    [Senate Hearing 112-953]
    [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]

                                                            S. Hrg. 112-953

          OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
     IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT'S UNREGULATED DRINKING
                           WATER CONTAMINANTS PROGRAM

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

                                    HEARING

                                   before the

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   ----------

                                 JULY 12, 2011

                                   ----------

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

          OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
     IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT'S UNREGULATED DRINKING
                           WATER CONTAMINANTS PROGRAM

                                                            S. Hrg. 112-953

          OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
     IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT'S UNREGULATED DRINKING
                           WATER CONTAMINANTS PROGRAM

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

                                    HEARING

                                   BEFORE THE

                                  COMMITTEE ON
                          ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                              UNITED STATES SENATE

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS

                                 FIRST SESSION

                                   __________

                                 JULY 12, 2011

                                   __________

      Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

             Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov

                              __________

                        U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

     23-819 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2017
    ____________________________________________________________________
     For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
    Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
      Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001

                   COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

                          ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
                                 FIRST SESSION

                      BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
    MAX BAUCUS, Montana                  JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
    THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware           DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
    FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
    BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland         JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
    BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont             MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
    SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island     LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
    TOM UDALL, New Mexico                MIKE JOHANNS, Nebraska
    JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon                 JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
    KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York

           Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
                     Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director

                                C O N T E N T S

                                  ----------
                                                                       Page

                                 JULY 12, 2011
                               OPENING STATEMENTS

    Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California...     1
    Inhofe, James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma........     3
    Lautenberg, Frank, U.S. Senator from the State of New Jersey.....     5
    Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas......     6
    Cardin Hon. Benjamin, U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland....     7
    Sessions, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Alabama,
      prepared statement.............................................   177

                                   WITNESSES

    Trimble, David C., Director, Natural Resources And Environment,
      Government Accountability Office...............................     8
        Prepared statement...........................................    11
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Boxer............................................    36
            Senator Inhofe...........................................    41
    Perciasepe, Hon. Robert, Deputy Administrator, Environmental
      Protection Agency..............................................    43
        Prepared statement...........................................    45
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Boxer............................................    55
            Senator Whitehouse.......................................    59
            Senator Inhofe...........................................    63
    Goldman, Lynn, Md, Mph, American Public Health Association, Dean
      of the School of Public Health and Health Services and
      Professor of Environmental and Occupational Health at the
      George Washington University...................................    88
        Prepared statement...........................................    90
        Responses to additional questions from:
            Senator Boxer............................................    97
            Senator Inhofe...........................................    97
    Araiza, Anthony, General Manager, West Valley Water District.....    98
        Prepared statement...........................................   100
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........   103
    Joseph A. Cotruvo, Ph.D., President, Joseph Cotruvo and
      Associates.....................................................   106
        Prepared statement...........................................   108
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........   118
    Patierno, Steven R., Ph.D., Executive Director, George Washington
      University Cancer Center.......................................   124
        Prepared statement...........................................   137
        Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........   161
    Griffiths, Jeffrey, K., Md, MPH and TM, Chair, Drinking Water
      Committee, Science Advisory Board of United States
      Environmental Protection Agency, Professor of Public Health and
      of Medicine, Tufts University School of Medicine...............   165
        Prepared statement...........................................   167

                              ADDITIONAL MATERIAL

    Peer Review Workshop for EPS's Draft Toxicological Review of
      Hexavalent Chromium; Reviewer Post-Meeting Comments............   179

          OVERSIGHT HEARING ON THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY'S
     IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT'S UNREGULATED DRINKING
                           WATER CONTAMINANTS PROGRAM

                                  ----------

                            WEDNESDAY, JULY 12, 2011

                                           U.S. Senate,
                     Committee on Environment and Public Works,
                                                        Washington, DC.
        The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
    room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
    (chairman of the full committee) presiding.
        Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Lautenberg, Cardin,
    Whitehouse, Udall, Boozman.

                   STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

        Senator Boxer. Welcome, everybody. I have called this
    hearing to examine one of the most important Federal public
    health safeguards in our Country, the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    Everyone has a right to clean and safe drinking water, and it
    is essential to the health of our children and our families
    that drinking water be free from harmful chemicals and
    pollutants.
        In order to ensure that enough is being done to protect our
    Nation from emerging contaminants, I, along with
    Representatives Waxman and Markey, asked the GAO to investigate
    the unregulated contaminant program. The report is being
    released today. I want to thank the GAO, the Government
    Accountability Office, for their work and welcome them here
    today, along with our Deputy Administrative. We welcome both.
        The GAO investigation addresses the stunning fact that the
    EPA has not made a determination to regulate any new drinking
    water contaminants, with one very recent exception. And that
    failure to move goes back to 1996 when the law was last
    amended. This law was signed by Gerald Ford, who made a very
    eloquent statement about it. I think it is very important to
    remember that our landmark laws are bipartisan in nature, and
    why I think it is so important that we work across party.
        This is what Gerald Ford said when he signed the Safe
    Drinking Water Act: ``Nothing is more essential to the life of
    every single American than clean air and pure food and safe
    drinking water. There have been strong national programs to
    improve the quality of our air and the purity of our food.'' He
    said, ``This bill, the Safe Drinking Water Act, will provide us
    with the protection we need for drinking water.''
        And since I have mentioned Gerald Ford, I want to note the
    passing of this incredible former First Lady, Betty Ford, who I
    had the pleasure of meeting and following her career. I know I
    speak for everybody when we send our deepest condolences. Her
    life was a life that really impacted others because she had
    courage to speak about things that a lot of people were fearful
    to speak about, whether it was breast cancer or the challenges
    facing society or addiction to drugs and alcohol. I just think
    her kind of leadership, which she really did not seek the
    spotlight, had a tremendous impact. I wanted to make that note.
        So when we talk about this report and why it is so
    important, I think the report is in the spirit of what Gerald
    Ford said, that we expect to have safe drinking water. In order
    to do that, we need to update our laws to make sure that we are
    not allowing certain contaminants in the water. And the GAO is
    very clear that EPA has to find what contaminants are dangerous
    and get them out of the water.
        In 1996, Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act and
    directed EPA to use the best available science to create
    drinking water safeguards that would protect the most
    vulnerable, including infants, children and pregnant women. As
    the GAO report shows, the development of new standards for
    unregulated drinking water contaminants, such as perchlorate,
    were derailed in a process that failed to use the best
    available science.
        We all say we want the best available science, Republicans,
    Democrats. We can just decide something is bad for you because
    it sound bad, has a scary name. We have to know the science
    behind it. And the fact is, we haven't seen any action since
    1996 with this recent exception of perchlorate, for which I am
    very grateful. Because I have a bill with Senator Feinstein to
    regulate perchlorate. But it shouldn't be necessary to go to
    one contaminant at a time. The EPA has to act.
        Scientific information has shown that certain emerging
    contaminants in our drinking water, such as perchlorate and
    chromium-6 could be harmful to children and families.
    Perchlorate, which is used in rocket fuel, fireworks and road
    flares, poses a threat to human health when found in drinking
    water. It impairs the function of the thyroid gland, which
    harms children's development and can result in decreased
    learning capacity. EPA needs to have a process that vigorously
    addresses these contaminants to help ensure the safety of our
    water.
        GAO's report lays out a transparent and accountable
    framework that can help to ensure the EPA uses the best
    available science when creating drinking water protections for
    our communities and our families. Again, I am so glad that EPA
    is here today. And they are going to tell us about the
    implementation of the program. We are also going to hear GAO's
    testimony on the agency's need to use science to ensure that
    the Federal Government provides strong public health
    protections against drinking water contaminants.
        And with that, Senator Inhofe.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA

        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And let me tell
    you, I appreciate your remarks about Betty Ford. I happened to
    know her quite well. And you are right, she got into things,
    talking about alcoholism and she probably accomplished more
    than any other First Lady I can think of. They are celebrating
    her life today.
        I think everyone in this room agrees that providing safe,
    clean, affordable drinking water is essential and should be a
    national priority. At the cornerstone of the Safe Drinking
    Water Act is the idea that we should be controlling those
    substances that pose risks to public health. Unfortunately, the
    system that EPA uses to determine health risks, the IRIS
    system, the Integrated Risk Information System, has decades-
    long issues in crafting risk assessments. The National Academy
    of Sciences has recently pointed out that IRIS assessments have
    suffered from lack of transparency and consistency and problems
    with evaluating studies and the weight of evidence. These
    problems continue to persist in the face of the NAS and
    Congress repeatedly imploring EPA to correct these issues.
        Without having a good foundation and sound science,
    practices in all areas of EPA's regulatory system are
    suffering, including drinking water. Unbiased, high quality
    scientific analyses are important foundations for making
    drinking water decisions. When the risk assessment that EPA is
    producing are unable to maintain the highest possible standards
    for scientific quality and integrity, every decision that
    follows is called into question.
        Senator Vitter and I are trying to get the EPA to explain
    how they plan to address the systematic concerns with IRIS that
    were raised by the recent NAS review of formaldehyde, a
    chemical we have decades of experience and information to draw
    upon. Now, if the IRIS review of a chemical that we have a
    great history on is so fundamentally flawed, it is hard to
    imagine how we will end up with good science on chemicals of
    emerging concern. I am looking forward to hearing from the EPA
    about how they plan to address these concerns.
        As analytical techniques continue to improve, we are able
    to detect constituents at increasingly lower levels. This ever-
    increasing ability to detect will allow the numbers of
    chemicals in our water to increase infinitely. However, it is
    important that we do not associate any detection with risk. In
    nearly every case, the extremely low levels that we are
    detecting are well below the dosage that would affect public
    health. To be perfectly clear, exposure does not mean there is
    risk. This is just one more example of the importance of
    getting robust science to guide our policy decisions to help
    correctly communicate to the public what the risk associated
    with a particular contaminant is.
        It is no surprise that nearly half of Americans are
    concerned about the quality of their drinking water when
    headlines and talking points are filled with alarmist stories
    of chemical detection with no information about what that means
    specifically to their health.
        Furthermore, it makes no sense to continue to tighten
    drinking water standards and send drinking water down an aging
    and failing infrastructure system. EPA estimates that just to
    keep up with the current drinking water requirements over the
    next 20 years, eligible drinking water systems will need over
    $300 billion in infrastructure investment. We need to improve
    our Nation's drinking water facilities by authorizing and
    reauthorizing the State Revolving Loan Fund programs, both for
    drinking water as well as for wastewater.
        I was extremely disappointed by EPA's cuts of almost $950
    million to the SRF program. By making these cuts, EPA is
    increasing funding mandates on water providers throughout the
    Country. We can't expect our communities to continue to provide
    safe drinking water if they don't have the resources to do it.
        This is something I have been talking about for such a long
    period of time. And I know my State of Oklahoma is not totally
    different than other States. But we have a lot of communities
    that just can't afford these things. When I was mayor of Tulsa,
    I have to say that the biggest problems, and I know Bob
    Perciasepe has heard me say this before, the biggest problems
    facing our cities are really not prostitution and crime and
    all, it is unfunded mandates. And that is something that we
    have to be familiar with and have to address.
        And finally, Madam Chairman, I would like to request that
    the record of this hearing be kept open for two additional
    weeks, so that both outside groups and our witnesses here today
    have the opportunity to review the GAO report on unregulated
    contaminants, which has been unavailable to the public until
    now. So I think we may need to have the access to that, and
    then have a comment period.
        I am looking forward to hearing from the witnesses today,
    especially Dr. Patierno, who will share his expertise in
    chromium-6, something that is very interesting to me concerning
    the problems that exist in my city of Norman, Oklahoma, Dr.
    Cotruvo, who can share his lengthy public health and drinking
    water experience, and Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe, whom
    we have gotten to know very well.
        We are going to try to stay and maybe expedite this and get
    it all done throughout the second panel. Thank you, Madam
    Chairman.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]

              Statement of Senator James M. Inhofe, U.S. Senator
                           from the State of Oklahoma

        Thank you, Madam Chairman, for taking the time today to
    continue our discussions about Federal drinking water programs.
    I know that everyone in this room agrees that providing clean,
    safe, affordable drinking water is essential, and should be a
    national priority.
        At the cornerstone of the Safe Drinking Water Act is the
    idea that we should be controlling those substances that pose
    risks to public health. Unfortunately, the system that EPA uses
    to determine health risks, the Integrated Risk Information
    System (IRIS), has a decade's long issues in crafting risk
    assessments. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) has
    recently pointed out that IRIS assessments have suffered from a
    lack of transparency, inconsistency, and problems with
    evaluating studies and the weight of evidence. These problems
    continue to persist in the face of NAS and Congress repeatedly
    imploring EPA to correct these issues. Without having a good
    foundation and sound science practices, all areas of EPA's
    regulatory system suffer, including drinking water.
        Unbiased, high-quality, scientific analyses are important
    foundations for making drinking water decisions. When the risk
    assessments that EPA is producing are unable to maintain the
    highest possible standards for scientific quality and
    integrity, every decision that follows is called into question.
    Sen. Vitter and I are trying to get EPA to explain how they
    plan to address the systematic concerns with IRIS that were
    raised in the recent NAS review of Formaldehyde, a chemical we
    have decades of experience and information to draw upon. If the
    IRIS review for a chemical that we have great history on is so
    fundamentally flawed, it is hard to imagine how we will end up
    with good science on chemicals of emerging concern. I am
    looking forward to hearing from EPA about how they plan to
    address these concerns soon.
        As analytical techniques continue to improve, we are able
    to detect constituents at increasingly lower levels. This ever
    increasing ability to detect will allow the numbers of
    chemicals in our water to increase infinitely. However, it is
    important that we do not associate any detection with risk. In
    nearly every case, the extremely low levels we are detecting
    are well below the dosage that would affect public health. To
    be perfectly clear, exposure does not mean there is risk. This
    is just one more example of the importance of getting robust
    science to guide our policy decisions and to help correctly
    communicate to the public what the risk associated with a
    particular contaminant is. It is no surprise that nearly half
    of Americans are concerned about the quality of their drinking
    water when headlines and talking points are filled with
    alarmist stories of chemical detection with no information
    about what that means to their health.
        Furthermore, it makes no sense to continue to tighten
    drinking water standards and send drinking water down an aging
    and failing infrastructure system. EPA estimates that just to
    keep up with the current drinking water requirements over the
    next 20 years, eligible drinking water systems will need over
    $300 billion in infrastructure investments. We need to improve
    our nation's drinking water facilities by reauthorizing the
    State Revolving Loan Fund programs, both for drinking water and
    waste water.
        I was extremely disappointed by EPA's cuts of almost $950
    million to the SRF program. By making these cuts, EPA is
    increasing unfunded mandates on water providers throughout the
    country. We cannot expect our communities to continue to
    provide safe drinking water if they do not have the resources
    to meet their infrastructure needs. We have the responsibility
    to ensure clean, safe, and affordable water for our country by
    providing the necessary resources to our states and local
    governments.
        Finally, Madam Chairman, I would like to request that the
    record for this hearing be kept open for 2 weeks, so that both
    outside groups and our witnesses here today, have the
    opportunity to review this GAO report on Unregulated
    Contaminants, which has been unavailable to the public until
    now, and provide a more robust understanding of the
    recommendations and suggestions for the committee record.
        I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses today,
    especially Dr. Patierno, who will share his expertise in
    chromium-6, something of interest to me and to my constituents
    in Norman, OK, Dr. Cotruvo, who can share his lengthy public
    health and drinking water experience, and Deputy Administrator
    Perciasepe. Thank you.

        Senator Boxer. Thank you so much. And without objection, we
    will keep the record open for 2 weeks so everyone can avail
    themselves of the report and ask questions of the GAO.
        Senator Lautenberg, welcome.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK LAUTENBERG,
               U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY

        Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman,
    for holding this hearing.
        Clean water is as fundamental to our health as breathing
    clean air. And since the Safe Drinking Water Act came about 37
    years ago, we have made significant progress making sure the
    Nation's water supply is clean and safe. But we still have a
    lot of work to do.
        Research shows that there are more than 140 chemicals in
    our drinking water that EPA does not regulate. In some parts of
    the Country, these chemicals include gasoline additives and
    pesticides. Other States, natural gas drillers inject diesel
    fuel and chemicals into the ground as part of the now more
    popular fracking process, and EPA is powerless to do anything
    about it because of a loophole in the Safe Drinking Water Act
    that I and others on this Committee have fought to repeal.
        In many ways, we are still being haunted by the neglect of
    the prior Administration, which repeatedly failed to set limits
    and strengthen regulations on pollution in the Nation's water
    supply. During the Bush years, each and every time that the EPA
    was given an opportunity to improve water safety, the agency
    chose not to act. Today, we are going to hear the results of a
    new Government Accountability Office investigation that sheds
    additional light on this negligence and misplaced priorities.
        GAO's investigation shows how much the Bush administration
    looked the other way, instead of regulating dangerous chemicals
    like perchlorate, a toxic substance found in rocket fuel.
    Instead of letting agency scientists and the law drive
    regulatory decisions, political appointees, acting and meeting
    in secret, pushed the agency away from putting limits on
    perchlorate. Fortunately, under President Obama, EPA is moving
    in the right direction once again working on the public's
    behalf.
        The agency is taking steps to set new limits on chemicals
    in our drinking water and doing more to determine the impact of
    natural gas drilling on our Country's water supply. The EPA is
    making good use of the tools under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
    But the law itself limits EPA's ability to protect the public's
    right to know. The Safe Drinking Water Act only allows EPA to
    regulate temporary monitoring of a small group of unregulated
    contaminants. So the public has no idea that they might be
    drinking water laden with unregulated contaminants like flame
    retardants, gasoline additives or other toxics.
        Twenty-five years ago, I authored the Right to Know law on
    toxic chemical releases to make sure that people know about
    potentially hazardous substances in their communities. The
    public also has a right to know what is in their water. That is
    why I introduced the Drinking Water Right to Know Act. My bill
    would require a targeted increase in monitoring for unregulated
    pollutants that could be hazardous.
        In addition, the bill would require EPA to make information
    on contaminants in drinking water more readily available online
    and in plain English. More information on contaminants will
    empower citizens and help government to make better decisions
    on pollutants in the water supply.
        So I look forward to hearing from our witnesses about how
    we can work together to make sure that every person has clean,
    safe water to drink when they turn on the tap. Thank you, Madam
    Chairman.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
        Senator Boozman.

                    STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF ARKANSAS

        Senator Boozman. I will have a statement for the record.
    Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Boozman was not
    submitted at time of print.]
        Senator Boxer. Thank you.
        Senator Cardin.

                  STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN,
                U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND

        Senator Cardin. Madam Chairman, I am going to put my full
    statement in the record, and I do want to welcome our
    witnesses. I just want to underscore a point that has been
    said, and that is Americans expect when they turn their taps on
    they are going to get clean water. And we have to make sure
    that in fact becomes, maintains reality.
        The way that unregulated contaminants are handled raises
    concern. We know we review them every 5 years, but to move it
    to regulation has been extremely cumbersome and difficult. Some
    of our States have acted because the Federal Government has not
    been able to act. I am not sure that is the substitute for the
    Federal Government acting. To me, this is one of our principal
    responsibilities, to make sure that we have safe and clean
    water for the people of this Nation.
        I look forward to this hearing.
        [The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]

              Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator
                           from the State of Maryland

        Madame Chairman, thank you.
        Readily available, safe drinking water is an expectation
    most people in our Nation have come to take for granted.
        The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 contain a
    provision that requires the EPA to evaluate chemicals in our
    drinking water and to regulate them as necessary. In its recent
    preliminary regulatory determination, however, the EPA has
    decided that it will NOT regulate 11 new chemicals found in our
    Nation's tap water.
        One such contaminant is perchlorate--a chemical found in
    fireworks, explosives, and rocket motors. The chemical has been
    found in the drinking water of at least 35 states and the
    District of Columbia. Perchlorate has been found in breast
    milk.
        It is known that perchlorate affects the ability of the
    thyroid gland to take up iodine. Iodine is needed to make
    thyroid hormones that regulate many body functions after they
    are released into the blood. Children are more likely to be
    affected by perchlorate than adults because thyroid hormones
    are essential for normal growth and development.
        Despite the known science on the hazards of perchlorate,
    EPA has failed to establish a safety standard for perchlorate
    in drinking water.
        Lacking Federal leadership, several states, including
    Maryland have adopted their own standards for perchlorate in
    drinking water. These standards range from 2 parts-per-billion
    in Massachusetts to 6 parts-per-billion in California. In 2002,
    my State of Maryland established a 1 ppb advisory level for
    perchlorate. There are two communities in Maryland that
    exceeded this advisory level and have since installed treatment
    facilities: the city of Aberdeen in Harford County and the
    Sherwood Forest Mobile Home Park in Cecil County.
        Given the disparities in the advisory levels and standards
    for perchlorate from one State to another, our constituents may
    be confused and concerned that there is no National standard
    for perchlorate in their water given the risks, in particular
    to pregnant mothers and young children, of low-level exposure
    to perchlorate.
        My concerns about perchlorate, particularly the EPA's
    failure to provide a regulation requiring monitoring of and
    notification for perchlorate in drinking water have led me to
    co-sponsor two bills that you, Madame Chairman have offered: S.
    24, the ``Perchlorate Monitoring and Right-to-Know Act of
    2007'' and S. 150. the ``Protecting Pregnant Women and Children
    From Perchlorate Act of 2007''
        A similar lack of action has existed for trichloroethylene
    or TCE: Even after a draft EPA Risk Assessment found that TCE
    was as much as 40 times more carcinogenic than previously
    thought, rather than setting a more protective standard for TCE
    in drinking water, the EPA called for more study.
        Given the EPA's recent history of not particularly timely
    development of new regulations, I am concerned that it may be
    several years before this new information might be incorporated
    into new regulatory standards.
        Existing scientific studies strongly suggest that the EPA
    should be acting expeditiously on developing regulations to
    limit exposure to perchlorate and TCE. It is unfortunate, that
    as with other environmental matters, the EPA has dragged its
    feet when the health of our Nation is at risk.
        I look forward to the testimony from today's witnesses in
    helping to clarify this issue. There is scientific
    justification for the EPA to act quickly on these chemicals in
    our drinking water. If EPA cannot act, we must. Our country
    deserves better.
        Thank you Madame Chairman.

        Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
        We will now turn to our panel. I think we are going to hear
    from the Government Accountability Office first, so that Hon.
    Deputy Administrator can respond to their findings. So Mr.
    Trimble, we welcome you and we thank you for all your heard
    work. We look forward to your presentation. You can summarize
    in 5 minutes, and if we have further questions, we will ask
    them.

    STATEMENT OF DAVID C. TRIMBLE, DIRECTOR, NATURAL RESOURCES AND
             ENVIRONMENT, GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE

        Mr. Trimble. I am pleased to be here today to discuss our
    report being released today on EPA's program for regulating
    additional drinking water contaminants. We evaluated EPA's
    implementation of the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking
    Water Act, and reviewed the process and findings EPA used in
    making its 2008 preliminary decision to not regulate
    perchlorate.
        We found that systemic limitations in EPA's implementation
    of the requirements for determining whether additional drinking
    water contaminants warrant regulation have impeded the agency's
    process in assuring the public of safe drinking water. These
    limitations start with the contaminants that EPA chooses to
    assess for regulation. Specifically, EPA's selection of
    contaminants for regulatory determination in 2003 and 2008 was
    driven by data availability, not consideration of greatest
    public health concern, as specified in the statute. In fact, an
    EPA official described the agency's regulatory determinations
    as addressing the low-hanging fruit.
        Moreover, EPA has not been effective in obtaining
    occurrence of health effects data on contaminants, both of
    which are essential for regulatory determination. This program
    to test drinking water for unregulated contaminants has not
    tested as many contaminants as it could have. Also, in many
    cases, the testing methods have not been sufficiently robust to
    detect the contaminants at the level of public health concern,
    reducing the credibility of EPA's determinations. Information
    on the health effects of contaminants has also lagged due to
    longstanding challenges in the IRIS program and coordination
    issues.
        Importantly, EPA has not developed regulations, policies or
    guidance for interpreting the amendments' broad statutory
    criteria for selecting contaminants and making decisions on
    them. In the absence of guidance, EPA has been informally
    applying a policy that contaminants need to occur in drinking
    water on a national scale to warrant regulation.
        However, a national occurrence threshold is not required by
    the Safe Drinking Water Act, which in fact provides relief to
    public water systems for monitoring when a contaminant occurs
    in certain areas but not in others. We have concerns about EPA
    implementing a critical policy which interprets the Act and has
    important implications for the safety of public drinking water
    when this policy has neither been defined nor subjected to
    public review.
        Also, the credibility of some of the EPA's regulatory
    determinations is limited by a lack of transparency, clarity
    and consistency. For example, EPA states unequivocally in its
    regulatory determination support document that there is no data
    to indicate children are more sensitive to manganese than
    adults, but in its health effects support document discusses
    studies that do associate manganese in drinking water with
    learning disabilities in children. Our report details numerous
    other limitations that reduce the credibility of EPA's
    regulatory determinations, including making determinations on
    the basis of outdated and incomplete occurrence data, and the
    Office of Water's lack of protocol and methods for assessing
    drinking water health risks for children and other sensitive
    sub-populations, 15 years after the 1996 amendments required
    EPA to consider effects on such populations.
        Regarding perchlorate, we found that the process and
    analyses EPA relied on to support its preliminary determination
    to not regulate were atypical, lacked transparency and limited
    the agency's independence in developing and communicating its
    scientific findings. While EPA's 2011 decision to regulate
    perchlorate included an analysis on the potential health impact
    on children, addressing key shortcomings in the 2008 decision,
    it is not clear at this time whether EPA has committed to do
    such analyses in the future.
        We made 17 recommendations to support the development of
    transparent, clear and consistent regulatory determinations. An
    overarching recommendation is that EPA develop policies and
    guidance clearly articulating the agency's interpretation of
    the Act's statutory criteria as well as eight additional
    recommendations identifying specific components of this
    guidance.
        EPA's response to this recommendation was that it was not
    practical to establish policies or guidance, citing various
    complexities. However, the complexities cited would argue for
    rather than against the need to develop guidance for staff in
    applying the criteria.
        EPA also said it did not support developing policies or
    guidance because under the statutory criteria, it is the
    Administrator's judgment as to whether regulation presents a
    meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction after
    considering information presented by agency staff. The
    statutory criteria are so broadly stated that they could
    potentially be interpreted to support regulating all the
    contaminants on the candidate list, some of them or none of
    them.
        It is precisely for these reasons that we believe it is
    essential for EPA staff to have sufficient guidance on applying
    the criteria consistently and transparently, so that the
    Administrator's judgment can be based on sound and consistent
    information. Without such guidance, the basis for EPA's
    determinations and the quality of their support can fluctuate
    over time as a result of, among other reasons, changes in
    agency leadership and staff.
        In large measure, EPA's response to our recommendations
    essentially endorses conducting business as usual, a response
    that does not acknowledge the scope and significance of the
    implementation limitations we identified.
        I would be happy to respond to any questions that you or
    other members of the Committee may have.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Trimble follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. Thank you very much for your hard work.
        And now it is time to hear from the EPA, and Mr.
    Perciasepe, welcome.

      STATEMENT OF HON. ROBERT PERCIASEPE, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR,
                    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

        Mr. Perciasepe. Thank you. Thank you for inviting me today,
    Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member Inhofe and members of the
    Committee here today to discuss EPA's drinking water program.
        Making sure that all Americans have water that is safe to
    drink is one of the fundamental elements of EPA's mission. I
    appreciate the Committee's and the Government Accountability
    Office's attention to the matter of the Safe Drinking Water
    Act. While EPA, under the leadership of Administrator Jackson,
    has made some key strides with the drinking water program,
    there is always room for improvement, and the GAO report makes
    some critical recommendations which we welcome.
        Strong science and the law are the foundation of our
    decisionmaking at EPA. We agree with GAO that our approach to
    drinking water regulation must be transparent, consistent,
    clear and driven by the need to protect public health. In 1996,
    Congress updated the Safe Drinking Water Act to improve the way
    we decide when a contaminant needs to be regulated. The new
    process was designed to assure that future standards focus on
    public health protection and are based on the best available
    science.
        Over the years, we have sought advice from a number of
    independent organizations on how to achieve this goal,
    including the National Academy of Sciences, the Science
    Advisory Board, and the National Drinking Water Advisory
    Council. Recommendations from these groups have contributed to
    a strong foundation for our program, and we continue to build
    on those past efforts. The draft GAO report makes it clear we
    have more work to do.
        Specifically, GAO provides recommendations about developing
    policies to interpret the broad statutory criteria that the
    Safe Drinking Water Act outline for making regulatory
    determinations. It is crucial that these criteria are
    transparent and protect vulnerable populations, particularly
    children. To achieve these goals, I have asked the Office of
    Water to consult with an independent panel of scientists on the
    process EPA uses.
        Specifically, they will consider how we evaluate
    contaminants against the criteria, how will we use the best
    available science to make a decision and how will we assess the
    greatest public health risk and how to consider vulnerable
    populations, especially children. We will make our regulatory
    determination process publicly available and we will review the
    process every 5 years as we conduct the regulatory
    determination cycle.
        Currently, we are in our third cycle of evaluating
    unregulated contaminants. In implementing this process, we are
    applying the lessons learned from the previous iterations. Our
    recent actions are consistent with many of GAO's
    recommendations. To ensure that we are best protecting public
    health, GAO recommends that EPA develop criteria to identify
    contaminants that pose the greatest risk. In our most recent
    contaminant candidate list, EPA used a significantly improved
    process. We cast a wide net to identify possible contaminants.
    And from this universe of more than 7,000 candidates, we
    narrowed the list down to 116 that represent the greatest risk.
    The multi-step process was science-based and informed by the
    public and independent science experts. All of the supporting
    information is available to the public. From within this list,
    we have identified the contaminants with enough data to make a
    decision in this cycle, and we are focusing our decision on
    those with the greatest public health concern.
        In order to have the occurrence data we need to make good
    decisions, GAO recommends that we improve our unregulated
    contaminants monitoring program. We agree with the GAO's
    recommendations . In March, we proposed our most recent list of
    contaminants for monitoring and we are taking full advantage of
    the statutory authority to test for 30 contaminants. We also
    proposed minimum reporting limits that are much lower than have
    been required in the past, making the data obtained more
    useful.
        This Administration also recognizes that we need to change
    the paradigm for determining and developing drinking water
    regulations to protect public health. We are implementing the
    drinking water strategy announced by the Administrator last
    year. In particular, we have established a focus on regulating
    multiple contaminants as a single group. By doing so, we can
    achieve public health protection more expeditiously and in a
    way that is more cost-effective for water utilities to
    implement.
        We are also focusing on fostering innovative drinking water
    technology, so that drinking water treatment is available and
    affordable. We are leveraging the authorities of multiple
    statutes to protect drinking water sources from contamination.
        In closing, Madam Chairman, protecting the resource of
    clean, safe water is one of EPA's highest priorities. We are
    committed to continually improving our methods and I look
    forward to working with this Committee and the GAO in our
    efforts to best protect the American people.
        Thank you.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Perciasepe follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. I want to thank you very much, and say I
    think your response to this report is refreshing, that you are
    looking at it and embrace the notion of transparency, which is
    critical, science is critical.
        In September 2010, EPA released a draft scientific
    assessment that found that chromium-6 in drinking water is
    ``likely to be a carcinogenic to humans.'' The agency said it
    expects to finish this assessment in 2011. Can you give us the
    date when you will complete this assessment?
        Mr. Perciasepe. That assessment we did last year was
    submitted for peer review. We just received a response from the
    peer reviewers and we are reviewing that. I would still think,
    depending on what depth we may need to go into, and I have to
    hedge the exact date here a little bit, based on the fact that
    we have not yet reviewed all the advice we got from the peer
    review. I think we are still on track to finish before the end
    of the year.
        Senator Boxer. Good. I am going to assume that unless I
    hear otherwise. We have had our problems with chromium-6. I am
    really glad that you moved forward on it.
        In February 2011, Administrator Jackson reversed a Bush
    administration decision not to regulate perchlorate with an
    announcement that EPA would move forward to develop a drinking
    water standard. I ask unanimous consent to place in the record
    comments from California urging you on in that regard.
        [The referenced information follows.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. Perchlorate is a toxic contaminant that can
    harm children's development. I strongly support Administrator
    Jackson's decision. Could you tell me if EPA is moving forward
    with the process of developing a drinking water standard for
    perchlorate and can you assure me the agency will continue to
    use the best available science in crafting this standard?
        Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, I can assure you on both counts, Madam
    Chairman. We are moving ahead on the process that is initiated
    by making the regulatory determination. And of course, we are
    going to be looking at all the best available science, as we
    had it, to make the right determination and as we will continue
    to improve the science that is available as we go through the
    regulatory process.
        Senator Boxer. OK. Let me just say, given, I think, the
    criticisms that have come forward from the GAO, and the reality
    that so little has been done, the fact that you are moving on
    two contaminants out of so many, at least it is a start. So I
    am going to be watching very carefully to make sure that we
    don't get caught up in politics or anything else. This is about
    safety for our people. And we need to know. So I am going to be
    following those very, very closely.
        Deputy Administrator, the GAO found that ``EPA does not
    have criteria for identifying contaminants of greatest public
    health concern.'' They recommended that EPA develop ``criteria
    to identify contaminants that pose the greatest health risks.''
    Will EPA develop such criteria, in order to determine which
    drinking water contaminants should be regulated, and ensure
    that the criteria are used in a transparent and accountable
    process?
        Mr. Perciasepe. What I mentioned in my opening statement is
    that EPA, it is sort of, things are going on in parallel here.
    In addition to the review that GAO has done, which has provided
    us meaningful input and good recommendations on transparency,
    we have also been in the process of trying to make those
    improvements at the same time. It is sort of, if you play ice
    hockey, it is sort of like changing the line on the fly, as
    they call it.
        Senator Boxer. Oh, wait a minute, that is my husband's
    domain. He loves ice hockey.
        Mr. Perciasepe. So you are familiar with that concept.
        Senator Boxer. I can barely follow the puck, but I think it
    is exciting. But could you say what you said again, so I can
    ask him when I get home? Say it again, I am serious.
        Mr. Perciasepe. Changing the line on the fly.
        Senator Boxer. Changing the line on the fly. Thank you. I
    will check it out with him when I get home.
        [Laughter.]
        Mr. Perciasepe. I apologize for bringing a sports analogy
    in here.
        But the point being that while GAO is looking at what we
    have done in the past, we are preparing the next round of the
    candidate contaminant list. And in doing that process, we have
    tremendously expanded this number of sources of science and
    data that we have looked at. And as I mentioned, we had almost
    7,500 different contaminants we look at. I am doing this,
    because it is sort of like the top of a funnel. And as you go
    down the funnel to what you might recommend for a regulatory
    determination at the bottom, we are building a very specific
    process that starts with the 7,000, looks at what we know about
    the severity of their health impacts, impacts on children or
    sensitive populations, occurrence information.
        And we are moving down that list. We have publicly produced
    a document. We have had public hearings on it, about how we
    went from the 7,500 down to a smaller number. And now what we
    are focusing on 116 of them, each step of the way we have laid
    out a deliberate process.
        Senator Boxer. OK, just to cut through, and I am going to
    give myself one more minute and give it to everybody else, the
    answer is yes?
        Mr. Perciasepe. Yes.
        Senator Boxer. The EPA is going to develop these criteria?
        Mr. Perciasepe. Yes.
        Senator Boxer. And you are going to make it public, and it
    will be transparent.
        Mr. Perciasepe. And we are building it off of this.
        Senator Boxer. OK. So my last question, and then I have a
    bunch I am going to ask you for in writing that are very
    important to me, the GAO found that 17 contaminants that have
    been on all three of EPA's lists of priority drinking water
    contaminants since 1998, and here we are, a long way from that,
    including RDX, or royal demolition explosive, which EPA has
    classified as a possible human carcinogen. The GAO raised
    concern with the potential lack of information that EPA has on
    some of these contaminants. We are talking about now a narrow
    list of 17 that have appeared on all these lists since 1998.
        Will you agree to have EPA brief my staff on the status of
    the agency's information collection analysis activities for
    each of those 17 contaminants? And also at that time describe
    when EPA expects to consider these contaminants for a
    regulatory determination?
        Mr. Perciasepe. Yes, of course. And I could add, I know
    that we are short on time, but a number of, a significant
    number of those are now on the final list that we are looking
    at in the current process. And a number of the other ones have
    been put on the unregulated contaminant monitoring list that
    David brought up in his testimony that we have expanded that
    list and will now get more data on them. So we are moving on
    pretty much all of those 17.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you, and I will get you all these
    other questions I have, and turn to Senator Inhofe for 6
    minutes.
        Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman. And I would hope
    in the future, Mr. Administrator, if you are going to use a
    sports analogy, for my benefit, use either football or
    baseball, so we would understand.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Boxer. Or soccer is good.
        Mr. Perciasepe. Well, we have a spiritual soccer event
    earlier in the week.
        Senator Inhofe. It could have been that the Chairman asked
    this question during her first minute, because I was distracted
    during that time. But I would like to know if there is anything
    further you could say on how the EPA is going to address the
    concerns that were raised by the NAS formaldehyde report,
    specifically the systemic concerns raised by the IRIS risk
    assessment process.
        Mr. Perciasepe. In 2009, Administrator Jackson set in
    motion a number of improvements to the IRIS program to begin
    with. As you pointed out, maybe 10 years, where things had been
    allowed to perhaps lag for a while. So one of the things we did
    is improve some of the elements of the process. We have
    increased resources for it. And today our Assistant
    Administrator for the Office of Research and Development, Paul
    Anastas, is going to be announcing a next round of improvements
    to the IRIS process. And many of those improvements are on that
    same continuum we have been on now for a couple of years, and I
    think are very responsive to the advice we have gotten and that
    we appreciate also from the National Academy of Sciences.
        So I am optimistic, Senator, that we are moving on that
    proper continuum to make sure that very critical, and I think
    you said it as well as anybody could in your opening statement,
    how important that IRIS process is to our program.
        Senator Inhofe. OK, you are on that. As I said also in my
    opening statement, and you have heard me talk about this
    before, the concern that I have from my background as mayor of
    a major city in terms of the unfunded mandates. And again, I
    know other States have problems, too. I think Oklahoma
    certainly has great problems in our small communities.
        Now, it is my understanding that the EPA section 319
    program does help States in their implementation. Is this
    correct, in some of these programs?
        Mr. Perciasepe. I am not completely familiar with that
    question.
        Senator Inhofe. All right. Well, it is the EPA section 319
    program. It does provide funds for some States and local
    entities to comply with some of these mandates. Is that
    correct?
        Mr. Perciasepe. I think that--I am not familiar with 319. I
    probably know all the programs, but I don't know them by their
    numbers.
        Senator Inhofe. OK, well, I was given the information that
    some $27 million was transferred from that program to the
    program that is sent to China and other countries.
        Mr. Perciasepe. I am in the wrong law. It is in the Clean
    Water Act. Section 319 is in the Clean Water Act. I am familiar
    with that. That allows non-point source programs and State
    efforts on non-point source programs that can be used to do
    both source water protection and perhaps even wellhead
    protection in the proper context.
        Senator Inhofe. Well, I think it is significant to bring up
    this point. Because you will remember, although you weren't in
    your current position, when Republicans were the majority and I
    chaired this Committee, I was concerned that people didn't have
    access to where a lot of the money was going from the EPA, from
    the Environmental Protection Agency. And so we set up a data
    base. And this has been pretty successful. And just the other
    day, Chairman Upton, of a comparable committee over there in
    the House, was talking about the $718,000 that went to China's
    EPA to assist with control of air emissions. And it goes on to
    talk about some of the other countries.
        I just found this to be kind of mind-boggling that would
    take place. Is that incorrect? Because I know this would be the
    Assistant Administrator for International Affairs. But that
    person does answer to you.
        Mr. Perciasepe. I will have to look into that, Senator. I
    don't have any direct information at this particular moment on
    financial----
        Senator Inhofe. OK, rather than just take it for the
    record, if you don't mind calling me back to see if I'm wrong
    in this. Because if I'm wrong and if Congressman Upton is
    wrong, we are doing a disservice by talking about this.
        Mr. Perciasepe. I will make sure we get back to your office
    today.
        Senator Inhofe. That is all I could ask for.
        And I would say to you, Mr. Trimble, in your analysis, does
    EPA have all the statutory authority that they need to regulate
    contaminants of concern?
        Mr. Trimble. Sir, in our report and our recommendations,
    the deficiencies or the problems and the systemic problems we
    found were of a nature that we felt could be addressed strictly
    within the current authority. That is why our recommendations
    are to EPA, if we don't have a consideration for changing the
    statute, we believe that the EPA can take action quickly under
    existing authorities to define its policies and establish
    guidance, to interpret the statutes and implement them in such
    a way that it would be clear, consistent and provide a better
    product at the end of the day.
        Senator Inhofe. All right. Thank you very much.
        Thank you, Madam Chairman.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
        Senator Lautenberg.
        Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Madam Chairman.
        Mr. Perciasepe, the New Jersey State legislature recently
    passed a ban on hydraulic fracking in my home State. But
    Pennsylvania and New York are moving ahead with fracking
    activities that could affect New Jersey's water supply.
        Now, there is currently a loophole we are all familiar with
    in Federal law that exempts fracking operations from much of
    the Safe Drinking Water Act requirements. How does this
    loophole affect EPA's ability to prevent fracking contamination
    in one State from affecting the health of people in another,
    not unlike the winds that blow across our State from the west?
        Mr. Perciasepe. Let me just say that on the movement of
    water on the surface of the, when the water, when the fracking
    fluids are used or whether there is produced water out of a
    well, when the water comes to the surface, those are under the
    jurisdiction, if they are discharged to waters of the United
    States, those are under the jurisdiction of the Clean Water
    Act. And there are requirements for how it would be pre-
    treated, or there would be State requirements on how it is pre-
    treated if it goes into a sewage treatment plant, or if it is
    reinjected into the ground, that would be covered by the
    underground injection and control program.
        So on the surface, I think, Senator, the Clean Water Act
    would apply. The exemption is the regulation of the injection
    of the fracking fluids into the ground to conduct that
    operation. Those are not regulated, or that action is not
    regulated under the underground injection and control program,
    which is in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
        Senator Lautenberg. Well, a few months ago, I asked you
    about the air quality impacts of natural gas drilling. And in
    your testimony you said that natural gas drilling would lead to
    ``an increase in emissions of volatile organic compounds and
    nitrogen oxide.'' But there was no offer of any concrete steps
    that EPA is taking to reduce these emissions.
        Is EPA taking any action now to address emissions from
    natural gas drilling?
        Mr. Perciasepe. I will mention two briefly, Senator. First,
    just in the last several weeks, EPA, the U.S. Department of
    Agriculture and the Department of Interior signed an MOU on how
    we would conduct air quality analyses on leasing programs,
    either in the national forests or on the Bureau of Land
    Management's land, which again, mostly is going to be out west.
    But we have now a multi-agency agreement on how we will analyze
    the air impacts and what requirements might be placed on the
    leases that are put forward.
        We just recently conducted that analysis on a lease that
    the Department of Interior, through the Bureau of Land
    Management, made in the Grand National Buttes in Utah. And
    those requirements, and the company there was Anadarko, those
    requirements are very progressive and forward-leaning. And the
    company is moving forward in that.
        Senator Lautenberg. When will we get something specific
    there to move on this? The studies are being done.
        Mr. Perciasepe. Right. So those requirements would be
    placed on those leases, and they would have to meet those
    standards. The second thing, though, that I want to mention, is
    EPA is also working on what under the Clean Air Act is called
    new source performance standards. So as a new well is produced
    or developed, it would be required to reduce the amount of
    volatile organic compounds that would be emitted while the well
    development is being conducted.
        So those proposals will be out later this year. And they
    will be in many ways similar to what we are requiring companies
    to do when they lease on Federal land.
        Senator Lautenberg. The concerns are real. But the pace
    seems fairly slow in doing something about it.
        Mr. Perciasepe. I appreciate that very much.
        Senator Lautenberg. In addition to individual pollutants in
    drinking water, people are often exposed to multiple
    contaminants. The interaction with each other can cause some
    health effects. Mr. Trimble, how might EPA consider the health
    effects of the combination of chemicals when they set drinking
    water contaminant limits?
        Mr. Trimble. I think that is an important issue. I think it
    goes to the heart of our recommendations, which is that the EPA
    needs to have guidance and policy and criteria to explain how
    such issues are considered in their decisionmaking. For
    example, when they make a decision, at the end of the day they
    need to explain was it considered, how was it considered. If
    they have a policy and it is an exception to that policy, they
    need to transparently and clearly explain all the factors that
    led them to the outcome that they arrived at.
        So I think we don't, we are not a science agency, so we are
    not making recommendations on how they should or shouldn't do
    these things. But from our standpoint, you need to establish
    the road map for the staff to follow in getting there. And then
    that road map not only guides your operations throughout your
    execution of this program, but at the end of the day, when you
    explain your decisions, it allows you to clearly articulate the
    basis for your decisions and credibly defend them.
        Senator Lautenberg. Chairman, there are so many questions
    that arise from this review, so the record is, I understand,
    will be kept open.
        Senator Boxer. Absolutely, the record is open. And Senator
    Inhofe wanted to make a request.
        Senator Inhofe. Yes, I want to make a unanimous consent
    request, I didn't know that hydraulic fracturing was going to
    be coming up. I would like to make an observation that the
    first hydraulic frack job was done 60 years ago in my State of
    Oklahoma and there has never been a documented case of ground
    contamination. I have a statement from some, about 15 other
    States, all the other States where this is a concern. I would
    like to have this put into the record, that states the same
    thing about their States as I stated about Oklahoma.
        Senator Boxer. Absolutely. That will be put in the record.
        [The referenced information follows.]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. And now we turn to Senator Boozman.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        I think one of the things that is so important as we deal
    with the agencies and things, especially in dealing with issues
    that really do affect our health, economic matters in the sense
    that, trying to conform to some of the things that we come up
    with literally will cost billions of dollars in some instances,
    that you have to have confidence in the system. Mr. Trimble,
    you talked about the agency performing tests where they were
    doing testing and maybe, I will put it in my terms and you can
    correct me, maybe they were testing for one part and then the
    test itself was only good to two parts. Sometimes only good up
    to 2,200 parts, and then making decisions based on that.
        Can you comment further on that?
        Mr. Trimble. Sure. In the decisions that they made in, I
    believe it was 2003, 2008, to not regulate about 20
    contaminants, I believe in 9 of those the testing data that the
    program had developed was not at a level sufficient to detect
    the contaminant at the point of concern. So exactly to your
    point, it wasn't robust enough to test it at the level of
    concern.
        That raises lots of issues. But what we talk about in the
    report, when we reviewed the determination in getting to the
    issue of the credibility, is that the impact of that limitation
    is either completely not addressed in the documentation
    explaining the decision, the determination decision, or it is
    buried. There could be other reasons why, maybe it is best
    available, maybe you have other data. But the issue and the
    basis for reaching a decision regarding sort of a big piece of
    this as well. So you have the problem with the testing program,
    but then you also have just the lack of explanation of, well,
    OK, you had this problem, how did you get to this point.
        Senator Boozman. You also have the problem, too, in the
    sense that you can have a false sense of security, can't you,
    in the sense that a test was supposedly performed and
    everything was OK?
        Mr. Trimble. Absolutely. In four of the decisions, they did
    not acknowledge that there was this limitation or the impact of
    that limitation on their conclusion that there was no health
    issue.
        Senator Boozman. So is that currently going on? Has that
    gone on recently?
        Mr. Trimble. Our review looked at the 20 decisions since
    the 1996 amendments. And in nine of them, we identified this
    issue. So that, I believe the last group we looked at was 2008.
        Senator Boozman. Can you comment on that? Is that currently
    still a problem, or in the recent years been a problem?
        Mr. Perciasepe. We feel, and I mentioned in my opening
    comments that we have modified our approach to looking at the
    unregulated contaminant monitoring that we are allowed to do.
    We are making sure that the testing that is done there, and
    these are the suite of contaminants that we are concerned about
    but that are not currently regulated, and we are trying to
    determine if their occurrence, as David just mentioned, is
    prevalent enough that it would be of concern. But you have to
    measure for the right level. And we are confident that we have
    modified our processes to be able to do that.
        Senator Boozman. Mr. Trimble, you talked about the three
    criteria for acting and went on to say that some of the people
    in the EPA, when interviewed, said there are no bright lines,
    that we will know it when we see it. Was that from scientists,
    or were these political people? How does anybody that is
    familiar with the scientific process, how do you deal with
    statements like that?
        Mr. Trimble. I would have to check who it was. But I think
    it was more the regulatory office. And the issue of the
    discussion was not seeing the need or not recognizing the need
    for guidance or a road map in terms of how you interpret this.
    It was sort of a we know it when we see it kind of decision.
    Again, the problem as you have pointed out is the credibility
    that leads to, where you can have, you may see it, I may see
    it, somebody else may see something different, you can have
    changes over time, changes between people. And that is the
    issue I was trying to get at.
        Senator Boozman. Yes, sir?
        Mr. Perciasepe. And I also want to point out that we are
    equally concerned with this and are happy to get this advice. I
    think how to solve this problem is probably open to a little
    bit of interpretation. GAO has laid out, I think, a thoughtful
    way to do it. We are in the process of trying to do it
    differently this time with developing our current list of
    contaminants that we are concerned about. We have gone through
    a very deliberate process that dissects those three large
    categories that are in the Act, like is there an adverse health
    effect. Well, we are looking at potency, we are looking at
    sensitive populations, and we are screening down to that. We
    also have to look at the occurrence data. We are looking at
    both regional as well as national data.
        The last step, and as I testified, the last step in the
    judgment of the Administrator is there a meaningful opportunity
    for a health risk reduction, well, we are proposing now, and
    what I have asked the water program to look into is the staff
    working on those first two, developing a report and then having
    that report subject to a peer review which asks these
    questions. And then the Administrator would have in front of
    her both the staff report on the adverse health effects and the
    occurrence or substantial occurrence data across the Country or
    regionally, and that judgment would be able to be also
    enhanced, by that peer review of that work that was done.
        So in that final step which is in the judgment of the
    Administrator, they would have both of those pieces of
    information together. And I feel that if we get that peer
    review to ask some of these questions, because there are so
    many different kinds of contaminants, that they will be able to
    see if the staff properly did the integration. However, we are
    learning from doing it differently this time, and we definitely
    want to have the criteria, as the Chairwoman mentioned, be
    clearly laid out.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you.
        Mr. Trimble. I would just note, we have not obviously
    reviewed the latest thinking and proposals. I am encouraged by
    the direction. I note a couple of things. One, the triaging of
    the contaminants of concern into the candidate list down to now
    the current list has about 116 contaminants. That is, EPA has
    indicated that is a prioritization, and it is. It is a first
    step.
        But 116 is not enough of a prioritization to guide your
    direction from there. In 2009, the Science Advisory Board also
    had a report encouraging EPA to prioritize.
        Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
        Senator Cardin?
        Senator Cardin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Mr. Trimble, first, let me thank you for this work. I think
    it is extremely important. Mr. Perciasepe, I appreciate the
    attitude of EPA to make sure we get this right.
        It is very concerning when we know that we have had lists
    now of unregulated contaminants. And there has been
    inconsistency in the methods used to determine whether there
    should be regulation. Our bottom line is to protect the public
    health of the people of this Nation. They rely upon us to
    determine whether water is safe to drink. And we have a
    responsibility to make sure that in fact is being done.
        What was most disconcerting about the GAO report, you
    showed the listing of new contaminants for regulation, lacked a
    procedural safeguard, that there were different variations of
    assessment based on the chemical involved. So Mr. Perciasepe,
    let me just ask you first, to what extent do you think the
    variation of the assessment procedures from one chemical to
    another affects the reliability of the EPA determinations?
        Mr. Perciasepe. Well, Senator, there may be radionucleides,
    there could be viruses, there could be bacteria or other
    protozoans as well as chemicals. So all of them have different
    ways you have to analyze them. I think that there is a
    commonality of approach, though, when you start with a large
    list and you start looking at which one of those things on that
    large list has the most potential health effects, whether it be
    sensitive sub-populations or whether it be to the general
    population. And you keep narrowing that list down. David used
    triage, I would call it some deliberate screening.
        And I agree that you get that list down to 116, that is not
    enough. Because this is really the precursor to deciding what
    your priorities are to actually do a regulation on. So this is
    not itself a regulation, this is just deciding what to
    regulate.
        And I think it is important that we do the best job we can,
    publicly and with criteria and with disclosure on how we got
    that, including peer review. And then from that list, the
    Administrator has to decide. And we think the list will be
    smaller than 116.
        In this instance, we think it will be down to 30 or maybe
    less. And that is what we will ask the outside reviewers to
    say, do we have that list right, and did we ask these right
    questions. And then that is what would be in front of the
    Administrator, to make that determination.
        Senator Cardin. Can we learn something from perchlorate, in
    that it was included in the first uncontaminated chemical
    monitoring rule, so at least many years ago, there was at least
    some concern about it? Perchlorate is a toxic component of
    rocket fuel that may disrupt the production of thyroid hormones
    which are particularly sensitive for fetuses in young children.
    I know that the Administration is moving forward on
    perchlorate. Can you at least give us the status of where we
    are on that, and whether there is a lesson to be learned as to
    why we did not investigate this issue earlier?
        Mr. Perciasepe. Well, obviously it went through the process
    that I just described as it was designed in many respects in
    the detail that GAO looked at. But since that time, we have re-
    looked at the science there. We looked at not just modeling of
    these physiological effects, but also the actual exposures to
    children and pregnant women. That forms some of the key basis
    for the Administrator making that determination that it is
    required to go through the regulatory process.
        So we are starting that regulatory process now, once that
    determination is made.
        Senator Cardin. What is the timeframe?
        Mr. Perciasepe. I have to say, with the proposal and then
    the final, it is probably going to be at least 2 years.
        Senator Cardin. And one of the questions I would raise,
    first of all, I think that is too long. But I understand the
    procedures you have to go through. You used the funnel example
    as to how many contaminants are listed, and you need to make a
    priority judgment as to which are the greatest at risk and what
    can be regulated effectively for public health.
        Perchlorate to me was too high up in that funnel, it should
    have been at a lower part of that funnel at an earlier stage,
    which I think is what the GAO report really, this is an example
    of the inadequate testing that was done earlier dealing with
    perchlorate. So I hope we have learned that lesson to get it
    down to the level of regulation earlier. And I would hope that
    you would work with us to streamline the regulatory process,
    because if the risk factors are to a vulnerable group, this
    requires us to act in a more expedited way.
        Mr. Perciasepe. I agree, and I think, I mean, I have worked
    with some members here today on that Safe Drinking Water
    Amendment in 1996, when I was in the government back in the
    1990's. We deliberately wrote into the law that the
    Administrator had to make a decision. They couldn't just keep
    analyzing, there had to be a decision made. I think that what
    has happened is that the transparency of that decision and the
    criteria used to get to that point, and the peer review of the
    staff and science that was being used in that final step by the
    Administrator to decide yea or nay on a regulatory
    determination, it is that point that got, I think, bent out of
    shape in the last time the determination was made. And I
    believe that having a peer review at that particular moment
    will, you never solve every problem, but it will, I think
    provide more transparency to why and if the Administrator is
    making decisions based on the most current science.
        Senator Cardin. Thank you very much.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator.
        Senator Udall, welcome.
        Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Boxer, and thank you for
    holding this important hearing.
        First, on behalf of the residents of northern New Mexico, I
    would like to say thank you to the EPA, represented here by
    Deputy Administrator Bob Perciasepe. The EPA provided really
    important emergency air monitoring resources, including their
    ASPECT plane to monitor air quality during the largest forest
    fire in New Mexico's history, which threatened Los Alamos
    National Laboratory and many other areas in New Mexico. Those
    air monitoring results, the independence of them, the State
    looked at things, EPA looked and the lab had their numbers.
        But these air monitoring results we have seen so far show
    no unusual pollution beyond what would be in a normal forest
    fire, and EPA's independent presence on the ground and in the
    air was of great value, I think, in providing the public with
    credible information. So I thank you for that.
        On the topic of today's hearing, several witnesses,
    including the GAO, observed that the EPA has not fully taken
    into account the impact of unregulated drinking water
    contaminants on children's health, I know Senator Cardin
    mentioned this earlier, as required by the Safe Water Drinking
    Act and the agency's policy on children's health. And
    perchlorate, in particular, is one that concerns me in the
    decisionmaking on perchlorate. Perchlorate is an unregulated
    contaminant found in many drinking water systems in the west,
    which is home to many of our Nation's major military
    facilities. New Mexico's communities are proud to host our
    Nation's armed forces, but all communities, I think, deserve
    clean drinking water.
        Just as with forest fires, we are counting on EPA to
    provide accurate, independent scientific information and take
    the appropriate action.
        So let me first start with Mr. Trimble on this issue of
    children's health and the overview of the work you did. Could
    you please describe the safe Drinking Water Act and the EPA
    policy requirements on considering children's health impacts in
    drinking water standards, and then two, describe your report's
    findings on how EPA met these requirements, and three, describe
    how recommendations you made relate to those children's health
    requirements.
        Mr. Trimble. Sure. First, the requirement to prioritize
    contaminants of greatest concerns includes a provision that
    prioritization should include impacts on children and other
    sensitive sub-populations. So that is sort of square one, that
    is part of the prioritization. And again, it goes to the
    recommendation we have regarding how you establish that
    priority list.
        In observing how that has been implemented with EPA and our
    work in doing those determinations has not integrated specific
    risk assessments for children as part of its determinations. In
    2003, in the determinations they made to not regulate
    additional contaminants, it acknowledged that it did not have
    the methodology to address the impact on children, but did not
    then make any other explanation as to how they were going to
    figure out whether this was protective of children's health.
        In 2008, they made additional determinations where they
    acknowledge that these contaminants had an effect on children's
    health, but they did not explain in their analysis how that
    potential risk was addressed in their analysis, and how their
    conclusion that these contaminants did not need regulation was
    protective of children's health.
        In perchlorate, similar concerns were raised about
    children's health. In fact, that is one of the reasons why the
    decision was reconsidered, was concerns about uncertainty as
    well as the impact on children. What I would note in that
    regard is while the EPA, from my understanding, has decided to
    regulate perchlorate, it is not clear at this point whether the
    additional analysis it did in reconsidering its decision for
    perchlorate will be carried forward in future determinations.
    So in other words, are they going to integrate that analysis
    and the impact on children in future determinations. It is
    still a little unclear from what we have been given whether
    that would happen.
        Senator Udall. Thank you.
        Mr. Perciasepe, could you please respond to what we have
    heard from the GAO on children's health and what will EPA do to
    implement GAO recommendations in this area?
        Mr. Perciasepe. We feel that we are required by law under
    the Safe Drinking Water Act to consider the sensitive
    populations. I won't read it, I have it sitting here in front
    of me, but I can guarantee you that it is in the law and it is
    clearly laid out, and the GAO has pointed this out clearly,
    that we should be making a clear analysis. It depends on what
    the health effect of the substance is. I would have to say some
    may not have an impact on children in the same way.
        But it doesn't negate the need to do it. So we would be
    agreeing with that assessment that we need to be doing that.
    That is going to be also part of our overall screening process
    of even when it gets down to being looked at as a hard
    contaminant. For instance, we have a contaminant on our current
    list, a subset of that 116 we mentioned earlier, for instance,
    strontium, which has a very important negative effect on bone
    development, particularly in children. So that is one that is
    on the list particularly because of children.
        Senator Udall. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you. And Senator Udall, thank you for
    all your work on children's health. This is so critical,
    because we have a responsibility to them.
        I just want to thank the panel very, very much, GAO for
    your clarity. I think this report was very good. And I think it
    should be embraced by everyone, because what you are basically
    saying is transparency in these decisions, move quicker on
    these decisions, and get it done. And I applaud the EPA for
    your response, which is, we hear you. I just want you to know,
    we are watching on chromium-6 and perchlorate. I am looking
    forward to that briefing.
        And by the way, anybody else who wants to hear the briefing
    on these 17 contaminants that have been looked at since 1998
    and nothing has been done, we are going to have a briefing. We
    just might do it as an open briefing, but I will let you know
    about that.
        Mr. Perciasepe. OK, we are ready.
        Senator Boxer. Well, we appreciate it so much. We really do
    appreciate it. And even your sports analogies which drew our
    interest.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
        Mr. Perciasepe. I will remember to use football the next
    time.
        Senator Boxer. Football, baseball, soccer, that is fine. It
    is good. Women's soccer in particular would be good.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Boxer. OK, panel two. Dr. Lynn Goldman; A.W.
    ``Butch'' Araiza; Dr. Joseph Cotruvo; Dr. Steven Patierno; and
    Dr. Jeffrey Griffiths. And each of you will have an opening of
    5 minutes. And at that point, I will ask you to put the
    remainder of your statement in the record. So if you could
    summarize.
        We are going to start with Lynn Goldman and we are going to
    move down the table, if that is OK. So Dr. Lynn Goldman,
    welcome, American Public Heath Association, Dean of the School
    of Public Health and Health Services, and Professor of
    Environmental and Occupational Health, George Washington
    University. We are very delighted that you are here, thank you.

      STATEMENT OF LYNN GOLDMAN, MD, MPH, AMERICAN PUBLIC Health
      ASSOCIATION, DEAN OF THE SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND HEALTH
    SERVICES AND PROFESSOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND OCCUPATIONAL Health
                  AT THE GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY

        Dr. Goldman. And thank you very much. It is my pleasure to
    testify about the Environmental Protection Agency's
    implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act's unregulated
    drinking water contaminants program on behalf of the American
    Public Health Association.
        I have been a member of the APHA for almost 20 years. I am
    pleased to represent them today. The APHA is dedicated to
    protecting all Americans and their communities from
    preventable, serious health threats and assuring community-
    based health promotion and disease prevention activities and
    preventive health services are universally accessible in the
    United States. APHA has long advocated for strong environmental
    health laws.
        Safe drinking water is essential to public health, and our
    Nation's drinking water supply is one of the safest in the
    world. Along with the EPA, our Nation's State and local health
    departments also play a critical role to ensure the safety of
    our drinking water. Additionally, there are more than 170,000
    public water systems providing water.
        While most of our drinking water does not violate EPA
    standards for maximum contaminant levels, the APHA is concerned
    over a number of public health issues. First, we are concerned
    about the decline in Federal resources to State to improve
    drinking water infrastructure. In fact, the final 2011
    continuing resolution, and I have heard possibly the 2012
    budget as well, is cutting significant amounts of money,
    hundreds of millions of dollars, from the EPA's Safe Drinking
    Water State Revolving Fund.
        Second, we are concerned about unregulated contaminants.
    Tens of thousands of chemicals are on the market, but the vast
    majority of these will never appear in finished drinking water.
    Those that are in drinking water should be regulated by EPA so
    the public can be assured that levels are safe.
        A number of specific chemicals have been of concern to the
    APHA, including perchlorate, chromium-6, trichloroethylene and
    other volatile organic chemicals, and a number of pesticides
    and disinfection products found in drinking water across the
    Nation. APHA expected that the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act
    amendments would have increased the number of chemicals that
    were regulated by EPA. Unfortunately, EPA did not adopt new
    drinking water safeguards for chemicals after that law was
    passed. And a recent study by the Environmental Working Group
    reported that hundreds of unregulated contaminants are found in
    our drinking water systems.
        Why do we need to have MCLs? Minus the establishment of
    MCLs and health-based MCL goals, how are we to know that the
    levels of chemicals in drinking water are safe? In response,
    several States have undertaken drinking water regulation of
    unregulated contaminants, for example, the State of California
    regulating perchlorate, chromium-6, TCE, several VOCs and
    pesticides. But only national standards can assure safe
    drinking water across our entire Country.
        Third, we are concerned that EPA standards not only protect
    the average adult but also adequately protect infants and
    children, the frail elderly and those with weakened immune
    systems. As a pediatrician, I am particularly concerned about
    infants less than 6 months of age who receive drinking water in
    infant formula. These infants consume five times more drinking
    water per body weight than adults. They therefore have greater
    exposure to any substance in drinking water than adults would.
    And yet, we also know that at these life stages that they may
    be more sensitive, less able to metabolize, detoxify and
    excrete toxic substances, as well as more sensitive to
    developmental effects, effects on growth and development.
        The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments directed the
    EPA to protect the general population, as well as those
    significant sub-populations. This authority needs to be
    exercised by the EPA in the regulation of unregulated
    contaminants.
        In conclusion, APHA suggests a number of ways that EPA
    could strengthen the regulation of chemicals in drinking water.
    EPA does need to implement the 2009 National Academy of
    Sciences report, Science and Decisions Advancing Risk
    Assessment, especially the recommended changes in risk
    assessment design, dose response modeling, uncertainty analysis
    and analysis of cumulative risk. Cumulative risk is not only
    the risk of multiple chemicals that might act in the same way,
    but also the risks that people have in other exposures in daily
    life that create public health threats like nutrition, exposure
    to smoke, other carcinogens.
        EPA needs to develop MCLs for unregulated toxic chemicals
    and pesticides that are present in drinking water so that the
    public can be confident of safety. And third, EPA needs to
    strengthen its efforts to protect vulnerable populations such
    as infants and children and pregnant women from risks of
    drinking water contaminants.
        Thank you for the opportunity to testify this morning, and
    I am happy to answer any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Goldman follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. Thank you, Dr. Goldman. I think that
    cumulative risk issue is key. I thank you for bringing it up.
        And it is my pleasure to introduce Mr. A.W. ``Butch''
    Araiza, General Manager of the West Valley Water District in
    the Inland Empire, my State. It has been my pleasure to work
    with them. They face some tough issues and we look forward to
    hearing from him.

    STATEMENT OF ANTHONY ARAIZA, GENERAL MANAGER, WEST VALLEY WATER
                                DISTRICT

        Mr. Araiza. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member
    Inhofe and members of the Committee. It is an honor to be asked
    to testify today about the West Valley Water District's success
    in removing perchlorate from groundwater.
        I would first like to communicate my profound thanks to
    Senator Boxer. Over the years, you and your staff have been key
    in helping us secure Federal funding for our remediation
    efforts in helping encourage the Environmental Protection
    Agency and the Department of Defense to aid in treatment of
    contaminated water in our region. West Valley Water District's
    success is very much your success as well. Thank you.
        By way of introduction, I have been employed by the
    District for the past 48 years. I worked my way up through the
    ranks to the position of General Manager nearly 16 years ago.
    In 2002, the District became the lead agency in Inland Empire
    Perchlorate Task Force, which is responsible for coordinating
    the investigation and response to the serious perchlorate
    contamination crisis in our area.
        West Valley Water District was founded almost 60 years ago.
    Today, we serve almost 20,000 homes and businesses. Our staff
    and board of directors are dedicated to protecting,
    safeguarding and delivering clean water to our customers at the
    lowest reasonable price. The necessity to innovate was
    presented clearly by our need to remediate the effects of
    widespread perchlorate pollution in the inland empire. The
    source of that pollution is a 160-acre industrial site in
    Northern Rialto that used to be a U.S. Army munitions depot.
    The State of California has set a limit of perchlorate of 6
    parts per billion.
        But the plume migrating from the site has led to levels as
    high as 800 parts per billion. This has forced West Valley
    Water District and other water providers in the area to shut
    down or otherwise restrict the use of at least 22 groundwater
    production wells, representing more than half the region's
    water supply. Additional groundwater production wells may need
    to be shut down as pollution continues to migrate. We have no
    choice other than to remediate. Groundwater is the main source
    of drinking water in the region and alternative sources are not
    reliable. Estimated costs for cleaning up the whole problem
    would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars and could take
    up to 30 years.
        Meanwhile, remediation poses a significant burden to the
    ratepayers in one of the most economically disadvantaged
    regions in the Nation. Facing this crisis and lacking the vast
    resources required to solve it, West Valley Water District has
    looked to innovative solutions. We were fortunate to find that
    the Department of Defense's Environmental Security Technology
    Certification Program, ESTCP, and its extremely capable
    executive director, Dr. Jeffery Marqusee. Under the leadership
    of Dr. Marqusee, ESTCP is demonstrating the most innovative and
    cost effective technologies that address DOD's high priority
    environmental requirements. Our work with ESTCP is a win-win
    partnership, providing our customers clean water while
    collecting data that the ESTCP uses to advance cost-effective
    technology.
        The District's perchlorate remediation efforts start in
    2003, utilizing technology known as ion exchange. We are
    currently running five ion exchange systems, one of which is
    cutting edge and was made possible by the ESTCP. Ion exchange
    systems work by trapping perchlorate and resin, and our
    experience has proven them to be safe and reliable.
        With the support of ESTCP and the State of California, we
    have recently broken ground on the first facility to use
    naturally occurring biological process to treat drinking water.
    Bioremediation allows natural process to break down perchlorate
    and other harmful chemicals in the water. Bioremediation has
    proven safe and effective, does not use harmful chemicals and
    requires less annual maintenance than other methods. Our
    project will provide clean tap water to our customers and
    opportunities for ESTCP to save the Department of Defense
    significant amounts of money at sites they may have liability
    for across the Country.
        We are proud to provide a venue for demonstrating this
    pioneering green technology. It should not surprise you that
    West Valley Water District is not going to stop working toward
    the future, now that the bioremediation project is underway. We
    anticipate this project will become a component of a much
    larger undertaking to fully restore the region's groundwater
    supplies. The District is currently working with the United
    States Environmental Protection Agency, the State of California
    and parties responsible for the contamination to develop a plan
    for final phase of groundwater clean-up. This is a lot of work
    yet to be done, and we are looking for more innovative
    solutions, just as we have been for the past 60 years.
        Thank you for this opportunity to testify to the Committee,
    and I would be happy to take any questions.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Araiza follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, and we welcome our next
    speaker, Dr. Joseph Cotruvo, it is Joseph Cotruvo and
    Associates, LLC, Water, Environmental and Public Health
    Institute. Welcome, sir.

       STATEMENT OF JOSEPH A. COTRUVO, PH.D., PRESIDENT, JOSEPH
                         COTRUVO AND ASSOCIATES

        Mr. Cotruvo. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Senator Inhofe.
    I appreciate the opportunity to come and talk to you today.
        My name is Joseph Cotruvo. I have spent more than 35 years
    in public health matters. The doctorate is in physical organic
    chemistry. I was the first Director of EPA's Drinking Water
    Standards division back about 35 year ago when the law was
    passed, and spent a number of years there. In the course of
    that, I was involved in developing many of the existing
    regulations and in fact, many of the methodologies that are
    used for regulating.
        The regulations are very comprehensive. We will talk about
    more of them later. Currently I work internationally on water
    quality and health. I do some non-U.S. Government assistance on
    regulatory activity and water quality. I serve on a number of
    advisory committees, including World Health Organization's
    guidelines for drinking water quality, which is actually what
    the rest of the world, outside the United States, uses for
    establishing its drinking water safety.
        I am also a member of the D.C. Water and Sewer Authority
    board of directors here. I just want you to know, I am not
    representing any organization or institution. These are my
    personal thoughts, conclusions, and I am not receiving any
    compensation for this presentation.
        On the topic of drinking water quality and safety, almost
    all community water systems in the United States produce safe
    drinking water, including Washington, DC, although some may not
    believe that. It is a daunting task, because we are dealing
    with 65,000 water supplies, 25 persons up to millions. And it
    is a very complex job that is a multi-faceted job. EPA has a
    role, States have a role, and of course, it is all underpinned
    by those guys that are out there every day, 24-7, producing
    that water at the tap.
        Overall, I think EPA has done a generally good job of
    implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act. The record shows that
    reported waterborne infectious disease outbreaks have declined
    since the implementation of the law. And the portion of
    outbreaks due to distribution systems and infrastructure has
    increased. So overall, it has declined, but that part has gone
    up. That tells us very clearly that the problem is
    infrastructure, it means that water going in from the plant
    better than the water that it coming out at the tap.
        So fixing that and maintaining is, I think, really the
    greatest public health challenge that we have to face here, and
    the greatest public health concern.
        The current regulations are very comprehensive. They cover
    a number of substances, 81 MCLs, microbial contamination, which
    basically covers all microbial contaminants, radionucleides all
    are covered. There is corrosion control, there are some
    specific items also. But the numbers even belie the reality in
    that they actually cover much, much more than just those
    numbers, because all those regulations, or many of them in fact
    have a cascade of other substances that are protected against
    by the regulation that is in place.
        Regulations have to be protected. They are designed to be
    protective. They have certain safety factors built in, and that
    is what we expect. But it is of course important that they have
    to be realistic, and they have to be appropriate for the kind
    of risk involved, and the significance, and in fact, the
    strength of evidence that there is really a risk involved. That
    is why part of the task that EPA has is so difficult. Because
    with all of these new analytic methods, as you heard from the
    GAO, methods keep getting lower and lower. We used to talk
    about parts per million, now parts per billion, now parts per
    trillion, and next year it will be parts per quadrillion,
    probably.
        So what all that means is we are finding more and more
    substances. It doesn't mean that there are more there than were
    there 5 years ago or 10 years ago or whatever. It is just we
    are finding them now. Invariably, when one is measuring
    something at levels that are that low, it is really hard to
    conceive that there is some significant risk from exposure at
    that minute level.
        Just to put some things in perspective a little bit, I have
    a couple of items here mentioning reports on perchlorate and
    pharmaceuticals. I will just read you the report that came this
    year from the UNFAO, WHO, JECFA Committee: ``The estimated
    dietary exposures of 0.7 micrograms per kilogram per day,
    highest, and 0.1 microgram per kilogram per day, mean,
    including both food and drinking water, are well below the
    provisional maximum tolerable daily intake. The committee
    considered that these estimated dietary exposures were not of
    health concern.''
        So there are differing points of view that one has to deal
    with in this business. And that makes all of our jobs and EPA's
    very difficult.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Cotruvo follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. Your time has passed, and we need to move
    on. We thank you.
        Dr. Steven Patierno, we are glad that you are here. And let
    me give your background to the folks. Executive Director of the
    George Washington Cancer Institute. We are very happy you are
    here. And is also Vivian Gil here with you?
        Mr. Patierno. I am sorry?
        Senator Boxer. Is Vivian Gil here with you?
        Mr. Patierno. No. Vivian Gil is a historical donor to the
    George Washington University endowing a professorship, which I
    hold.
        Senator Boxer. Aha, that is what I was going to say. It
    says, this is so funny, it says Vivian Gil Distinguished
    Professor of Oncology, so I thought she was a distinguished
    professor.
        [Laughter.]
        Senator Boxer. But we have you, and you are the
    distinguished professor. So we are thrilled that you are here.
    Go ahead.

      STATEMENT OF STEVEN R. PATIERNO, PH.D., EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR,
               GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY CANCER CENTER

        Mr. Patierno. Before I start, I would like to also quickly
    apologize for the length of my comments. I only found I was
    invited to attend this on Friday and just didn't have time to
    hone this down to exactly 5 minutes, as some of my colleagues
    have.
        Senator Boxer. We don't have a choice, because we need to
    go on. So please, go ahead. Do your best.
        Mr. Patierno. Madam Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe, and
    members of the Committee, thank you for this opportunity to
    address you today. As you have heard, my name is Steve
    Patierno, I am the Director of the GW Cancer Institute. I am
    also a professor of pharmacology and physiology in the School
    of Medicine and a professor of environmental and occupational
    health in the School of Public Health.
        I have been conducting research for over 31 years on
    hexavalent chromium, 23 of those funded by the National
    Institute of Environmental Health sciences and the National
    Cancer Institute. I have published many papers, served on many
    review committees. I would also like to disclose that although
    I have never worked for, consulted directly for any company
    associated with any chromium-related industry, over the course
    of 30 years of working in chromium, I have on seven occasions
    served as an expert for the defense in chromium litigation.
        A recent release issued by the Environmental Working Group
    entitled Chromium-6 in U.S. Tap Water reported that very low
    levels of hexavalent chromium were found in drinking water in
    31 U.S. cities. Most of the cities with the highest of these
    low levels of ambient chromium-6 have little or no proximity to
    any chromium-related industry, indicating that these levels
    likely constitute a natural background, results that are
    neither new nor unexpected. The report and the associated media
    coverage, which was purposeful in referring to chromium-6 as
    the carcinogenic Erin Brockovich chemical, has caused
    unnecessary fear and alarm, as these levels constitute no
    health risks to humans.
        It should be stated that there is a vast literature on
    occupational and industrial exposures to high doses of chromium
    compounds for long periods of time, a large literature on
    animal studies and defined systems. Valid conclusions are only
    drawn when complementary data come together and fundamental
    principles and practices of pharmacology and toxicology must be
    factored into an accurate analysis.
        Taken together, the consistent message is that only long-
    term high dose exposures to chromate dusts, as encountered in
    the chromate production pigment and plating industry have been
    associated with human cancer, and only for cancers of the
    respiratory tract. The same studies also showed there was no
    consistent association with any increased risk of other
    cancers. This is attested to by every major government
    international agency review ever written.
        All three major areas of risk related study, epidemiology,
    animal studies and cell culture provide clear evidence for very
    high threshold levels for both toxicity and carcinogenicity.
    And in fact, epidemiologic studies can identify no effect
    levels despite long-term occupational exposures that are
    factored over a 45 year work history. Likewise, published meta-
    analyses, investigated gastrointestinal tract cancers, and all
    of this analysis shows no significant risk in malignancy for
    any GI site.
        An often overlooked fact is Dr. John Morgan, an
    epidemiologist working for the State of California Cancer
    Registry has been tracking cancer incidence in the town of
    Hinckley, California, the Erin Brockovich town, for the past 15
    years. And he recently reported that not only is there no
    excess of total cancer or any specific type of cancer in
    Hinckley, there is actually fewer cancers than expected.
        Evidence for a very high threshold level for chromium
    carcinogenicity is found in the recent NTP animal studies where
    rodents were administered very high concentrations of chromium-
    6 in the drinking water continuously for 2 years. Tumors were
    only observed at the two highest doses, and they were so high
    the water was unpalatable to rodents. And they resulted in
    long-term chronic tissue damage. There is a figure in my
    comments. I would ask you to note the sharp high-dose threshold
    for toxicity and that no toxicological effects were observed,
    even at doses that are nearly five orders of magnitude, 100,000
    times higher than the average tap water concentration reported
    in the EWP report.
        Despite Hollywood depictions, chromium-6 is not potent as
    either a toxic or a carcinogen. Enormous quantities of chromium
    are needed to evoke any kind of toxicity in humans or animals.
    This is because humans have a many-tiered, innate mechanism of
    protection against chemical toxicities of any sort, including
    chromium. It is critical to understand that chromium compounds
    exist in two forms, a trivalent form, which is an essential
    element required for human physiology, and a hexavalent form.
    Hexavalent chromium is very, very rapidly and completely
    reduced to trivalent chromium by a number of protective
    mechanisms and fluids in the human body. And recent studies
    have shown that this conversion takes place in less than a
    minute.
        If it does reach a cell, there are intra-cellular
    mechanisms of protection that prevent it from directly
    interacting with DNA. So it is not correct to assume that if a
    vanishingly small amount of hexavalent chromium reaches a cell,
    it automatically becomes carcinogenic.
        [The prepared statement of Mr. Patierno follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. Thank you very much, sir.
        We are going to move to our final witness, Dr. Jeffrey
    Griffiths, Associate Professor, Department of Public Health and
    Community Medicine at Tufts.

       STATEMENT OF JEFFREY K. GRIFFITHS, MD, MPH AND TM, CHAIR,
      DRINKING WATER COMMITTEE, SCIENCE ADVISORY BOARD OF UNITED
      STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, PROFESSOR OF PUBLIC
      HEALTH AND OF MEDICINE, TUFTS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE

        Dr. Griffiths. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Ranking Member
    Senator Inhofe, members of the Committee. Good morning. I
    really appreciate this opportunity to testify.
        My name is Jeff Griffiths, I am actually a professor now at
    Tufts University. And I am Chair of the Science Advisory
    Board's Drinking Water Panel which advises the U.S. EPA. I am
    trained as a physician, internal medicine, pediatrics,
    infectious diseases, epidemiology. Relevant to this, I have
    been involved in regulation for about 15 years of drinking
    water contaminants. In fact, I was a member of both the
    National Academy of Sciences panel which recommended some
    changes in the way the EPA looks at unregulated contaminants,
    as well as the National Drinking Water Advisory Committee when
    it also then chewed on that report and then made some
    suggestions to the EPA.
        So I would just like to comment a bit on some of the ways
    in which I see there needs to be a sea change in the way these
    things are looked at. One of the things that is really
    important to acknowledge is there is a sea of new chemicals out
    there that we are finding. We are just finding more and more
    and more of them as detection capacity increases.
    Unfortunately, health effects data is really hard to get. It is
    expensive, it is time-consuming, et cetera. So we really only
    have health information on a small number of contaminants.
        So this, I think, means that the number of chemicals has
    essentially outstripped our capacity to get health information
    very easily.
        The second point that I would like to make along that line
    is of course that the health effects differ, depending on who
    you are. If you are a baby or pregnant mother or something like
    that, it is going to differ depending on what population you
    are part of.
        The next point that I would like to make is the need for
    transparency and a good public process. It forms a good, robust
    scientific basis for decisionmaking, because that means that
    things are out in the open. And also some confidence on the
    part of the public in terms of accepting the conclusions that
    are made about these compounds. And I would just comment that
    the 1998 contaminant list was considered quite murky and relied
    on expert opinion. You are going to hear a diversity of expert
    opinions about these contaminants. So I think the transparency
    is really important.
        I just wanted to go through the perchlorate story a little
    bit, because it seems to me that kind of illustrates these
    points. First off, we didn't really know that perchlorate was
    in the water until detection capacity improved. That happened
    in the 1990's. So then suddenly people were finding perchlorate
    everywhere. So that means that monitoring and actually, good
    monitoring is really critical.
        The second point that I would make along that line of the
    perchlorate story is that it has been known for a while that
    perchlorate affects thyroid function. But because of the
    interest in perchlorate there were new studies done, there is
    new animal data. And some of that animal data, for example,
    suggests that perchlorate acts on thyroid function in a
    different way than we had thought and at lower levels.
        So that is consistent, in fact, with data that was
    accumulated by the CDC in doing a study of nearly 3,000 people
    where they found that women living in Atlanta and throughout
    the Country had less thyroid hormone in their system if they
    had more perchlorate in their system. So there seemed to be
    some kind of an inverse relationship. So if you are exposed to
    perchlorate, you may have lower thyroid levels.
        And then I think that illustrates the point that once
    something gets on a list, it means there is going to be more
    science done about this thing. So it has to make it onto the
    list.
        The last point that I would like to make in this story is
    that if we didn't know anything about a specific sensitive
    population with perchlorate, we might have less concern. That
    is because perchlorate is concentrated in breast milk. So when
    a mother is nursing, she may be delivering high levels of
    perchlorate. And sort of perversely also less iodine than the
    baby needs. If you didn't look at that particular population,
    you wouldn't know this.
        And I have some data in here about that in my remarks. But
    the key thing is that by looking at a susceptible population,
    suddenly there is this new information that goes, ah, OK, so
    this is a group that is more susceptible not only inherently
    but because of the way mom delivers breast milk. So I think it
    is a really critical thing that there be data collected from
    susceptible populations.
        I want to comment that there were many people such as
    myself who were surprised that perchlorate was not identified
    for regulation in 2008. It was a controversial decision. And
    many people thought there was a lack of transparency around
    that. And that goes to the original point that I made, that
    transparency is really crucial in this.
        Drinking water contaminants are really high on the public
    discourse, and I think there are four things that have to be
    done. We have to look at groups of compounds for regulation. We
    need to devote sufficient resources, so that we can monitor
    these compounds. We have to look at health effects, both in the
    general population and in the susceptible populations. And
    last, the whole process has to be transparent, because this
    will maximize scientific credibility and public confidence.
        Thanks very much.
        [The prepared statement of Dr. Griffiths follows:]

    [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]

        Senator Boxer. Thank you.
        Senator Inhofe has asked if he can ask his questions first.
        Senator Inhofe. Mine will be very, very brief. I do have a
    lot of questions I want to ask for the record that I will be
    submitting.
        Dr. Patierno, I know that you have done extensive research
    into chromium-6, with particular emphasis on the carcinogenic
    and mutagenic efforts. As you know, my constituents in Norman,
    Oklahoma are very much concerned about this. I just wanted to
    get your expert opinion. First of all, is chromium-6 mutagenic?
    And second, are my constituents at health risk from drinking
    water at the low levels of chromium? I am talking about Norman,
    Oklahoma now, because I think you are aware of what is going on
    there.
        Mr. Patierno. Yes. Thank you for the question, Senator
    Inhofe. The question of whether hexavalent chromium is
    mutagenic has become a very interesting question. Those of us
    who work in DNA damage and carcinogenesis have known for years
    that in carefully contrived experimental conditions, we can
    force virtually any chemical to become carcinogenic, or excuse
    me, mutagenic. We have been concerned for a long time that in
    order to detect mutagenicity after exposure to chromium, one
    has to use enormous concentrations that actually kill the vast
    number of cells or tissue cells that get exposed.
        We have always been concerned about that. Recent studies
    have gone back in, actually sequenced the DNA sequence of the
    genes that we thought had been mutagenized, and found that the
    DNA sequence is still intact. And that has led to a current
    understanding, or an emerging understanding, that despite the
    fact that you can force chromium-6 to get into cells at very
    high doses and damage DNA, or bind to DNA, it appears that the
    mode of action is that we are killing cells and selecting for
    survivors.
        So that has raised very significant questions that came up
    2 months ago in the review panel for the toxicological review
    of chromium, and extensive discussion was made about that
    extensive question.
        Senator Inhofe. Are they at risk?
        Mr. Patierno. Are they at risk at the levels in tap water?
        Senator Inhofe. Yes.
        Mr. Patierno. Absolutely not.
        Senator Inhofe. OK, that is what I wanted them to hear.
        The last question I have is for Dr. Cotruvo. I appreciate
    your statement and your emphasis on fixing and maintaining
    infrastructure and reducing leaks and contamination. I was
    telling the Chairman here that I went through this experience
    when I became mayor of Tulsa. We had a deteriorated
    infrastructure.
        Do you think that the funding, the SRF program, the
    revolving fund program, would be important in accomplishing
    some of this infrastructure correction that we need?
        Mr. Cotruvo. Certainly, the financial demands are huge.
    Somehow we built all this without a lot of Federal support over
    the last 200 years. But it has really come to the point where
    there is significant infusion that is needed to get these
    systems back up. And probably Federal funds are going to be
    necessary.
        Senator Inhofe. But revolving funds is what I was referring
    to.
        Mr. Cotruvo. Yes.
        Senator Inhofe. OK, thank you very much. Thank you, Madam
    Chairman.
        Senator Boxer. Thank you.
        Dr. Patierno, I am struck by your confidence that chromium-
    6 is safe, and I am going to press you on that. First of all,
    you argue that too much was given to the animals. Isn't this
    what we do in science? Because of their life span, isn't that a
    normal test, that you give a lot to the animal so that you can
    see what is going on?
        Mr. Patierno. Yes, that is a standard procedure. I am not
    arguing that too much was given. What I am arguing is that so
    much was given that it was, it overwhelmed all possible
    protective mechanisms. And even at very, very, very high doses,
    not effect was observed until the two very highest doses, which
    went hand in glove with extensive toxicity to the tissue.
        Senator Boxer. But isn't that being conservative, in your
    approach? Isn't it the point? I understand that you have
    testified as a defense witness, isn't that correct, on
    chromium-6 cases?
        Mr. Patierno. I have on occasion.
        Senator Boxer. Yes, you have. You made money doing that?
        Mr. Patierno. I have.
        Senator Boxer. Yes, you have. I don't make money on any
    side of this thing. I am trying to protect the public, OK? So
    when you tell me too much was given, I want to be conservative
    about this.
        So Dr. Goldman, I think it gets to your point, and Dr.
    Griffiths as well, I would like to ask you to comment on the
    cumulative effect. You made the strong point, and I think Dr.
    Griffiths as well, what we are dealing with here, we are
    looking at something where if a little child is exposed, let's
    say even in utero and continues to be exposed to these
    contaminants, it is a cumulative impact, is it not, Dr.
    Goldman?
        Dr. Goldman. Yes, it is. It is a cumulative impact. It is
    also the impact of exposures over a lifetime. And I should say
    in the case of hexavalent chromium that this has been reviewed
    by expert bodies, like the International Agency for Research on
    Cancer. And they do conclude that it is a risky substance. They
    do not conclude that they can absolutely assure safety at the
    levels of exposure in the population.
        Senator Boxer. Dr. Griffiths?
        Dr. Griffiths. Thank you. The issue of mixtures of
    chemicals is really a big one. Because we have a way in science
    of doing this kind of dancing on the head of a pin where we
    have the chemical or no chemical. But the truth is we live and
    we drink water with lots of different things in it. And we have
    exposures not only through water but air and food and so forth.
    And we really don't have good tools for figuring that stuff
    out.
        So I think that we in fact do have to develop new tools.
    But also, what information we do have suggests that exposure to
    multiple chemicals, even at low levels, can be risky. So I
    think it is important to understand that sometimes it is not
    just one thing. It is like smoking and asbestos exposure. Your
    rates of lung cancer are really high if you both smoke and have
    exposure to asbestos. But they are much lower if you only do
    one.
        Mr. Patierno. May I comment?
        Senator Boxer. Dr. Patierno, yes, I am going to let you
    have the floor in a minute. I am going to ask you this
    question. The National Toxicology Program, which is part of the
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, found that
    chromium-6 in drinking water caused cancer in the studies of
    animals. And you have taken issue with how much they got, I
    don't know exactly what you said, you said, I don't think they
    got too much, but it is how much--I was confused on what you
    were talking about.
        And then the EPA's draft assessment on chromium-6 has found
    that this toxic heavy metal is ``likely to be carcinogenic to
    humans when consumed in water.'' So you take issue with this?
        Mr. Patierno. Madam Chairman, it is not just that I take
    issue. All nine members of the external review panel for the
    draft toxicological assessment of hexavalent chromium disagree
    with that assumption. It has to be qualified by dose. And the
    assessments that are done by international agencies on the
    carcinogenicity of chromium deal specifically with high level
    occupational exposures. And they even cite in the literature
    these are exposures as encountered in the chromate production
    pigment and plating industries. Because of the unique chemistry
    and biology of chromium, of hexavalent chromium, and the
    capability of our bodies to reduce hexavalent chromium very
    quickly to trivalent chromium, which is completely non-toxic,
    and in fact, is an essential element, make it unique among
    other chemicals and make it so that it is not scientifically
    sound to do a linear dose extrapolation at high doses.
        Senator Boxer. OK, OK, I get it. You don't agree with it. I
    get it. Now, is there anything you agree with? We have
    standards for 88 different chemicals, I am sure you are aware
    of this, over the years. Do you believe that these are safe and
    shouldn't have had standards associated with them?
        Mr. Patierno. I have not looked into any of the others. I
    was only invited here today to speak on----
        Senator Boxer. I know. But you are making a statement, you
    were a witness for the defense, I am questioning your
    objectivity. So I am trying to find out if you just feel that
    way on--I assume you think it is fine to limit the amount of
    chromium in the water, total chromium, is that correct?
        Mr. Patierno. Total chromium?
        Senator Boxer. Yes, total chromium, which is in fact
    regulated and has been for quite some time.
        Mr. Patierno. I am not sure I am following specifically
    your question.
        Senator Boxer. I am asking a question. There is 88--you are
    an expert--there are 88 chemicals that are regulated under the
    law where they have maximum contaminant levels. This piece of
    paper tells me that chromium is regulated. Are you aware of
    that?
        Mr. Patierno. Yes, I am.
        Senator Boxer. OK. Do you support that?
        Mr. Patierno. I do support that chromium needs to be
    regulated based on the occupational exposures that are so well
    characterized in the literature.
        Senator Boxer. This is drinking water. This isn't
    occupational. This is the Safe Drinking Water law of the land.
    Do you agree that there should be a limit on chromium in
    drinking water?
        Mr. Patierno. Madam Chairman, the question for me is not
    whether there should be. There of course should be. The
    question is at what level.
        Senator Boxer. OK, how about arsenic? Do you think we
    should regulate arsenic in drinking water? Yes or no?
        Mr. Patierno. Madam Chairman, I am here today to speak on
    hexavalent chromium.
        Senator Boxer. No, you are not really. You are not really.
    You are here because we are having an overview of the Safe
    Drinking Water program. And we are not asking you just on
    chromium. What about benzene? What about chlorine? Do you
    support that?
        Mr. Patierno. Any chemical that has potential toxicological
    impact needs to be evaluated and regulated. But each chemical
    needs to be evaluated based on the science supporting that
    specific chemical, the mechanisms of action of that chemical,
    the defense mechanisms that the body has against particular
    chemicals. All of that needs to be taken into consideration.
        One could argue using a different set of criteria that
    something as common and innocuous as acetaminophen shouldn't be
    on the market because two might control a headache but 50 could
    dissolve your liver and create a lethal situation. So it is all
    about dose and form and duration. And then the basic principles
    of toxicology which argue in this case that human beings have
    very, very, very strong defense mechanisms, particularly
    against low levels of hexavalent chromium.
        Senator Boxer. Well, good luck with that theory, because
    you ought to talk to some people who had exposure who don't
    feel that way. But you are a scientist, and I am saying to you,
    we have 88 different chemicals that are regulated here. And if
    people came with your attitude and appeared in court in favor
    of the defense, we wouldn't get anywhere. And we have a problem
    here, and that is why we called you together. Because since
    1998, we haven't regulated anything.
        And I think what you hear from the panel basically is, we
    may not have to regulate a lot of things. We agree that maybe,
    as Dr. Cotruvo said, existent in, and echoed by Dr. Griffith,
    they may be appearing in very small, minute quantities. And
    that is why we have to look at the risk factors, who is exposed
    to these, the cumulative impact, as Dr. Goldman suggested, and
    not just say, we appeared for the defense. That is just not
    going to get us anywhere, when money gets involved in the
    equation.
        We need to have pure science. And that is what I am for,
    pure science.
        Now, we will be very interested to see where the EPA takes
    it on perchlorate. And I could tell you that you just talked to
    my constituent here on perchlorate, when you have 800, what is
    it, 800 parts per billion?
        Mr. Araiza. Yes.
        Senator Boxer. Instead of six?
        Mr. Araiza. Yes.
        Senator Boxer. And you smell that, as I have, and you see
    it, it is scary. It is scary.
        Mr. Araiza. Yes.
        Senator Boxer. And we know the Safe Drinking Water Act is
    going to protect the most vulnerable. We are not talking about
    protecting a 250 pound man who is 6 foot 5 here. That is what
    we just to do. But guess what? A Boxer amendment a very long
    time ago did something your clients didn't like, Dr. Patierno.
    We said, you have to protect the most vulnerable child. That
    was my amendment, God bless it, it passed. And so, no, we are
    going to be conservative when we set these standards, and we
    are going to look to see how we can protect the most
    vulnerable.
        But I want to thank the panel. You have all been very, very
    helpful. We are going to move on and see what happens with
    these rules on chromium-6, on perchlorate. We are going to see
    what happens when the EPA adopts many of the recommendations
    made by the GAO, because clearly, no one can tell me that we
    are any safer today when we haven't even regulated one thing
    since 1998. It just doesn't add up, when you look at the rates
    of cancer out there. Let's just get real here.
        Especially I say to the doctors, we have cancer in people
    younger and younger. We have serious problems, we are spending
    billions of dollars, we don't have a cure. And I will be darned
    if I am going to sit here and allow us to say that this isn't
    important. This is very important and we are going to do our
    work.
        So we look forward to seeing the EPA's response. I am very
    encouraged by today's hearing, because I think the GAO's very
    good work is going to lead us to more science, hopefully less
    politics, more transparency and more action. So thank you very
    much, all of you, for being here today. We stand adjourned.
        [Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
        [Additional material submitted for the record follows.]

                 Statement of Hon. Jeff Sessions, U.S. Senator
                           from the State of Alabama

        Good morning Mr. Trimble and Dr. Perciasepe. Thank you for
    coming before our committee today.
        We are here today to consider EPA's implementation of the
    Safe Drinking Water Act, which is designed to protect our
    nation's drinking water supplies from harmful contamination. As
    the Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Water & Wildlife, I
    am interested in learning more about this topic.
        Under this law, EPA currently regulates more than 90
    drinking water contaminants--things like cryptosporidium,
    chlorine, E-coli, and arsenic, just to name a few. These are
    contaminants that we all want to ensure do not damage our
    drinking water. EPA is required by the Safe Drinking Water Act
    to periodically review existing standards as well as to
    consider whether new standards should be issued.
        I am aware that GAO has issued a report expressing an
    opinion that EPA should improve the way it decides whether to
    regulate additional contaminants. I am interested in learning
    more about that report.
        In addition, there are 4 issues, in particular, that I
    think we need to be sure to keep in mind.
        First, the Role of the States. The Safe Drinking Water Act,
    like many of our Federal environmental laws, is based on a
    concept known as ``cooperative federalism.'' EPA oversees the
    program, but the States have a critically important role in
    implementing and administering the program.
        In Alabama, our State environmental management agency works
    closely with more than 700 water systems in the State to ensure
    safe drinking water for our state's 4 million citizens. The
    State enforces compliance with the drinking water standards.
    There are monthly, quarterly, and annual monitoring and
    reporting requirements to ensure compliance. By and large, our
    State has very good drinking water, and I believe we have an
    effective drinking water program.
        We cannot lose focus of the fact that what we do here, at
    the Federal level, results in mandates on the states. Those
    mandates are, in large measure, usually unfunded. So, as we
    explore the possibility of greater regulation, we need to
    ensure there is close consultation with the states, as well as
    with the water systems themselves.
        Second, the Impact of New Standards on Water Systems and
    Water Users. When a new Federal MCL (maximum contaminant level)
    is issued, the water systems have to comply with that new
    standard. That becomes a new cost imposed on those who pay for
    the water. Rural water systems, in particular, often carry the
    heaviest burden when trying to comply with these standards. I
    think we need to be as flexible and reasonable as possible to
    ensure that excessive costs are not imposed on our rural
    communities.
        Third, the Role of Science--does the science justify new
    standards and the costs of those standards. If there are costs
    to be imposed, we need to make sure that the underlying
    decision to create any new standard is correct--based on the
    best available science. I think we need to know more about
    EPA's methodology for establishing drinking water standards,
    and in particular, EPA's ``IRIS'' system.
        Fourth, our Nation's serious infrastructure needs. As
    Senator Inhofe has articulated, we have an aging infrastructure
    in this Nation. Our water infrastructure is, in many cases,
    being used well beyond intended lifespans. I am interested in
    learning more about the impact of our aging infrastructure on
    our ability to ensure safe drinking water.
        Thank you.

     [GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]