[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