    personal care products. They are from everything that comes out
    of the house. They are from things that wash off our lawn. They
    are from things that we use in commerce and things we use
    everyday.
        Some of them include caffeine, and it includes the
    breakdown product of nicotine, that is, cotinine. These are
    commonly found in the waters of the United States. One of the
    more recent publications by USGS in 139 rivers and water bodies
    found that both of these were fairly common. Also, the
    plasticizing agents.
        It is also evidence from research that has been conducted
    since that time, much of it since 1991, 1992, that there are a
    number of chemicals that are very active at very low
    concentrations. Some of these chemicals do act like hormones,
    and hormones act at the level of just a few molecules. That is
    how we function; that is how all animals on the face of this
    earth function. They depend upon internal chemical signals.
        Much of the information that we have is very incomplete. We
    don't have good toxicological information on 80,000 chemicals
    in commerce. But we do have information on a number of those
    toxic chemicals that are reported on the USGS list. The
    information comes not only from the peer reviewed scientific
    literature, but also from EPA reports on toxic chemicals and
    from the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry.
        These investigations suffer from one of the major problems
    that you have already heard about that is in the Clean Water
    Act. We know about individual chemicals, and we know because we
    started them on animals in model systems under controlled
    situations in the laboratory, one chemical at a time, starting
    with fairly high concentrations. We don't know much about how
    low concentrations over long periods of time affect animals in
    the wild or humans. We have very little information about that.
        The Clean Water Act has only criteria for less than 200
    chemicals. If we are going to go through tens of thousands, we
    are going to be here for millennia before we have enough
    criteria to be able to manage this problem properly.
        One of the things that we need to do in the Clean Water Act
    is provide for a comprehensive evaluation of effluents on some
    regular basis that identifies every chemical that comes out of
    there, so that at least we have a complete picture of what is
    in the effluent, regardless of whether or not there is a water
    quality criterion or a standard.
        The second one is we need to have the ability to regulate
    mixtures. EPA and the State regulatory agencies need to do
    something more than individual chemicals, chemical-by-chemical
    regulation. They have to be able to do this. If we wait five
    years, until all of our studies are done, we will still be
    sitting here worrying about mixtures, and the chemicals that we
    have spent five years studying will no longer be a problem--
    somebody will have reduced them--and we will be looking at
    another group of chemicals about which we know nothing.
        We have to do something to develop pollution control
    measures at the top of the pipe, not just product stewardship,
    but the ability for dischargers to identify the source and
    control those sources. Pollution prevention is not only more
    effective, it is cheaper.
        I would be happy to answer any questions now or at a later
    time. Thank you very much.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Let me thank the entire panel for very interesting
    testimony.
        I am going to defer to Mr. Hall for questions.
        Mr. Hall. Thank you, Madam Chair, for your holding this
    hearing and for allowing me to go first.
        I just wanted to start by asking Mr. Grumbles does EPA
    routinely and systematically monitor for pollutants present in
    surface waters? Specifically, does EPA routinely monitor for
    toxic chemicals that do not have permit guidelines? And why or
    why not, depending on the answer.
        Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Congressman. EPA does not
    routinely monitor for contaminants that don't have criteria or
    effluent guidelines for them. What we do is encourage our State
    partners and utilities to monitor not only for those
    contaminants which are regulated, but also we want to encourage
    monitoring and pollution prevention both through the
    pretreatment program and through other regulatory programs. But
    we are very careful not to impose enforceable regulatory
    requirements for contaminants that don't have assessment
    methods or established criteria under the Act.
        Mr. Hall. Thank you. I understand. Does EPA routinely or
    systematically monitor for toxic chemicals that don't have
    permit guidelines that may be present in wastewater or effluent
    discharges? Would that be the same answer?
        Mr. Grumbles. It is the same answer with the added point
    that, under the Clean Water Act, we have a duty which we take
    very seriously to continuously, on a yearly basis or twice a
    year basis look at effluent guideline requirements to make
    possible requirements or new water quality criterion standards.
        I just think it is important to emphasize we started a
    national survey specifically on pharmaceuticals and personal
    care products not only for the effluent, but also for
    biosolids. We think that is going to help us, just like
    Congresswoman McCarthy's bill, focus in specific directions
    future potential regulatory action.
        Mr. Hall. Thank you.
        I want to ask Mr. Linn, do wastewater treatment facilities
    discharge unregulated toxic chemicals? In other words, do
    wastewater treatment facilities discharge toxics that do not
    have permit limits and do these facilities monitor for those
    toxics?
        Mr. Linn. Wastewater treatment plants will discharge
    anything that is in sewage that is not adequately removed by
    the plant. Anything that society uses and puts down the drain
    is going to reach wastewater treatment plants, and, as we heard
    earlier today, there are 80,000 chemicals in use out there.
        There are certainly quite a few chemicals out there that we
    do not monitor for. To do so would be very expensive and
    prohibitively expensive, and in many cases a lot of these
    things that we are talking about here, the emerging
    contaminants, are occurring at levels that we are just now
    starting to see with cutting-edge analytical technology, and
    there is a lot of uncertainty associated--even when these
    expensive analyses are performed, there is a lot of uncertainty
    associated with the accuracy of the data that is produced.
        Mr. Hall. I understand that. I believe it was Mr. Littell's
    testimony in which he said or one of the panelists said that we
    are now seeing, in the long-lived substances that we are
    talking about, that we are seeing all of the medications or
    chemicals or toxics that we have produced going back to when
    they were first put into use and started being put in the
    ecosystem.
        So it has gone from being unmeasurable or unnoticed to
    being measurable and noticed. I assume that that means you
    would agree that if we keep on doing what we are doing now,
    that that level will continue to rise and, therefore, whatever
    degree of risk there currently is, there will be a greater
    degree of risk if we don't take any action, which is why
    everybody is talking about the different actions we can take.
        USGS demonstrated that surface waters contain a host of
    unregulated contaminants, including carcinogens and endocrine
    disruptors. So the question I would just ask, maybe starting
    with Dr. deFur and going down the line, is are our surface
    waters or our aquifers safe for our infants, for pregnant
    women? Do we know that they will not negatively impact human
    health over the long term?
        I have heard medical professionals in my district, as this
    topic has come to the fore, saying, hmm, I wonder about the
    increase in autism or the increase in Alzheimer's. There are
    some things that are happening we can't explain and people are
    blaming it on thimerosal or whatever. But it raises the
    question, whether it is silver or whether it is caffeine or
    acetaminophen or some combination of antibacterials or the
    synergist effect of all those things.
        So just a quick reaction not that.
        Mr. deFur. Sure, I would be happy to answer that. No, I
    think they are uniformly not safe because we have several
    thousand water bodies that are under EPA regulatory controls
    for one or more chemicals either in the water or in the fish
    that live in there, so very sensibly, in some cases, they
    regulate fish tissue concentrations of things like flame
    retardants, polychlorinated biphenols, DDTs, mercury. So if you
    look at the water in the fish, we have thousands of water
    bodies that have some regulatory warning or concern over the
    levels of those compounds.
        Mr. Hall. Madam Chairman, my time has expired, so if you
    would like to--I yield back if you want to let the rest of the
    panelists answer or answer in writing. Either would be fine.
    Thank you.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Boozman.
        Mr. Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. We do appreciate your
    being here, Mr. Grumbles, and have appreciated your testimony
    through the years. You have done a tremendous job. You
    mentioned that you were concerned that we needed to explore
    this, but you had some concern about resources being moved off
    things that you felt like were not necessarily important, but
    more in a situation we needed to deal with now. Can you name
    one or two of those things that you are concerned with that we
    are dealing with that we are not doing as good a job?
        Mr. Grumbles. Raw sewage, various mixtures of sewage;
    wastewaters that have pathogens in them. We know that there is
    an acute risk not only to aquatic life, but to human health.
    Beach water quality toxics that are on our national priority
    list for toxic pollutants that are persistent and bio-
    cumulative.
        This Country has made tremendous progress over the last
    three and a half decades cleaning up the waters, to make them
    cleaner and healthier. We still have a long way to go, and the
    key to success in the future and sustainable clean water
    program, as you and your colleagues know, is not just to focus
    on what you are currently doing, but to keep an eye on the
    science and the growing need to deal with emerging areas of
    concern, and that certainly includes pharmaceuticals and
    personal care products, even though they are occurring at truly
    tiny trace amounts.
        The question about mixtures, as was pointed out, the
    question about potential impacts, long-term impacts on human
    health are all very legitimate valid questions. The U.S. EPA's
    position is that this is very good. This is great for the
    Committee, in a responsible way, to be drawing attention to
    this growing concern. We are getting so much data. Our
    microscopes are getting so much stronger.
        We can detect chemicals and pharmaceuticals to a greater
    extent than ever before, but we need to be careful and
    communicate the risk and also make sure that there is a risk-
    based approach to the priorities. That is why I am just saying
    that we know aging infrastructure systems, pathogens and
    persistent toxics are already being regulated need to continue
    to focus on those.
        Mr. Boozman. Good. Very good. And if that stuff is getting
    through, then this other stuff is getting through with that.
    You know, if we have raw sewage, then all of this stuff is
    getting through.
        Mr. Grumbles. That is right. That is right.
        Mr. Boozman. Very good.
        Mr. Linn, can you tell us a little bit about the challenges
    of removing this stuff, what it would take with present
    technology, the energy that it would take? If we could do it,
    are we running into a situation where, if we did do it, that
    you would almost create other environmental problems or not?
        Mr. Linn. You are talking about moving----
        Mr. Boozman. The expense. The whole bit.
        Mr. Linn.--it out of wastewater treatment plants.
        Mr. Boozman. If we could snap our fingers today and fix
    this, what are the challenges that we face with doing that
    right now?
        Mr. Linn. Well, a lot of these things are already removed,
    at least to some extent, by wastewater treatment----
        Mr. Boozman. Well, the stuff that is showing up in the
    water now.
        Mr. Linn. Some of the stuff that is showing up----
        Mr. Boozman. The hormones and things like that.
        Mr. Linn. Some of the stuff that is showing up in the water
    is removed to a large extent by wastewater treatment plants
    now. Every chemical is different, and that is one of the
    problems; you can't install a single technology at a wastewater
    treatment plant and remove all of any of this stuff.
        Again, the conventional treatment right now removes through
    a variety of processes, depending upon the characteristics of
    the specific chemical you are talking about, anywhere from a
    large amount of it to virtually none of it. So there is not an
    answer to a type of technology that you can just put at a
    wastewater treatment plant that is going to eliminate all of
    this stuff, it just doesn't exist now, and it is unlikely to
    exist in the future.
        Mr. Boozman. This is for the panel. What are some of the
    compounds that are we most concerned about that? You mentioned
    a molecule or two of hormones being a problem. Certainly, that,
    in a very small amount, could be a problem. What are we seeing
    that is elevated where--I don't guess this stuff ever goes
    away, does it? I mean, does it or does it not? I mean, once it
    is in the water to begin with----
        Mr. Linn. If I may answer that. Again, it depends on what
    particular type of chemical you are talking about. Some of the
    chemicals break down in the environment. That isn't always a
    good thing. Sometimes they break down into something else that
    is potentially harmful, but sometimes they break down
    completely and they are gone. Other types of chemicals are very
    persistent and they last for long periods of time. So you get
    the whole range of potential results.
        Mr. Boozman. What are the top two or three that we are
    concerned about?
        Mr. Larsen. If I could ask Mr. Buxton to respond.
        Mr. Boozman. Mr. Buxton?
        Mr. Buxton. Sure. I think the way we think about priorities
    with respect to chemicals is the way they may affect organisms
    in the environment. The endocrine disruption process that was
    mentioned earlier is probably the most important process now
    because, as was acknowledged before, it happens with chemicals
    that occur at extremely low concentrations, and the chemicals
    fall in several classes that have this hormonal activity.
        Some are the biogenic hormones that come from our bodies
    and animals' bodies; some are the synthetic hormones that we
    make and take as part of birth control--pills, ovulation
    inhibitors, those types; others are industrial chemicals that,
    by their molecular form, tend to mimic these hormones. So what
    we find when we study these effects in the environment,
    specifically the effects on fish that live right near where
    they may be introduced to a stream, is that we have to look at
    what we look at the relative estrogenicity, how much each of
    these chemicals act like estrogen, and then, in a way, add it
    up to see what the total effect may be of this mixture of
    chemicals.
        So I would say those are the chemicals that are most
    important, and it is quite a range of different chemicals.
        Mr. Boozman. Let me just close. You mentioned, Dr. deFur,
    the small quantities, you are saying, of the hormones and the
    importance of controlling the dischargers. The challenge,
    though, is that the dischargers in that case, I would argue
    that that is not people that have extra pills. The dischargers
    are us that are sitting here now. So that is a very difficult
    situation to deal with.
        Mr. deFur. Well, you have got a group of chemicals that are
    so widespread as to be almost ubiquitous and that essentially
    have passed through the human organism on their way to the
    water supply that may not be quite so amenable to a take-back
    program. But even those there may be excess supply that can be
    taken out of circulation, so to speak, by appropriate disposal
    mechanisms.
        I think that the hormone disruptors are the issues of
    greatest concern. Drop down a couple orders of magnitude and
    risk, there may be other effects, for example. One of the
    things that we are concerned about with the silver
    nanoparticles is that they really mess up water treatment
    systems, so they may have secondary effects that render our
    sewage treatment less effective. They may also have
    environmental impacts on the microorganisms that live in the
    aquatic environment. So that is an issue.
        And maybe, maybe in this same order of magnitude there are
    issues with the chemical called NDMA, which I won't go into the
    technical side, but which has all of the unwanted
    characteristics of MTBE, which, as you will recall, made such a
    mess of groundwater.
        So these are not all on the same level, by any means, and
    the entire class of problems represented by these emerging
    contaminants is a couple of orders of magnitude less risk than
    some of the more conventional problems that Mr. Grumbles
    articulated so effectively a few minutes ago.
        It is a question of putting things into perspective and
    being sure that the investment to control this does not take
    funds away from issues of a higher, short, and long-term
    priority.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Taylor.
        Mr. Taylor. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I do want to thank our panel. I would, though, at this
    moment have to tell you that all of you gentlemen have been
    very long on generalities and very short on specifics. It is my
    understanding that, at the moment, the FDA is four and five
    years behind just on checking food products from coming
    overseas, on checking on drugs coming from overseas. I guess my
    thought to you, as someone who has to explain to 700,000
    Mississippians why we are $10 trillions in debt, that unless
    you can identify a more specific problem and a more specific
    solution, I don't think anything comes of this hearing.
        Raw sewage is already outlawed; you cannot dump that into
    the waters of the United States of America. We already have
    standards for biological oxygen demand. We have standards for
    fecal chloroform. We have standards for suspended solids in the
    water. We have standards for how much mercury can be in the
    water.
        I would think a more practical approach to what some of you
    have been saying would be a public awareness campaign. If you
    have isolated a specific drug that people are flushing down
    their commodes that is causing a problem and can give them a
    better alternative to disposing of that drug, then I think that
    would be worth funding.
        So I am going to give the panel an opportunity to be a bit
    more specific than you have been so far in this hearing.
        Mr. Grumbles. Congressman, I would just like to say I
    completely endorse your statement about public education and
    awareness and responsible use of taxpayer funds. There is no
    doubt, from an EPA standpoint, as we worked very hard and
    closely with FDA and with other agencies involved in the
    regulation of the pharmaceutical industry, product stewardship,
    and the Drug Enforcement Administration on take-back programs,
    that pollution prevention is key. It is the low hanging fruit
    as we continue to do more science and research, and it doesn't
    involve sacrifice.
        One thing that I think is very important from an EPA
    standpoint is to continue to look for cost-effective treatment
    technologies at the sewage treatment plant. As Congressman
    Boozman mentioned, a lot of this isn't simply unused pills
    being flushed or somehow getting into the sewers; it is also
    average daily excretion. So what can we do? I will tell you one
    thing we are doing is we are reviewing over 400 studies on
    current or promising technologies at the sewage treatment plant
    that can both detect and reduce the presence of these
    contaminants of emerging concern.
        I think it is important to go carefully and responsibly. It
    is also important, however, not to brush this off and say,
    well, the science hasn't proven that there is some direct and
    immediate threat to human health; and I think you are saying
    the same thing.
        Mr. Taylor. Mr. Grumbles, I do appreciate that. So out of
    this panel, I have got to believe there is one thing that the
    panel can identify is saying we have strong reason to believe
    that this is a problem. Fill in the ``this.'' And we have
    strong reason to believe that that can be solved by doing what?
    Because I really haven't heard that today.
        Mr. Grumbles. I will say something. I know Matt Larsen may
    want to say something too.
        I will tell you what is a problem. A problem is when you
    have intersex fish. That is not acceptable. Particularly as we
    look more and find more, that is not acceptable. Now, what do
    we do about that? One thing we can do is to continue to gather
    more information so we know the potential causes. I know that
    it is important to look at the wastewater treatment plants; it
    is important to look at concentrated animal feeding operations;
    and to look at potential regulatory changes.
        But a key right now is to get out much more information on
    proper disposal of unused pharmaceuticals and take-back
    programs. We need to do a lot more across the Country to work
    on community-based and community-driven efforts, and work with
    the aging population to make it easier for them to understand
    and properly dispose of unused pharmaceuticals and personal
    care products.
        Mr. Larsen. If I could add some specifics that might help
    in your appreciation for the problem and also how the drinking
    water treatment plants are responding.
        A recent study published last year by the USGS analyzed at
    one conventional drinking water treatment plant 113 organic
    compounds that included the list of types of chemicals we are
    talking about here today. Forty-five of these compounds were
    detected in samples of source water, the water coming into the
    plant, and 34 were detected in samples of settled sludge and
    filter backwash.
        The performance of the plant, in general, granular-
    activated carbon filtration accounted for 53 percent of the
    removal of these compounds from the aqueous phase, disinfection
    accounted for 32 percent, and clarification accounted for 15
    percent of the removal.
        The effectiveness of the treatment varied widely within and
    among classes of compounds, and the detection of 21 of the
    compounds in one or more samples of finished water--the water
    that we would be drinking at our tap--was documented and 3 to
    13 compounds in every finished water sample indicates
    substantial, but incomplete, degradation or removal of organic
    compounds through conventional drinking water treatment
    processes used at this plant.
        Unidentified Speaker. I have four specific suggestions.
        Mr. Taylor. It would have to be with the approval of the
    Chairwoman at this point.
        Ms. Johnson. We have multiple votes, so I am going to try
    to wrap up before we leave, and just ask Members--you can ask
    that one question, but I was going to ask Members if they will
    submit their questions so that we can submit them to the
    witnesses.
        I am going to call on one more, Mr. Brown.
        Did you have another?
        Mr. Taylor. No.
        Ms. Johnson. Okay, Mr. Brown.
        Mr. Brown. Madam Chair, thank you. I know a vote has been
    called for, so we have limited time, but I was just going to
    follow up on Congressman Taylor's recommendation.
        Back in my early career, I was actually on city council,
    and wastewater treatment was a big issue for us. I know that
    about all I could get out of the guy that did the treatment is
    he puts these bugs in and I guess before we had primary
    treatment and had to go to secondary treatment because our
    local DEHAC was in South Carolina. So I guess if I could find a
    conclusion similar to what Congressman Taylor was talking
    about, if we could get some assurance that there is enough
    testing going on to be able to determine what is out there so
    we must have some criteria or some limits to what can pass and
    what cannot pass.
        How can we establish some criteria to be sure that if there
    is something in either the wastewater that is going out that
    needs to be diluted or whether, when we get our drinking water
    coming in, before it actually goes into the pipes, that there
    is some assurance that these items will be extracted?
        Mr. Grumbles. Congressman, I am just going to say quickly
    that EPA appreciates congressional support for efforts to do
    more to update and improve upon the aquatic life criteria and
    the scientific methods for factoring in a better way to
    evaluate gender-bender type of effects on fish. We are working
    with the Science Advisory Board on that.
        The other key area for us that can help establish criteria
    or standards in future directions in research and regulation
    and pollution prevention is working through the National
    Academy of Sciences on a road map for identifying potential
    human health risks. I think that has got to be a very important
    factor to justify the expense, the investments, and make sure
    we don't divert attention away from higher priorities.
        Mr. Brown. Thank you, Madam Chair. I know our time is
    limited.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        Congresswoman Napolitano wants to ask a question and asks
    for a written response.
        Mrs. Napolitano. Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Very quickly, one of the things that I have not heard is
    whether or not EPA or USGS or anybody has the appropriate
    funding to be able to do all of the required analysis of
    everything that we are talking about, because, without the
    money, you can say you are going to do it, but if you can't
    stretch the money far enough, it is not going to get done.
        Unfortunately, I have seen that in my area. We continue to
    try to identify in the sanitation district those pollutants in
    the effluent and everything else. So I would like an answer in
    writing as to whether or not the funding is adequate and
    whether or not you would be able to move forward more
    expeditiously with additional funding that will cover the work
    you have to do.
        Ms. Johnson. Thank you very much.
        I am going to ask Congresswoman Norton if she can take the
    chair and ask questions.
        Let me once again thank the panel. This is probably one of
    the most interesting hearings we have had and probably with the
    most questions. While Ms. Norton is coming, let me ask Dr.
    Guidotti, didn't you say you were retired? Do you have any
    volunteer time?
        Mr. Guidotti. I am retiring, yes.
        Ms. Johnson. Oh. Let us know when you are retired.
        Mr. Guidotti. All right.
        Ms. Norton. [Presiding] A dubious advantage of not being
    able to vote except in the Committee of the whole, so I get to
    ask my questions. I will assume that that can be counted as a
    tradeoff. I am not sure that it rises quite to the level that
    taxpaying Americans, however, would regard.
        I do have a question. I think this is an important hearing
    for us to have. In this region, we have seen what Mr. Grumbles
    calls intersex fish, among other deformities in the fish
    population. Recently, and only recently, frankly, did
    pharmaceuticals emerge; and if they have emerged here, they
    must be emerging everywhere in the United States.
        In this region, we have experienced lead in the water
    because we saw that, while there was regulation, there was
    manipulation of the regulations, and that was here in the
    District of Columbia. In the Nation, we are experiencing what
    can only be called an economic collapse of an entire section of
    the economy because nobody regulated in time. So I think we
    have got to begin to ask very hard questions that are proactive
    and preventative, especially when the handwriting is so clearly
    on the wall and everyplace else.
        The Chesapeake Bay, of course, is one of the great,
    marvelous wonders of America, but it cannot possibly be unique.
    So my question really has to do with how much we need to know
    before it occurs to us that something has to be done.
        Now, scientific certainty is impossible, and you will
    always get, as we should, conflicting views even from
    respectable scientists, and today, with, I think it fair to
    say, 90 percent of respectable scientists saying that there is
    some manmade warming going, you still have a debate going on on
    that. The planet may burn up before that one gets decided.
        But this one is very, very--this has a two-pronged
    problem--the pharmaceuticals, the intersex fish, the crab
    population that is drastically diminished in this region. The
    two-prong problem is a health problem--that is first and
    foremost--and, in areas like this, an economic problem that
    could get to be very severe if we wait for I don't know.
        So I think it is fair to ask, in light of what we have
    already seen, whether that is enough to warrant at least some
    regulation, the beginning, at least, of some regulation. And I
    would like to know what, if any, regulation can be said to be
    relevant to what we are seeing clearly among changes in fish.
        Yes, Mr. Grumbles.
        Mr. Grumbles. You know, I don't disagree with your
    statement. EPA is not waiting for a final verdict from the
    scientific community before we take action.
        Ms. Norton. On what? Finish the sentence.
        Mr. Grumbles. Yes, exactly. On several fronts. On the
    regulatory front, we know, in this litigious society--we also
    know, in our approach to things, it has to be based on sound
    science before you take specific regulatory actions. You have
    to be able to defend the record. What we are doing is we are
    pursing, on a regulatory front, we are going to be finalizing a
    concentrated animal feeding operations rule. We had to go back,
    based on a court decision, and revise it, and we are going to
    be issuing that rule in the next month, and it is focused on
    zero discharge from those large feed lots.
        Now, when it comes to regulatory actions specifically
    focused on pharmaceuticals or personal care products,
    Congresswoman, we are pursuing a survey to gather information
    from the health services industry--this is one of my highest
    priorities--that will help inform us as a potential regulation
    under the Clean Water Act for new effluent guidelines
    specifically for hospitals, nursing care facilities, veterinary
    clinics. That, we need to gather more information on, but we
    are very interested in and EPA is watching how the very large
    and important player in this, the health services industry, is
    disposing of pharmaceuticals and personal care products.
        We also, on the drinking water front, as you are very
    familiar with based on your rule and efforts in the lead and
    copper rule, we have a contaminant candidate listing process
    where the Agency, in a very formal way, identifies potential
    contaminants that aren't currently regulated to decide whether
    or not to regulate those. We are in the process of reviewing,
    gathering public comments specifically on pharmaceuticals and
    personal care products. It is an area that merits a lot of
    attention from us.
        But I would just underscore what the other panelists have
    said, Congresswoman, so far, there is a lot of meaningful
    action that we can take that doesn't fall into the regulatory
    category, that will really make a difference, that the
    taxpayers will feel is a good use of their money and also can
    reduce the risks from these emerging contaminants, and by that
    we mean product stewardship, working with the pharmaceutical
    industry, working with communities on take-back programs.
        Those are real and meaningful actions that we can take, and
    I know personally, in my position, I have seen, over the last
    year, a tremendous amount of increased effort and attention by
    communities and citizens groups and State and local
    governments, as well as EPA, on greater awareness about proper
    disposal of these personal care products.
        Ms. Norton. Have you advised the States and localities--
    there is such consciousness today, aroused consciousness that
    consumer information would be a beginning, an important
    beginning. Has EPA advised States and localities--particularly
    since the Federal Government, it seems to me, has the capacity
    to do or access to the needed research--on how they should
    advise consumers, for example, to dispose of--there are all
    manner of chemicals, but let's begin with pharmaceuticals,
    which are so common? I don't know what to do. I don't know what
    to do, by the way.
        Mr. Grumbles. I have written to every single State
    commissioner asking them, first of all, what they are doing on
    this emerging area of concern about pharmaceuticals and what
    types of research needs they have----
        Ms. Norton. I guess that sounds like--I think they might be
    asking you.
        Mr. Grumbles. Yes. Well, we have met and we are working
    with the State water and drinking water agencies on research
    priorities and ways to improve risk communication.
        Ms. Norton. Isn't there something we can be telling the
    average consumer about disposal?
        Mr. Grumbles. Yes.
        Ms. Norton. Pharmaceuticals are precious way now to save
    people from going to the hospital, it is not simply something
    for our elderly. Pharmaceuticals are so widely used that if
    there was general information so that every State and locality
    didn't have to find out for themselves as to ten steps, six
    steps--you name it--that everyone can take, we might be able to
    begin----
        Mr. Grumbles. That is an excellent point. In January of
    last year, the Administrator, the Secretary of Health and Human
    Services, and the Director of the White House Office of
    National Drug Control Policy issued national guidelines for the
    consumer. It was a first step, Congresswoman. It was a first
    step to encourage the proper disposal of unused
    pharmaceuticals, urging that the rule is: a toilet isn't a
    trash can; if you are going to use a trash can, here is one way
    to dispose of it for security reasons and also environmental
    protection. We need to do a lot more work on that front. We
    can't do it alone, and the State commissioners, the local
    utilities, the pharmaceutical industry, product stewardship
    initiatives----
        Ms. Norton. Mr. Grumbles, I recognize, because when I talk
    about these kinds of matters, I know I am not entirely in your
    jurisdiction, but the point I would like to make here is that
    is just what I would like not to happen. There is a reason why
    the EPA is a Federal responsibility. The waters, for example,
    from the District of Columbia go into the entire region; so
    does the Anacostia, the Chesapeake Bay, the Anacostia, the
    Potomac. There are no borders there. So that if what we
    encourage without some national guidance is exactly what the
    interstate clause is meant to avoid, some kind of pot marketed
    notion of how to dispose of things, then we will have conflict
    among the States, conflict among the localities.
        I am looking for some urgent national guidance, and I may
    not be talking to the officials here who are in a position
    always to do that, but I would hate to see us ask the States
    what they are doing, then have them feel panicked about making
    sure they are doing something without recognizing that one
    State could be doing something to protect itself which could be
    exactly what endangered a neighboring State or locality or
    waterway.
        Mr. Grumbles. I could not agree with you more. In terms of
    updating the guidance that we issued in January of last year
    and working on additional fronts, the RCRA program on reverse
    distribution systems is very much a priority for us, working on
    some national parameters with our State and local partners and
    drawing greater attention to this whole subject, embracing
    pollution prevention and product stewardship as we gather more
    information on the scientific front about the risks and the
    potential health effects.
        Ms. Norton. Well, I want to thank the entire panel. My only
    regret, given my deep interest in this subject, is that I
    couldn't be here for the entire time. I simply want to leave
    you all with the notion that I don't think there is another
    thing that anybody could want to learn about the need to begin
    measured and careful, but certainly to be in some regulation
    when fish start changing sexes--and we are not talking about a
    few abnormalities--and when whole or parts of the economy of
    regions are threatened. I hope that we have learned, certainly
    from the present economic crisis, that at some point not only
    will it be necessary to do something at some point, sometimes
    it is impossible to do something.
        So I urge, particularly for what is happening when it comes
    to abnormalities in fish, to take that as much of a warning
    sign as you need. We may not know as much about pharmaceuticals
    and the rest of it, but the decline in certain species of fish
    is now widespread and well known, and the abnormalities in
    fish, it seems to me, are more than indicators and deserve some
    thoughtful regulation, if you will forgive me, yesterday.
        I want to thank all of you for coming, on behalf of the
    Chair, to this very important hearing.
        [Whereupon, at 4:39 p.m., the Subcommittee was adjourned.]

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.008

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.009

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.010

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.011

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.012

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.013

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.014

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.015

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.016

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.017

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.018

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.019

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.020

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.021

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.022

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.023

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.024

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.025

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.026

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.027

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.028

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.029

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.030

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.031

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.032

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.033

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.034

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.035

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.036

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.037

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.038

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.039

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.040

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.041

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.042

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.043

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.044

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.045

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.046

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.047

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.048

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.049

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.050

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.051

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.052

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.053

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.054

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.055

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.056

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.057

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.058

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.059

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.060

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.061

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.062

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.063

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.064

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.065

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.066

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.067

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.068

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.069

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.070

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.071

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.072

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.073

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.074

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.075

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.076

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.077

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.078

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.079

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.080

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.081

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.082

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.083

        [GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T5022.084