[Senate Hearing 110-1255]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 110-1255
PERCHLORATE AND TCE IN WATER
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
MAY 6, 2008
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/
congress.senate
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
85-531 PDF WASHINGTON : 2015
__________________________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
http://bookstore.gpo.gov. For more information, contact the GPO Customer Contact Center,
U.S. Government Publishing Office. Phone 202-512-1800, or 866-512-1800 (toll-free).
E-mail, [email protected].
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Andrew Wheeler, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
TUESDAY MAY 6, 2008
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 3
Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of
Missouri....................................................... 5
Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota.... 79
WITNESSES
Grumbles, Benjamin, Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 7
Prepared statement........................................... 11
Alexeeff, George V., Deputy Director for Scientific Affairs,
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California
Environmental Protection Agency................................ 38
Prepared statement........................................... 40
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer................................................ 49
Senator Cardin............................................... 50
Senator Inhofe............................................... 51
Baker, Mike, Chief, Division of Drinking and Ground Waters, Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency, on Behalf of the Association
of State Drinking Water Administrators......................... 53
Prepared statement........................................... 55
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer................................................ 59
Senator Cardin............................................... 59
Senator Inhofe............................................... 61
West, Carol Rowan, Director, Office of Research and Standards,
Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection........... 64
Prepared statement........................................... 66
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer................................................ 71
Senator Cardin............................................... 72
Senator Inhofe............................................... 72
Lupardo, Donna A., Assemblywoman, 126th District, State of New
York........................................................... 81
Prepared statement........................................... 84
Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........ 86
Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe....... 87
Charnley, Gail, Principal, Healthrisk Strategies................. 88
Prepared statement........................................... 90
Wiles, Richard, Executive Director, Environmental Working Group.. 92
Prepared statement........................................... 94
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer................................................ 109
Senator Inhofe............................................... 111
Hoel, David G., Professor, Medical University of South Carolina.. 117
Prepared statement........................................... 119
Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........ 137
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 137
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements:
R. Thomas Zoeller, PhD., Professor, Biology Department,
University of Massachusetts Amherst; Background for
Perchorate and TCA in Water................................ 147
Environmental Working Group, Perchlorate Timeline 50 Years of
Deception and Delay........................................ 157
Urinary Perchlorate and Thyroid Hormone Levels Adolescent and
Adult Men and Women Living in the United States............ 164
Jonathan Borak & Company Inc................................. 171
G. Charnley Health Risk Strategies; Perchlorate: Overview of
Risks and Regulation....................................... 178
Daniel Wartenberg, PhD., Professor and Cheif of Environmental
Epidemiology, Department of Occupational and Environmental
Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, University of
Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey....................... 216
Environmental Health Perspectives; Evaluation of the U.S.
EPS/OSWER Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG) for
Perchlorate in Groundwater: Focus on Exposure to Nursing
Infants.................................................... 223
Articles:
ProQuest: The National; How Environmentalists Lost the Battle
Over TCE Series............................................ 268
ProQuest: The Washington Post; Dangers of Rocket Fuel
Chemical Downplayed; [Final Edition]....................... 274
Pro Quest: The Wall Street Journal; Ground War: Inside
Pentagon's Fight to Limit Regulation of Military Pollutant;
Rocket Fuel Got Into Water The Issue: At What Level Does It
Pose Health Risk; The Meaning of a Rat Study............... 276
U.S. Food and Drug Administration's Total Diet Study: Dietary
intake of perchlorate and iodine........................... 283
Temporal Patterns in Perchlorate, Thiocyanate, and Iodide
Exretion in Human Milk..................................... 295
PERCHLORATE AND TCE IN WATER
----------
TUESDAY MAY 6, 2008
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m.
in room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the full committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Barrasso, Bond, Cardin, Klobuchar,
Whitehouse.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Good morning. The Committee shall come to
order.
Because it is a different type of schedule day today, we
will have colleagues coming in all through the morning. So what
I have told Senator Inhofe is that we would keep the record
open when they come in, and at that time they could either put
their statement in the record or give their statement. We will
hold all statements to 5 minutes, and that includes all of our
panelists as well. We want to thank you all for coming.
The other issue is, and I have spoken to Senator Inhofe
about this as well, I have to be briefly running down to give a
statement on behalf of a bill I have to create or add on to a
marine sanctuary in California. The moment I have to do that, I
will have to recess and come right back, so it is a little bit
or a marathon-type of day for me. So thank you for your
understanding.
So we will start the clock at 5 minutes.
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is working on a
public relations campaign telling us this week that we should
celebrate National Drinking Water Week. This chart is off of
their website, to celebrate National Drinking Water Week.
Great. It is great because when Congress passed the Clean Water
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and all the landmark laws, it
was a moment in history that we should celebrate every year.
However, until EPA sets scientifically based health
standards for dangerous tap water contaminants and strictly
enforces the law, it is impossible to celebrate this
Administration's drinking water record. Slogans and PR
campaigns are no substitute for action.
In fact, today we will hear about EPA's particularly
disturbing failures to address significant risks to our
families from two widespread drinking water contaminants:
perchlorate and TCE. Perchlorate is used to make rocket fuel,
but when it gets into drinking water, this toxic chemical can
interfere with the thyroid and affect hormone systems which
control the way the body develops. Infants and pregnant women
are especially vulnerable to perchlorate.
Researchers have found that over 20 million Americans safe
drinking water supplies contain perchlorate. GAO found in 2005
that there were nearly 400 sites in 35 States contaminated with
perchlorate. My State of California has 106 sites. The evidence
of significant exposure to perchlorate and assorted health
risks has strengthened in recent years. In 2006, scientists at
the CDC found, and I am quoting the CDC scientists,
``Widespread human exposure to perchlorate'' in the U.S. in
young children. They found many women who were exposed to
perchlorate in their drinking water had significant changes in
thyroid hormone levels.
This isn't a game we are playing. This is the health of the
American people. We know we are exposed to perchlorate from
many sources, not just drinking water. A January, 2008 study by
the FDA found perchlorate in 74 percent of all foods tested,
including baby food.
What has the EPA done? The answer is very little. In
December, 2006, EPA revoked its rule requiring some water
systems to monitor for perchlorate and disclose the test
results to the public. EPA said it had enough data on
perchlorate. It had enough data. It didn't need to have anybody
test the drinking water supplies. It didn't need to have the
public know because EPA had enough data.
However, several months later, in May 2007, EPA said, oh,
really, it didn't have enough data on perchlorate exposure,
especially from food, to regulate perchlorate in drinking
water.
Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth. This
is the perfect case. We don't need to test anymore. We have
enough information, but we can't set a standard because we
don't have enough information.
Even when many water industry officials, like the American
Water Works Association urge the EPA to set a perchlorate
standard, EPA refused to do it, flat-out refused. EPA has
issued a guidance for perchlorate cleanup. That, they have
done, but based this level on a 154-pound adult whose only
exposure to perchlorate is from drinking water. Now, that is
the way we did it in the past. A 154-pound man, what is safe
for him? And they didn't even do that because they said, we are
just going to consider the perchlorate from drinking water.
This guidance fails to protect children and pregnant women.
It fails to consider the fact that people also are exposed to
perchlorate in other ways such as through food and milk. EPA's
Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee said the clean-
up guidance is ``not protective of children's health and is not
supported by the underlying science and can result in exposures
that pose neurodevelopment risks in early life.'' That is EPA's
own Children's Health Protection Agency. It is no wonder you
hear Bush officials saying, gee, we don't really need that
office anymore.
The story for TCE is unfortunately very similar. EPA
proposed a risk assessment in 2001. It found the chemical could
be up to 40 times more toxic than previously thought. In 2002,
EPAEs Science Advisory Board commended EPA's assessment and
urged the agency to proceed with revising and finalizing it.
But according to press accounts, the Department of Defense and
their contractors and OMB, the Office of Management and Budget,
stopped EPA from moving forward, successfully lobbied for
delay, and for a National Academy of Sciences report on TCE.
Now, in 2006, the National Academy of Sciences found that
evidence of TCE FEs cancer risks had grown since 2001 and
recommended EPA finalize risk assessments using currently
available data so that clean-ups can be made expeditiously. Yet
GAO reported last week that EPA will not finalize its TCE
assessment until 2010.
Where is the EPA? A shadow of its former self, doing harm
to people by not acting. There are lots of words, but no
action. While the Federal EPA delays or, worse, rolls back
safeguards, children and families are exposed to dangerous
toxic chemicals. I told EPA last week that if the Bush
administration failed to protect our people, Congress will. I
have two bills to protect people from perchlorate
contamination. The first bill, the Perchlorate Monitoring and
Right-To-Know Act, S. 24, says EPA is to restore the rule
requiring that drinking water be tested for perchlorate and the
results of those tests be disclosed to the public.
My second bill, the Protecting Pregnant Women and Children
from Perchlorate Act, requires EPA to quickly set a perchlorate
standard for drinking water that protects pregnant women and
children.
I wish that everyone who has said in his or her life, our
children are our future, or I love my grandchildren more than I
love myself, everyone who has said that, if everyone who said
that forced their elected officials who have said that to act
now, it would be the best thing for our Country.
Senator Clinton, Senator Dole and myself and several
colleagues also have a bill, the TCE Reduction Act, S. 1911,
that would protect people exposed to TCE. Congress will not sit
idly by while EPA fails to adequately protect our children.
Chuck Schumer has a bill to ban bisphenol-A. Dianne Feinstein
and I had a bill--it passed--to ban phthalates.
So this is what is happening because EPA does nothing. We
must step in to require action that will ensure that our
children and our families can turn on their taps and be assured
that what comes out is safe to drink. If we can't do that, then
shame on us.
Senator Boxer. Senator Barrasso.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
As you say, TCE is a carcinogenic industrial solvent. It
has been used to clean engines and rocket motor parts in my
home State of Wyoming, primarily by the Department of Defense.
Wyoming has had an important legacy to the defense of this
Country, and nuclear missile silos have been in Wyoming since
the early days of the cold war. Wyoming residents are proud of
this legacy, but we also believe that the Federal Government
has a responsibility to leave Wyoming as clean as when they
found it.
I have raised the issue, Madam Chairman, with the Army
Corps of Engineers regarding TCE contamination in the city of
Cheyenne's water wells at Belvoir Ranch in Wyoming, which is
west of Cheyenne. The Wyoming Department of Environmental
Quality believes that this contamination is directly linked to
a former nuclear missile site known as Atlas D Missile Site 4.
The missile site is currently listed as a formerly utilized
defense site. These sites were operational from 1960 to 1965.
They were the first generation of intercontinental ballistic
missiles armed with nuclear warheads.
The Army Corps of Engineers is well aware of TCE leakage
from this site. In a latter to me, the Corps amazingly stated
that their information does not support the conclusion that the
missile site is the cause of the water contamination discovered
in Cheyenne's nearby wells. The Army Corps suggests, ``the
potential for the existence of other contributing sources'' of
the contamination.
In the same letter, the Corps announced that they will now
be conducting a study to determine whether there is a
connection between the missile site and the wells. They will
now study the historical TCE use in the area.
Well, given the rural undeveloped terrain of the area in
question and the historical fact that TCE was heavily used by
the military in the area, it seems clear that the Government is
needlessly delaying the technical and financial assistance that
the city and the State have asked for.
This problem has been studied for more than a decade. A
major study was initiated in 1995 during the Clinton
administration. The map that I have here shows a brown line
that shows where the Army Corps believes the TCE is. However,
to the right over here, you can see this dotted line that shows
where the city of Cheyenne's water wells are. The series of
brown boxes around this area shows where the Wyoming Department
of Environmental Quality has tested the groundwater. Fourteen
of the brown boxes tested positive for traces of TCE. So this
has all tested positive, and this is where the Army Corps says
absolutely they realize the TCE plume is moving.
Given the close proximity of the Atlas missile site to the
site, common sense would conclude that there is a connection to
the contamination in the city's water wells. Unfortunately,
this is not how the Federal Government works. After additional
meetings with the Army Corps of Engineers, I have been informed
that additional testing is needed in the area between the city
FEs wells and the missile site to definitively prove that there
is a connection. Those tests will be occurring in the next few
months and we will not know the results until the end of the
year.
The city of Cheyenne and the Wyoming Department of
Environmental Quality are containing the TCE, but they have
been asking the Army Corps for help. It is an expensive process
to clean TCE from the water. Currently, that cost is being
borne entirely by Wyoming taxpayers. The Federal Government,
through the Army Corps and the EPA should provide technical and
financial assistance sooner, rather than later. This situation
needs to be resolved quickly for the betterment of Wyoming
residents.
I look forward to the testimony. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Madam Chair, I will pass. We can go
directly to the testimony.
Senator Boxer. Senator Bond.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI
Senator Bond. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you
for holding this hearing today.
This hearing allows us to examine the politicization of
environmental protection, attempts to roll back environmental
law, and disregard sound science. Now, some may think that I am
1 day early. That is the goal of tomorrow's hearing, as I
understand it. However, I would say that before stones are
thrown today, we should examine the glass house some of us are
living in today.
Part of the purpose of this hearing is to establish the
need for a bill currently before the Senate, S. 150. That
legislation would require EPA to issue regulations on
perchlorate levels in drinking water. Sponsors of this
legislation are well meaning, and I have no question about
their motives and their concerns. They have the best interests
of their constituents at heart, but they fail to acknowledge
that their effort is the very definition of political
regulation. It is politicians here in the Senate dictating the
outcome of EPA's environmental decision making.
And yet in past months and again tomorrow, these same folks
may be trying to tell us that political officials should not
tell career scientists and environmental specialists what to
do. Their perchlorate bill also represents a roll-back of
environmental law. Ironically, Congress amended the Safe
Drinking Water Act a dozen years ago to get politicians out of
the business of deciding which compounds to regulate. The Safe
Drinking Water Act now includes a specific process designed to
protect public health. The law specifically requires risk
assessment and the use of science in decision making.
Under the law, the Administrator must present information
to the public and conduct a health risk reduction and cost
analysis. But advocates would sweep away the environmental law
and go straight to the conclusion they favor. Apparently,
rolling back environmental laws are OK with them if and when
they choose.
This effort also includes a minimization of the work of the
National Academy of Sciences. Witnesses will tell us today why
we should not follow the natural conclusions of an NAS study on
perchlorate. How many times have we heard charges of heeding
the advice of political figures instead of peer-reviewed
science?
Indeed, 2 weeks ago an NAS study by the National Research
Council was heralded when it determined that short-term
exposure to ozone is likely to cause premature death in some
cases. Two weeks later when the NAS is not so helpful, it
becomes an inconvenient truth to be minimized or discounted.
Now, I agree with the sponsors of this hearing that we must
protect the health of women and children from compounds like
perchlorate. We must understand the prime pathway perchlorate
is getting into the bodies of our infants and children, and put
a stop to that. Studies indicate the primary route is through
baby food, dairy products and vegetables, and we need to take a
hard look at regulating that.
But the decision on whether or not to regulate perchlorate
in water, as with all of these technical decisions, is best
left to the scientific experts, using the processes established
by our environmental law. We should not do as some propose and
override our environmental law, minimize peer-reviewed science,
or act by political fiat.
I join with you in welcoming EPA Assistant Administrator
Grumbles. I will have some questions for the record for him.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
[The prepared statement of Senator Bond follows:]
Statement of Hon. Christopher S. Bond, U.S. Senator from
the State of Missouri
Madame Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today.
This hearing allows us to examine the politicization of
environmental protection, attempts to roll back environmental
law and the disregard of scientific study.
Some may think that I am 1 day early. That is the goal of
tomorrow's hearing as I understand it. However, I would say
that before stones are thrown tomorrow, we should examine the
glass house some are living in today.
Part of the purpose of this hearing is to establish the
need for a bill currently before the Senate, S. 150. That
legislation would require EPA to issue regulations on
perchlorate levels in drinking water.
Sponsors of this legislation are well meaning. They have
the best interests of their constituents at heart, but they
fail to acknowledge that their effort is the very definition of
political regulation. It is politicians here in the Senate
dictating the outcome of EPA's environmental decision making.
And yet in past months and again tomorrow these same folks
are trying to tell us that political officials should not tell
career scientists and environmental specialists what to do.
Their perchlorate bill also represents a roll-back of
environmental law. Ironically, Congress amended the Safe
Drinking Water Act a dozen years ago to get politicians out of
the business of deciding which compounds to regulate.
The Safe Drinking Water Act now includes a specific process
designed to protect public health. The law specifically
requires risk assessment and the use of science in decision
making. Under the law, the Administrator must present
information to the public and conduct a health risk reduction
and cost analysis.
But advocates would sweep that environmental law aside and
go straight to the conclusion they favor. Apparently, rolling
back environmental laws are ok with them if and when they
choose.
This effort also includes a minimization of the work of the
National Academy of Sciences. Witnesses will tell us today why
we should not follow the natural conclusions of an NAS study on
perchlorate. But how many times have we heard charges of
heeding the advice of political figures instead of peer
reviewed science?
Indeed, 2 weeks ago, an NAS study by the National Research
Council was heralded when it determined that short-term
exposure to ozone is likely to cause premature death in some
cases. Two weeks later when the NAS is not so helpful, it
becomes an inconvenient truth to be minimized or discounted.
Now I agree with the sponsors of this hearing that we must
protect the health of women and children from compounds like
perchlorate. We must understand the prime pathways perchlorate
is getting into the bodies of our infants and children and put
a stop to that. Studies indicate the primary route is through
baby food, dairy products and vegetables, and so we need to
take a hard look at regulating that.
But the decision on whether or not to regulate perchlorate
in water, as with all of these technical decisions, is best
left to the scientific experts using the processes established
by our environmental law. We should not do as some propose and
override our environmental law, minimize peer reviewed science,
or act by political fiat.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
Senator Bond, at our last hearing what we learned from the
GAO is that indeed there is politics in the risk assessment
process. That was what GAO found within EPA, that they are
shunting the scientists to the back.
I also want to say since we will be marking up two
perchlorate bills in June, and so we will have another robust
debate at that time, I wanted to mention that we don't set any
standard. We say follow the science, but act within certain
timeframe. So we don't set the standard or put politics in it.
We are just trying to put the science back into it and give
them a deadline because in your State and my State, and I can
tell you, I know you alluded to it, people are getting very
high levels of exposure.
We want to see action by the scientists. We want to see a
standard set.
Senator Bond. Madam Chair, I wouldn't think you would say
that NAS is putting politics in the science.
Senator Boxer. No, what I said is----
Senator Bond. I am referring to the NAS study.
Senator Boxer. I am talking about the GAO. I am reminding
you that we had a full hearing on a GAO report that looked at
the IRIS system and the way risk assessment is being done and
the fact that EPA is trying to shunt the scientists to the
back, put the DOD contractors to the front at the table, and
they said it is very dangerous, GAO.
On perchlorate, what I am saying to you is, we do not set a
standard. We ask the EPA to act. We will have that debate.
Senator Bond. Based on sound science.
Senator Boxer. Absolutely. So I am going to share that with
you and hope maybe to win you over.
By the way, working with you on other issues, if you could
talk among yourselves for a minute, I am very proud of the work
we are doing on the veterans.
Senator Bond. Thank you. We do have strong bipartisan
cooperation.
Senator Boxer. Yes, we do.
Senator Bond. Senator Boxer and I have been working on
other things. We may have an occasional disagreement.
Senator Boxer. Once in blue moon.
Senator Bond. A slight variance here, but we work together
when it comes to taking care of our wounded heroes coming home.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. We do. Thank you very much.
Mr. Grumbles, we look forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is an honor to be
here. EPA truly appreciates the opportunity to discuss our
important work on perchlorate and TCE.
Madam Chair, since you mentioned it, I do feel it is
important to say that the agency strongly supports
environmental education, the use of websites, and getting out
the word and raising awareness about the importance of source
water protection and drinking water protection, but it is not
the only effort or the only tool. The regulatory tool is
critically important. That is why we are proud that over the
last several years, we have moved to finalize several
nationally significant and important drinking water rules.
I would also say, Madam Chairman, that it doesn't take an
act of Congress for us. It didn't take an act of Congress for
us to make a decision to revise the coliform rule which we are
working on right now. It didn't take an act of Congress for us
to issue an aircraft drinking water rule. It also didn't take
an act of Congress for us to revise the lead and copper rule
based on the knowledge we have learned over the last several
years.
But we share a lot with you and have a lot in common in
terms of the goals and using the framework of the regulatory
determination process that is set out in the 1996 amendments.
We are committed to using the best available science to ensure
our policies continue to protect public health and the
environment. We are working with other Federal agencies to
gather and understand data needed to inform our decision
making.
This allows us to share the considerable expertise of other
senior Government scientists, as well as ensure that each
agency's research and analysis benefit from the findings of
counterparts who are evaluating similar issues in other
agencies.
As you know, we also consult with the National Academy of
Sciences when we need assistance in evaluating emerging or
conflicting scientific issues. With respect to perchlorate, as
has been stated, in 2005 the NAS released a report recommending
a reference dose. The agency adopted that reference dose. A
year later, we issued guidance for contaminated sites which
recommended a revised preliminary remediation goal for
perchlorate in water. It was calculated using the reference
dose, which was based on the National Academy of Sciences'
work. It used standard exposure values of 70 kilograms body
weight and two liters of water consumed per day. This
calculation provides the drinking water equivalent level,
assuming no other sources of perchlorate exposure. But we
understand, and we have been gathering data that indicates
there are other sources of exposure.
Madam Chair, I just want to also underscore the decision we
made did not continue regulation of unregulated contaminants,
but not to continue the monitoring of perchlorate. We never
said it is because we had enough data. What we said was we had
enough data on occurrence based on the contaminant monitoring
rule. We have spent the last several years gathering additional
information on relative sources that contribute to the overall
determination to make as to whether or not to regulate for
perchlorate.
As you know, we need to know that the contaminant is likely
to cause an adverse effect on the health of persons. We know
that perchlorate can have an adverse effect and we are
concerned about that. We have set a reference dose that is
based on a more protective no-effect level and it is based on
the most sensitive sub-population, which is the fetus of a
pregnant woman with iodine deficiency or hypothyroidism.
Second, we need to determine if the contaminant is known or
likely to occur in public water systems at a frequency and
level of public health concern. The results of our regulation
from monitoring of unregulated contaminants such as perchlorate
demonstrated that it was detected at levels above four parts
per billion in 4 percent of the public water systems.
But we also have to answer the question under the statute
of is there a meaningful opportunity to reduce risk if we issue
a new national regulation on perchlorate. We have been spending
a lot of time on that, Madam Chairman, and we have been
coordinating with other agencies, CDC and in particular FDA. We
find it is very important to have the total diet study from the
FDA. It is the most comprehensive effort to date, we believe,
on the different sources of contamination and exposure to
perchlorates such as food, not just water. It provides an
important additional tool for us to make our determinations.
I understand your frustration on how long the process is
taking, but we believe it is important to do the work and we
intend to issue a final regulatory determination before the end
of 2008.
With respect to TCE, as you know, it is a different
contaminant and we have already been regulating it. We have
been managing the risk in drinking water for many years.
Currently, there is a five part per billion standard. We began,
however, reevaluating the risk assessment for TCE several years
ago and we also, with other agencies, sought additional
comments from the Science Advisory Board, and then following up
on that, from the National Academy of Sciences.
Right now, we are evaluating TCE, both in terms of
reevaluating the risk assessment based in information we have
gotten from the NAS and others. The other thing, Madam
Chairman, is that my office, the Water Office, is evaluating
TCE under our 6-year review process under the Safe Drinking
Water Act. We are analyzing new scientific and technological
data and information on health effects associated with each
regulated contaminant such as TCE. We are taking this very
seriously and we are looking at it very closely.
The other aspect I want to add is that TCE is prevalent. It
is a prevalent groundwater contaminant at hazardous waste
sites, so we are concerned about vapor intrusion and when it
occurs. We are working with Federal partners, State regulators,
industry, academia, environmental groups and the general public
to understand the rapidly developing science of vapor
intrusion. We are developing recommendations for----
Senator Boxer. Mr. Grumbles, could you complete? I have let
you go over a minute and a half, but if you could complete.
Mr. Grumbles. Yes. So we are developing recommendations for
interim toxicity values with respect to vapor intrusion.
In conclusion, Madam Chair, the agency is committed to
robust protection of public health from contaminants in
drinking water using the science-based framework. We believe
this framework is sound and respectfully request that you allow
us time to complete the required analyses and determinations to
ensure appropriate science-based protection of public health
from these and other contaminants as envisioned by the 1996
amendments.
We are committed to making a final regulatory determination
for perchlorate by the end of this year, and for TCE, as soon
as the necessary analyses have been completed.
Thank you for your patience and the opportunity to discuss
this with you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grumbles follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Mr. Grumbles.
So you are going to act at the end of 2008. Is it possible
that EPA could decide not to regulate perchlorate? Is that an
option?
Mr. Grumbles. That is an option. That is a distinct
possibility and we are in the final stages of assessing the
latest information we have. We would, first, before we issue a
final determination, we would issue a preliminary determination
and take public comment on that, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. OK. So it is a distinct possibility that the
EPA in protecting the public may determine not to set a
standard for perchlorate? Is that correct?
Mr. Grumbles. It is. It is a distinct possibility to make
another determination as well, but that is the stage we are in.
Senator Boxer. Right. Well, that is what I hear is going to
happen. That is what I hear. You have a lot of good people over
there who talk to us. I am just saying if that happens, and you
can look the American people in the eye and say, we are
protecting you, no standard. And you have stopped testing. Why
did you stop testing? Why did you tell the water systems they
didn't have to test for perchlorate and let people know if
perchlorate is in their water?
Mr. Grumbles. After the rounds of the regulations that
required utilities to monitor for perchlorate, we got a robust
amount of data from 3,800 systems, and we felt that is a
sufficient amount of data that can help us to meet one of the
three statutory requirements under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
I would note two things, Madam Chair. One is that we can
still require additional contaminant monitoring if the science
leads us to that result.
Senator Boxer. OK. I understand. But you think--you the
agency--the Government has enough information. Don't you think
that people who are drinking the water have a right to know how
much perchlorate is in there? They are not stupid. They read
the papers. I can imagine what is going on with TCE in Wyoming.
My friend told me. People are upset.
Now, you have enough information.
Mr. Grumbles. But we are not saying we----
Senator Boxer. Excuse me. EPA said that, you had enough
information that you didn't have to test anymore. Is that
right?
Mr. Grumbles. Well, the important clarification is that we
felt because we want to get on with the process and make a
determination on whether or not to issue a new regulation, we
felt we had sufficient data on one of the three elements, and
that is the occurrence data. Now, that was based on various
assumptions. We have never said to any utility, you should not
test for it, or you should stop testing.
Senator Boxer. But you stopped requiring it.
Mr. Grumbles. That is correct.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Mr. Grumbles. With the right to re institute that if more
science comes in.
Senator Boxer. You always have that right, but EPA said--
and here it is, I will put it in the record--we agree with the
comments that it is not clear that the agency needs additional
information on the occurrence of perchlorate in drinking water.
Now, it is a year and a half since you stopped the testing.
You still haven't acted. You now say you are going to act at
the end of 2008, and it is a distinct possibility you could
conclude you are not going to set a standard. So if that is the
case, and that is what I believe is going to happen after all
this folderol, there won't be a Federal standard. The States
will have to do it.
People will be completely ignorant of the whole situation
because they won't be protected by the Drinking Water Act by
EPA and they won't have the information. It is unbelievable to
me that at the minimum, at the minimum, you give people
information. Let them make their judgments. Let them have the
political information. Let them make it a reason to support a
Senator or not support a Senator or a President or whatever. So
I think keeping people ignorance is part of what this is about.
I just want to ask you something else.
Mr. Grumbles. But Madam Chair, I just have to say, EPA
firmly supports getting as much information as we can out there
on perchlorate. Now, what that means is that it is not just the
occurrence measurements. It is also getting critical
information about other types of exposure such as food. So we
have been spending the time to get that additional information
because we are concerned. It is not just water, it is food.
Senator Boxer. Mr. Grumbles, you know what? I was not born
yesterday, as I keep reminding people. You just have to look at
me to get it. I was not born yesterday. What is the best way to
give people information? Let them know if it is in their
drinking water. Isn't that a lot easier than, oh, go up on our
website?
Let me ask you this. You testified that EPA's preliminary
remediation goal for perchlorate clean-up is based on
protecting a 154-pound adult. Shouldn't EPA lower this number
to account for the larger amount of water and food that infants
and children consume for their body weight compared to adults?
Mr. Grumbles. It has been very much a part of our
discussions of the need to revisit the preliminary remediation
goal as we have spent the last couple of years getting
additional information, Madam Chair. So my answer to your
question is that, yes, that is a distinct possibility of
revising the preliminary remediation guidelines, particularly
as we have gotten additional information from the Food and Drug
Administration.
Senator Boxer. Well, you set the standard in 2006. This
isn't like it happened many years ago. You set it to protect a
154-pound male.
Mr. Grumbles. Right.
Senator Boxer. And now you are saying, a little while
later, a year later, because I am questioning you, well, maybe
you ought to change it.
Mr. Grumbles. Well, everyone embraces the concept of
adaptive management. We set a time as quickly as we could.
Senator Boxer. Adaptive management?
Mr. Grumbles. That is right.
Senator Boxer. What does that mean? What does that mean?
Mr. Grumbles. That means that right after the National
Academy of Sciences came out with their report, the agency
shortly after that adopted a reference dose. After the
reference dose, the heads of the Superfund program realized
they wanted to have a preliminary remediation goal. So they
went with the best information available and they made
assumptions, Madam Chair, about the types of exposure.
Senator Boxer. Right. Lots of words. Lots of words.
Mr. Grumbles. The answer to the question is what it means
is, as you get additional information about food exposure, you
go back and you look at is the preliminary remediation goal the
proper number at this point.
Senator Boxer. Well, let me put in the record your own
Children's Health Advisory panel made up of scientists--and I
wish Senator Bond was here--and doctors. I am putting this
letter in the record. They told Mr. Johnson on March 8th, 2006
the new PRG is not supported by the underlying science and can
result in exposures that pose neurodevelopmental risks in early
life. So don't give me you are just learning this, when your
own people----
[The referenced document follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Grumbles. That was another aspect to it, ma'am.
Senator Boxer. Excuse me. I am speaking. Excuse me.
You know why I get so angry with you? It is not a personal
anger. It is because you say things that are not backed up by
the facts. You say as you get additional information you are
going to get tougher. You have that information from your own
panel. They told you what you were doing was dangerous. And now
you are sitting here under, I would agree, hostile questioning
from me and saying, oh yes, Madam Senator, we are going to take
another look at it. I just don't buy it.
Mr. Grumbles. I think to be fair, you ought to allow me the
chance to say----
Senator Boxer. Well, let me finish. I am giving you a
chance.
Mr. Grumbles [continuing].--that the reason, one of the
areas of concern they had, and it is not just with EPA, but it
was with the National Academy of Sciences, was the focus on
what is the most sensitive sub-population. That wasn't the
preliminary remediation goal discussion. It was focused on the
reference dose and how the agency got to its DWEL, the drinking
water equivalency level.
So there has been a very robust debate, Madam Chair, as to
what is the most sensitive sub-population. I think part of the
concern that the Children's Health Advisory group had was that
we ended up adopting the perspective of the National Academy of
Sciences and indeed, the fetus of a pregnant woman.
The other issue I was trying to get at and explain on
adaptive management, Madam Chair, was that the preliminary
remediation goal when it was set, it was also based on an
assumption of the data that we had. They made the assumption
that 100 percent of the contamination source would be coming
from water, and we are in the agency discussing it. Well, we
know that food is another significant source. So that is what I
meant by the need to embrace adaptive management.
Senator Boxer. Well, I am going to turn to Senator
Barrasso, but I am going to read you some more of this letter.
Mr. Grumbles. OK.
Senator Boxer. Because the things that you say just don't
comport with the facts. Your own Children's Health Advisory
Committee, made up of scientists, told you, told Stephen
Johnson, told the world in this letter, that the standard you
had set for the clean-up was not good enough. I said, I read
before, it is not protective of children's health. And you tell
me adaptive management--let's see, what does that mean? You set
a standard in a low way and you get caught at it, and you get
called before a Senate Committee that you might have to adapt
and go back?
I am sorry. I find it cynical. Let me read the rest of
this. The Children's Health Advisory Panel finds it disturbing
that this change in the PRG was made without dissemination of a
decision support document or any opportunity for public input.
We recommend that OSWER lower the PRG, taking into account
infant exposure and susceptibility. They are very concerned,
and this letter states it.
You don't have to wait for anything else. These are the
people that you are supposed to rely on. Supposed to rely on.
So I can only say to you----
Mr. Grumbles. Can I say one more important----
Senator Boxer. Let me finish, please, and yes, then you can
respond.
I can only say to you that your explanation here today
doesn't make any sense. Oh, you have to wait for science, when
your own scientists who care about children have already told
you. And you have admitted you may not even set a standard for
perchlorate, and you don't think that having the ordering, if
you will, requiring water systems to test for perchlorate
really is a good idea.
So everything I add up says to me danger, flashing red
light for the public. Again, EPA, the shadow of its former
self, celebrating our great drinking water, and in the back
rooms here derailing what your own scientists want to do to
protect kids. It is very disturbing.
Yes, sir?
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you. I just simply wanted to say that
the relationship we have with the Children's Health Advisory
Board is an important one. I said it is a distinct possibility,
Madam Chair, that we might determine not to regulate
perchlorate. It is also--and this is important--it is also a
distinct possibility that we may issue a health advisory. And
part of the dynamics that are involved in that is over the last
couple of years we have gotten a lot more information,
supplementing the National Academy of Sciences, about potential
risks to children or infants. So that is important to us.
We also have made clear from the beginning, Madam Chair,
that our goal was to make a final determination by this year,
and that we had enough occurrence data. We also realize we may
need to revise that approach in terms of monitoring in the
future, just like with any emerging contaminant.
Senator Boxer. OK.
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Well, I would like you to know that my State
has enough information, and they do have a perchlorate
standard.
Senator.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Grumbles.
I think you started your testimony before you got to your
written remarks, talking about that it doesn't take an act of
Congress to, and then you went through a number of things, lead
and copper, airline drinking water. Is that your concern with a
bill like this, that we don't really need an act of Congress on
this? I am kind of getting that as a sense of what you are
saying here today.
Mr. Grumbles. We think congressional oversight of the
agency as it moves through this regulatory process is
critically important, but when it comes to legislating a
specific decision on whether or not to regulate and to set a
very aggressive timeframe schedule, we have serious concerns
about that. So Senator, that is the point, is that we have
concerns about a legislative directive that overrides the
current regulatory framework for decision making.
Senator Barrasso. I wanted to get back to the issue I was
talking about earlier with Cheyenne, Wyoming. As the support
regulatory agency, I would ask that you please look into this
matter and help clear up the bureaucratic red tape so that the
Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality can get the
assistance that they are requesting to help with the issues
that I have addressed.
Mr. Grumbles. Senator, most certainly we will look into
that.
Senator Barrasso. And then with my remaining time, as you
have been collecting your thoughts, is there anything else you
would like to add that you haven't had a chance to say here in
some of the dialog?
Mr. Grumbles. Well, we feel that it is important to take
both perchlorate and TCE very seriously. On perchlorate, the
scientific issues that surround the health effects and also if
there is a meaningful opportunity to reduce risk to human
health as required under the Safe Drinking Water Act, that is
where we have been spending our time over the last several
years because we recognize it is widespread. It does have risks
to health, as the National Academy of Sciences and others have
confirmed.
So we are committed to going through the process, to
working with Congress, and making sure that a science-based
decision is made.
On TCE, we have been regulating it for some time. We are
aggressively pursuing additional guidance on vapor intrusion
and the reevaluation of the risks, given the scientific issues
evolving over the degree to which cancer is caused by TCE. It
is a priority issue as well for us. In the Drinking Water
Office, Senator, we are committed to reviewing it and other
contaminants for potential further regulation under our process
of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Senator Barrasso. So it is your concern, then, that with
the current Safe Drinking Water Act and how to regulate water
contaminants, that this bill may override that Safe Drinking
Water Act in terms of the listing process and others?
Mr. Grumbles. Well, it would. It would. And we understand,
and Congress has used its prerogative to direct the agency to
regulate specific named contaminants in the past. We see the
value, and I think many others see the value, in the 1996
framework, the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments that
said rather than identifying specific ones or having to
regulate an X number by X years, you go through a systematic
process.
The downside, Senator, is that systematic process can take
some time because we have three statutory criteria that we need
to go through. And we need to make sure pursuant to the statute
that it is the best available peer-reviewed science. So it
takes some time, but we think that overall it is an excellent
framework and we would just urge caution to members in
legislative directives that picks which of the 60 or 50
contaminants to regulate, and sets a timeframe that may be so
ambitious that may not result in a legally sustainable final
product.
Senator Barrasso. So you are working with groups like the
Food and Drug Administration and the Center for Disease
Control, in determining what is best for our children and ways
to protect them?
Mr. Grumbles. We have been working with them and other
agencies and scientific organizations. We are spending a lot of
time lately with the Food and Drug Administration and the bio-
monitoring study that CDC did was an important one.
Senator Barrasso. Madam Chair, I have no further questions.
Senator Boxer. I am going to put the rest of my questions
in writing to you.
I am going to just close with this. Senator Barrasso, thank
you very much for showing us the TCE problem in your State. I
am going to ask unanimous consent to place into the record a
list of the contaminated sites throughout this Country. There
are 45 States that have a problem with TCE. We need a more
protective standard there.
There are also 11 Superfund sites contaminated with TCE,
where human exposure is not under control. The source of this
is the EPA. So you have a situation here where you have sites
where human exposure is not under control and we have TCE in 45
States, 321 Superfund sites in 45 States and territories
contaminated with TCE. You can't drag your feet anymore.
I would say for perchlorate, you have 35 States that have
perchlorate in the water at serious levels. You already have
your Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee saying you
are not doing enough. You have American Water Works
Association, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies--and
this gets to Senator Barrasso's point--they have urged EPA to
set a perchlorate standard for drinking water. These are not
environmental organizations. The American Water Works
Association, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies,
they want a standard.
I think it gets to Senator Barrasso's very important point.
Is it better for EPA to act or is it better for Congress to
act? Well, let me answer that question. EPA should act, if it
was the Environmental Protection Agency, but they are not doing
it. That is the problem. I mean, go and tell Senator Feinstein
to wait until you deal with phthalates. Go and tell Senator
Schumer to deal with other chemicals. People are just not going
to listen, and people like Senator Barrasso, who is a very
patient man, I think he wants action here in terms of clean-up
for his State.
The point is, your answers--and I am speaking only for
myself--are just very light. They don't give me any comfort at
all. As a matter of fact, they even make me more concerned,
hearing that we may not have a standard. The fact of the matter
is, there are sites that are out of control here. Your own
scientists have told you to act. Now, we know a couple of
States have acted on perchlorate.
That is the other thing that is going to happen, Senator.
The States are going to start setting standards. Right now, I
know California has six, Massachusetts has two, and many other
States are waiting. So we are going to have a patchwork quilt.
In the meantime, consumers of water don't know how much
perchlorate is in their water because the EPA decided it wasn't
necessary. So if they go down the path where they are not going
to set a standard at the end of the day, which is a quote,
``distinct possibility,'' and plus they are not requiring
testing, our people are in the dark without any help, and we
are talking about very dangerous chemicals here.
So thank you for coming. We will give you a bunch more
questions in writing, and we call up the next panel. Thank you,
sir.
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. I want to welcome panel two.
George Alexeeff is Deputy Director for Science Affairs,
Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment from my great
State of California. We welcome you.
Mike Baker is Chief, Division of Drinking and Groundwater,
Ohio EPA, on behalf of the Association of State Drinking Water
Administrators.
Carol Rowan West is Director, Office of Research and
Standards, Massachusetts Department of Environmental
Protection.
So we are going to ask you to keep your opening statements
to 5 minutes, and we will begin with you, Dr. Alexeeff.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE V. ALEXEEFF, DEPUTY DIRECTOR FOR SCIENTIFIC
AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT,
CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Dr. Alexeeff. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the
Committee for the opportunity to testify on perchlorate and TCE
in water. I am George Alexeeff, Deputy Director for Scientific
Affairs for the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment, which we refer to as OEHHA, in the Environmental
Protection Agency of California.
As part of our duties under the California Safe Drinking
Water Act, OEHHA develops public health goals, or PHGs, for
drinking water. Perchlorate has been detected in hundreds of
drinking water sources in California. Perchlorate inhibits the
uptake of iodide, an essential nutrient, by the thyroid gland.
Inadequate iodide uptake disrupts proper thyroid function.
Thyroid hormones such as T4 and T3 help regulate growth and
maturation of tissues, particularly the brain.
Disruption of these hormones can lead to impaired
development in fetuses. Several epidemiologic studies indicate
that iodide deficiency during pregnancy may affect brain
development and may cause intellectual deficits in children.
Our review of the scientific literature found that the
fetuses of pregnant women are the most sensitive population to
perchlorate's health effects. Impairment of thyroid function in
expectant mothers may affect the brain of the fetus, resulting
in delayed development and decreased learning capacity.
In 2004, OEHHA published a public health goal for
perchlorate in drinking water of six parts per billion. The
level was adopted as the State's drinking water standard.
OEHHA's draft perchlorate assessment underwent two rounds of
independent peer review by the University of California
scientists, as well as several public comment periods. We based
our PHG on a controlled human study referred to as the Greer
study, which contained the best data for assessing
perchlorate's health effects. However, this study was limited
because there were only 37 subjects. To ensure we did not
underestimate the chemical's effects on pregnant women and
fetuses, we added a tenfold margin of safety. Our PHG also took
into account the higher water consumption rate of pregnant
women and the potential for perchlorate exposure from food.
In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences recommended a
similar approach. In 2006, the CDC released a major national
study which supports the concerns that we identified. The CDC
study found that in women, perchlorate exposure was associated
with changes in thyroid hormone levels. The thyroid hormone
level changes were consistent with the expected effects of
perchlorate. OEHHA evaluated this data and published a
confirmatory article.
I will now turn to TCE. Over 350 drinking water sources in
California have reportable levels of TCE contamination. Cancer
is the primary health effect of concern from TCE exposure.
Animal studies indicate that TCE induced liver and lung
carcinomas in mice. Kidney tumors were reported in male rats.
The National Toxicology Program has concluded that TCE is
reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen.
Over the past 20 years, California has treated TCE as a
carcinogen. In 1988, California listed TCE as a chemical known
to the State to cause cancer. In 1990, TCE was listed as a
toxic air contaminant based on carcinogenic effects. In 1999,
OEHHA published a public health goal of 0.8 parts per billion
of trichloroethylene in drinking water.
In developing this PHG, we reviewed the animal studies and
the limited human studies. Our risk assessment confirmed that
this chemical is a potential human carcinogen. We have followed
the U.S. EPA cancer review process with great interest and
awaited the publication of the National Academy of Sciences'
report released in 2006. We note that the NAS concluded that
the evidence on carcinogenic risk and other health hazards from
exposure to trichloroethylene has strengthened since 2001.
I hope this summary gives you a better idea of why
California has concerns about perchlorate and TCE in water, and
how we have identified the level of risk to public health.
Thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify before
you today.
[The prepared statement of Dr. Alexeeff follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
Mr. Baker, welcome.
STATEMENT OF MIKE BAKER, CHIEF, DIVISION OF DRINKING AND GROUND
WATERS, OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ON BEHALF OF THE
ASSOCIATION OF STATE DRINKING WATER ADMINISTRATORS
Mr. Baker. Thank you and good morning, Madam Chairman and
Committee members. I am Mike Baker. I am Chief of the Division
of Drinking and Groundwaters at the Ohio Environmental
Protection Agency. I am also the President-elect of the
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, also known
as ASDWA. ASDWA supports and represents the collective
interests of States, territories and the Navajo Nation in our
administration of national drinking water requirements. I am
pleased to be here today to offer testimony on ASDWA's behalf.
Overall, ASDWA supports the fundamental construct of the
Safe Drinking Water Act as it relates to determining which
contaminants are likely to occur in drinking water and whose
regulation would provide a meaningful opportunity for health
risk reduction.
An underlying tenet of the act is that standard-setting
should be driven by sound science. That includes robust data on
the occurrence of contaminants, information about the abilities
of these contaminants to cause health effects, information
about technologies and costs to remove or reduce these
contaminants, and the expected benefits of doing so.
We do appreciate this Committee's concerns about
perchlorate and TCE. We are, however, concerned about the
precedent of using legislative action that supersedes the
provisions of the statute for a particular contaminant. Recent
media stories about pharmaceuticals in personal health care
products in our sources of drinking water are one example
highlighting the need for a rational scientific-based approach
to determining which contaminants should be regulated and at
what levels.
In my own State of Ohio and a few other States, we are
grappling with another type of emerging contaminants, PFOA, one
of several flouropolymers used for decades by a variety of
manufacturing processes. This particular compound is being
detected in the environment, animals, and people around the
world. Customers of an Ohio public water system contaminated by
PFOA have the highest level of this chemical ever detected in
humans. Clearly, we are very concerned about any of these
compounds being in our drinking water at unsafe levels.
We expect to see more and more emerging contaminants. We
live in a society that uses a myriad of chemicals. That fact,
coupled with our increasing ability to detect contaminants at
low levels, will undoubtedly raise additional concerns about
the safety of our drinking water. Therefore, unless a
transparent scientific approach is used, we are concerned EPA
will jump from one contaminant to another based on media and
political attention, rather than on meaningful public health
gains.
States do agree that EPA needs to make timely decisions on
contaminants of concern. Public health protection depends on
sound and timely decisions. As my colleagues on this panel have
and will describe, in the absence of timely decisions by EPA, a
few States can and do establish their own standards. Most
States, however, simply do not have the necessary resources,
nor the expertise, and we depend on EPA for timely decisions.
In the case of perchlorate and TCE, EPA should be held
accountable for describing what data and information, if any,
is lacking to support a regulatory decision and make decisions
about whether or not to further regulate as rapidly as
possible.
All of us at the Federal, State and local levels, have
important roles to play to ensure people have access to safe
and affordable drinking water. This includes preventing
contaminants from reaching the source of our drinking water in
the first place. For Congress, an important role is to ensure
adequate funding to support research so that information about
contaminants is available when it is needed.
We must also keep in mind regulations come with a cost
burden to State drinking water programs, public water systems,
and their customers. Many States and water utilities are
already struggling to meet the demands of current regulations.
We appreciate your support for the Drinking Water State
Revolving Loan Fund and respectfully recommend more funds be
appropriated to support a growing infrastructure need.
Additional Federal dollars are also needed for State
drinking water programs to carry out Federal regulatory
requirements. Current funding levels, which have remained at
roughly the same levels for over a decade, during the same time
States have had to adopt over 15 Federal regulatory
requirements, is simply inadequate and needs to be increased.
States and public water supplies need your support.
I thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony and
would be pleased to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Mr. Baker.
And now we are going to hear from Carol Rowan West,
Director, Office of Research and Standards, Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF CAROL ROWAN WEST, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND
STANDARDS, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Ms. West. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Committee members,
for the opportunity to testify today on the issue of
perchlorate in drinking water. As a scientist and Director of
the Office of Research and Standards at the Massachusetts
Department of Environmental Protection, I have spent over 15
years evaluating the toxic effect of chemicals and setting
standards that are protective of public health.
I have no doubt that perchlorate is a chemical that should
be regulated in the Nation's drinking water supply, given the
fact that this chemical is one that affects the thyroid gland
and can effect the levels of thyroid hormones that are needed
for the proper development of the brain in the fetus, infants
and young children. The health effects of perchlorate are well
known and are based on sound science.
The Commonwealth of Massachusetts' work on perchlorate
began in 2001, when perchlorate was detected in the groundwater
at 600 parts per billion at the Massachusetts Military
Reservation on Cape Cod. The contaminated groundwater plume
migrated to nearby public water supply wells. Given the lack of
Federal and State standards for perchlorate and the potential
for perchlorate to affect brain development in children, we
felt compelled to set a drinking water standard. We promulgated
a two parts per billion perchlorate standard in 2006 based upon
a thorough review of all the scientific information along with
an independent review by an external scientific advisory
committee.
After all of the public water supplies were tested in
Massachusetts, we found a number of unanticipated situations
including perchlorate levels as high as 1,300 parts per billion
in one public water supply. We found that all of the
contaminated public water supplies were from non-military
sources of perchlorate, including blasting, fireworks and
sodium hypochlorite, a chemical that is used to treat and
disinfect drinking water.
As mentioned earlier, there appears to be sufficient
evidence that there is widespread contamination of perchlorate
in the United States. Surveys show that 26 States and two
territories have perchlorate in their drinking water, and 37
States and territories have approximately 400 hazardous waste
sites with perchlorate present in them.
In addition, there are new studies that demonstrate the
pervasiveness of perchlorate exposures to the American public,
raising issues regarding human safety. The Food and Drug
Administration has found that 59 percent of the total food
samples tested contain perchlorate, including baby food. The
FDA estimated that children the age of 2 years old would
receive the highest intake of perchlorate a day. At this age,
the brain is rapidly growing and it puts these young children
at risk, especially given the fact that the amount of
perchlorate from water and from food may go over the level of
producing thyroid hormone level alterations that could affect
brain development.
A very recent study just published on Boston women and
breast milk contamination with perchlorate found that all 49 of
the women tested had perchlorate, and the levels ranged from
1.3 to 411 parts per billion. And last, as mentioned earlier,
the Centers for Disease Control has found through its national
survey that perchlorate is pervasive in the American public and
that in the high-risk group of women with low iodide intake,
that they are finding alterations in thyroid hormone levels.
All of these studies indicate widespread contamination and
exposure to perchlorate in both water and the food supplies of
Americans. The benefits of having a national perchlorate
drinking water standard are that all of the public water
supplies will be tested so we will have complete information.
Then action can be taken to treat the water to protect
children's health. We recommend that the U.S. EPA should take a
leadership role to set a perchlorate drinking water standard
which protects children's health. Perchlorate contamination is
a national issue and national action is needed. Federal action
will lead to consistent protection of children's health across
the United States. And last, the clean-up of water supplies and
sites has the additional benefit of also decreasing the levels
of perchlorate in food, including breast milk.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be pleased
to answer any questions you might have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. West follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Ms. West, can you explain for us what are the results of
too much perchlorate in terms of the thyroid? What actually
happens and how does it impact a pregnant woman and how does it
affect the fetus?
Ms. West. When women are pregnant, they have a lot of
stress on their thyroid gland. They sometimes also have a lower
amount of dietary iodide in order to make thyroid hormones. So
when pregnant women are exposed to perchlorate, their thyroid
hormone level is reduced.
Now, the fetus depends on thyroid hormone levels from the
mother, and when the mother is exposed, she may not be able to
provide the necessary levels of thyroid hormone to the fetus.
In early life stages of the fetus, they aren't producing any
thyroid hormone whatsoever, so they are totally dependent on
what the mother can deliver. So if the mother isn't making
enough thyroid hormone, it is going to have an impact on the
brain development of that child.
Senator Boxer. So this is very serious. You said in some
systems there are 411 parts per billion that has been found?
Ms. West. In one breast milk sample from Boston,
Massachusetts, where we do not have perchlorate in our drinking
water. May we add: However, here the perchlorate exposure is
from food that has taken up perchlorate from contaminated
water.
Senator Boxer. Doctor, do you want to add to any of those
adverse impacts, or did Ms. West pretty well cover it?
Dr. Alexeeff. I think she covered it very well. I would
just add that perchlorate also prevents iodide from
transferring to the placenta through the fetus, and also it
blocks iodide transfer to breast milk for the newborn.
Senator Boxer. And that could result in developmental
disabilities?
Dr. Alexeeff. That would add to the effect of perchlorate
itself. So there is a perchlorate effect on the thyroid of
either the newborn or the fetus and the mother, as well as the
lower amount of iodide.
Senator Boxer. Well, I am going to talk to Mr. Baker
because I think his approach--I understand where he is coming
from. I don't agree with his conclusion, but I think your mind
might be open to the few things that I say here. First of all,
here is the problem. To say that Congress shouldn't get
involved, it is a bad precedent, I hear you. I don't want to
get involved. I don't want to. Senator Klobuchar doesn't want
to. Senator Lautenberg and Senator Clinton and those of us who
are working on this Committee to protect our people don't want
to. We want the EPA to act.
Now, we hear today from two very straightforward witnesses
with no axe to grind, they are not politicians, they are
experts on health, that what can happen if there is too much
perchlorate in the water, it is very, very serious for a
pregnant woman and her fetus, and could have devastating
impacts, and for all we know probably is having devastating
impacts as we speak because there is no standard.
So what happens is, we have information dating back, well,
probably 20 years, but we know since 1992 EPA has talked about
the proper standard for perchlorate. Listen to this. This is
dated January 25th, 2002. I want to thank my staff for finding
this out here. ``A long-awaited U.S. EPA draft toxicological
report issued on January 18th finds that perchlorate is likely
to be more harmful to human health than previously thought.''
EPA, 2002. In response to the report's conclusion that
perchlorate concentrations of less than one part per billion
are safe for human consumption in drinking water, the
California Department of Health reduced its advisory action
level from 18 parts per billion to 4 parts per billion.
So the work of EPA in the past in letting folks know the
danger has led to State action. Very good. But why do we hear
today--and Senator Klobuchar may be shocked to hear this--that
our EPA witness said--what were his words?--it is a distinct
possibility that they may come out with no standard whatsoever
for perchlorate.
So here is where we are, and this is where I want to talk
to Mr. Baker and try to get him to see it a little bit
differently. When you talk about it is a bad precedent for
Congress to move in here, I say to you I don't want to go down
that road, but we have already gone down that road. Senator
Feinstein and I had an amendment that passed the Senate pretty
overwhelmingly, I don't remember the exact vote, to ban
phthalates. Why? EPA does nothing.
Are we supposed to sit back and say it is bad precedent to
do this? Or are we going to protect the people? That is the
issue here. I agree. Legislation to get into protecting the
people chemical by chemical isn't my favorite way to go. I want
to get an EPA that does something. It would be a lot easier on
us here so we don't have to sit and have these kinds of
hearings. We also have the Children's Health Advisory Panel
tell the EPA that they are not doing enough, that they are very
worried.
So you can't tell me, Mr. Baker, with all due respect, that
if I care so much about my people that I am willing to push for
this standard, and we are not setting the standard, we are just
saying to EPA get off your delay and do this. That is what our
bill says.
First, we say we should test for it and let the public
know. And second, we say, you should set a standard by a date
certain because this thing is going. If I told you, for
example, that this President or some other President woke up
some morning and just acted in my view irrationally and said,
we are by executive order temporarily suspending all
environmental protection laws because it is in the best
national security of our Nation to do it. Let's say, you know,
Presidents do things we don't agree with. Obviously, I don't
think you would say, Congress, don't get involved. I mean, at
some point when nothing gets done, we are accountable to the
people that we represent. Now, I know that your drinking water
association doesn't support having a standard set for
perchlorate, but I am sure you know the American Water Works
Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
has urged that EPA set a perchlorate standard. I think it is
unusual to see someone who has to deal with this take this kind
of attitude. I respect you and you have every right to, but if
I look at Ohio, you should see, you are the 12th worst State
for TCE. You have perchlorate. You have TCE and you are the
12th worst State for TCE.
So I guess what I want you to think about is this. The
minute we set a standard here, you will be eligible for some
clean-up funds. I agree with you completely that there is not
enough funding. We are spending $5,000 a minute in Iraq, you
would think we would have some funding to help you clean this
up. That is a whole other debate. But I wonder if you would
think about this, that by backing the EPA in this foot-
dragging, you are putting off the day when you could be
eligible for funds to clean up your water supply, and you are
not protecting the people that you serve very well either.
So I just wonder if you would be open to reconsideration
and perhaps join with the largest water utility and trade
associations, two of the largest, and urge them to set a
standard, EPA to set a standard.
Mr. Baker. Madam Chairman, certainly as an administrator of
a State drinking water program, along with my other colleagues
that have that responsibility, we share the concern about any
contaminants that are in our water supplies at an unsafe level.
One clarification, it is not ASDWA's position that we are
opposed to EPA establishing a standard. It may very well be
that after looking at the occurrence data through the UCMR, the
studies by the NSA, the studies by the Food and Drug
Administration, the information generated by other States, that
a standard for perchlorate is an appropriate action.
We also believe they have the building blocks in place at
this point in time to make a regulatory decision. We certainly
hope and encourage them to make that decision very, very soon.
So we share that, but we continue to have the concern that if
we use legislative action to set the standard for perchlorate
and TCE now, then with the myriad of chemicals that we know are
out there, we know are starting to show up in our drinking
water supplies, we know, as we are able to detect them at very
low levels, we are going to raise additional questions. We just
think we need to use the appropriate structure in place that we
vett all of these chemicals through in making those decisions
about what to regulate.
Senator Boxer. So you want them to set a standard?
Mr. Baker. We want them to make a decision on it very
quickly.
Senator Boxer. Well, good, then you should back my bill
because that is exactly what we are saying. We say set a
standard by a certain date.
The last thing I want to do is put into the record, and
then I will turn to my colleague, an article that appeared--and
this is really important--on April 28th, 2003. This whole
stonewalling that we saw here from the EPA is not news. The
headline in The Wall Street Journal back then was, EPA bans
staff from discussing issue of perchlorate pollution. The
Pentagon and several defense contractors who face billions of
dollars of potential clean-up liability vehemently oppose EPA's
high health risk assessment, arguing perchlorate is safe at
levels 200 times higher than what the EPA says is safe. The
Bush administration has imposed a gag order on the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency from publicly discussing
perchlorate pollution even as two new studies reveal high
levels of rocket fuel may be contaminating the Nation's lettuce
supply.
[The referenced material was not received at the time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. So I think the reason we were so interested
in having this hearing is what you are seeing here today from
the EPA is just a continuation of the stonewall. The reasons we
are going to have some action on this in June once we complete
our global warming on the floor is because a lot of us have had
it. We agree, Mr. Baker, they should do it. They should do it
according to the science, and that is just what our bill says.
And last, last, last, thank you to California and
Massachusetts. You have been leaders. I just so respect what
you are doing.
Senator Klobuchar.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much. And thank you,
Chairwoman Boxer, for holding this hearing.
In Minnesota, thankfully, we haven't found a lot of
perchlorate contamination, but we also haven't done a lot of
testing, so it is possible we may have a problem we don't know
about. I will tell you that we do have a number of TCE
contamination sites, and we also have hundreds of smaller TCE
contamination sites. These clean-ups have been carried out on
TCE, but it has been described to me by our water experts that
it takes a long time to get rid of it. No matter how many times
you rinse it, it is kind of like cleaning a greasy pan with
cold water. It is estimated that it will take 25 years to break
down.
But I want to get to the topic you all have testified
about, and follow up on some of Chairman Boxer's questions.
Ms. West, I was struck by your testimony about all of the
scientific work that you have had to do in Massachusetts at the
State level. One of my concerns here as I look at all of these
issues, whether it is climate change or whether it is the
regulation of these dangerous substances, that more and more
work has been pushed to the State level without the resources
to go with it, especially for instance in the climate change
area. It gets absurd because you have 33 States trying to form
together to do a climate registry because nothing has been done
on the national level.
Could you talk a little bit about the burden that has been
placed on your State? Have you gotten the resources for it in
terms of trying to set some standards for perchlorate?
Ms. West. Well, just going back a little bit historically,
back in 2003, EPA seemed to be rapidly advancing in setting a
reference dose for perchlorate. I believe that in 2003 they
were supposed to have a draft reference dose. So we actually
were going to rely on their work, but then it got delayed so we
took up our own work.
Now, the Office of Research and Standards is very
fortunate. We have 11 staff toxicologists and risk assessors.
We worked almost full time on perchlorate until 2006, when we
promulgated our standards. The work also entailed the director
of our drinking water supply program the Bureau of Waste Site
Clean-Up staff and the Commissioner's office. Our four regional
offices were also involved, because we had to go to cities and
towns to deal with the contamination, find out what the sources
were, and do clean-ups.
So it was a very large effort for us to undertake. I do
think if there were Federal action that it would reduce the
burden on the States having to do this type of work.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much. You also said
something that makes a lot of sense to me. Since we know that
perchlorate can cause developmental harm to pregnant women and
children, that it would make some sense to set the standard now
and refine it later, or do something, because what concerns me
here is we have some scientific research, but yet nothing is
happening on the EPA level. It seems to me we should err on the
side of caution.
Do you want to respond to that and how you could envision
this getting done?
Ms. West. Well, I totally agree with you. I think that
there is well-known information on the health effects of
perchlorate. It is based on sound science. There is much
information to put together to set a drinking water standard. I
look at this situation, and I say what is missing? Nothing, we
have the data. We have everything that we need. We have
protocols for setting drinking water standards. If we follow
those and take action, I think we have all that we need.
Senator Klobuchar. Dr. Alexeeff, you talked about how
California set a standard and there is peer review. Do you feel
that there is enough national information to move forward?
Dr. Alexeeff. Yes, of course we do. We are in the process
now. There has been so much additional information. We are
coming up on our 5-year cycle for reconsidering perchlorate,
and seeing if our current standard is reflective of the actual
data. So we think there was sufficient data when we set our
standard in, well, both in 2004 for the goal, and then 2007 for
the official State standard. Since that time, there has just
been additional information supporting it.
Senator Klobuchar. Dr. Alexeeff, in your written testimony,
you talked about pregnant mothers and fetuses and brain
development. You mentioned that studies have shown that
children's performance in school can be affected. Have there
been other effects on children that have been documented?
Dr. Alexeeff. Well, the actual way that perchlorate causes
an effect is by blocking iodide from being used to make the
important hormones for brain development. There is a lot of
information on the importance of iodide. If we don't allow our
bodies to utilize the iodide that is there, we won't have
proper brain development in children. There is more than enough
data showing that.
Senator Klobuchar. And this is my last question here. With
the California standards, you do look at that, or from other
parts of the Country as well, scientific data?
Dr. Alexeeff. Well, to a certain extent. We looked at
certainly all of the health information that was available. We
are aware of the contamination in various parts of the Country,
and of course a lot of our drinking water is from the Colorado
River, which is one of our major concerns because it is
contaminated with perchlorate as well.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
Senator Klobuchar has said that she is going to come back,
and when I have to leave, she will chair the third panel, so we
should have a seamless hearing today.
Senator, thank you so much. You are always such a helpful
part of this Committee. I thank you very much.
I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record recent
studies describing perchlorate exposure to people and its
impact on human health: statements by Professor Daniel
Wartenberg and Professor Tom Zoller on TCE and perchlorate;
newspaper articles describing White House and Federal agencies'
interfering with the creation of protective TCE and perchlorate
standards; a letter from EPA's Children's Health Protection
Advisory Committee; and a scientific article criticizing EPA's
perchlorate remediation goal as being unprotective. So we will
put those in the record.
[The referenced documents were not received t the time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. Thank you, panelists. I think you have been
terrific, very direct, and very helpful.
If our final panel would please come up.
Donna Lupardo is an Assemblywoman in the State of New York;
Gail Charnley, Ph.D., HealthRisk Strategies; David Hoel, Ph.D.,
Professor at the Medical University of South Carolina; and
Richard Wiles, Executive Director, Environmental Working Group.
We welcome you all. We are very pleased to have you. I
invite you to drink the water if you want to.
So we will start off with Assemblywoman Lupardo from the
126th Assembly District of New York. Thank you very much,
Assemblywoman.
STATEMENT OF DONNA A. LUPARDO, ASSEMBLYWOMAN, 126TH DISTRICT,
STATE OF NEW YORK
Ms. Lupardo. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the
Committee for your commitment to this issue and for allowing me
to present my remarks on this topic.
First, let me say that I am not a scientist. I am not an
epidemiologist. I am simply an advocate for the community that
I represent in the New York State Assembly. I represent the
126th District. It includes the city of Binghamton and the
towns of Union and Vestal. Located in the town of Union is the
village of Endicott, birthplace of IBM and Endicott-Johnson
shoes. My remarks today reflect Endicott's long journey into
the world of TCE contamination and my own journey to find
answers.
Prior to my election, I was a member of the Resident Action
Group of Endicott, along with Congressman Hinchey. The group
helped raise public awareness about the dangers of vapor
intrusion and drinking water contamination. Working together,
the Endicott site was reclassified back in 2003 after it was
discovered that undergroundwater contamination produced toxic
vapors into people's homes and businesses.
I also served as a member of the Stakeholder Planning
Committee which met regularly with members of ATSDR and our
State's Department of Health and Environmental Conservation.
In Endicott, there are over 480 homes spread out over 300
acres fitted with ventilation systems designed to address
chemical vapor intrusion because of a large underground plume
of contamination. These vapors are the legacy of the
microelectronic industry that once dominated our local economy.
Fortunately for Endicott residents, there was a responsible
party available. IBM was in a position to assist with the costs
of not only the ventilation systems, but with pumping stations,
monitoring wells, ambient air testing, and an air stripper
needed to address the contamination of wells that supply
drinking water to 46,000 residents in the town of Union,
including my own home in Endwell.
In August 2005, the New York State Department of Health
released a Health Statistics Review for the Endicott site that
documented elevated rates of testicular cancer, kidney cancer,
and heart birth defects in the Endicott area. The review found
that these elevated rates were statistically significant,
meaning that they are unlikely to be due to chance alone. This
review validated what residents had been talking about for
years. Unfortunately, their fears only grew.
I also serve on the Environmental Conservation Committee in
the New York State Assembly. After conducting several hearings
around the State, we issued a report in 2006 entitled Vapor
Intrusion of Toxic Chemicals: An Emerging Public Health
Concern. One finding is particularly relevant to today's
hearing.
We found that the New York State air guideline for TCE of
5.0 micrograms per cubic meter of air was not based on the most
protective presumptions supported by science. In developing its
guidance for TCE, our Department of Health made a number of
choices that resulted in a less protective standard, including
the choice not to consider epidemiologic studies used by EPA in
its 2001 draft assessment, the choice not to use a new and
stronger epidemiological study as a source of quantitative
values, and the choice not to consider animal studies which
show an association between exposure to TCE and testicular
cancer, lymphoma and lung cancer based on a lack of human
evidence.
As a result, TCE guideline is two orders of magnitude
higher than the most risk-based concentrations for TCE in air
developed by California, Colorado, New Jersey, and several EPA
regional offices which range from .016 to 0.2 micrograms per
cubic meter of air. New York also changed its TCE guidelines in
2003 in the middle of the IBM clean-up, leaving many homeowners
confused and frustrated because they were no longer eligible
for ventilation systems. They went from a 0.22 microgram to
their current level of 5.0 micrograms per cubic meter of air.
Our Environmental Conservation Committee strongly
recommended that our Department of Health revise its current
indoor air guideline for TCE to reflect the most protective
assumptions about toxicity and exposure supported by science.
We believed that in the face of uncertainty regarding the
threat of harm to human health posed by vapor intrusion, that
the Department of Health should err on the side of caution and
adopt a much more conservative approach. Unfortunately, Madam
Chair, they did not.
While we are attempting to address this issue legislatively
in New York State, we desperately need Federal leadership on
this topic. The Toxic Chemical Exposure Reduction Act would
finally provide a national primary drinking water regulation
for TCE and an all important reference concentration of TCE
vapor that is protective of susceptible populations, along with
important health advisories. It would put an end to a confusing
hodgepodge of individual State guidelines and arbitrary
regulations.
As you said before, Madam Chair, we don't want to legislate
this. We are running into resistance trying to legislate it,
frankly.
Just a couple of points to wrap up. I am also encouraged
that the legislation establishes the integrated risk
information system reference concentration of TCE vapor. I am,
however, deeply concerned that EPA's new interagency review
process will actually increase the challenges that they face in
evaluating and regulating chemicals. The IRIS data base could
soon become obsolete because of the backlog of ongoing
assessments. I hope that the TCE assessment does not fall prey
to policy biases that overshadow good science, as you have said
many times.
Senator Boxer. I am going to ask you to finish up.
Ms. Lupardo. Yes.
Finally, the last point, I would be remiss if I did not
briefly mention another related matter. It has to do with the
OSHA standard. They have set an exposure limit of 100 parts of
TCE per million part of air for an 8-hour workday, 40-hour
workweek. Surely a separate investigation of workplace
exposures is warranted, especially for communities like
Endicott where many residents were exposed at home and at work.
Thank you for allowing me to testify. I am deeply grateful
for your efforts.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lupardo follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, Assemblywoman Lupardo.
Dr. Charnley.
STATEMENT OF GAIL CHARNLEY, PRINCIPAL,
HEALTHRISK STRATEGIES
Ms. Charnley. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with
you all today.
EPA has a well-established process for studying drinking
water contaminant levels that has been evolving for 30 years
and has resulted in one of the safest drinking water supplies
in the world. The Safe Drinking Water Act and its amendments
reflect the best of Congress' ability to craft statutes that
are effective and sensible.
Setting drinking water standards or any other limit on
human exposure to chemical contaminants requires balancing the
need to be precautionary and protect public health with the
need to develop an adequate factual basis to justify
regulation. In other words, EPA must act to prevent health
risks from drinking water contaminants, but must also determine
that regulating contaminants would present a meaningful
opportunity to reduce health risk.
There are costs associated both with regulating too soon
when health risks turn out to be negligible, and with
regulating too late after health risks have occurred. Finding
the right balance is what the Safe Drinking Water Act empowers
EPA to do.
There are many examples of the challenging process involved
in trying to set exposure limits for substances in a world of
evolving science. Perchlorate is a perfect example. Until
recently, EPA's continued efforts to characterize the hazards
of perchlorate have been repeatedly thwarted by peer-review
panels. Perchlorate first made it onto EPA's radar screen in
1985 when it was found to be a contaminant of Superfund sites
in California. Toxicity data were sparse and a provisional
reference dose was adopted by EPA in 1992.
That provisional dose was replaced by a different
provisional reference dose in 1995. Peer review of that
provisional reference dose concluded in 1997 that it was not
adequately supported by data and proposed a toxicity testing
strategy. EPA listed it as an unregulated drinking water
contaminant of potential concern in 1998 and released a draft
risk assessment with yet another provisional reference dose.
Another peer review recommended waiting for the results of
the study that had been recommended in 1997. A revised draft
risk assessment was released in 2002 that incorporated the new
data and proposed a fourth provisional reference dose. Peer
review of that reference dose by the National Academy of
Sciences resulted in a fifth reference dose, which is the one
that was adopted in 2005. Of course, reference doses are
advisory, not regulatory.
Meanwhile, what about the costs of regulating versus not
regulating perchlorate? The Safe Drinking Water Act requires
EPA to establish contaminant levels at which no known or
anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons occur and
which allows an adequate margin of safety. So let's ask that
question: Are known or anticipated adverse effects on health
occurring? One approach to answering that question is to
compare EPA's reference dose to the levels we are actually
exposed to.
The reference dose is the perchlorate exposure level
anticipated to be without adverse effects. Based on the data
from the Centers for Disease Control, we know that the average
exposure to perchlorate in the U.S. is about one-tenth the
reference dose and the highest exposures are about one-third
the reference dose. Based on CDC and FDA data, our exposure is
10,000 times less than what the National Academy of Sciences
concluded would be required to produce adverse effects in
healthy adults.
The good news is that the American public is apparently not
being exposed to perchlorate levels that are likely to pose a
risk to our health. Does that mean we shouldn't regulate
perchlorate? Not necessarily. Perchlorate occurs naturally in
the environment, but is also a widespread anthropogenic
contaminant and probably should be regulated. Fortunately,
however, there appears to be no imminent public health threat
that justifies regulating in advance of the science.
And of course, just because there is no drinking water
standard at present doesn't mean that precautionary risk
management measures shouldn't be taken to prevent further
contamination, but I think it does illustrate how legislation
compelling EPA to regulate perchlorate would run the risk of
freezing the standard in place in reaction to politics, not
risk-based priorities, and essentially constitutes an
environmental earmark.
Former EPA Administrator Bill Reilly referred to this
phenomenon as regulating based on moments of episodic panic in
reaction to news stories, not science. EPA's landmark 1987
report, Unfinished Business, concluded that its priorities were
influenced too much by public opinion and emphasized the
desirability of setting agency priorities based on risk where
possible. I believe in setting priorities based on science and
directing resources where they will have a demonstrable impact
on public health, and not in environmental earmarks or symbolic
acts that misdirect limited resources without public health
benefit.
Thank you very much. I would like to also add to the record
a paper that I recently had accepted for publication in a peer-
reviewed journal called Perchlorate: Overview of Risks and
Regulation.
[The referenced document was not received at time of
print.]
[The prepared statement of Ms. Charnley follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
You are right. There is politics in the system. GAO just
said it is at the risk assessment level that EPA is putting
politics into the system and shunting the scientists to the
back. You are right on that point. It is not here. It is there.
And that is the sad thing.
We are going to skip over Dr. Hoel for a minute because I
have so little time. Since I asked Richard Wiles to be here, I
would like to hear his statement, if you don't mind, sir.
Go ahead.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD WILES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
WORKING GROUP
Mr. Wiles. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate
the opportunity to testify today. I will focus my remarks today
on perchlorate.
Perchlorate provides a textbook example of how a corrupted
health protection system, where polluters, the Pentagon, the
White House and the EPA have conspired to block health
protections in order to pad budgets, curry political favor, and
protect corporate profits.
With perchlorate, we have reached that rare moment in
environmental health when there is nothing left to do but act.
All of the pieces needed to support strong health protections
are in place. Contamination of food, tap water and breast milk
is widespread and well documented. We have a clear
understanding of the dangers to infants, children and women of
childbearing age.
A strong body of science ties perchlorate exposures to
potentially very serious adverse effects on the human
population, anchored by a study of more than 1,100 women by the
CDC that links perchlorate levels in the population to
dangerous low thyroid hormone levels in women of childbearing
age.
It is rare that science provides us with such a clear
picture of a pollutant's harmful effects, which have been
termed consistent with causality by the CDC. It is even more
unusual to have this level of evidence and to do nothing. Yet
this Administration has failed to act.
Instead of action, we have delay. And worse, as exposed by
this Committee last week, we have the institutionalization of a
new delay strategy replete with secret White House reviews of
science and a shift of public health decision making away from
agencies with the expertise to agencies responsible for the
pollution.
This begs the question why. The answer is the enormous
magnitude of the liability. Simply put, perchlorate is an
environmental and public health nightmare of epic proportions
for the Department of Defense and its contractors, and rather
than address it head-on and protect the public health, they
have spent 50 years and millions of dollars trying to avoid it.
Ninety percent of all perchlorate in the United States was
manufactured for use by the DOD or NASA. Perchlorate
contaminates at least 153 public water systems serving about 25
million people in at least 28 States. At least 61 DOD
facilities are contaminated with perchlorate, and 35 of those
are listed on the national priorities list for Superfund site
designation.
Hundreds of miles of the Colorado River are also polluted
with perchlorate. This not only means that the tap water of Las
Vegas, Phoenix, parts of Los Angeles, and San Diego are laced
with perchlorate, but it also means that much of the Nation's
winter vegetable crops are contaminated because they are
irrigated with perchlorate-polluted water from the Colorado
River.
The goal of defense contractors and the Pentagon has been
to avoid clean-up of their massive perchlorate mess regardless
of the health consequences to the American people. To date,
they have been largely successful. It is abundantly clear that
without congressional intervention, the public will not receive
the protection that is so clearly justified by the science and
so obviously necessary given the widespread contamination of
food, water and people.
No State health agency that has independently evaluated
perchlorate supports the EPA's safe contamination level, the
so-called preliminary remediation goal, PRG, of 24.5 parts per
billion. California has set a drinking water standard at six
parts per billion. New Jersey has proposed one at five parts
per billion. Massachusetts has set a safe level at two parts
per billion. But most States depend on the EPA.
EPA's own children's health experts have strongly
criticized the standard. In March, 2006, the EPA's top
independent science advisory group, the Children's Health
Protection Advisory Committee, wrote a strong letter to EPA
Administrator Stephen Johnson protesting the PRG. In the words
of the committee, ``The perchlorate PRG does not protect
infants and children and should be lowered.'' The agency
ignored the advice.
Five months later, in September 2006, the CDC published a
landmark study on the potential health impacts of chronic
perchlorate exposure. The study of 1,100 women found a
statistically significant dose-dependent association between
perchlorate exposure and changes in thyroid hormone levels in
all women in the study. The study showed convincingly that
measurable adverse health effects from perchlorate exposure are
occurring in the American population at levels previously
thought to be safe and at exposure levels commonly experienced
by the average person.
Madam Chair, members of the Committee, the time to protect
the public from perchlorate is now. We commend Senator Boxer
for her leadership on the issue and urge this Committee to move
quickly on S. 150, the Protecting Pregnant Women and Children
From Perchlorate Act.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Wiles follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you, sir.
Now, here is where we are. I am going to turn the gavel
over to Senator Klobuchar, and Dr. David Hoel has not spoken
yet. So after that point, it would go to you and then back and
forth.
But I just want to say to this panel, all, thank you so
very much for being here and helping us grapple with these very
serious matters. Thank you very much.
Senator Klobuchar.
[Presiding.] Dr. Hoel.
STATEMENT OF DAVID G. HOEL, PROFESSOR, MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF
SOUTH CAROLINA
Mr. Hoel. Thank you very much. It is an honor to be here.
I haven't testified now for many years, now that I have
been at the university, which I should say for 20 years I was
at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. I
was the Director of Risk Assessment, and that is the institute
for the environment within the National Institutes of Health.
I primarily now work with radiation health effects, but
have paid some attention to the chemical issues. I was a member
of the SAB's panel on perchlorate and the SAB's panel on TCE,
as well as a peer reviewer for the National Academies' report
on TCE. So I have a little knowledge of what is going on there.
I would like to talk to you briefly about the process of
setting levels for carcinogens that are used by IRIS or the EPA
currently, and how these approaches are different from what is
going on somewhat in Europe in the World Health Organization
and so on.
Now, if we take TCE, which I will talk about, and the
cancer of TCE, it is primarily kidney cancer, according to the
Academy, that is the driver among the cancers. Liver cancer is
equivocal and they dismissed lung cancer and so on. But taking
the kidney cancer, when EPA did evaluate this and set their
levels, they considered three studies--a Finnish worker study,
a German worker study, and a rat study--and came up with three
levels. The problem is each level disagreed by a factor of 100.
So the difference between the lowest and the highest was a
factor of 10,000, which wouldn't give you much confidence in
attempting to set any sort of level based on this.
What is the problem here? One is doing things by individual
cancer sites in individual studies. What can be done is to do
joint analyses as is done in radiation health effects. The
World Health Organization and IARC recently came out with a
study of 400,000 nuclear workers in 15 countries, a joint
analysis. Joint analyses have also been done at IARC. I
supported one financially when I was at NIH for phenoxy acid
herbicides, which is a dioxin-type of exposure. They have done
other studies where they bring these groups together. NCI has
done some of this in radiation cancer.
Short of that, you can do med analyses, but you have to do
it properly with appropriate doses and bringing in the
analysis.
I am running out of time here. I am starting to lecture.
In any case, there are modern statistical methods and you
will see these in the radiation business. UNSCEAR, which is the
United Nations report, will be coming out this summer on the
new standards for radiation health effects that are used
worldwide. Some of the new statistical methods are being done
there using Bayesian techniques and uncertainties and so on.
Now, of course, my issue is to integrate the scientific
laboratory understandings with the animal toxicology, with the
pharmacokinetics and bring that together to come up with some
intelligent risk estimates in cancer. My recommendations are,
EPA should use this integrated approach and follow the advise
of their SAB and the National Academy NRC Committee. It should
focus on the best estimate of risk with the uncertainty on the
best estimate of risk, and not just working with upper bounds.
It should consider the recommendation that the National Academy
gave them, and that was that the data wasn't sufficiently good
for the epidemiology and they should use the animal data for
setting the TCE standards, and use the human data to validate
what is coming up from the animal studies.
OK, that is one issue.
The second recommendation I would make is that there is no
process for developing methods in risk assessment by the EPA.
It seems like they should get some quality outside advice.
Maybe members from the NRC Committee could help them during the
process of developing their risk estimates, as opposed to
presenting the risk estimate and then getting criticisms and
comments on it.
Finally, there is a basic issue of developing research
programs. Senator Domenici had one for low-dose radiation
effects, and that has been going on for a number of years--good
basic laboratory work through the Office of Science of DOE--and
similar things should be done for chemicals in our environment.
I will stop here. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoel follows:]
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Assemblywoman Lupardo, I understand you represent the
district where my legislative director has her home town. Is
that correct? Moira Campion? Thank you for being here.
You expressed concern during your testimony about EPA's new
policy on creating the IRIS risk assessments. The Government
Accountability Office recently testified that the new policy
would undercut the credibility of these assessments because it
kept interagency comments secret. Do you think that the people
that you represent, and from what you have see of this issue,
that they would want an open scientific process when the
Federal Government develops the safety level that would be used
to protect people from TCE?
Ms. Lupardo. There is no doubt about it, Senator. They are
desperately in need of solid leadership on this topic. I have
been trying everything I can at the State level, but there is
resistance to micro-managing the science. That's why we are
looking to the EPA for their assistance. It is frustrating to
think that we can go to all this trouble and perhaps even pass
this legislation, only to see it mired down in this sort of
bureaucratic mess.
Senator Klobuchar. Could you expand a little and explain in
more detail why it is so important for your constituents to
install ventilation systems in their homes due to TCE
contamination?
Ms. Lupardo. Well, after it was discovered about the
underground plume of contamination, and the subsequent health
studies showing elevated cancer and other risks, there was
really no choice but to have these systems installed so that
homes could be livable. We have almost 500 homes that are being
vented.. There is even some evidence that the ambient air in
that community has been affected, especially when there is
heavy cloud cover, from all the venting in the community as
well. So, it is extremely important that we have those systems
in place. We were lucky. As I said before, we had a responsible
party. Many communities do not have that luxury.
Senator Klobuchar. If EPA had updated its safety standard
for TCE exposure and set a strict new standard that considered
all types of exposure to TCE, could this have helped your
constituents?
Ms. Lupardo. Yes, most definitely.
Senator Klobuchar. How would it have helped? How would it
have helped?
Ms. Lupardo. Their situation would have certainly received
much more timely attention. Also because of some arbitrary
decision that was made at our State Health Department where
they changed the standard mid-stream, they would have been
protected by the most protective standard supported by science
instead of some bureaucratic change.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Ms. Charnley, do you agree with Massachusetts' perchlorate
standard?
Ms. Charnley. Well, do I agree with the number or the fact
that they set one?
Senator Klobuchar. Do you agree with the fact that they
have a standard? Do you agree with the number? Both questions.
Ms. Charnley. I think that they are certainly well within
their prerogative to set a standard. I think that the number is
too stringent. I say that because one of the things about
perchlorate is that it acts by the same biological mechanism of
action as, say, nitrates and thiocynates, which are present
ubiquitously in our food and water. We are exposed to about
1,000 times higher doses of those substances every day based on
the RfD, compared to perchlorate, but we don't seem to be
worried about those.
So I think that if you regulate perchlorate, you should
think about it in the larger context of the other substances
that we are exposed to that act the same way, the cumulative
and aggregate risks, and the larger public health context.
Senator Klobuchar. And so when you commented on the
standard, I think that you said it didn't have a defensible
standard basis at the time. Is that right?
Ms. Charnley. I think that is probably what I must have
meant, yes.
Senator Klobuchar. Right. And then the State of
Massachusetts criticized your comments and pointed out that,
and this is a quote, ``a panel of independent scientists with
extensive expertise in the areas of toxicology, risk assessment
and epidemiology developed the proposed standard.'' They went
on to say, ``This independent committee concluded that the
basis of the proposed standard was well supported and
appropriate.''
Ms. Charnley. But they didn't consider these other
possibilities. That is all.
Senator Klobuchar. Since you commented on the proposed
standard and you said that it did not have a defensible
scientific basis, has that changed at all? Do you believe that
it has a defensible scientific basis?
Ms. Charnley. No, for the reasons I just stated.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Thank you.
Senator Whitehouse.
Senator Whitehouse. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I have what appears to be a Wall Street Journal article
talking about the perchlorate issue from 2003. It says the
following: ``In another step, the White House Office of
Management and Budget intervened last month to delay further
regulatory action on perchlorate by referring the health debate
to the National Academy of Sciences for review. Pending that
study, which could take an additional 6 to 18 months, the EPA
ordered its scientists and regulators not to speak about
perchlorate, said Suzanne Ackerman, an EPA spokeswoman. The gag
order prevented EPA scientists from commenting or elaborating
Friday on two lettuce studies which show lettuce available in
U.S. supermarkets appears to absorb and concentrate perchlorate
from polluted irrigation water in significant amounts.''
The reference to the National Academy of Sciences--I am
just trying to connect the dots here. Mr. Wiles, in your
testimony, you highlighted a 2003 effort by the White House to
stack the National Academy of Sciences panel with industry
consultants. To highlight your testimony, you said that senior
White House political officials with no scientific expertise
actively participated in reviewing the scientific charge sent
to the National Academy of Sciences on perchlorate. You further
said that White House and Pentagon officials were involved in
discussions about who should be appointed to the NAS panel. And
finally, you said that the panel initially included a paid
industry expert witness and two other paid consultants to the
perchlorate industry.
Is the National Academy of Sciences appointment process
that you describe in your testimony the same one that I
referenced in The Wall Street Journal article? Do you know?
Mr. Wiles. I presume that it is, yes.
Senator Whitehouse. There has just been the one National
Academy of Sciences review?
Mr. Wiles. Yes, there is only one report that has been
done. That is correct.
Senator Whitehouse. OK.
I appreciate very much Assemblywoman Lupardo's testimony
about the substantive problems of exposure in her community and
how hard she has had to fight to remedy them. But I am also
concerned about the structural problem in and surrounding EPA
of whether or not the organization itself has been polluted
with politics and the extent to which it is breaking up the
infrastructure that protects the integrity of its own
processes.
I was surprised to read the description of the National
Academy of Sciences' process. I am wondering, Mr. Wiles, if you
could comment on is that unusual? What does it mean in terms of
the credibility of the National Academy of Sciences? We have
had my colleagues here today sort of throw out National Academy
of Sciences as the Good Housekeeping seal of approval here. If
it had the National Academy of Sciences imprimatur, it must be
legitimate. Are we to take that with some skepticism under
these circumstances? How do you put this into a large context?
Mr. Wiles. I actually used to work at the National Academy
of Sciences, at the National Research Council, managing these
committees. I can say from experience that the influence of
politics and that vested interests are having on the process
now I think is unprecedented.
What we cited in our testimony was an investigation that
looked at public records from the White House that showed clear
intervention in the process of selecting this committee by non-
scientists within the White House. You had initially three
industry consultants. One was actually someone paid, who made a
living as an expert witness in litigation. That person was
ultimately removed.
But what happens when you have industry consultants on
these panels that have to reach a consensus finding is that
finding is diluted in favor of the industry's interests, which
typically are financial as opposed to public health. So it is a
very serious problem, but that is just the corruption of the
NAS process. The influence of industry interests on the process
is just a small part of the overall corruption of science that
we have seen in this Administration that I think was well
documented last week in a hearing that was held before this
Committee.
We have seen unprecedented levels of industry influence on
every scientific panel and committee from committees of the
National Institutes of Health, all the way through to
committees at EPA that are all designed to--they are the first
line of defense that the American public has against chemical
pollution in the environment, and they have been in many
respects taken over by the polluting industry under this
Administration.
Senator Whitehouse. Well, my time has expired, and I will
end here, but it does remind me of the story about the two
folks who are arguing over the merits of a particular debate.
One said to the other, you know, you can have your own opinion,
but you don't get to have your own facts. I think we are a
little bit that way. You can have your own opinion. You can
have your own policy outcome, but you shouldn't get to have
your own science. That should be neutral.
I appreciate it. Thank you, Chairman.
Senator Klobuchar. Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman.
Dr. Hoel, if I could, you made a reference in your
testimony that this bill would compel an analysis within 180
days. From a scientific standpoint, is that something that is
reasonable, to put a certain number of days limit? I think you
had some concerns about that.
Mr. Hoel. The reason I said I thought 180 days was a very
short period was that the recommendations I was making about
how to do a more scientifically credible job in this risk
assessment process or carcinogens, EPA is going to have to do
something a little different. I also suggested that they try to
bring in some peer-reviewing during the process--advice from
outside scientists and so on--so they would come up with a
credible product.
Now, if you were to do that, which would be different from
the way EPA has done things in the past, my guess is they could
not pull it together in 180 days. You certainly probably
wouldn't be able to get the quality advisors brought in
considering how long it takes to do Academy of Science
committees and things of that sort.
Senator Barrasso. Do you have any estimate on what the
right time figure would be if you had to insert a time figure?
Mr. Hoel. I really don't know. I was just sort of struck
that if I had to arrange this from scratch with these changes,
with 180 days you might have to cut some corners
scientifically.
Senator Barrasso. In your opinion, is there an immediate
health risk that makes this bill necessary? For TCE?
Mr. Hoel. No. I think that if you look at the epidemiology,
as the Academy had looked at, they talk about kidney cancer is
the concern. They have calculated very low risk levels for TCE
based on the cancer studies. But the question is, these results
are coming out of Germany and there are some very high doses.
Some of the workers got a continual dose of about 100 ppm of
TCE in their work, with levels up to 400 to 500 ppm. The study
that they did use, the top doses were I think 1,000 ppm. So
there is a lot of uncertainty there, but these are very high
doses, and they in fact suggest they try to find some studies
where you might have some lower doses that would intersect with
that.
There have been other studies, other epidemiological
studies, say the one out of Denmark for TCE workers where they
measured TCE in the workers. They found no increase in kidney
cancer. So it is kind of mixed.
Senator Barrasso. Dr. Charnley, if I could, you said in
your testimony that legislation compelling the EPA to regulate
perchlorate would freeze a standard in place in reaction to
politics, not really risk-based priorities, and essentially
constitutes an environmental earmark. Are you saying that such
legislation if passed would basically be politics trumping
science? Is that what I am hearing?
Ms. Charnley. Well, I think that the priority-setting
process that is in place courtesy of the Safe Drinking Water
Act is appropriate. I think that there is no imminent public
health threat that means we should regulate tomorrow. I think
we probably should regulate, yes. But as long as there is still
some discussion about relative source contributions and various
other issues underway, I think that process should be
completed.
Senator Barrasso. When you talked about the average
exposure in the United States to perchlorate being about one-
tenth of EPA's reference dose, we are not talking about really
protecting the average American? Or are we just talking about
pregnant women, where the protection is needed? What should we
do there?
Ms. Charnley. Yes. It is the pregnant women and the
developing fetus who are the sensitive sub-populations. I think
that any regulation of perchlorate should take into account
children's differences in exposure. There is no question about
that. But I think that the studies of pregnant women have not
found any impacts of perchlorate exposure on either their
hormone levels or on those of their offspring. There are quite
a number of recent studies that have looked at that, and I
think should continue to look at that, of course. But I am not
convinced that there is an imminent public health threat.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you.
Madam Chairman, I think my time has expired. Thank you very
much.
Senator Klobuchar. Assemblywoman Lupardo, I was just
talking to staff and I read some of the earlier information for
this hearing about how the GAO is in fact very critical about
the delay that is going on with EPA and how much it has made it
very difficult for local units of government and States to deal
with this.
Could you talk about the impact of waiting for too long in
terms of the EPA acting, and what you have had to do as a
result of that?
Ms. Lupardo. We have been really working around the edges
of this. We have done the best we can to protect the
individuals, the hundreds and hundreds of families and
individuals in our community, waiting for the Federal
Government to come to our rescue and aid, and having our own
Health Department resist us at every turn, to provide a more
restrictive standard.
It turns out, and I am looking at the GAO highlights
summary as well, that a new IRIS process is being put in place
that is going to delay this even further, I just don't even
know how I am going to go back and explain this to my
constituents. I can appreciate what you were saying before
about the 180 days. That may be too short of a timeframe
perhaps, but we can't use this delaying tactic, it would seem,
to further put my constituents at risk.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you.
Mr. Wiles, all the bills do is to require the EPA to use
the best available science. Is that right?
Mr. Wiles. That is correct.
Senator Klobuchar. And we have National Academy of Science
reports on both TCE and perchlorate. Aren't we at risk of just
reviewing this to death at some point?
Mr. Wiles. We are, not to mention that we have the CDC
study of 1,100 women which I think is very unusual when you
have the CDC with such a large study of exposure and adverse
effects measured in the population just from ambient exposure,
exposures that occur every day.
And then under questioning from Republicans in the House on
the Energy and Commerce Committee, the CDC was very clear that
they feel that they do not need further research to support
their finding, and that the finding is consistent with
causality, which is about as strong a finding as you are every
going to get.
So failing to act now with such strong evidence of exposure
and harm is really unprecedented and completely unwarranted.
Senator Klobuchar. How would you describe, Mr. Wiles, the
extent of people's exposure to perchlorate in the United
States, and in particular the exposure of infants and children?
Mr. Wiles. Well, according to the CDC, it is ubiquitous. In
other words, everyone is exposed. I think what we heard today
from earlier witnesses and what the CDC research has shown is
that women of childbearing age are potentially at risk, and
their developing babies are if they were to get pregnant, due
to exposures that the moms have. And then breast milk is also
very highly contaminated, phenomenally highly contaminated
based on what earlier witnesses said.
So we have a clear danger to the public health from a
compound that we know how it acts. It is not debated that
perchlorate is toxic to the thyroid, that it interferes with
normal thyroid function. So there literally is nothing left to
do but act, and that is what this Administration does not want
to do.
Senator Klobuchar. Why do you think it has taken EPA so
long to create a perchlorate drinking water standard?
Mr. Wiles. Well, the pressure has been clearly coming from
the Department of Defense, the Air Force, and defense
contractors. That goes back as early as 1962 when the first
group was formed to lobby, if you will, to pressure regulators
into not acting to clean up groundwater supplies beginning in
the 1960's. So there are at least four, if not five, decades of
work on the part of DOD and contractors to avoid regulation and
it continues to this day.
The difference with this Administration is that this
attitude of not protecting the public health is extended all
the way to the EPA now, who has adopted the Defense Department
line and the Lockheed Martin line that we don't need to act.
Senator Klobuchar. Last question, Mr. Wiles. Do you support
the bill that Senator Clinton and others have introduced to
require the EPA to use available science to create drinking
water standards and publicly available data for perchlorate and
to revise or create Federal standards for TCE, also using
currently available data?
Mr. Wiles. Absolutely. We support both bills, and we do
believe that action by the Congress is clearly necessary to
move this issue forward and to protect the public health.
Senator Klobuchar. Thank you very much.
Mr. Wiles. Thank you.
Senator Klobuchar. OK. Very good.
I just want to thank our witnesses for coming. I would just
point out that the GAO report is worth mentioning here in terms
of their criticism of what has gone on here in terms of the
delay. This is another Government agency criticizing another
Government agency that we have waited for too long. As the
testimony of Assemblywoman Lupardo shows, this is putting a
great burden on local governments and State governments in a
patchwork manner to deal with this.
The best thing that we could, as a Country, would be if the
EPA acted in this area. I believe I am speaking on behalf of a
number, not all, but a number of the members of this Committee.
We hope that this hearing will push this, and if that doesn't
work, Congress, as we said, is going to have to move forward
with our legislation.
Thank you very much. This hearing is adjourned.
[GRAPHICS NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]