[Senate Hearing 112-818]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 112-818
PUBLIC HEALTH AND DRINKING WATER ISSUES
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED TWELFTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 2, 2011
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gpo.gov
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
85-223 PDF WASHINGTON : 2014
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402-0001
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, Arizona
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
FEBRUARY 2, 2011
OPENING STATEMENTS
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M, U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma.... 3
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 7
Johanns, Hon. Mike, U.S. Senator from the State of Nebraska...... 8
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 9
Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming...... 11
Merkley, Hon. Jeff, U.S. Senator from the State of Oregon........ 13
Boozman, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Arkansas...... 13
Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico....... 13
WITNESSES
Jackson, Hon. Lisa, Administrator, Environmental Protection
Agency......................................................... 14
Prepared statement........................................... 15
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 19
Senator Inhofe........................................... 26
Senator Carper........................................... 42
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 45
Senator Whitehouse....................................... 47
Senator Boozman.......................................... 48
EPA, Emergency Administrative Orders:
Region 6, Final Peer Review, Range Resources
Corporation and Range Production Company....... 49
Region 8, Draft IRIS Toxicological Review, Murphy
Exploration & Production Co., Pioneer Natural
Resources USA, Inc., and Samson Hydrocarbons
Co............................................. 60
Birnbaum, Linda, D.A.B.T., A.T.S., director, National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences and National Toxicology
Program........................................................ 103
Prepared statement........................................... 105
Cook, Kenneth A., president, Environmental Working Group......... 126
Prepared statement........................................... 127
Study, Chromium-6 in U.S. Tap Water.......................... 133
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 156
Senator Carper........................................... 157
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 157
VanDe Hei, Diane, executive director, Association of Metropolitan
Water Agencies................................................. 158
Prepared statement of Carrie Lewis........................... 159
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 163
Senator Inhofe........................................... 164
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 167
Senator Carper........................................... 167
Murray, Charles, general manager, Fairfax Water.................. 168
Prepared statement........................................... 170
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Inhofe........................................... 172
Senator Carper........................................... 174
Burke, Thomas A, Ph.D., MPH, professor and associate dean for
Public Health Practice, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health, Director of the Johns Hopkins Risk Sciences and
Public Policy Institute........................................ 174
Prepared statement........................................... 176
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statement, Lewis, Steve, city manager, City of Norman, OK........ 187
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 188
Senator Inhofe........................................... 188
Senator Lautenberg....................................... 190
Senator Carper........................................... 190
PUBLIC HEALTH AND DRINKING WATER ISSUES
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 2, 2011
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in room
406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Boxer, Inhofe, Lautenberg, Cardin,
Whitehouse, Udall, Merkley, Barrasso, Johanns, and Boozman.
STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Good morning, everybody. The Committee will
come to order.
We have called this hearing today to focus on a public
health issue that touches every family in every community
across the country: the quality of our Nation's drinking water.
Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974 to protect
public health by creating consistent and strong safeguards for
the Nation's public drinking water supply.
The words that President Ford spoke when he signed this
legislation into law are as true today as they were then, so I
am going to quote him. He said, ``Nothing is more essential to
the life of every single American than clean air, pure food and
safe drinking water.'' He went on to say, there have been
strong national programs to improve the quality of our air and
the purity of our food. This bill, meaning the Water Bill, will
provide us with the protection we need for drinking water.
So President Ford, I believe, had it right. I think we need
to live up to the spirit of this law and the letter of this
law.
Congress last amended significant portions of the Act in
1996, strengthening public health protections and expanding the
public's right to know about the quality of the water that they
drink. The House passed these amendments 392 to 30; the Senate
passed them unanimously.
Both of the distinguished witnesses on our first panel,
Administrator Jackson and Director Birnbaum, are leading
efforts to use the best available science to protect the public
health. Administrator Jackson, EPA's very mission, as you know,
is to protect human health and the environment. You have told
us that many times. A core principle of your agency is ``to
ensure that national efforts to reduce environmental risks are
based on the best available scientific information.'' That is
what you have told us.
As I said last week when I participated at a town hall at
EPA headquarters, the mission that you undertake every day,
Administrator Jackson, is critically important to children and
to families, the elderly in communities large and small all
across our great country. Your mission matters. It is a mission
created with bipartisan support and one that has made huge
strides to improve our families' and our Nation's health.
The EPA is also charged with making the final decision on
whether to develop safeguards for new threats to drinking
water, such as chromium VI and perchlorate. We would like to
applaud your announcement today, Administrator Jackson, that
the EPA will move forward to establish a national drinking
water standard for perchlorate. Perchlorate is a toxic chemical
contained in rocket fuel. It does not belong in our drinking
water. Yet, according to the Government Accountability Office,
EPA data show that perchlorate has been found in 35 States and
the District of Columbia, and is known to have contaminated 153
public water systems in 26 States.
The Bush administration never did set a drinking water
standard for perchlorate, leaving millions of Americans in
dozens of states at risk. But after reviewing the science, you
reversed that decision, and I applaud you for that. I look
forward to the agency moving quickly to put in place a strong
national standard to protect public drinking water from this
dangerous contaminant.
Chromium VI is another drinking water contaminant that I
have urged the Federal Government to address. Chromium is used
to make steel, metal plating and other materials. We all know
the story of Erin Brockovich, who worked to help the people in
Hinkley, California, who were drinking water contaminated by
chromium VI. In 2008, the National Toxicology Program concluded
that chromium VI in drinking water shows ``clear evidence of
carcinogenic activity in laboratory animal tests.''
In 2009, my home State of California proposed a public
health goal for chromium VI of 0.06 parts per billion. One year
later, in 2010, my State strengthened its proposal to .02 parts
per billion, based on the need to protect infants and children
from danger-causing substances. We all know that infants,
children and pregnant women are far more vulnerable to these
toxins.
In September 2010, EPA released a draft scientific
assessment that found chromium VI in drinking water is ``likely
to be carcinogenic to humans.'' The agency had said it expects
to finish this assessment in 2011.
The non-profit Environmental Working Group released a
report that provided us with a snapshot in time on chromium VI
levels in some drinking water systems. They found chromium VI
in the drinking water in 31 cities across our country. I
believe the Federal Government must act quickly to develop
needed safeguards to reduce the threats in our Nation's
drinking water. I look forward to hearing about the work that
EPA is engaged in to address chromium VI and other emerging
contaminants.
I do want to welcome our new members, Senator Johanns. We
welcome you, sir, we are delighted you are with us. Also
Senator Sessions and Senator Boozman are also new members. I
want to welcome them, even though they are not here. They will
be strongly welcomed by all of us. Thank you.
Senator Inhofe.
STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE
OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman, for taking time
to continue our discussions on the Federal drinking water
program. I know that everyone in this room agrees that we all
need safe, clean, drinking water.
To carry out this priority effectively, we need resources,
but we also need sound policy based on the best available
science. Madam Chairman, I counted in your opening statement,
you said the same thing three times, best available science. I
feel confident that the recent drinking water report by the
Environmental Working Group, which we are working on today,
does not fall into that category. Simply put, the report is
biased, and therefore the conclusions are skewed to fit a
particular viewpoint, or I should say agenda, perhaps.
What is more, the Environmental Working Group has rejected
transparency, one of the fundamental practices of good science.
When the city officials from Norman, OK requested the
Environmental Working Group's testing methodology, they said
no. Without transparency, without the ability of other
scientists to replicate your work, you can't have good science.
Due to the snowstorm in Oklahoma, Steven Lewis, who was
going to be one of our witnesses, and I appreciate your
allowing him to come, however, he can't come, because he can't
get here. He was unable to travel here. His testimony can help
us put some context around the Environmental Working Group's
flawed findings and help us understand the robust public health
protections Norman has in place. That is Norman, OK.
He has agreed to answer the followup questions that the
Committee might have, and I would respectfully request, of
course, that his testimony be part of the record.
Senator Boxer. Yes, without objection, so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Lewis follows on page 187.]
Senator Inhofe. I also welcome the testimony of Charles
Murray, city manager for Water from the city of Fairfax. Some
of these guys are going to have to do double duty, since my
witness couldn't show up today. Mr. Murray will no doubt
provide some practical insights into how local water systems
are dealing with chromium VI and other drinking water mandates.
I also want to make a special note and welcome the
Administrator, Lisa Jackson. Administrator, it is good to see
you, as always. I want to thank you for your willingness last
year to work with me specifically and my staff on some of the
real difficult issues. I also want to thank you for your help
on passing several key pieces of legislation that were drafted
in this Committee. With your help, we passed a bill to reduce
lead in drinking water and a bill to provide grants to States
to reduce diesel emissions.
I want you to know that I sent a spy into your office and
they tell me that the picture of my 20 kids and grandkids are
still there. So I appreciate that, too.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. As we look at the next 2 years, obviously
there are many contentious issues ahead, many issues where we
have fundamental disagreements. They include, and we have
talked about, among the Republicans on this side of the aisle,
and particularly the three new ones we are welcoming to this
Committee. That is, regulating the greenhouse gases under the
Clean Air Act. This is something that Congressman Upton and I
have a joint--we were going to announce this today and
apparently it got out last night instead, so we will be talking
about that. The boiler MACT, the utility MACT, PM dust, that is
regulating dust on farms. Those of us in western States
understand that if you have cotton and you have dirt and you
have wind, you are going to have dust. We need to talk about
that. The ozone changes that are recommended. Then hydraulic
fracturing, I may have some questions today on that.
So we disagree on this issues, yet we have in the past and
let's keep an open line of communication. Administrator
Jackson, I am sure we will, because there could be areas where
we can reach agreement as we did before. The lead bill and the
diesel bill are just two examples of what we can do. So I wish
you all the best as we head into the new Congress.
Now, let me welcome our three new members. Senator Sessions
is not here. He was on the Committee some time ago, then
dropped off, and he is back now. Senator Boozman will be here.
He has been a very good friend of mine for many years, from
Arkansas. Senator Johanns will have a lot to offer. Having been
the Secretary of Agriculture, he brings an abundance of
knowledge to this Committee. So we welcome our new members
here, and thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. 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 clean, safe, affordable drinking
water is essential, and should be a national priority.
To carry out this priority effectively, we need resources, but we
also need sound policy, based on the best available science. I feel
confident that the recent drinking water report by the Environmental
Working Group, which we are focusing on today, does not fall in that
category.
Put simply, the report is biased, and therefore the conclusions are
skewed to fit a particular view point. What's more, the EWG has
rejected transparency, one of the fundamental practices of good
science. When city officials from Norman, Oklahoma requested EWG's
testing methodology, EWG said no. Without transparency--without the
ability of other scientists to replicate your work--you can't have good
science.
We've seen this scenario before. An activist group publishes a
study--in this case, on chromium-6--making a dramatic finding about
some kind of harm to the environment or public health. Rarely, however,
are the findings of such studies carefully scrutinized or rigorously
analyzed in the media.
EPA already regulates chromium in all its valance forms, 0, 3 and
6, together in its total chromium MCL-G and MCL. While chromium-3 is an
essential nutrient that we need to properly metabolize glucose, protein
and fat, chromium-0 and chromium-6 are of concern to public health. As
recently as March 2010, EPA had determined that the 100 ppb MCL for
chromium is still protective of human health, based on the science
available, but that they were examining the new science.
The new science that EPA is currently examining is from a 2007
National Toxicology Program study showing the potential carcinogenic
properties of chromium-6. In the press release on the study's findings,
the NTP noted that:
``rats and mice were given four different doses of [chromium-6] in
their drinking water ranging from 14.3 milligrams/liter to 516
milligrams/liter for 2 years. The lowest doses given to the animals in
the study were ten times higher than what humans could consume from the
most highly contaminated water sources identified in California.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water Causes Cancer in Lab
Animals,'' NIH Press Release May 16, 2007, http://www.nih.gov/news/pr/
may2007/niehs-16.htm
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a result of this study, EPA is proposing to classify chromium-6
as ``likely to be carcinogenic'' to humans via ingestion. As of now,
EPA plans to make a final determination about the carcinogenicity of
chromium-6 in 2011. The agency has a lot of intensive scientific work
to do. I would encourage EPA to ensure that it considers all of the
best available science when making its final decision and not rush to
conclusions.
Additionally, EPA needs to do a better job of communicating to the
public the process they are going through. Good science sometimes seems
frustratingly slow. However, when we are making decisions about how to
spend limited resources and ensure we're focusing on the contaminants
of highest public health concern, we have an obligation to get it right
the first time.
Unfortunately, none of this helps Norman, or the 30 other
communities singled out by the EWG. The residents are surely confused
about the EWG's study. At first glance, the findings seem ominous, but
upon closer inspection, one can see how the study, particularly how it
was couched, is mainly hype.
Let's take Norman as an example. The EWG found that Norman's tap
water had a 12.5 ppb concentration of chromium-6. Of course that
concentration is significantly lower than the 100 ppb drinking water
standard set by EPA. What's more, it's almost meaningless when compared
to the 14,300-516,000 ppb concentration that caused cancer in rats in
the NTP study.
So what was EWG's reference point? EWG compared its samples to the
draft California health goal of 0.06 ppb, which they argued was too
high. California public health goals are not regulatory, but instead
set to a standard under which no adverse health effects occur over a
lifetime, or a one in a million chance of this contaminant contributing
to cancer. Additionally, around the same time as this report the
California Cancer Registry survey for Hinkley, CA, where the now famous
Erin Brockovich case was settled, found that Hinkley did not have any
statistical increase in cancer during the time when people drank water
that exceeded 550 ppb.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Fewer cancers found in Hinkley than expected,'' Louis
Sahagun, LA Times, December 13, 2010. http://www.latimes.com/news/
local/la-me-hinkley-cancer-20101213,0,7881571.story
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, this was no random sample of 35 cities. EWG says in
their report that, ``Over the years, nearly all of the 35 cities tested
by EWG regularly report finding chromium (in the form of total
chromium) in their water despite using far less sensitive testing
methods than those used by EWG.''\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Chromium-6--the Erin Brockovich Chemical--Is Widespread in U.S.
Tap Water, Environmental Working Group, December 20, 2010 http://
static.ewg.org/reports/2010/chrome6/html/home.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is one of many oddities in the EWG study.
A basic tenet of good science is transparency--that is, sharing
your data and assumptions so other scientists can replicate your work.
In this case, the EWG has taken the opposite course. City officials in
Norman pressed EWG for basic information on its study, such as where
and when EWG sampled water. Thus far, EWG refused to answer, indicating
to me at least that EWG either lacks confidence in its methods and
conclusions or did not intend this report to be more than a scare
tactic. Otherwise, what is EWG trying to hide?
It is clear that the EWG report was released to influence both
California and EPA to take some action on chromium-6, which both have.
California announced it was lowering its public health goal and EPA put
out guidance for drinking water systems on how to test for chromium-6,
though they gave no indication of how to report the potential health
effects to consumers.
I hope that we can have rational discussions about how to properly
regulate contaminants in drinking water. In this case, as in others,
political tracts disguised as scientific studies are taken as fact, and
the consequence is usually more regulation. That in turn can mean high
costs for little or no benefit for local communities.
In 1996, Congress successfully amended the Safe Drinking Water Act,
and set up a system to ensure that we regulate substances in drinking
water in a scientifically sound way. EPA is required to set standards
if contaminants ``have known health effects,'' and are ``known to occur
in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health
concern,'' not simply because they catch media attention.
This committee has had success in dealing with drinking water
issues in the past. In fact, just last Congress, Madam Chairman, you
and I were able to co-sponsor and pass legislation clarifying the
definition of ``lead free'' as it relates to drinking water--lowering
the statutorily allowable limit from 8 percent to 0.25 percent.
I would also like to take the opportunity to remind the Committee
that 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. We cannot expect our communities to continue to
provide safe drinking water if they do not have the resources to meet
their infrastructure needs. This committee has the responsibility to
ensure clean, safe, and affordable water for our country by providing
the necessary resources to our states and local governments.
EPA estimates that over the next 20 years, eligible drinking water
systems will need over $300 billion in infrastructure investments, and
that is not taking into account treatment costs for any of the
chemicals we are discussing being added. I look forward to working with
you and the Chair and Ranking Members of the Water Subcommittee on our
next bill.
Due to the severe snow fall in Oklahoma, Steven Lewis, the City
Manager from Norman was unable to travel to be with us today. Mr.
Lewis's testimony can help put some context around the EWG's findings,
and help us understand the robust public health protections Norman has
in place. He has agreed to answer any follow-up questions that the
committee may have. I would respectfully request that Mr. Lewis's
testimony be included for the record. I also welcome the testimony of
Charles Murray, General Manager for water for Fairfax County, across
the river in Virginia. Mr. Murray will no doubt provide some practical
insights into how a local water system is dealing with chromium-6 and
other drinking water mandates.
I also want to make special note to welcome EPA Administrator Lisa
Jackson. Administrator, it's good to see you. I want to thank you for
your willingness last year to work with me and my staff on some very
difficult issues. I also want to thank you for your help in passing
several key pieces of legislation that were drafted in this committee.
With your help, we passed a bill to reduce lead in drinking water and a
bill to provide grants to states to reduce diesel emissions.
As we look to the next 2 years, obviously there are many
contentious issues ahead--many issues where we have fundamental
disagreements. They include:
Regulating greenhouse gases under the Clean Air Act;
The Boiler MACT;
The Utility MACT;
PM Dust;
Ozone; and
Hydraulic Fracturing
Yes, we disagree on these issues. Yet, as we have in the past,
let's keep an open line of communication, because there could be areas
where we can reach agreement. The lead bill and the diesel bill are
just two examples of what can happen if we do that.
So Administrator Jackson, I wish you all the best as we head into a
new Congress. Thank you for coming today, and I look forward to your
testimony.
I would also like to extend a warm welcome to our new Republican
members to our Committee this Congress. Welcome Senator Sessions,
Senator Johanns and Senator Boozman. We are happy to have you on our
committee and look forward to working with you this Congress. And a
welcome back to all our returning committee members, Republican and
Democrat.
Thank you again, Madam Chairman, for holding this important
hearing, and I look forward to hearing from all of our witnesses.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much. Senator.
I just want to go through the order of arrival on our side.
It is Boxer, Cardin, Lautenberg, Merkley, Udall. On the
Republican side, Inhofe, Johanns and Barrasso.
So we will now go to Senator Cardin.
STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you for
calling this hearing on this extremely important subject.
Welcome, Administrator Jackson and Dr. Birnbaum, to our
Committee. We look forward to your continuing to work with us
to make sure that all people in this country have clean and
safe water.
I think for many years in the wake of seminal laws like the
Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, many of us
took for granted that our water would be safe. But when you
hear the stories and accounts now that we are finding chromium
VI in our water supplies, it raises serious questions as to
whether we are doing everything we need to make sure our water
supplies are safe. I add to that the fact that my constituents
of Prince Georges County had to boil water because of water
main breaks. That also raises questions as to the availability
of clean, safe water to the people of this Nation.
That is why I am so glad we have the Environmental
Protection Agency, whose job it is under the Safe Drinking
Water Act to study chemicals and compounds in our drinking
water and decide what is safe and what isn't, and set standards
for treatment that protect that health. It is a job that agency
did today when it reversed the Bush-era decision and announced
that it will set standards for perchlorate, a chemical that we
know impairs brain development in fetuses and young children. I
congratulate the EPA for doing that, Administrator Jackson.
I feel better, and I think my constituents feel better,
knowing that we can turn to Administrator Jackson, a fierce
protector of public health and the environment, and ask, what
does it mean when the Environmental Working Group found that
chromium-6 is in tap water in Bethesda, MD, and what should we
do about it. We know that not only is it her job to tell us,
but she has, and her staff has, the scientific knowledge and
skills to give us the answers or will work to find the answers
to those issues.
But for 400,000 Marylanders and those in Prince Georges
County that spent much of last week boiling their water, know
that it is not just getting the dangerous chemicals, that is
not enough to make the water supply safe. For high quality
water, we need high quality water infrastructure.
On Monday of last week, a major water main break in Prince
Georges County not only destroyed cars and caused serious
damage to a local business park, it shut down a portion of the
Capital Beltway, it disrupted regular work of the Census Bureau
headquarters and Andrews Air Force Base, it shut down local
businesses and schools and required 400,000 residents to boil
their water to ensure its safety. That task I am sure was made
much more difficult during the snow storm when power was cutoff
to many of those residents.
We had another dramatic break in Maryland in recent years
when we saw River Road in Bethesda turn literally into a river,
requiring motorists to be rescued by helicopters and boats. In
October 2009, a thousand basements in Dundalk, MD, were
underwater. In March 2010, thousands more homes and businesses
along major thoroughfares in Baltimore County were left without
water.
Madam Chair, this story could be told in just about every
community in our country. The major water main breaks that have
become near epidemic in our region and elsewhere tell us that
major parts of the system are too old and too frail to hold
together too much longer. The breaks are more than an
inconvenience, they can endanger the health and safety of our
citizens, as well as disrupt economic activity and our national
security.
That is one of the reasons why our water infrastructure has
been given a rating of D minus by our national engineers. The
Environmental Protection Agency estimates that more than $340
billion will be needed over the next 20 years to meet the
Nation's drinking water infrastructure needs.
For these reasons, I have asked the President to include
water in his 6-year plan for infrastructure investment. While
water mains are less visible than roads and bridges, they are
just as important to our economy and in equally desperate need
of repair. That is why as Chairman of the Water and Wildlife
Subcommittee, I will have no higher priority than
reauthorization the Water Infrastructure Financing Act. I look
forward to working with Administrator Jackson, Chairman Boxer,
Senator Inhofe and the members of our Committee to report out
again, I hope, a Water Infrastructure Financing Act, and
hopefully to get it enacted.
Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank you once again for
holding this hearing.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
Senator Boozman, we welcomed you, both sides, and we are
very happy to see you here today.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. So, Senator Johanns.
STATEMENT OF HON. MIKE JOHANNS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
NEBRASKA
Senator Johanns. Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
As you pointed out, this is my first meeting, so it is kind
of my maiden voyage on this Committee. I won't speak long.
I just wanted to offer a thought or two if I could to maybe
frame how I am thinking about this and what I will be
interested in as you testify and we ask questions. In another
life, some years ago, I had the privilege to serve the city of
Lincoln as their mayor for two terms. The city of Lincoln, NE,
has a strong mayor form of government, so the mayor is not only
the mayor in terms of the ceremonial duties, but is also the
city manager, a separate city manager is not hired.
During that period of time, under my jurisdiction was the
Lincoln water system, which today does an excellent job, did an
excellent job then. I think it one of the most forward-leaning,
forward-looking water systems really in the country.
The perspective I would offer is this. There is nobody out
there employed by any water system that wants to provide a
dangerous product to their customers. Their customers rely upon
that source of water, they want to know that it is safe to
drink, not only for them but for their children and their
babies.
The thing that we were always struggling with, though, is
how do deal with the requirements in a way that not only
provided that safety but allowed us to be able to go to
customers and say, this additional expenditure of money that we
are going to do is justified by good science and a thoughtful
approach. Typically that would come from the Federal
Government. That is important. We have to make the case. It is
one thing for us to sit here in Washington and issue rules and
regulations, which I have done also as a former Secretary of
Agriculture. It is quite another thing for the people on the
ground delivering the service to make the case to that customer
clientele that in fact this is the right course of action and
it is justified.
So when I press on issues like this, and hopefully ask
good, thoughtful, tough questions, it is because somewhere out
there, someone is trying to make the case that the requirements
are in fact justified.
Final thing I am going to mention, it is interesting how
quickly word spreads of new committee assignments, because I
already got a letter from one of our water systems in Nebraska,
I will make that a part of the record at the appropriate time,
raising these same basic issues. Just making the case that,
look, we want to provide a safe product, we also want to assure
our clientele that the investment that we will be making is
justified under the science that is available.
Madam Chair, I thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
Senator Lautenberg.
STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman. I welcome
our distinguished testifiers here, Lisa Jackson and Dr.
Birnbaum. They come with a lot of experience and a lot of
concerns about what we might be able to do to protect our
health and well-being better.
Clean, safe drinking water is essential in our health and
especially for the well-being of our children. Under the Safe
Drinking Water, we have made big strides in cleaning our
country's water supply. But too many people are still drinking
water that is contaminated with dangerous pollutants. Too
often, public water supplies are found to be in violation of
EPA standards. But the public health is at risk, even when
water doesn't violate the law, because EPA has either failed to
set limits on pollution at law, but much of that is because of
restrictions that prevent them from doing so, or because the
limits are too weak.
Since 2004, more than 62 million Americans have been
exposed to drinking water that meets EPA standards but actually
contains potentially harmful contaminants, including some that
are toxic. In fact, research shows that there are more than 140
chemicals in our drinking water that EPA does not regulate. In
some parts of our country, these chemicals include gasoline
additives and pesticides. In other States, drinking water
contains the so-called fracking chemicals, which are used to
produce natural gas. In some communities near drilling rigs,
you can turn on the tap and literally light the water.
As if that isn't disturbing enough, last year, chromium VI,
a carcinogen linked to leukemia, stomach cancer and other
cancers, was found in the water supplies of 31 America cities.
These cities include some of the Nation's largest, like New
York, Los Angeles, Boston, Phoenix and Washington, DC. Chromium
pollution is also a major problem in our State of New Jersey.
So this is an issue that hits close to home for me, as well as
EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson, who previously led the State's
Department of Environmental Protection. We miss you there, but
we would rather see you here. The reach for the health and
well-being of kids is much better with your post here.
Make no mistake, when Administrator Jackson arrived at EPA,
she had plenty of work cut out for her. Under President Bush,
the EPA was required on several occasions to consider setting
limits on contaminants found in drinking water. But each and
every time that EPA was given an opportunity to improve water
safety during those years, the agency sat on its hands and
decided not to regulate. Fortunately, under Administrator
Jackson's leadership, the EPA is moving in the right direction,
and working on the public's behalf.
As we are going to hear today, Ms. Jackson 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. Administrator Jackson is making good
use of the tools she has under the Safe Drinking Water Act, but
the bill itself limits the EPA's ability to protect the
public's right to know.
Now, 25 years ago, I authored the Right to Know Law on
toxic chemical releases, to make sure that people knew about
potentially hazardous substances in their communities. The
public also has a right to know what's in their water. That is
why I will soon introduce the Drinking Water Right to Know Act.
The Safe Drinking Water only allows EPA to require temporary
monitoring of small groups of unregulated contaminants. So the
public has no idea that they might be drinking water laden with
unregulated contaminants like chromium VI and gasoline
additives and other toxins.
My bill would fix this problem by allowing EPA to require a
targeted increase in monitoring for unregulated pollutants that
could be hazardous. In addition, my bill would require EPA to
make information on contaminants in drinking water more readily
available online and in simple 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, Madam Chairman, to hearing from our
witnesses about how we can all work together to meet this
challenge. My friend and colleague mentioned his grandchildren,
and the beauty of the grandchildren. Their beauty will be
considerably enhanced for your grandchildren and my
grandchildren. Smiles will get better if the water isn't
attacking their well-being.
Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Barrasso.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
WYOMING
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I would like to add to the comments from Senator Johanns,
and I would also like to thank the witnesses for testifying
today on such an important matter.
Madam Chairman, there has been an onslaught of job-crushing
regulations emerging from the Environmental Protection Agency
over the last 2 years. Employment in this country is 9.4
percent. Regulations coming out of the EPA are devastating to
the American economy.
Despite the fact that the American people rejected cap and
trade, the EPA continues to press forward. Charles Krauthammer
wrote in the Washington Post an editorial entitled ``Who Makes
the Laws, Anyway?'' In it he says, ``Administrators administer
the law, they don't change it. That's the legislators' job.''
I don't see that the Environmental Protection Agency has
learned that constitutional lesson. The EPA has continued to
move forward with job-crushing Clean Air Act regulations for
greenhouse gases. Washington Times reporter Richard Rahn stated
in a piece entitled ``Obama's Regulatory Reform Test'' that
``Well-qualified independent economists have estimated this
will cost the United States in lost foreign investment roughly
$100 billion a year and many thousands, thousands of jobs.'' He
bluntly stated the Environmental Protection Agency's climate
policies amounted to ``national economic suicide.''
As the Wall Street Journal pointed out on January 24th,
despite the President's executive order to have the EPA do a
simple cost estimate of its regulations, the EPA issued a
statement saying that it was ``confident'' that it wouldn't
need to change a single rule. Respectfully, Madam
Administrator, that sounds arrogant.
I will tell you the Environmental Protection Agency went
further and stated that its rules consistently yield billions
in cost savings that make them among the cost-effective in the
Government.
The most recent example of EPA abuse fits well within
today's hearing's subject matter. It is the EPA's abuse of
power to use the Clean Water Act to consider climate change in
approving TMDLs, or the total maximum daily loads for
communities. A TMDL is a plan to reduce overall loading of a
particular substance to a body of water. The economic impact of
an overly restrictive TMDL can be devastating to communities.
It would stop expansion of a sewer system to put in a new
housing development or a small business or a factory. It could
increased the sewer rates on existing customers, which could
limit any new land use activity that could impact the loading.
This includes activities such as forestry and farming.
Now the EPA wants to consider the potential, potential
effects of climate change on water bodies. No one can predict
what the effect would be of a changing climate on a body of
water years into the future. Not even the oracles at the
Environmental Protection Agency can do that. In fact, in the
EPA's most recent and rigorous review of the impacts of climate
change on water, it mentions the ``uncertainty,'' the
uncertainty of climate change effects, 47 times in the 72 pages
report. Yet the EPA wants to potential open up all 43,658
approved TMDLs across all 50 States and territories and now,
factor in climate change. This would eliminate any certainty in
existing and future investment in new factories and small
business across the country.
The only thing that is certain is Congress didn't approve
this sweeping, job-crushing idea. Anti-job activists did, and
they did it behind closed doors at the Environmental Protection
Agency.
We need to send a message to the EPA that the days of
legislating without Congress are over. The consent of the
governed is re-established. That is why I have introduced
Senate Bill 228, the Defending America's Affordable Energy and
Jobs Act. I have done it with 10 of my fellow Senators. This
bill establishes that Congress shall set the Nation's energy
and climate and policy, and eliminate these job-crushing
regulations.
I thank the Chairman and look forward to the testimony.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
As chair of this Committee, I want to put in the record
with unanimous consent the Supreme Court decision that said the
following: ``Because greenhouses gases fit well within the
Clean Air Act's definition of air pollutant, we hold that EPA
has the statutory authority to regulate the emission of such
gases.''
This is a hearing about clean water. Senator, you had every
right to say whatever you want. But it is not consistent with
the topic before us.
But I wanted to put this into the record, because I thought
you might go in this direction. I think it is important to note
that if the EPA failed to regulate carbon pollution, they would
be going against the Clean Air Act and against the Supreme
Court decision. We are a country of laws, not people, no matter
how strongly we feel. I think those people who want to repeal
the Clean Air Act, should go ahead and do it. You want to
repeal it, you have every right.
But the fact is, to attack an agency that is carrying out
the law is totally inappropriate. That is just how I feel about
it.
[The referenced document was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. Senator Inhofe, you can have a minute to
respond.
Senator Inhofe. Well, let me respond. It is my
understanding of the Court that they gave the authority to the
EPA to do that but not a mandate to do it. So that discretion
was made by the EPA. I think that needs to be part of this UC.
Senator Lautenberg. Madam Chairman----
Senator Boxer. Well, just a moment. We could go back and
forth. The EPA had the responsibility to make an endangerment
finding. That was under the law. If they found via the science
that there is a danger to the people from carbon pollution,
they had to pass this finding, which they did.
But I am really going to cut this off now, because we
really will have lots of opportunity as we look at your law and
the kinds of things we want to do on our side. But we are just
going to move forward.
Senator Inhofe. Well, let me just respond to the comment on
the endangerment finding.
Senator Boxer. Well, this could go on all day.
Senator Inhofe. I know----
Senator Boxer. Who has the last word?
Senator Lautenberg. Well, if we are going to go on, I want
to go on also.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Madam Chairman, I will address my part
during my questions.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. If everyone can address their
part during the question time. I think we see the divide here
very clearly. It is healthy, it is not unhealthy that we have
this divide. It is the fact. We will deal with it. We all want
a Highway Bill.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. But we also, I think, all want clean air. So
we will be taking these things up.
All right, getting back. We now will hear from Senator
Merkley, followed by Senator Boozman, followed by Senator
Udall, and then we will get to our witnesses.
Senator Merkley.
STATEMENT OF HON. JEFF MERKLEY, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
OREGON
Senator Merkley. Thank you, Administrator Jackson and Dr.
Birnbaum, for coming, and for your work to ensure safe drinking
water for all Americans.
I appreciate the work of the EPA on helping to establish an
appropriate testing regime for cryptosporidium in the Bull Run
and also for your hard work on the tailoring rule to put
biomass into the proper life cycle context. So I look forward
to your testimony today and thank you.
Senator Boxer. That was amazingly brief.
[Laughter.]
Senator Boxer. You caught me by surprise.
Senator Boozman.
STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BOOZMAN, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF
ARKANSAS
Senator Boozman. Thank you. I will follow in the Senator's
footsteps. It sounds like we need to move on and that the
question period is going to be interesting.
I was the Ranking Member on Water Resources, and had the
opportunity of working with both of the witnesses over there,
and look forward to working with them in the future. These are
very serious problems. I think the key is, as we move forward,
we have to have sound science, we have to have sound
methodology to back things up.
Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, Senator.
Senator Udall.
STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW
MEXICO
Senator Udall. Madam Chair, there maybe a stampede here. I
am going to put my opening statement into the record, so we can
get directly to the witnesses.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you, that is very kind.
Administrator Jackson, we welcome you and please, go ahead.
STATEMENT OF HON. LISA JACKSON, ADMINISTRATOR, ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Jackson. Good morning, Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member
Inhofe and members of the Committee. I will ask permission for
my opening statement to also be put into the record, and I will
just give a few remarks here in the interest of time.
Thank you for inviting me to discuss the safety of our
Nation's water. As we sit here every day across the country,
Americans, rural areas and urban areas, rich, poor, red States
and blue States, turn on their taps with one expectation, that
the water that comes out will be safe for them and for their
families to drink. The EPA, along with the States, who
implement our Nation's drinking water laws, are responsible for
ensuring that our water is safe, which means addressing not
only infrastructure, but new and emerging contaminants as they
present themselves to us, and if they affect the public health,
especially the health of our children.
Today I am pleased to announce that EPA has begun the
process of controlling toxic contamination of the chemical
commonly known as perchlorate in our drinking water.
Perchlorate is a toxic component of rocket fuel. It is not
naturally occurring; it can cause thyroid problems and may
disrupt the normal growth and development of children in the
womb.
This decision has been years in the making, but it is
essentially about two things. First and foremost, it is about
protecting the health of the between 5 million and 17 million
Americans that have perchlorate in the water that they drink.
Second, this decision is about following the science.
Perchlorate has been studied and reviewed for years. The
science has led to this decision. It has been peer-reviewed by
independent scientists, by public health experts and many
others.
The next step for us is to update our laws in a way that is
sensible and practical for protecting the health of the
American people. So when we do that, as we look at our
regulations for perchlorate, we will look at the feasibility
and affordability of treatment systems, the costs and the
benefits of potential standards, and of course, we will make
sure our approach continues to be based on sound, up to date
science.
We will also continue to make sure that we act as quickly
as possible to protect our health from emerging threats in our
drinking water, including one we also heard about this morning,
hexavalent chromium, also called chromium VI, a toxic chemical
and contaminant that is already a well-known human carcinogen
when it is inhaled. The issue now is that recent animal
testing, publicly available, has demonstrated carcinogenicity
that is associated with ingesting chromium VI in drinking
water. That discovery, along with the recent report by the
Environmental Working Group that found elevated levels of
chromium VI at the tap in 20 public water systems, has
heightened public concern about chromium VI.
Now, this report was a snapshot in time. But it is
consistent with other studies that we have seen that have
detected chromium VI in public water systems. As with
perchlorate, science will guide all of our actions on chromium
VI. We are working to finalize our human health assessment for
the chemical. There will be an independent and external
scientific peer review this spring. We expect to finalize our
health assessment by the end of the year.
Based on the current draft assessment, it is likely that we
will tighten our drinking water standards for this chemical.
However, let me be clear: we will wait for our human health
assessment on chromium VI to be finalized and to have gone
through full peer review.
In the meantime, we have taken a series of steps to better
understand the threat and protect the health of the American
people. We are working with State and local officials in
monitoring to find out how widespread and prevalent this
contaminant might be in our Nation's drinking water.
Second, we have provided voluntarily guidance to all water
systems nationwide on how to test for chromium VI. Finally, EPA
is offering technical expertise and assistance to those
communities that have the highest levels of chromium VI.
Finally, I would like to give a very brief update on a
larger picture, and that is where we are with our drinking
water strategy at EPA. I announced it about a year ago. The
strategy is actually designed to transform the agency, so that
we can use our existing Safe Drinking Water laws to achieve
greater health and protection more quickly, more cost-
effectively and transparently. We have made a great deal of
progress.
One key component is the idea of addressing contaminants as
groups of contaminants that act the same way in our bodies. As
the agency has traditionally looked at each contaminant alone.
I am pleased to announce that EPA has selected out first group
to look at, it is the group of volatile organic compounds that
are carcinogenic, and includes things like industrial solvents
that may cause cancer.
Another component of the strategy is to work with
universities to move the science along, to let our
entrepreneurs and engineers help us address our problems. Two
weeks ago, I was in Cincinnati in our engineering lab with the
Small Business Administration, with Proctor and Gamble, with
GE, with small businesses who are excited about the business
opportunities associated with solving our Nation's water
challenges.
In closing, Madam Chairman, clean and safe drinking water
is the foundation of healthy communities, healthy families, and
yes, healthy economies. Clean and safe water is not a luxury,
it is not a privilege, it is the right of every single
American. I look forward to working with this Committee to that
end, and in answering any questions you may have. Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Jackson follows:]
Statement of Hon. Lisa P. Jackson, Administrator, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency
Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe, and Members of the
Committee, thank you for inviting me to discuss the safety of our
Nation's drinking water. Every day, Americans drink water from the taps
in our homes, in our work places, and at our family's day care and
schools. Having safe drinking water is essential to our health, our
children's health and our economy.
EPA affirms the goal of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to
protect American's health by ensuring that the Nation's drinking water
supply is safe. We have made significant progress since Congress wrote
and passed SDWA 35 years ago, but we still face challenges. While we've
put in place standards to address more than 90 drinking water
contaminants, there are many more contaminants of emerging concern,
which science has only recently allowed us to detect at very low
levels. We need to keep pace with the increasing knowledge and
potential public health implications from the growing number of
chemicals that may be present in our products, our water, and our
bodies. EPA understands our responsibility under the law to respond to
new challenges, both to protect the public's health and to sustain
Americans' confidence in the safety of their drinking water for
themselves and their children.
SDWA defines a rigorous process to keep drinking water standards up
to date to respond to improving science and emerging concerns. Two
contaminants that have received a great deal of public attention
recently, perchlorate and hexavalent chromium (chromium-6), provide
examples of EPA activities to protect public health. EPA is evaluating
the opportunity for health risk reductions from unregulated
contaminants such as perchlorate, and reviewing existing standards,
such as chromium, to determine if public health protections can be
improved. I would like to highlight actions we are taking right now to
focus our efforts on these contaminants in light of evolving science
indicating the potential for greater public health concerns that
prompts the need for an effective response.
perchlorate
When I became the EPA Administrator, I committed to re-evaluate
EPA's 2008 preliminary determination not to regulate perchlorate. In
August 2009, EPA asked for public comment on our re-evaluation of the
science supporting the perchlorate regulatory determination. We have
received almost 39,000 comments on this and previous perchlorate
notices and we continue to evaluate the evolving science. I remain
committed to completing a regulatory determination for perchlorate and
expect to announce the results of our evaluation soon.
hexavalent chromium (chromium-6)
EPA also has the responsibility to reevaluate our existing
regulations to ensure they stay current with science advancements
including health assessments, improvements in technology, or other
factors that may provide important opportunities to maintain or improve
public health protections. An example is our regulation of total
chromium and the evolving science on hexavalent chromium (referred to
as chromium-6). Our total chromium drinking water standard applies to
all forms of chromium and was established in 1991 based on the best
available science at that time. This standard was designed to prevent
the health effects from the more toxic form of chromium, which is
chromium-6.
However, the science behind chromium-6 is evolving. For example,
recent animal testing data by the National Toxicology Program\1\ have
found evidence of carcinogenicity that was not previously associated
with ingesting chromium-6. EPA is already on a path toward identifying
and addressing potential health threats from long-term exposure to
chromium-6 with a new draft health assessment released this past fall.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Citation in IRIS Toxicological Review: NTP. (2008) NTP
technical report on the toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of sodium
dichromate dihydrate (CAS No. 7789-12-0) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice
(drinking water studies). Washington, DC: National Toxicology Program;
NTP TR 546. Available online at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/
546_web_FINAL.pdf (accessed January 29, 2008).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This assessment still needs to be reviewed by independent
scientists before a determination of whether or not to revise the
drinking water standard for total chromium or set a specific standard
for chromium-6. A recent report by the Environmental Working Group
(EWG) has increased awareness and public concern about the presence of
chromium-6 in drinking water. While this report was a ``snapshot in
time,'' it is consistent with other studies that have also detected
chromium-6 in public water systems.
EPA recently committed to a series of actions to address chromium-6
in our drinking water. First, EPA is working with State and local
officials to better determine how widespread and prevalent this
contaminant is in our Nation's drinking water. Second, we provided
guidance to all water systems nationwide on how to sample and test
drinking water for chromium-6. This guidance, released on January 11,
2011, provides recommendations on where systems should collect samples,
how frequently samples should be collected, and analytical methods for
laboratory testing. We believe that systems that perform the enhanced
monitoring recommended in EPA's guidance will be able to better inform
their consumers about any presence of chromium-6 in their drinking
water, evaluate the degree to which other forms of chromium are
transformed into chromium-6, and assess the extent to which existing
treatment affects the levels of chromium-6 in drinking water. Third,
EPA is also offering technical expertise and assistance to communities
cited in the EWG report as having the highest levels of chromium-6 in
drinking water.
Strong science and the law will continue to be the foundation of
our decisionmaking at EPA. EPA takes its obligation to ensure the
safety of the water supply very seriously and will continue to do all
that we can, using sound science and the law, to protect people's
health.
drinking water strategy
EPA national drinking water standards for contaminants such as
chromium are essential to the protection of our water quality, but
these individual regulations cannot keep pace with the thousands of
chemicals that have been identified as being in commerce via the Toxic
Substance Control Act (TSCA) and those that may be introduced in the
future. In March 2010, I outlined a vision seeking to use existing
authorities where appropriate to achieve greater health protection more
quickly, cost-effectively, and transparently. I am pleased to say that
in the last year we have made a great deal of progress on this
approach.
One key component of the new drinking water strategy is to address
contaminants as groups rather than individually. The traditional
framework for drinking water regulation focuses on detailed assessment
of each individual contaminant of concern and can take many years.
Throughout 2010, EPA engaged stakeholders in a national conversation
about how we might streamline this process by addressing multiple
contaminants at once, which may provide protections more quickly and
also allow utilities to implement them more efficiently. We have
examined a number of contaminant groups that have a common health
endpoint of concern, a common treatment approach, and/or common
measurement methods.
I am pleased to announce that EPA has selected the first
contaminant group and will be working toward developing one regulation
to address up to 16 Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs), which are
chemicals such as industrial solvents. This group will include
trichloroethylene (TCE) and tetrachloroethylene (PCE), which I
announced last March we'd be revising, as well as up to 14 other VOCs
that may cause cancer, some that are currently regulated and some that
have not previously been regulated. EPA will also evaluate whether to
regulate nitrosamines as a group. We have found these disinfection
byproducts in a number of water systems and will assess whether or not
this group of contaminants should be regulated as part of our next
round of regulatory determinations.
The second component of the drinking water strategy is to foster
development of new drinking water technologies to address health risks
more comprehensively and cost-effectively. On January 18, I announced,
in partnership with the U.S. Small Business Administration, the
formation of a regional water technology innovation cluster in the
Greater Cincinnati, Dayton, Northern Kentucky and Indiana region. The
cluster involves businesses, universities and governments working
together to promote economic growth and technology innovation. The
cluster will not only assist in developing technology safeguards for
drinking water and the protection of public health, but it will also
encourage economic development and create jobs.
A third component of our new drinking water approach is to utilize
provisions of multiple laws, where appropriate, to better protect
drinking water. EPA offices have identified contaminants of mutual
concern under drinking water, pesticide and toxic laws. By sharing
information collected and analyses we can make sure that the best
science is available to further public health protection goals. For
example, occurrence data collected for SDWA reviews can inform
decisions made to protect water resources under pesticide and toxics
laws, while health effects information from pesticides and toxics laws
can be used to provide advisory benchmark information to States and
water systems that may find these chemicals in their water supplies.
Finally, because Americans have a right to know and to be assured
that their drinking water is safe, the fourth component of the strategy
is to provide easy access to drinking water compliance monitoring data.
Taking a step toward this goal, in November 2010, EPA partnered with
the Environmental Council of the States, the Association of State and
Territorial Health Officials, and the Association of State Drinking
Water Administrators to establish a data sharing memorandum of
understanding (MOU). Under this MOU, EPA and the States will
collaborate on developing the advanced information technology necessary
to facilitate sharing and analysis of the large amount of data. This
will help us better understand national trends in occurrence of
drinking water contaminants and will enable consumers to easily obtain
information about the quality of their drinking water.
Clean and safe water is the foundation of healthy communities,
healthy families, and healthy economies. I want to emphasize that EPA
is committed to working with our State partners to build the Nation's
confidence that these resources are safe and to provide Americans with
clean and safe drinking water every day.
I greatly appreciate the leadership of this Committee on the Safe
Drinking Water Act and we look forward to coordinating with Chairman
Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe and Members of the Committee as we work to
achieve these important goals.
______
[Responses by Lisa Jackson to Additional Questions Follow.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Administrator.
Dr. Birnbaum.
STATEMENT OF LINDA BIRNBAUM, Ph.D., D.A.B.T., A.T.S., DIRECTOR,
NATIONAL INSTITUTES OF ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH SCIENCES AND
NATIONAL TOXICOLOGY PROGRAM
Ms. Birnbaum. Madam Chairwoman and distinguished members of
the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you today to
present testimony on our current understanding of chemical
contaminants in drinking water. My name is Linda Birnbaum, and
I am the Director of the National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences of the National Institutes of Health, and also
Director of the National Toxicology Program.
NIEHS and NTP continue to fund research on hazardous
chemicals in the environment that can affect human health,
including chemical contaminants in drinking water. Today I will
talk about three of these contaminants: hexavalent chromium,
perchlorate and trichloroethylene.
Chromium VI is part of man industrial processes, such as
electroplating, stainless steel production, leather tanning,
textile manufacturing and wood preservation. It was featured in
the movie Erin Brockovich and listed in the NTP report on
carcinogens since 1980 as a known human carcinogen. It is well
established that ingestion of high concentration of chromium VI
can lead to severe gastrointestinal distress and death. The NTP
has done extensive animal testing on chromium VI in drinking
water, and found that it causes cancer in laboratory animals
following exposure in drinking water.
NIEHS is also funding university researchers studying
chromium VI. Scientists at New York University are looking at
chromium VI toxicity and the expression of genes that may
ultimately lead to cancer. A research group at Brown
University, funded by our Superfund research program, is
studying how exposure to chromium VI modifies DNA in human
cells. This research gives information about dose and
biological response and why one person is affected when another
person is not.
Other researchers in the group at brown are developing new
methods for removing chromium VI from water supplies.
Perchlorate, another chemical of concern, is found
naturally in our climate, but it is also manufactured in the
U.S. for munitions, flares and fireworks. We are concerned
about perchlorate, because it can affect thyroid function by
inhibiting the transport of iodide into the thyroid gland.
Iodide uptake is necessary for the normal production of thyroid
hormones, which are essential in fetal and post-natal brain
development. In pregnant women, severe iodide deficiency
results in neurodevelopmental problems in the fetus and
newborn.
So we need to ask if perchlorate in drinking water is
linked to neurodevelopmental problems in infants. We also need
to learn if perchlorate has effects on vulnerable groups, such
as low birth-weight or pre-term infants. This is a very hot
area of research.
A series of papers from the CDC and NIEHS between 2009 and
2011 confirm that perchlorate levels in fetuses and infants
compare with perchlorate levels in their moms. At this point,
we are not sure if low doses of perchlorate in drinking water
result in harm to human development. But it is an important
question.
Again, cleanup is a key focus of our work. Through our
Superfund research program, we are supporting development of
online perchlorate detection and remediation systems, and a
portable unit for water source analysis in the field.
Now to trichloroethylene, or TCE. TCE is a solvent widely
used for degreasing and cleaning materials and as a household
cleaner. Due to its widespread use, TCE is often found as a
contaminant in groundwater and drinking water. TCE can
evaporate from contaminated water, creating a risk of
inhalation exposure.
This is important in the enclosed space of the home, where
showering, dishwashing and laundry activities can increase the
potential for exposure by both inhalation and absorption
through the skin. Children exposed to TCE contaminants have
been reported to have experienced increase respiratory disease,
such as bronchitis, asthma and pneumonia.
In this case, the wells supplying the drinking water were
contaminated with a mixture of volatile organic compounds
besides TCE, including the related compound, perchlorethylene.
The link between exposure to TCE in humans is uncertain. Once
study of more than one and a half million residents in 75
different towns showed higher incidences of leukemia and non-
Hodgkins lymphoma in groups of females exposed to TCE
concentrations greater than 5 parts per billion.
Several studies conducted in Woburn, Massachusetts led the
Massachusetts Department of Health to conclude there was an
eightfold higher risk of leukemia in children whose mothers
were exposed to solvent-contaminated drinking water during
pregnancies. These studies again involved a mixture of
chemicals, including TCE, in the water.
TCE was listed in 2005 as reasonably anticipated to be a
human carcinogen in the congressionally mandated NTP report on
carcinogens. The listing was based on evidence from seven human
studies, along with the studies in laboratory animals. Both
showed that TCE exposure caused tumors, especially in the
liver. A review of epidemiological literature showed that TCE
was associated with higher incidences of liver cancer, kidney
cancer, non-Hodgkins lymphoma, prostate cancer and multiple
myeloma. But these studies were based on a relatively small
number of exposed workers and were confounded by exposure to
other volatile organic solvents and risk factors.
Our work on TCE is continuing in several Superfund
programs. The new Northeastern University Center is testing
drinking water in Puerto Rico for TCE. This multi-disciplinary
project combines hydrogeological, epidemiological and
mechanistic research to determine if any of these chemicals are
associated with the risk of pre-term birth. They are also
testing a new remediation strategy using solar energy to break
down TCE in groundwater.
The University of Washington Center is using genetically
engineered poplar trees to break down organic chemicals. The
University of Kentucky Center has pioneered a new type of
nanoparticle filter that removes TCE from water.
In conclusion, it is important to remember that determining
risk from chemical exposures through drinking water, or through
any other route of exposure, is a complicated enterprise. New
data are telling us to look beyond chemical concentrations in
water or air, and instead to look at the chemical
concentrations inside our bodies. We also need to consider the
timing of exposure our individual genetic susceptibility and
the fact that our exposures are always to a mixture of
chemicals.
At NIEHS, we are proud to provide the best possible science
in support of the incredibly difficult task that our sister
regulatory agencies face. We are committed to advancing the
science to new heights, using the newest tools to improve our
understanding of the effects of environmental chemicals and to
promote effective strategies for exposure reduction and disease
prevention.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I will be
happy to answer your questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Birnbaum follows:]
Statement of Linda S. Birnbaum, Ph.D., DABT, ATS, Director, National
Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, National Institutes of
Health; and Director, National Toxicology Program, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services
Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee--I am
pleased to appear before you today to present testimony on our current
understanding regarding chemical contaminants in drinking water. My
name is Linda Birnbaum; I am the Director of the National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) of the National Institutes of
Health and the Director of the National Toxicology Program (NTP).
NIEHS and NTP have funded years of research on hazardous chemicals
in the environment that can affect human health, including chemicals
that are sometimes found as contaminants in drinking water. I will
address three specific contaminants of interest: hexavalent chromium,
perchlorate, and trichloroethylene.
Hexavalent chromium, or chromium VI, is a form of chromium that is
produced and used in many industrial processes, such as electroplating,
stainless steel production, leather tanning, textile manufacturing, and
wood preservation. Many people know of it as the chemical contaminant
featured in the movie, ``Erin Brockovich''. This chemical is listed in
the NTP's Report on Carcinogens as a known human carcinogen; it was
first listed in 1980.\1\ The chromium molecule exists mostly in either
trivalent (chromium III) or hexavalent (chromium VI) states. Chromium
III is an essential micronutrient at low doses, although it can be
toxic in large doses; chromium VI is about a thousand times more toxic
than chromium III.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Report on Carcinogens, Eleventh Edition, http://
ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s045chro.pdf.
\2\ http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/chromium/chromium.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
It is well established that ingestion of high concentrations of
hexavalent chromium can lead to severe gastrointestinal distress and
death. Review of unfortunate accidental exposures and suicides
indicates an acute lethal concentration as low as 4.1 milligrams of
hexavalent chromium per kilogram body weight.\3\ Long term exposures of
workers to hexavalent chromium on the skin have been shown to cause
severe skin lesions and irritation.\4\ However, these effects are not
expected at the very much lower doses associated with most people's
exposure from public drinking water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Saryan LA, Reedy M. 1988. Chromium determinations in a case of
chromic acid ingestion. J Anal Toxicol 12:162-164.
\4\ Gibb HJ, Lees PSJ, Pinsky PF, et al. 2000a. Clinical findings
of irritation among chromium chemical production workers. Am J Ind Med
38:127-131.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
When inhaled, chromium VI is genotoxic to humans, meaning that it
can damage DNA through the production of reactive oxygen.\5\ The
carcinogenic effects of breathing chromium VI (nasal, sinus, and lung
cancer) are well established. However, for a long time, this genotoxic
mechanism and resultant carcinogenicity from inhalation were not so
clear for the case where it is ingested, as in drinking water. NTP has
done extensive animal testing to provide information on chromium VI
toxicity and carcinogenicity via drinking water. The NTP studies showed
that sodium dichromate dihydrate, a water-soluble salt of chromium VI,
caused cancer in laboratory animals following oral ingestion in
drinking water.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Goulart M., Batoreu MC, Rodrigues AS, Laires A., Rueff J.
Lipoperoxidation products and thiol antioxidants in chromium exposed
workers. Mutagenesis (5): 311-315.
\6\ NTP 2008a. Final technical report on the toxicology and
carcinogenesis studies of sodium dichromate dihydrate in F344/N rats
and B6C3F1 mice. Accessed at http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/
546_web_FINAL.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIEHS-funded researchers are continuing work on chromium VI.
Investigators at New York University have been looking at mechanisms of
ingested chromium VI toxicity, exploring the ways in which it may
affect epigenetic programming\7\ and gene silencing and ultimately lead
to cancer. Another research group at Brown University is studying the
mechanism of DNA-chromium VI adduct formation and DNA-protein
crosslinking by chromium VI using in vitro models. They have suggested
that the DNA modifications produced by chromium VI in human cells could
serve as highly specific indicators of individual dose.\8\ A separate
study in a rat model is looking at whether lactational exposure to
chromium VI affects ovarian development in offspring. Even more
importantly, other NIEHS-funded researchers in our Superfund research
program are developing new methods for removing chromium VI and other
metals from water supplies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Epigenetic programming refers to the ways in which nonsequence-
related modifications of the DNA molecule regulate gene expression.
\8\ Macfie A, Hagan E, Zhitkovich A. 2010. Mechanism of DNA-protein
cross-linking by chromium. Chem. Res. Toxicol., 2010, 23 (2), pp 341-
347.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perchlorate is a chemical found naturally in arid climates and is
manufactured in the U.S. for a variety of uses primarily as a solid
rocket propellant (e.g., in munitions, flares and fireworks). In the
past, perchlorate has been used in the treatment of human diseases and
is still used as a diagnostic tool in medicine (the perchlorate
discharge test, which is used to diagnose thyroid defects involving
abnormal iodide processing).\9\ Perchlorate is of interest as a
drinking water contaminant, because it can affect levels of thyroid
hormones by inhibiting the transport of iodide into the thyroid.\10\
\11\ Inhibition of iodide uptake can disturb the normal production of
thyroid hormones that play an essential role in fetal and post-natal
neurodevelopment. These hormones also regulate neuropsychological
development in children and adults. Usually, the body maintains normal
production of thyroid hormones even in cases of iodide deficiency.
However, in pregnant women, severe iodide deficiency can result in
adverse neurodevelopmental effects in the fetus and newborn. This
raises the possibility that a similar outcome could be produced by
exposure to perchlorate in drinking water at sufficient levels and for
a sufficient period of time. However, to date, human studies on
environmental exposure to low levels of perchlorate have been
inconsistent.\12\ \13\ The authors of a 2005 National Research Council
study, ``Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion'', based their
conclusions primarily on clinical data collected in controlled
settings, particularly those described in an article by MA Greer and
his colleagues.\14\ The NRC found the epidemiological studies in human
populations to be limited with respect to this question.\15\ Further
research is required to determine if there are effects on vulnerable
groups such as low birth weight or preterm infants, or whether maternal
perchlorate exposure (with or without low dietary iodide intake) causes
neurodevelopmental outcomes in infants.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Meller J, Zappel H, Conrad M, Roth C, Emrich D, Becker W Exp
Clin Endocrinol Diabetes. 1997; 105 Suppl 4:24-7.
\10\ Kirk AB. 2006. Environmental perchlorate: why it matters. Anal
Chim Acta 567:4-12.
\11\ Wolff J. 1998. Perchlorate and the thyroid gland. Pharmacol
Rev 50:89-105.
\12\ Blount BC, Pirkle JL, Osterloh JD, Valentin-Blasini L,
Caldwell KL 2006 Urinary perchlorate and thyroid hormone levels in
adolescent and adult men and women living in the United States. Environ
Health Perspect 114:1865-1871.
\13\ Pearce EN, Lazarus JH, Miyth PPA, et al. 2010. Perchlorate and
thiocyanate exposure and thyroid function in first-trimester pregnant
women. J Clin Endocrin Metabol 95:73207-73215.
\14\ 14 Greer MA, Goodman G, Pleus RC, Greer SE 2002 Health effects
assessment for environmental perchlorate contamination: the dose
response for inhibition of thyroidal radioiodine uptake in humans.
Environ Health Perspect 110:927-937.
\15\ http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=11202&page=R1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Information continues to be generated about these questions. A
series of papers between 2009 and 2011 has confirmed that fetuses and
infants demonstrate exposure to levels of perchlorate that are
associated with maternal levels, albeit not with concentrations in
their drinking water.\16\ \17\ A cross-sectional study of 1641 first
trimester pregnant women (including 1002 pregnant women with low
urinary iodide levels) found no relationship between urinary
perchlorate and clinical measures of serum TSH and freeT4 (Pearce et
al. 2010). In another report, perchlorate exposure was associated with
increased urinary thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH) in infants with low
urinary iodide, although T4 levels were not reduced.\18\ In a recent
ecological epidemiological study in California, researchers were able
to show elevated TSH levels in infants from perchlorate-exposed
communities (defined as drinking water levels greater than 5
micrograms/liter).\19\ The question of whether these hormone levels\20\
result in actual impacts on health and development is unknown and
remains an important question for further research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Blount BC, Rich DQ, Valentin-Blasini L et al. 2009 Perinatal
exposure to perchlorate, thiocyanate, and nitrate in New Jersey mothers
and newborns. Environ Sci Technol. 43:7543-7549.
\17\ Borjan M, Marcella S, Blount B, et al. 2011. Perchlorate
exposure in lactating women in an urban community in New Jersey.
Science of the Total Environment 409: 460-464.
\18\ Cao Y, Blount BC, Valentin-Blasini, et al. 2010. Goitrogenic
anions, thyroid-stimulating hormone, and thyroid hormone in infants.
Environ Health Perspect 118: 1332-1337.
\19\ Steinmaus C, Miller MD, Smith AH. 2010. Perchlorate in
drinking water during pregnancy and neonatal thyroid hormone levels in
California. J Occ Environ Med 52:1217-1224
\20\ Haddow JE, Palomaki GE, Allan WC, Williams JR, Knight GJ,
Gagnon J, O'Heir CE, Mitchell ML, Hermos RJ, Waisbren SE, Faix JD,
Klein RZ 1999 Maternal thyroid deficiency during pregnancy and
subsequent neuropsychological development of the child. N Engl J Med
341:549-555
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Development of new techniques for remediation is also important in
this area. In a Small Business Innovative Research project, part of our
Superfund Research Program, NIEHS is supporting a group that is working
to transform a proof-of-concept prototype for an online perchlorate
detection and remediation system. They will also develop a companion
field portable prototype for water source spot analysis in the field.
Trichloroethylene (TCE) is a solvent that is widely used for
degreasing and cleaning metals. TCE has many other industrial uses as
an extraction solvent for organic oils, as a reactant in the production
of other chemicals, and in the manufacturing of fluorocarbons. TCE is
widely available as a household cleaner and is found as an ingredient
in a number of consumer products such as adhesives, rug cleaning fluid,
paint removers, spot removers, and typewriter correction fluid.\21\ Due
to its widespread use throughout the U.S., TCE is often found as a
contaminant in groundwater and drinking water.\22\ Due to its
volatility and low water solubility, TCE can readily evaporate from
contaminated water posing an additional concern for inhalation
exposure. This is particularly important in the enclosed space of the
home where showering, dishwashing, and laundry activities can increase
the potential for exposure by both inhalation and absorption through
the skin.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/tce/tcewhere_found.html
\22\ http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/csem/tce/tcewhere_found.html
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
TCE has been a contaminant of concern for decades. In a 1988
report, children exposed to a water supply that included TCE
contamination, were reported to have experienced increased respiratory
disease such as bronchitis, asthma and pneumonia.\23\ In this case, the
wells supplying drinking water were contaminated with multiple solvents
besides TCE, including a related chemical, tetrachloroethylene (also
known as perchloroethylene or perc). As in this case, human
epidemiological studies are often complicated by exposures to mixtures,
making interpretation of the data difficult.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ Byers VS, Levin AS, Ozonoff DM, et al. 1988. Association
between clinical symptoms and lymphocyte abnormalities in a population
with chronic domestic exposure to industrial solvent-contaminated
domestic water supply and a high incidence of leukemia. Cancer Immunol
Immunother 27:77-8 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The link between exposure to TCE and cancer in humans is
controversial due, in part, to such mixed chemical exposures. However,
a statistically significant association between TCE exposure and
increased incidence of leukemia among the highest group of exposed
females was demonstrated in a study conducted in New Jersey\24\. Again,
this study was complicated by several uncertainties, including lack of
detailed information about the magnitude of individual exposures and a
poor understanding of the relative exposure contribution from
inhalation and ingestion. A follow-up study of over 1.5 million
residents in 75 different towns showed statistically significant
elevations in total leukemias, child leukemia, acute lymphatic leukemia
and non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in groups of females exposed to TCE
concentrations greater than 5 ppb.\25\ A more recent occupational
study, published in 2007 and adjusting for multiple chemical exposures,
showed associations between occupational exposures to TCE and prostate
cancer.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\24\ Fagliano J, Berry M, Bove F, et al. 1990. Drinking water
contamination and the incidence of leukemia: An ecologic study. Am J
Public Health 80:1209-1212
\25\ Cohn P, Klotz J, Bove F, et al. 1994. Drinking water
contamination and the incidence of leukemia and nonHodgkin's lymphoma.
Environ Health Perspect 102:556-561
\26\ Krishnadasan, A., Kennedy, N., Zhao, Y., Morgenstern, H. and
Ritz, B. (2007), Nested case-control study of occupational chemical
exposures and prostate cancer in aerospace and radiation workers.
American Journal of Industrial Medicine, 50: 383?390. doi: 10.1002/
ajim.20458
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Following several controversial studies conducted in Woburn, MA,
the Massachusetts Department of Health concluded that there was an 8
fold higher risk of leukemia in the group that was exposed in utero,
and that this increase may be related to the exposure of mothers to
solvent-contaminated drinking water during pregnancy\27\. These
studies, too, are complicated by mixed chemical exposures and
uncertainties about the levels of exposure.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\27\ MDPH 1996. Draft Final Report. Woburn Childhood Leukemia
Follow-up Study. Massachusetts Department of Public Health. Boston,
Massachusetts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Trichloroethylene was listed in the NTP's Report on Carcinogens as
reasonably anticipated to be a human carcinogen based on limited
evidence of carcinogenicity from seven studies in humans supported by
evidence of carcinogenicity in experimental animals, in which tumors
occurred at several of the same sites (especially liver) as in
humans.\28\ A contemporary review of epidemiological literature showed
that TCE was associated with excess incidences of liver cancer, kidney
cancer, non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, prostate cancer, and multiple myeloma,
with the strongest evidence for the first three cancers.\29\
Nevertheless, as was noted at the time, these studies were based on a
relatively small number of exposed workers and were confounded by
exposure to other solvents and other risk factors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/ntp/roc/eleventh/profiles/s180tce.pdf
\29\ Wartenberg, D., D. Reyner and C.S. Scott. 2000.
Trichloroethylene and cancer: epidemiologic evidence. Environ Health
Perspect 108 Suppl 2: 161-76.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
More recent studies have been detailed in reviews appearing in the
peer-reviewed literature in 2006 and 2008.\30\ \31\ Much information
has emerged about the complexity of the biological effects of exposure
to TCE. The understanding of metabolism of TCE has been critical to
this process, because for many types of observed toxicity, the active
agent or agents is actually a mixture of metabolites of the parent TCE
compound, acting in concert with each other, with the parent, and with
other co-contaminants typically encountered along with TCE such as
tetrachloroethylene.\32\ More recent epidemiology provides further
support for associations between TCE exposure and some level of excess
risk of kidney cancer, liver cancer, and lymphomas, and to a lesser
extent, cervical cancer and prostate cancer.\33\ However, scientists
continue to debate the interpretation of these studies, considering
such factors as different classifications of lymphomas, differences in
data and methods for assigning TCE exposure status, and different
statistical approaches.\34\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\30\ Chiu WA, Caldwell JC, Keshava N, Scott CS. 2006. Key
scientific issues in the health risk assessment of trichloroethylene.
Environ Health Perspect 114:1445-1449.
\31\ Caldwell JC, Keshava N, Evans MV. 2008. Difficulty of mode of
action determination for trichloroethylene: An example of complex
interactions of metabolites and other chemical exposures. Environ Mol
Mutagen 49:142-154.
\32\ Ibid
\33\ Scott CS, Chiu WA. 2006. Trichloroethylene cancer
epidemiology: a consideration of select issues. Environ Health Perspect
114:1471-1478.
\34\ Ibid
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
NIEHS-funded work on TCE is continuing in several programs. The new
Northeastern University Superfund Research Center grant is
investigating drinking water as a possible source for chemical
exposures (TCE, phthalates, and others) in Puerto Rico. This
multidisciplinary project combines hydrogeological, epidemiological and
mechanistic research on these and other chemicals to determine whether
any are associated with risk of preterm birth. This Center is also
testing a new remediation strategy that utilizes solar energy as a
means to break down TCE in groundwater. The University of Washington's
Superfund Research Center investigates a plant-based remediation
strategy (phytoremediation) to break down organic chemicals such as TCE
and tetrachloroethylene. Their innovative approach utilizes a poplar
tree that has been genetically modified to express a mammalian gene
(CYP2E1) that rapidly metabolizes TCE inside the plant.\35\ The
University of Arizona is investigating the geological properties that
determine movement of TCE and tetrachloroethylene underground and are
applying their research at the Tucson International Airport Area (TIAA)
Superfund complex. Understanding how these chemicals migrate and
dissolve will aid in the removal or clean-up of these contaminants. The
NIEHS Superfund program also funds new technologies for remediation of
TCE contamination, such as the methods under development by a group at
the University of Kentucky. They have pioneered a new type of
nanoparticle filter that shows promise for the removal of TCE and other
chemicals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\35\ Kang, J.W., H. Wilkerson, Federico M. Farin, Theodor K.
Bammler, Richard Beyer, Stuart E. Strand, and Sharon Lafferty Doty.
2010. Mammalian cytochrome CYP2E1 triggered differential gene
regulation in response to trichloroethylene (TCE) in a transgenic
poplar. Functional & Integrative Genomics. 10:417-424. http://
www.springerlink.com/content/2x65311062345327/
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In conclusion, it is important to remember that determining risk
from chemical exposures, through drinking water or through any other
route of exposure, is a complex, nuanced enterprise. New data are
telling us to consider not only dose, but timing of exposure, inherent
susceptibility of the exposed individual, and effects of multiple types
of exposures when determining risk from a particular chemical. Making
these regulatory decisions is the responsibility of EPA and our other
regulatory agency partners. At NIEHS, we are proud of the role we have
played and continue to play in providing the best possible science to
support this incredibly difficult task. We are committed to advancing
the science to new heights, using the newest tools in the biomedical
sciences to improve our understanding of the effects of environmental
chemicals and to promote effective strategies for exposure reduction
and disease prevention.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be happy to take
your questions.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Administrator Jackson, how prevalent is perchlorate in the
drinking water across the Nation?
Ms. Jackson. Studies show that perchlorate is in the
drinking water of between 5 million and 17 million Americans.
Senator Boxer. My information says it is about 28 States,
is that about right?
Ms. Jackson. I do believe that is right, 26 States and 2
territories, ma'am.
Senator Boxer. OK. That is in detectable levels, I am
assuming, above the level that you are looking at setting a
standard at?
Ms. Jackson. I think that is an accurate assumption,
Chairman.
Senator Boxer. So we are looking at a major problem here.
What about chromium VI? Do we know that?
Ms. Jackson. That is a little bit more difficult, and it is
part of the reason that our initial intervention with water
systems is to help them know how to test for it at very low
levels. We currently regulate total chromium at 100 parts per
billion, and chromium VI is part of that. But what part of
total chromium is chromium VI is the operative question.
Senator Boxer. So that first step of advising drinking
water systems to test for chromium VI is, one of the reasons
is, I am assuming, is to see how prevalent it is across the
country? Is that right?
Ms. Jackson. Yes. Because the EWG report was a snapshot,
and doesn't give us a sense of whether and how often we are
going to see this contaminant.
Senator Boxer. Are you having good feedback from the local
folks? Or are they complaining about the fact they have to
test? What are you hearing?
Ms. Jackson. Well, the first thing we got were lots of
questions. I think it is fair to say that putting out a
standard testing methodology, we did that in part because we
knew people were looking at the EWG methodology and didn't know
if they could replicate it. So we took a peer-reviewed method
and we put it out. I think people were generally grateful for
that. I know witnesses on the next panel, some of them may take
the position we shouldn't ask or test. But I don't think that
is the kind of answer that the American people expect when they
are presented with a new contaminant that we know science is
saying is probably more dangerous than we originally believed
it to be.
Senator Boxer. So when do you think you will have the
science back, the results of these tests back?
Ms. Jackson. The results of the tests will come in over the
course of this year. What we are waiting on now is the peer
review, the external peer review of our risk assessment of
chromium VI. This is based on the NTP finding that chromium VI
causes cancer in our drinking water, which is brand new. We
have done a risk assessment there. That will take us almost,
probably through the rest of this year.
Then what I have said is, we will move as quickly as
possible after the peer review is done and we are sure we have
good science, to change the regulations, to change the
standards.
Senator Boxer. Right. But when will you start getting back
the results of the testing from the various drinking water
systems across the country? Was that, they are going to start
reporting that back to you?
Ms. Jackson. Right. That is voluntary. They are not under
orders to do it. But there are also, of course, purveyors, as
we heard, who feel a responsibility to make sure they are
getting good data for their customers.
Senator Boxer. What do you know now? Do you have any notion
of how many systems chromium VI is showing up in at higher
levels?
Ms. Jackson. Because the levels are so much lower, we do
know, there has been data taken in the past, before the EWG
study, that shows that there are systems with chromium VI in
them. That chromium moves between chromium III and chromium VI.
Chromium III is not bad. Chromium VI is where we have real
health concerns, public health concerns.
Senator Boxer. But you don't have, as you do with
perchlorate yet, the number of systems that are impacted or the
States that are affected by chromium VI?
Ms. Jackson. Fifteen percent, Madam Chair, of systems
detect total chromium. Other studies have shown 30 to 40
percent of systems may have total chromium, because we measure
that. What we don't have is how much of that is chromium VI.
Senator Boxer. But we will have that, I assume, before you
make your recommendations?
Ms. Jackson. Absolutely. That will be important information
for us to have. Because of course, occurrence and the decision
about being able to intervene and how to intervene will be
based on where we are seeing it and why.
Senator Boxer. Could you comment on the importance of the
agency using the best available science to develop drinking
water standards for perchlorate? How are you doing that? What
are your next steps toward setting a standard?
Ms. Jackson. I could not emphasize enough the importance of
using sound science, the best available science, peer-reviewed
science. But I also want to say that the difference here, the
prior Administration actually made a decision not to act on
perchlorate. The difference here is actually very simple. It is
protection of children and protection of mothers who are
carrying children. The issue here is that extra layer of
protectiveness for pregnant women. Because changes in thyroid
production while a baby is forming can have impacts,
demonstrated impacts, as we heard Dr. Birnbaum say, on their
development. Developmental issues in children is a huge
problem.
So we are erring on the side of looking for a level that
will be protective. But we will also do it according to the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much. I don't think there is
any one of us here who hasn't said, our children are our
future, and that is one of the reasons we are here. I just have
to say, you make me very proud, as Senator from California.
Because sometimes we get into arguments that are based on
philosophy rather than what is really happening to people, our
people that we are sworn to protect. So I just want to thank
you for that.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Let me go ahead and put the language from the opinion of
the Court in the record immediately following the request that
you made to have it be a part of the record.
[The referenced information follows:]
Senator Inhofe. That language is: ``If the scientific
uncertainty is so profound that it precludes EPA from making a
reasonable judgment as to whether greenhouses gases contribute
to global warming, the EPA must say so.''
The other thing, and this was brought up by Senator
Barrasso, I know that this is on water, this hearing. But I
agree with you, it is appropriate to bring up anything that is
within the jurisdiction of this Committee. When he talks about
the endangerment finding, I think it is very important, since
we have Administrator Jackson here, I will recall a question
that I asked Administrator Jackson, this would have been last
December, right before I left for Copenhagen, when I asked the
question, I have a feeling that we will be making an
endangerment finding in the next few days. When you do, I would
like to find out, ask you for the record, what science you
would be basing it on. Your answer was, ``For the proposal, the
agency relied in large part on the assessment reports developed
by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.'' That is the
U.N. IPCC that we have talked about quite often.
Now, coincidentally, that was precisely the same time that
ClimateGate came up, that was characterized as one of the worst
scandals in our recent history. The Daily Telegraph in London
said this scandal could well be the greatest in modern science.
Clive Cook, who is quite an environmentalist, in the Atlantic
Magazine said ``The closed-mindedness of these supposed men of
science, their willingness to go to any length to defend a pre-
conceived message, is surprising even to me. The stink of
intellectual corruption is overpowering.''
I just want to keep getting this into the record, because
this seems to be the science, in fact, we are writing about
this right now. I think it is kind of interesting to see the
kind of responses that we have been getting. I think it is
important. We have said relying on science, sound science, so
many times during the course of this hearing, and our previous
hearings, that I think that we need to be doing that.
Madam Administrator, let me real quickly just, I would just
like to have the assurance that as you progress in the health
effects of chromium VI that you would commit to this Committee
that the EPA is not rushing the decisionmaking process and will
allow for a full and complete assessment of the data. It was
the California water agencies that came out with the report
that to treat the chromium to a lower level has a cost of $300
to $500 per acre foot, which is actually more than the purchase
of the water itself. So that is a commitment I would like, that
you would take all these things into consideration before
coming to conclusions.
Ms. Jackson. Senator, I commit to following the Safe
Drinking Water Act, which puts in place a number of reviews,
small business reviews, HHS consultation, a cost benefit
analysis, a technology analysis to look at availability, and an
impact to small systems. All of that is mandated by the law,
and it is part of the reason it takes up to 2 years for EPA to
propose a new standard.
Senator Inhofe. The following question would take too long
to answer, so I am going to ask you to answer it for the
record, if you would. That is, in April 2010, the Inspector
General declared or concluded that the EPA's science level was
good. Then the standard came out in September of the same year,
between those months. I would ask you, what led to the change
in the agency position, specifically between those 2 months, on
perchlorate?
Then last, since the time is short and we have good
attendance, and I am very thankful that we do, one of the
things that I want to be very careful about is, I know that
there is an effort out there to start regulating hydraulic
fracturing. Not many people realize that with the huge reserves
that we have, and the United States does have the largest
recoverable reserves in coal, oil and natural gas, of any
country in the world, that this particular technology that has
been used since 1948, of hydraulic fracturing, is something,
and I know this, because in 1948, it started in my State of
Oklahoma, that there has not been a case, a documented case of
groundwater contamination using hydraulic fracturing.
If we are to develop the shale, particularly in any of
these close formations, it has to be done, 100 percent of these
recoverable reserves can only become a reality if we are using
certain techniques. No. 1 would be that of hydraulic
fracturing.
So I would like to have you, and the request I would make
of you, any response you want to make right now, of course,
would be fine, but also of any further investigation into that
technique, I want to be a part of it. Perhaps I can offer some
personal expertise from personal experience, from our
experience in Oklahoma.
Ms. Jackson. Senator, we look forward to working with you.
On hydraulic fracturing, we are about to round up our work
plan, which has gone through peer review and public comment. We
expect in the next month or two to have the work plan for our
study finished.
I want to make two points on hydraulic fracturing. One is
that it is not an unregulated activity. Many localities, many
States regulate various aspects of the drilling process. One
thing I think EPA can do to add to the body of knowledge is to
determine whether there are any holes in that regulatory
structure. It is not necessarily Federal regulation that will
be needed. It could be, I am not prejudging that.
The second thing I will say is that I think what would give
the American people comfort, with all that they are seeing
about this technology, is a knowledge that regulators are not
backing away from looking at it, but rather are doing
everything we can to understand and ensure we have good
science.
Senator Inhofe. That you would take into consideration
those regulations that come from the States because of the
varying applications of this technology from State to State.
Ms. Jackson. Certainly, sir. States are different, geology
is different, the number of people and population density are
different. But there may be a need for a Federal role. We
simply don't know, and this study will take a while.
I have to say for the record on climate change that after
there were questions raised about one specific line of emails,
there were numerous peer review studies and people who went
back and re-reviewed and found that the data and the questions
about the data and that scientific judgment did not change the
basic science that man-made emissions are changing our climate,
changing our atmosphere, degrading it to the point that it is
impacting our planet. That is what the endangerment finding
says.
Senator Inhofe. That there are opposing views to your
recommendations.
Ms. Jackson. I absolutely acknowledge opposing views,
including yours, Senator.
Senator Boxer. Senator Inhofe went over 2 minutes and 25
seconds. But I do have to correct the record, because you
quoted me as saying it is appropriate to ask about carbon
pollution. What I said was that this is a hearing on safe
drinking water. But everyone has the right to say whatever they
want, because it is America and we do that.
But I would hope we would stick to the Safe Drinking Water
Act. Because as we see Dr. Birnbaum sipping on her water, we
all need to make sure that our kids, our grandkids and our
families are drinking safe water.
I also want to make a statement here. We are going to,
Senator Barrasso and Senator Inhofe, we are going to absolutely
look at the science of carbon pollution and its impact on our
people, on our planet. So you will have plenty of time, because
we are absolutely going to keep up with the science.
So let me assure you of that, don't be fearful that we are
not going to talk about it, because we really are looking
forward to talking about it and working with Senator
Whitehouse, because he has some oversight responsibility and he
is working on getting us going with some hearings.
So we now are going to call on Senator Cardin.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Whether it is the Clean Water Act or the Clean Air Act,
Administrator Jackson, I want to thank you for following the
science. You have, we have documented hundreds of thousands of
lives that have been saved, and the impact that clean water and
clean air have on our economy, how important it is. For my
State of Maryland, it goes beyond just health, it goes beyond
just the economy. The health of the Chesapeake Bay is
critically important for the quality of life for the people who
live in this region.
So my constituents want you to follow the science. But
perhaps we need to do a better job in showing how we have
connected the dots in saving lives and helping our economy and
saving iconic features of this Nation for future generations.
I want to ask you about the chromium VI, both our witnesses
about the chromium VI. Because as you know, one of the cities
that was reported was Bethesda, MD. We are being asked, should
people who are a certain type take precautions in drinking the
water that comes out of the tap in Maryland. What is the time
line that you are looking at in being able to give further
direction as to the potential risks that are out there in
regard to chromium VI?
Ms. Jackson. I will speak first about the regulatory time
line, sir, and that comes straight of the Safe Drinking Water
Act. There are a number of requirements once we get the risk
assessment. We have already issued guidance on how to test. We
have offered technical assistance. But it could take up to 2
years, I think that will be the outside timeframe, for EPA to
propose a safe level of chromium VI, to change the standard to
include chromium VI. Then there is public comment and 18 months
to final after that.
Senator Cardin. Should we be, are there target groups that
should be taking precautions?
Ms. Jackson. I think the first thing is to test, to
understand whether or not this one sample that was taken in
Bethesda is representative of a problem in the entire system,
and if so, why. That is the guidance we have already offered.
I want the people of Bethesda, the people of America, to
understand that our risk assessments look at lifetime, years
and years of exposure to a chemical. So there is not something
that is going to happen because of 1 day or 2 days. But that if
there is real concern out there, there are products available
in the marketplace, you have to make sure when you buy one of
these that it actually treats chromium VI, but there are
products that are available.
Senator Cardin. Dr. Birnbaum.
Ms. Birnbaum. The NTP studies not only show that chromium
VI in drinking water was associated with cancer in both rats
and mice, and both males and females, but it also showed that
the levels that were associated with that cancer were within a
factor of 10 of some of the highest levels that have been
reported of human exposure, and within a factor of 50 of what
we commonly see in drinking water, contaminated drinking water
supplies. So we are not talking about thousands and thousands
and thousands of fold greater levels.
So I think there is some concern, I think we really don't
now whether there is a susceptible population. That is what
some of the basic research that we are funding is trying to
understand, is what makes people especially susceptible.
Senator Cardin. I would just ask that if risk factors
become known that there be transparency and that we, that the
public be made aware as soon as possible.
I want to move to coal ash. There is some information out
there that coal ash is a source of chromium VI. Madam Chairman,
I will ask unanimous consent to put into the record a report
from Earth Justice and Physicians for Social Responsibility
that relates to that issue of coal ash and chromium VI.
Senator Boxer. Without objection, so ordered.
[The referenced document was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Cardin. I guess my question is, is EPA looking at
coal ash as a source of chromium VI in our drinking water?
Ms. Jackson. We are looking more broadly at coal ash as a
source of several pollutants in our drinking water, and in fact
have proposed and taken over 400,000 comments on regulation of
coal ash to protect primarily our drinking water supplies.
Senator Cardin. I would point out that coal ash that are
put in landfills, we are concerned about. Coal ash that has
been recycled and used for useful products, such as cement or,
we would hope under RCRA, you would have the ability to
distinguish between the coal ash that is being put at risk in
our environment, and those that are being recycled.
Ms. Jackson. That is absolutely right, Senator. I agree
with that completely.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
Senator Johanns.
Senator Johanns. Madam Chair, thank you.
Let me if I might, because I mentioned this letter in my
opening comments, just offer for the record, Madam Chairman,
actually it is a letter that was written to the Ranking Member
and I was copied. It is from Douglas R. Clark, the President of
the Metropolitan Utilities District. I thought it was a very
thoughtful letter.
Senator Boxer. We will put it in the record, absolutely.
[The referenced document was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Johanns. Great.
Doctor, if I could start my questioning with you, and bear
with me, here, because not only am I one of the newest members
to the Committee, I don't come here with the scientific
background that you possess or that the Administrator
possesses. So it is going to be very important that you visit
with me in easily understood terminology.
To start out with, in response to a previous question by
Senator Cardin, you talked about some research that had been
done relative to chromium VI with animals. Then you talked
about factor of, and factor of this. I want you to put that in
language that I can understand. What are you telling me there,
that they were exposed to exceedingly high levels that we have
not found in drinking water yet?
Ms. Birnbaum. The levels to which the animals were exposed
in drinking water have been seen in human populations, not in
this country, for example, but in China, where levels of the
same concentration have been used.
Senator Johanns. Have you found any drinking water anywhere
in the United States that has hit those levels?
Ms. Birnbaum. I have not seen that in drinking water. But I
am not an expert in all the drinking waters that have been
measured. As Administrator Jackson has been saying, they are
doing a major study now to try to understand the extent of
contamination of drinking water by chromium VI.
Senator Johanns. OK. So what you are saying to me, now in
understandable language, is that we exposed or somehow rats and
mice got exposed to these exceedingly high levels, that at
least to your knowledge we haven't found in any drinking water
in the United States, and they had a problem.
Ms. Birnbaum. There are some studies that are within a
factor of 10 of some levels that have been reported in the
United States.
Senator Johanns. When you say factor of 10, 10 times?
Ms. Birnbaum. Right, that the levels that our animals got
were 10 times higher than some reported levels that people in
the United States might be drinking.
Senator Johanns. OK.
Ms. Birnbaum. I think it is very important that when you
try to extrapolate from animal studies to humans, animals have
to drink a much higher concentration than people do to get the
same amount into their bodies. That is kind of a difficult
concept. But when you go to the doctor and he takes a blood
sample, he is measuring a certain amount of chemical in your
blood. In order to get that same amount of chemical in the
blood, for example, of a rat or mouse, you often have to expose
them to a much higher dose.
Senator Johanns. So we have rat or mouse studies out there.
Ms. Birnbaum. There are also quite a number of human
studies that have demonstrated significant, statistically
significant associations between chromium in drinking water,
high levels of chromium in drinking water, and cancer. Another
thing is, at least in certain cases, as I mentioned for
trichloroethylene, when you use water coming out of your tap in
an enclosed environment, like a shower, or laundry, certain
chemicals can become volatilized, and then you can inhale them.
We have known for over 30 years that inhaled chromium VI
definitely causes cancer in people.
Senator Johanns. OK. Now, Administrator Jackson, you have
issued a guidance, right, relative to testing of chromium VI?
That is what this letter referenced. In issuing that guidance,
which causes people out there to do things, and I am guessing
you hope they do, and spend money and et cetera, what
scientific analysis or study did your folks rely upon that
would cause you to take that step? This is no trick question. I
am literally looking for a list of the studies they reviewed.
Ms. Jackson. Well, sir, we can get you a list of
information. What we did is encourage utilities to monitor.
When this chromium VI study came out, I met with almost a dozen
Senators in the Capitol, many of them from the cities at the
top of the list. One of the things I committed to was giving
technical assistance to utilities on how to monitor. So if they
got data, it could be the result of a peer-reviewed
methodology.
So the methodology and the guidance that we issued was
based on a peer-reviewed method. It was changed just slightly
to make it useful to the utilities, but not in a way that we
believe required another peer review. It was an attempt to make
sure people had, from the Federal Government, what we believed
would be the next prudent step.
Senator Johanns. Here is the challenge with what you just
told me. No. 1, I wonder what those studies are, and I am going
to be anxious to get that list. So I will request that you
provide that to all of us here. But No. 2, when you describe
the action that you are expecting them to take, it is not very
simple. This is a utility, for example, that complies with,
that exceeds all Clean Drinking Water standards. If I am not
mistaken, they had to go to another part of the country to get
this tested.
So I just want to make sure that before we send them off
doing that we have a sound scientific basis to do that. Thank
you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
I listened for information that can help us do better at
protecting our citizens. I guess if we stop putting out fires,
it would be job-crushing for firemen. If we stopped writing
laws here, it would be job-crushing for people working here.
I take it that neither one of those things would be
acceptable and that it is hard to understand whether or not
there is any benefit to putting people, and to regulate at all,
because if we didn't do these programs, A, it would hurt
health, and B, I guess it would be called job-crushing. I don't
get it. Because when these things are dressed up in that
fashion, we are off the topic. We are not discussing the
reality of health damage here. What we are doing is, we are
simply overriding, saying, look, the EPA scientists, court
decisions, they don't mean anything. These, if we do these
regulations, it might help human health, help my kids, my
grandchildren, everybody else's in the room have better health
than it would be in the final analysis. Job-crushing. It may
save lives. But if we stop regulating, then we would have a net
gain. I don't understand that and I must tell you.
Safe drinking water, Administrator Jackson and Dr.
Birnbaum, currently allows EPA to allow only temporary
monitoring for no more than 30 of the potentially hundreds of
unregulated contaminants in our drinking water. In light of the
success of other right-to-know programs at EPA, could the
public benefit from a targeted increase in monitoring for
unregulated contaminants?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, I agree that the public has a
fundamental right to know what is in their drinking water, what
is in their water supply. Increased targeted monitoring would
be useful in helping us to identify emerging threats, things
that we don't know about but that we need to know for future
generations. It should be done in a common-sense fashion,
always balancing the burden on water systems against the
potential threat to human and public health.
Senator Lautenberg. Dr. Birnbaum, do you have any view that
is different there?
Ms. Birnbaum. Only that I would agree. I think I certainly,
as a citizen, as we all are in this room, would very much like
to know what it is that I am drinking.
Senator Lautenberg. The shocking thing is that these
programs develop almost in reflex action, it is in response to
a condition, it is in response to the Superfund site that we
found up in Massachusetts, created a Jimmy fund and so forth.
It is response to crippling things for our children and the
health of our elderly, those who are most fragile. But those
things get no credit. The fact that I present here for you, in
living color, that there are things that help people live
longer. I hope they will keep on doing what they have been
doing in the halls of science, because maybe I can reach
maturity without further failure.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. At a hearing of this Committee 2 years
ago, I pointed out that only 6 percent of the water systems
that broke the law were fined or punished by State or Federal
officials. Don't object, Senator Inhofe, please. This rate
provides little incentive to comply with the law. The head of
EPA's enforcement assured me that a new policy would bring more
systems into compliance.
How many systems have come into compliance since this
testimony in 2009?
Ms. Jackson. Well, sir, because of proactive enforcement by
EPA and our enforcement program led by Cynthia Giles, back in
January 2010, we had almost 9,000 systems that had potential
serious violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. We have
identified only 6,466 as of January of this year. So we are
down by over 3,000 systems, certainly not acceptable, but that
is the result of proactive work by EPA and by States and local
governments to really crack down when we find violations of our
Nation's safe drinking water requirements.
Senator Lautenberg. Madam Chairman, I have other questions
I will submit in writing. But again, I wonder, when I hear
statements made here that talk to the particularly dark side of
things, job crushing, et cetera, I wish we could examine it
from the front side and say, how many lives would you like to
save, how many kids would you like not to have difficulties
with their health and getting to school and being like other
kids. We don't seem to start on that side. We start on the side
that said, job crushing. Thank you very much.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
Next we will hear from Senator Barrasso.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. As a
physician who has taken care of families all across the State
of Wyoming for 24, 25 years, I know how important it is to work
on preventive programs to keep people healthy. I would contend
that America's physical health and our fiscal health, both our
physical health and our fiscal health, are both tied to rulings
out of the Environmental Protection Agency.
So I find it interesting, and I have been trying to stick
to the topic of water, that from the EPA, inside the EPA that
has just come out, this is the January 28, this year, 2011,
``Activists hope Vermont TMDL sets precedent for weighing
climate impacts with regard to water quality requirements.''
This is all about water.
So when I look at this, Administrator Jackson, considering
that the EPA has recently allowed TMDLs to be used in
consideration of effects of climate change, and specifically
with the lake in Vermont, one of the members of our Committee
is from Vermont, my question is, how many of these 43,000 TMDLs
that the AMA lists as approved, because this is one that was
approved, how many of those that are approved could now be
revised in the future to consider the effects of climate
change? This is what this is all about, using climate change as
a way to regulate water. We have seen it in a State impacting
one of our members. When you look at a list of how many TMDLs
there are by State, people at this table all have many more
than we have in Wyoming.
Ms. Jackson. Senator, the work on Lake Champlain, that is
the Lake Champlain TMDL, under the Clean Water Act, this is not
a Drinking Water Act issue, this is a Clean Water Act discharge
of contamination issue, continues and has been going on now
through several administrations. I am not sure that I can
confirm that that TMDL has been approved, but we will certainly
get you that information for the record.
Let me just say, the goal of the TMDL process, under the
Clean Water Act, is to lessen and lessen the amount of
contamination that goes into our water bodies. Lake Champlain
is much prized and is having trouble with nutrients and algae.
It is becoming, there are pockets of the lake that are dying
out. So your specific question about climate is secondary,
regardless of what inside the EPA says, to the overall goal of
the Clean Water Act and the TMDL process, which is to protect
the quality of our surface water.
Senator Barrasso. I guess the question comes down to, can
something be reopened once there has been something given. That
is the concern that I am going to continue to raise with the
Committee, retroactively going after something that has already
been granted.
The President had an executive order stating that agencies
should consider when taking a look at the costs and benefits,
he said ``Values that are difficult or impossible to quantify,
including equity, human dignity, fairness, and disruptive
impacts,'' I think it is easy to measure unemployment, 9.4
percent, we know that our debt has gone up $3 trillion in the
last 2 years, we have 3 million more unemployed in the last 2
years, we know that burdensome regulations do have an impact on
jobs, and it is quantifiable.
My question is, is the language in the President's
executive order, does it allow you to basically use anything
you want in terms of making, saying benefits outweigh the
costs?
Ms. Jackson. I think the President's far-reaching executive
order makes clear that there are some things that are hard to
price. Our science may be good, but I don't know how you price
the ability to try to forestall a child who may not get autism
if they are not exposed to contaminated water. I think the
language in that order is about those things where we can be
protective, for a reasonable amount of money, to make sure that
our children and future generations are not guinea pigs.
Senator Barrasso. One of the comments in the President's
order included, he said, modify, streamline, repeal
regulations, he also said expand regulations. Are there
additional expansions that you are planning?
Ms. Jackson. As the President said, and I think our
regulatory calendar, we have been very transparent with the
regulations that are coming, many of them as a result of court
actions, many because of regulations that were thrown out as
illegal, proposed by the last Administration. We have a huge
Clean Air Act backlog of regulations, public health
regulations. But the President was very clear that, in the
State of the Union, that we will be very smart about
regulation, but we will not back away from creating and
enforcing those regulations that have resulted in 92 percent of
Americans having clean water, and that our air quality has
gotten better, even as our GDP has grown 204 percent in this
country.
Senator Barrasso. Final question. Susan Dudley, George
Washington University, talks about 132 economically significant
Federal Government regulations, meaning that the impact of $100
million per year, and that we now have 40 percent more Federal
regulations in this period of time under President Obama, than
we did even under President Bill Clinton. The regulatory work
force has grown 16 percent in Mr. Obama's first 2 years in
office. We now have 276,000 public members, while private
employment has continued to fall.
Do you have any idea how many private sector jobs have been
lost because of these increased regulations?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, I think the recent recession, all
people agree, was a result of lack of regulation of the housing
market that caused a collapse of our housing market. So the
public health regulations under the Clean Water Act and Clean
Air Act, I have not seen one of the industries claim that it
was those regulations that somehow caused the housing market to
implode.
Senator Barrasso. Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. Senator Merkley.
Senator Merkley. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman, and
Administrator Jackson.
I know you are familiar with the Bull Run Reservoir, which
is a remote basin in the Cascade Mountains surrounded by old
growth that humans are not allowed to have access to, and is
the principal water source for the Portland metro region. You
all have worked with us to establish a monitoring regime for
cryptosporidium. That data has been now compiled under that
monitoring regime and the city will be seeking a variance to
establish appropriate circumstances based on that data and this
pristine water source.
I believe EPA has now delegated to the State of Oregon
responsibility for enforcing that part of the Clean Water Act,
and so I believe the city will be applying to the State. So if
the State approves a variance, will the EPA, does that kind of
settle the question, or does the EPA then consider the
possibility of appealing it or overturning it?
Ms. Jackson. Senator, thank you for your strong interest in
protecting that watershed. I still haven't seen it. My
commitment to you is that EPA will work to support the State,
to work closely with the State on the variance determination
and help them in looking, if there are any conditions, will
work with them. We don't expect that we would be working in
opposition to them.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. On your next trip to the
Northwest, I continue to extend the chance to see that
extraordinary green infrastructure first-hand, if you will.
Then turning to chromium VI, the EPA standard, current
standard of 100 parts per billion, is quite different than the
California standard at 6 parts per billion and a proposed
California standard of 0.2 parts per billion. There is a 5,000
times difference between current EPA and proposed California.
Do you have any sense where EPA's guidance will end up in this
spectrum?
Ms. Jackson. It would be irresponsible of me, Senator, to
guess a number at this point. As you heard, there are a number
of, required by law, by the Safe Drinking Water Act, analyses
that we do. We certainly have to look at cost and feasibility
and the particular impact on a smaller system in terms of
public health. It is too soon for me to tell.
Senator Merkley. Any insights on that, Doctor?
Ms. Birnbaum. I think we need to see what the science is
telling us. As Administrator Jackson has mentioned, it is
currently out for peer review, their large assessment of the
health effects and actual risk assessment. I think when that is
completed and the peer review is completed on that, EPA will be
able to move forward in some decisionmaking.
Senator Merkley. Thank you. I appreciate the rigorous
scientific process that you are going through to try to reach a
decision that is correct for the health of citizens in our
Nation. We do have a real interest in it in Oregon, because one
of the tests that were in your earlier sampling across the
Nation was from Oregon that found some hexavalent chromium. So
folks are kind of in rapt attention and interested in the
dialog on what is healthy and appropriate.
Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Just two little pieces of information for
the colleagues. We are considering the FAA bill on the floor,
and they expect up to three votes around 5 or 6. Just thought
people would want to know that. That is early evening.
The other thing is, just wanted to put in the record a
document from the Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment from California. The last days of the Schwarzenegger
Administration, they strengthened the proposed drinking water
public health goal for chromium VI, based on the threats to
children and other sensitive populations. I am going to put
that in the record without objection.
[The referenced document was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. I now call on Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I appreciate your testimony very much. I don't think there
is any question at all that we don't need to prevent
contaminants in drinking water. Again, I think everyone in this
room is 100 percent with you.
Dr. Birnbaum, again, after listening to you, I agree,
everyone agrees that at some level, chromium VI causes cancer.
The problem is figuring out what that level is.
That is so important, because it seems like, well, there is
a finite amount of money that have to deal with these problems.
If we unnecessary ratchet down standards, that becomes very,
very expensive to do, there is no money for these other things.
Now, I don't know at this point, based on the science, if
the cities that were investigated, if that is a problem. I can
take you right now to hundreds of areas throughout the United
States that have leaky pipes, that every time it rains hard,
the sewer overflows. The pathogens surrounding there, we would
all agree, are a huge problem. But again, there is no money for
that, or there is not enough money. We are not doing as good a
job as we can. So it is important that we get this right.
Then also the unintended consequences, as you treat for
these things, the chemicals that you use to get it out,
disposing of what you are getting out and things like that.
I have a problem with the methodology. There is a lot of
criticism from the cities about the Environmental Working
Group. Is it true, Ms. Jackson, that in Milwaukee that this was
just from a tap some place within the city?
Ms. Jackson. Yes, I believe what the EWG has said is that
they went to random taps, one in each city that is reported.
Senator Boozman. Again, and logically, I am an optometrist,
I am not an expert on these things, but I do understand if you
logically really wanted to find out what was going on, you
would at least sample many sources within the city.
Then also, as they did, they came back and they sampled the
intake area, they sampled within the system and they sampled
the discharge. Dr. Birnbaum, what do you think about that type
of methodology? I mean, that makes no sense at all, does it?
Then again, many of these cities were not notified until
they read about this in the newspaper, and all of a sudden,
they have this possible public issue on their hands that was
done from a single source.
Ms. Birnbaum. I think that the EWG report is what, in
scientific terms, we would call is hypothesis generating. It
proposes that there might be a problem. But we need, and the
EPA is beginning to get that information, we need some kind of
statistically based sampling of water supplies in this country
in order to understand. A single sample, you really don't know
where the contamination is coming from and even if it is real.
So it needs to be repeated.
Senator Boozman. But you never do things in that manner.
The problem is, the press takes that and they don't know what
you have just stated. So all of a sudden, it becomes gospel. So
it is a real problem. It is hard for those of us who want to
help when you have situations like that, it is hard to have
confidence in the system as you go forward.
In the testimony, Oklahoma City asked for the methodology,
and evidently haven't been able to obtain it. Do you have a
reason that you won't give the methodology to them?
Ms. Jackson. I believe you are talking about the
Environmental Working Group's methodology. She doesn't--we
would have that. That is why we decided rather than to do that,
to offer a methodology to water systems that could be used that
had been peer-reviewed that we believed was State of the
science. These are very low levels for chromium VI.
Senator Boozman. I understand. But I think that they should
have the right, you have essentially implied that something is
going on, they should have the right to have the methodology
that you used, I would very much like to see that also. I think
the Committee would very much like to see that also, so that we
can see, your credibility is on the line here. For you to have
credibility, for us to have faith in what you are doing, I
think we need to understand your working process in doing that.
Ms. Jackson. Yes. Two clarifications, Senator. First, we
have given a methodology that we believe is the one that should
be used for systems who want to do their own testing. We have
recommended that that is a reasonable next step.
The second thing I would like to say is, the EWG study
alone might have been something that we could dismiss. The
really important piece of scientific information is that we are
in the middle of a peer review that shows that chromium VI,
which we previously thought was not a problem in water, is a
problem in water and causes cancer. If that is true, that is a
game-changing piece of information that will likely mean we
have to address it through changing our standards. That science
was going on before the EWG report came out. It has been out
there for quite some time. The only reason we are not able to
finalize it is, we are going through a peer review, very
important step, to make sure that we have this right.
Senator Boozman. I would like to see, again, the science,
well, the lack of science, I think, that the working group
used, and would like a copy of that. I think Oklahoma City is
entitled to that also. Thank you.
Ms. Birnbaum. I think, Senator, that you will be able to
ask the head of the EWG to provide that for you when he
testifies on the next panel.
Senator Boozman. Very good. I will do that.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
A couple of points. PG&E, which is our utility, paid
millions of dollars in a settlement to the residents of
Hinkley, this is a stockholder corporation, because there were
levels of chromium VI. There were huge lawsuits. They settled
the matter for hundreds of millions of dollars. It was the
theme of the Erin Brockovich film. So there is a lot of
different things out there.
I just want to say, Dr. Birnbaum, I don't know what you are
talking about when you say it poses, you say it is a
hypothesis-based study. Does that mean that it poses an
important question? Is that what that means, a hypothesis-based
study? What is your definition?
Ms. Birnbaum. I think it means that we have to look
further.
Senator Boxer. Right. So if somebody says it is a snapshot
in time, would you buy that as what they showed us?
Ms. Birnbaum. Yes, I think it is. It is a snapshot in time.
Whether you would find the same thing if you measured the same
tap waters next month, I don't know.
Senator Boxer. Well, obviously. It is a snapshot.
Senator Boozman. Madam Chair?
Senator Boxer. I think when you say, hypothesis-based, I
don't know what that means. I would appreciate it if you, just
for my position here, you are saying it is a study that should
be taken further. Is that what you mean by that?
Ms. Birnbaum. I would agree. I think it is a study that
raises the question, do we have a problem here.
Senator Boxer. OK. Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Madam Chair. I really appreciate
your holding this hearing.
The point that I think Senator Lautenberg made, and I think
Administrator Jackson, you also made, is one that in the case
of doing cleanup, and trying to extract chemicals or
contaminants or things from our drinking water, there is a
whole job growth side of this. Rather than being job killing or
job crushing, you actually have an entrepreneurship side. I
think you mentioned that a little bit.
We have seen in New Mexico small businesses helping to
solve drinking water problems. Several companies in New Mexico
are actually getting back into manufacturing, making things in
America here. We had one, Madam Chair, a company testified, the
name of the company was Miox, testified before this Committee
last year about their new processes they were getting into.
So I think it is important to emphasize that probably every
State around this Committee table has small businesses who are
working on these kinds of things. I very much appreciate your
making that point in your testimony.
One of the questions, and let me just say, to preface this
question, New Mexico has some big challenges when it comes to
both the contaminants you are talking about, the perchlorate
and the chromium VI. We have seen in this Environmental Working
Group report chromium VI found at levels above 1 part per
billion in Albuquerque, over 20 times the newly proposed
standard in California. That was the eighth highest level in
the investigation. Perchlorate also found in groundwater
monitoring wells at national labs in New Mexico, in White Sands
Missile Range.
So the first question I would like to ask Administrator
Jackson, what are the major sources of chromium in drinking
water? How did it get there, and what can or should have been
done to prevent chromium from making its way into drinking
water sources?
Ms. Jackson. Well, as you heard in Dr. Birnbaum's opening
statement, there are a number of industrial processes that can
produce chromium, everything from plating and tanning
operations. Also, since chromium is a mineral, it can be found
as a contaminant in things like coal, so it will show up in the
emissions from a coal-fired plant or even potentially an oil-
fired plant.
Then it is also naturally occurring in the ground, like
arsenic, another pollutant that we regulate and have made
tremendous progress in your State, Senator, but not without
having to work with lots of systems and with the State very
closely. We are also looking at the potential for chromium
itself and possibly chromium VI to come from fixtures. We don't
have enough information right now to know about that. Last but
not least, it is very important for us to work with the
providers to understand whether it comes from any of our
disinfection activities, whether that actually increases the
likelihood of chromium III transforming into chromium VI.
Senator Udall. When you mentioned that these companies,
through their various industrial processes, have put out the
chemicals, rather than putting the costs over on a utility or
some other place, it would seem to me that we should return to
the principle, which I think was the basis of the Environmental
Protection Agency, was the polluter pays. So when we have
companies that are out there that are, as a by-product or
however they are putting out these chemicals, and they are
getting into the groundwater, we need to try at every level,
from district attorneys to attorneys general to your
enforcement effort to make sure that they are held accountable
and that the polluters pay the price of this kind of thing.
Would you agree with that, and does your enforcement
operation try to move forward with those kinds of actions to
send a message to the community that, you shouldn't be doing
this, you shouldn't be contaminating drinking water?
Ms. Jackson. Congress long ago embraced the idea that the
polluter pays, that our groundwater, our drinking water belongs
to us, and that as much as possible, industry should first
prevent pollution and help to clean it up. Where we are now is
that we are learning about emerging problems. As we do, we have
to speak straightforwardly to the American people and to
industry about the need to not take them for granted or look
the other way as these problems emerge. They are not happy
stories. But we don't get healthier by ignoring them.
Senator Udall. Thank you, and I have other questions that I
will submit for the record. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
I want to put into the record, because Senator Boozman
raised the issue of cost, which I think is essential, we need
to know cost benefit. I am going to put into the record an
analysis by the National Cancer Institute that found in 2006
the direct cost of cancer care in America $104 billion. They
have the numbers for 2005, the indirect cost in lost time and
productivity at $135 billion. So you add that together, $240
billion a year. So it is critical, I think, that we look at the
costs of this from every perspective, the cost benefit. I will
put that into the record.
[The referenced document was not received at time of
print.]
Senator Boxer. Now, it is our time to thank you both very
much for being here, for sharing your morning with us, close to
almost afternoon. I think that we will be seeing a lot more of
both of you as we move forward in this Congress. Thank you very
much.
We will call up our next panel, Mr. Ken Cook, the president
of the Environmental Working Group. Ms. Carrie Lewis, from the
Milwaukee Water Works, was due to be here. But because of
severe weather, she was unable to travel to D.C. But she will
have her testimony delivered by Diane VanDe Hei, executive
director, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies.
Mr. Steven D. Lewis, the city manager of the city of
Norman, due to severe weather, Mr. Lewis was unable to travel.
But he is putting his statement in the record, without
objection. I know we will have him on the phone, is that
correct? He cannot be on the phone. OK. We will not do that,
but I am sure, I will give extra time to Senator Inhofe to ask
questions. Really, I will. So you will get 10 minutes for your
questions.
Mr. Chuck Murray, general manager of Fairfax Water. Dr.
Thomas Burke, associate dean for Public Health Practice and
Training, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
I think all of you probably were very interested in the
first panel. We really do need your expertise.
So I would ask that we come to order, and those leaving
please do so quietly. We will start with you, Mr. Cook,
president, Environmental Working Group. Welcome.
STATEMENT OF KENNETH A. COOK, PRESIDENT, ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING
GROUP
Mr. Cook. Chairman Boxer, Ranking Member Inhofe----
Senator Boxer. Excuse me, Mr. Cook.
Senator Inhofe. Let me just interrupt a moment.
Unfortunately, I will not be able to stay. I want to hear all
of your statements. My concern is that you address the unfunded
mandate portion of this. Those of us who have been mayors of
cities, and I would identify with the remarks that were made by
Senator Johanns, are very much concerned about this. So I would
like to have you address that during the course of your
statements.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
Senator Boxer. OK. I am sorry, Mr. Cook, but we welcome you
again.
Mr. Cook. Thank you very much. Chairman Boxer and Ranking
Member Senator Inhofe and distinguished members of the
Committee, I very much appreciate the opportunity to testify
today. We have prepared testimony, of course, to submit for the
record. I would like to briefly summarize that, and if I may,
address some of the issues that have come up in the discussion
about our study. Because they are very important ones.
Let me start off by saying, we have been working on
drinking water issues at the Environmental Working Group for a
long time. The reason we looked into hexavalent chromium, the
reason we formed the hypothesis, was because we prepared, since
2005, the only source that you can go to to look across the
country, a very large data base, of as many of the drinking
water contamination reports that have been filed by utilities
with State agencies as we could assemble.
When we looked at this set of data, we were able to
determine that there were a number of cities that had detected
and reported, as EPA required, total chromium levels. Our
hypothesis was that if there were a number of cities that had
total chromium, it was very likely that, if anyone bothered to
look, we would find hexavalent chromium.
California is the only State that tests for hexavalent
chromium, and where they have tested for it, they have fairly
routinely found it. It is not an accident that California, from
a scientific standpoint, is driving the Nation in terms of
trying to understand the implications of very low levels of
ingestion of hexavalent chromium as a carcinogen.
We recognized, and have stated in the study throughout its
coverage that this puts water utilities in a bind. This is not
a contaminant that they have put into the water. When we
briefed the trade associations and called in advance to a
number of the utilities, we made that very clear, that we
recognized this was not their problem. Of the utilities we
contacted before releasing the study, Norman was the only one,
Norman, OK was the only one that really understood that this
came from geological sources.
But when we went ahead and submitted the tests, the
samples, we followed a protocol that was published the day we
published the report. It is in great detail, we have made it
available to everyone. We used the methodology that EPA is now
recommending for water utilities who wish to follow it, because
it was approved by the Environmental Protection Agency for
hexavalent chromium at those low levels. The detection limit is
.02 parts per billion, which is the health guidance that has
been recommended most recently for California.
We were only able to conduct one sample per city in the
time and with the funds we had available. But there has been
new testing that has been conducted by a number of the cities
and has been made public. Here is what they found. In Honolulu,
they have reported 11 samples. We don't know the methodology,
at least from what is before me, for certain. We don't know the
exact location of where the samples were taken. But they found
between .32 and 4.0 parts per billion. We found 2 parts per
billion. So some of their samples were higher, some were lower.
In the case of Madison, WI, they found, in four wells that
they tested, .4 to 1.79 parts per billion. We found in our
study 1.58. Again, within the range.
Milwaukee tested and found .19 parts per billion to .22
parts per billion. We found .18. Again, right in the middle. In
the case of Norman, we have not seen the results yet. We look
forward to that.
In the case of Bend, OR, they have also reported results
after our study. They tested four samples of source water from
the Evian facility, .25 to .65. We found .78. That is the only
city that has found slightly lower levels than the levels we
found.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Cook follows:]
Statement of Kenneth A. Cook, President, Environmental Working Group
Madam Chair, Ranking Member Inhofe and distinguished members of the
committee: My name is Kenneth A. Cook. I am the President of
Environmental Working Group (EWG), a nonprofit research and advocacy
organization based here in Washington, DC, with offices in Ames, Iowa,
and Oakland, California. I thank the members of the committee for
holding this important hearing and for the opportunity to testify.
Ensuring safe, accessible drinking water is a core responsibility
of the United States government. The United States has some of the best
tap water in the world. But the safety of our drinking water is under
constant stress. Among the major problems:
Infrastructure is crumbling and decaying.
Programs to protect source water lack funding.
Utilities often can't afford to test for and treat
contamination.
Some disinfectants used to treat polluted water actually
break down into toxic substances.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has not
established drinking water standards for so-called ``unregulated
contaminants,'' harmful chemicals such as the industrial pollutant
hexavalent chromium, the rocket-fuel component perchlorate and the
perfluorinated chemicals PFOA and PFOS, active ingredients in stain
removers and carpet cleaners.
We believe that Administrator Jackson's national drinking water
strategy has put EPA on the right track. The agency has made
significant strides over the past 2 years to improve the quality of our
drinking water. We welcome recent EPA moves to review water
contaminants by class, develop new drinking water safety technologies
and use other statutes such as the Federal pesticide law and toxics law
to ensure water quality. We support EPA's initiatives to work with
states to publish State and locality specific water quality data online
and to give guidance to utilities on how to test and treat water for
chromium-6 contamination. But more must be done to protect our nation's
drinking water supply.
Since 2005 the Environmental Working Group has published a
searchable online data base of tap water quality called ``The National
Drinking Water Data base.'' Our data base synthesizes more than 20
million public water quality records. It allows citizens to look up
water quality reports by zip code so they can learn more about
regulated and unregulated water contaminants in their local water
supply. The most recent edition of EWG's National Drinking Water Data
base was published jointly in December 2009 with The New York Times'
award-winning series ``Toxic Waters,'' which has done much to educate
Americans about the State of the nation's water quality.
i. ewg's chromium-6 report
On December 20, 2010, the Environmental Working Group released a
study entitled ``Cancer-Causing Chromium-6 Pollution in U.S. Tap
Water,'' which reported the results of our laboratory tests of drinking
water from 35 cities. EWG conducted samplings in 35 cities whose annual
water quality reports indicated significant total chromium pollution.
Unfortunately, the total chromium measure doesn't tell residents what
they most need to know, because the metallic element comes in several
forms, including trivalent chromium, a mineral essential to health, and
the toxic pollutant chromium-6, also known as hexavalent chromium or
the ``Erin Brockovich chemical,'' for her storied campaign to uncover
industrial dumping.
The Federal National Toxicology Program has concluded from animal
testing that the pollutant shows ``clear evidence of carcinogenic
activity.'' An EPA draft review called chromium-6 in tap water ``likely
to be carcinogenic to humans.''
Because few jurisdictions test specifically for chromium-6, EWG
engaged volunteers to collect samples, using a standard protocol, from
unfiltered taps in homes or in public buildings. We sent these samples
to a nationally recognized laboratory. The tests found toxic hexavalent
chromium in the water supplies of 31 cities, serving more than 26
million Americans.
On December 31, 11 days after we released our report, California
lowered its chromimum-6 public health goal from 0.06 to 0.02 parts per
billion (ppb). Our chromium-6 readings in all 31 cities were higher
than California's new proposed safe limit. This is troubling.
In fact many members of this committee represent states where we
found high concentrations of chromium-6. Among them:
Riverside, CA-1.69 ppb
San Jose, CA -1.34 ppb
Los Angeles, CA-0.20 ppb
Sacramento, CA-0.16 ppb
Omaha, NE-1.07 ppb
Albuquerque, NM-1.04 ppb
Bend, OR-0.78 ppb
Bethesda, MD-0.19 ppb
Syracuse, NY-0.12 ppb
Buffalo, NY-0.07 ppb
The highest level detected was 12.9 ppb in Norman, Oklahoma.
This study was meant to be a ``snapshot'' of chromium-6
contamination in the country, not a comprehensive assessment of each
community's water supply. More comprehensive tests should be undertaken
immediately. The number of Americans drinking tap water contaminated
with chromium-6 is likely far higher than indicated by EWG's tests. At
least 74 million people in nearly 7,000 communities drink tap water
polluted with total chromium, according to EWG's 2009 analysis of water
utility tests from 48,000 communities in 42 states. We don't know how
many of those communities have water polluted with chromium-6. We
should find out. People have a right to know whether they are being
exposed to this dangerous substance.
ii. epa's current total chromium standard does not adequately protect
public health from chromium-6 exposure
EWG's report is the broadest publicly available survey of chromium-
6 to date. In California, the only State that requires testing for
chromium-6, water systems have detected it in tap water supplied to
more than 31 million residents. Chromium-6 is commonly discharged from
steel and pulp mills and metal-plating and leather-tanning facilities.
Naturally occurring chromium-6 can enter water supplies through erosion
of soil and rock.
The EPA has set a legal limit of 100 parts per billion of total
chromium to protect against ``allergic dermatitis'' (skin irritations
or reactions). Total chromium is composed primarily of toxic hexavalent
chromium, or chromium-6, and the necessary mineral trivalent chromium,
which regulates glucose metabolism. Our tests found that in most cases,
the largest component of total chromium was the hexavalent form.
Yet the EPA's legal limit for total chromium is 1,700 times higher
than California's proposed public health goal for hexavalent chromium,
and 5,000 times higher than the most recent proposed public health goal
issued by California. This disparity shows that the total chromium
regulation is out of sync with the established science on the public
health risks of chromium-6 exposure.
The California Environmental Protection Agency establishes drinking
water public health goals based on public health considerations using
the best available data in the scientific literature. Setting a public
health goal is the first step toward establishing a statewide
enforceable drinking water limit. In response to the National
Toxicology Program's finding that chromium-6 in drinking water shows
``clear evidence of carcinogenic activity'' in lab animals, California
proposed a public health goal of 0.06 parts per billion. The California
EPA asserted: ``The findings of available human, animal, genotoxic, and
toxicokinetic studies all indicate that hexavalent chromium is a
possible human carcinogen by the oral route.'' On December 31, 2010,
California lowered its public health goal for hexavalent chromium to
0.02 ppb, based on research on ``early in life exposures and cancer
potency'' of chromium-6.
The US EPA's most recent analysis of chromium-6 toxicity, released
in draft form in September 2010, cites significant cancer concerns
linked to exposure to the contaminant in drinking water. It highlights
several disorders reported in animal studies, including anemia and
damage to the gastrointestinal tract, lymph nodes and liver.
Chromium-6 is particularly dangerous to people whose stomachs are
insufficiently acidic. They appear to have limited availability to
convert hexavalent chromium to trivalent chromium.
Children are also at heightened risk. According to the National
Academy of Sciences, the developing organs of children and infants are
more vulnerable to damage from chemical exposures and children are less
able to excrete dangerous chemicals.
iii. epa should resist industry's well-documented efforts to prevent
specific regulation of chromium-6
Many Americans are familiar with chromimum-6 because of the film
``Erin Brockovich,'' and Ms. Brockovich's tireless work to expose
Pacific Gas & Electric Co.'s (PG&E) dumping of the chemical into the
groundwater around the small California community of Hinkley. In 1996,
thanks in large part to Ms. Brockovich's investigation, Hinkley
residents won a $333 million settlement from the giant utility. Less
heralded is the case of the residents of Kettleman City, Calif., who
settled with PG&E for $335 million in 2006. The machinations during
this lawsuit brought to light the utility's efforts to cover up health
risks associated with chromium-6.
The Kettleman story began nearly 25 years ago in China's Lioang
Province, when researchers found an increased risk of stomach cancer
and a ``significant excess of overall cancer mortality'' among
villagers whose drinking water was polluted by a chromium ore
processing facility. Ten years later the Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine published a paper that was purportedly written
by the same Chinese research team and that reversed the earlier
conclusion. Scientists and regulators, including EPA officials, cited
the paper in research and safety assessments. However, investigations
by EWG and the Wall Street Journal in 2005 disclosed that a consulting
firm named ChemRisk, hired by PG&E, had conducted its own analysis of
the Chinese data and deliberately excluded reports of cancer cases that
pointed to an association with chromium-6. ChemRisk submitted the paper
to the Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine without
disclosing PG&E's involvement. In 2006, the journal retracted the
paper, citing undisclosed ``financial and intellectual input to the
paper.'' For decades, industry has worked to prevent regulation of
chromium-6 and it's time for the government to act to protect public
health--especially the health of vulnerable populations like children
and pregnant women--from this cancer-causing chemical.
iv. epa should establish a specific drinking water standard for
chromium-6
Immediately after we released our 35-city report on December 20,
EPA Administrator Lisa P. Jackson told a bipartisan group of 10
Senators, including members of this committee, that the agency would
complete a scientific review of the chemical by summer and might
consider mandating cities to test for chromium-6 in tap water. Thank
you, Madam Chair, for your letter with Senator Feinstein, to the
Administrator urging EPA to act quickly to decide whether to issue a
health advisory on chromium-6 under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
The EPA reacted swiftly with a four-point plan to help water
utilities assess chromium-6 pollution and a pledge to set a nationwide
safety standard. Administrator Jackson announced that EPA would provide
technical assistance to the 31 chromium-6 communities listed in our
report. Earlier in January, EPA implemented point two of its plan and
issued enhanced guidance detailing where and how often water utilities
should collect samples and outlining protocols for laboratory testing.
We support EPA's quick action in light of our report's findings.
Three cities we sampled have conducted their own tests and found
similar results, and many water utilities across the country are
assessing potential chromium-6 pollution in their drinking water. We
will continue to press for more protective Federal standards for
chromium-6 in drinking water, and we look forward to working with the
agency and water utilities to address this health concern.
As I mentioned, we estimate that at least 74 million Americans in
42 states drink chromium-polluted tap water, much of it likely in the
form of hexavalent chromium. EPA's legal upper limit for total
chromium, 100 parts per billion, was set nearly 20 years ago and is
wholly inadequate. Furthermore, EPA has not set a new drinking water
standard under the Safe Drinking Water Act since 2001. Three-quarters
of the current standards date from 1991 and 1992 and have not been
modernized. Since 1996, EPA has reviewed toxicity and water pollution
data for 138 unregulated chemicals but declined to set a safe and
legally enforceable drinking water standard for any of these chemicals.
It's important that EPA move quickly to set an enforceable drinking
water standard for chromium-6 and require water utilities to test for
it. However, the past lack of action has shown that when it comes to
setting enforceable drinking water standards the agency often needs a
legislative push. Therefore, we strongly support Senator Boxer and
Senator Feinstein's legislation, S. 79, which would establish a
timeline for EPA to set a health advisory and specific chromium-6
drinking water standard.
v. the federal government should provide substantial funding for source
water protection and for water utilities to conduct necessary
infrastructure upgrades, water testing and treatment
The best way to remove chromium-6 from the nation's drinking water
is to keep it out in the first place. Environmental Working Group
strongly supports increased investment in source water protection,
including the reauthorization and full funding of the drinking water
and clean water State revolving loan funds.
But where hexavalent chromium already contaminates local water
supplies, no one-size-fits-all solution exists. Some utilities may be
able to respond adequately to high levels of hexavalent chromium in
finished tap water by modifying disinfection procedures. For instance,
chlorine, widely used as a tap water disinfectant, can cause trivalent
chromium to become the hexavalent form. Another common disinfectant,
chloramine, does not trigger this effect. Other utilities might be wise
to shift to other water sources, drawing less water from more
contaminated sources. Technologies effective for reducing hexavalent
chromium in tap water include membrane filtration by nanofiltration and
reverse osmosis, anion exchange, reduction followed by coagulation and
precipitation, and absorption. Over the past year, the city of
Glendale, California, for example, has been evaluating two new
hexavalent chromium treatment and testing facilities. Research
conducted at these facilities and around the country can help local
utilities address chromium-6 contamination.
Cleaning up hexavalent chromium pollution has its costs. But
ignoring it is not an option. Cities like Norman and Milwaukee deserve
credit for following up promptly on our findings. The next step is to
find ways to minimize contamination that could damage human health.
We also strongly support efforts to address other so-called
``unregulated contaminants,'' such as the rocket fuel ingredient
perchlorate and the perfluorinated chemicals PFOA and PFOS. It's time
for us to catch up to the science and to regulate these known drinking
water contaminants.
But here's the bottom line: our nation's water utilities need help.
We must provide them with the necessary funding for infrastructure
upgrades, water treatment technologies, and testing protocols to
protect our drinking water supply. Our health --and especially our
children's health--depends on their doing the job right. And in these
stark fiscal times, protecting our nation's public drinking water
supply should be a top funding and oversight priority for Congress.
references
ACC (American Chemistry Council). 2010. Letter to the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment. June 17, 2010.
AWWARF (American Water Works Association Research Foundation, now
the Water Research Foundation). 2004. Occurrence Survey of Boron and
Hexavalent Chromium.
Anderson SA, Valentine JL, Fernando R, Sparacino CM, Collins B.
2002. Chromium accumulation in the tissues of rats, mice and guinea
pigs exposed to sodium dichromate dihydrate in drinking water for
twenty-one days. Toxicol Sci 66(Suppl 1): 138.
Beaumont JJ, Sedman RM, Reynolds SD, Sherman CD, Li LH, Howd RA, et
al. 2008. Cancer mortality in a Chinese population exposed to
hexavalent chromium in drinking water. Epidemiology 19(1): 12-23.
Borneff J, Engelhardt K, Griem W, Kunte H, Reichert J. 1968.
[Carcinogens in water and soil. XXII. Mouse drinking water experiments
with 3,4-benzopyrene and potassium chromate]. Arch Hyg Bakteriol
152(1): 45-53.
Brandt-Rauf P. 2006. Editorial retraction. Cancer mortality in a
Chinese population exposed to hexavalent chromium in water. Journal of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine/American College of
Occupational and Environmental Medicine 48(7): 749.
CDPH (California Department of Public Health). 2009. Chromium-6 in
Drinking Water Sources: Sampling Results. California Department of
Public Health, Sacramento, CA. February 17, 2009. Available at:
www.cdph.ca.gov/certlic/drinkingwater/Pages/Chromium6sampling.aspx.
Costa M. 1997. Toxicity and carcinogenicity of Cr(VI) in animal
models and humans. Critical Reviews in Toxicology 27(5): 431-442.
Donaldson RM, Jr., Barreras RF. 1966. Intestinal absorption of
trace quantities of chromium. The Journal of Laboratory and Clinical
Medicine 68(3): 484-493.
Donohue JM, Lipscomb JC. 2002. Health advisory values for drinking
water contaminants and the methodology for determining acute exposure
values. Sci Total Environ 288(1-2): 43-9.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2000. Hazard summary for
chromium compounds. Available at: www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/
chromium.html.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. Six-Year Review 1 of
Drinking Water Standards. EPA 815-F-03-001. U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Water. July 2003. Available at:
www.epa.gov/safewater/review/first_review.html.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2009. Six-Year Review 2
Health Effects Assessment: Summary Report. EPA 822-R-09-006. U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Water. October 2009.
Available at: www.epa.gov/safewater/review/second_review.html.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2010a. Toxicological Review
of Hexavalent Chromium (CAS No. 18540-29-9) (External Review Draft).
EPA/635/R-10/004A. September 2010. Available at: oaspub.epa.gov/eims/
eimscomm.getfile?p_download_id=498712.
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2010b. Drinking Water
Contaminants. Available at: www.epa.gov/safewater/contaminants/
index.html.
EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2005. Chrome-Plated Fraud: How
PG&E's scientists-for-hire reversed findings of cancer study. Available
at: www.ewg.org/erinbrockovichchromium6lawsuit/.
EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2006. Letter to JOEM. Available
at: www.ewg.org/node/21952.
EWG (Environmental Working Group). 2009. EWG's Drinking Water
Quality Analysis and Tap Water Data base. Available at: http://
www.ewg.org/tap-water/home.
Finley BL, Kerger BD, Katona MW, Gargas ML, Corbett GC, Paustenbach
DJ. 1997. Human ingestion of chromium (VI) in drinking water:
pharmacokinetics following repeated exposure. Toxicology and Applied
Pharmacology 142(1): 151-159.
Gwiazda R. 2008. Review of the document ``Public Health Goal for
hexavalent chromium in drinking water'' Prepared by the Office of
Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) of the California
Environmental Protection Agency in January 2008: Pesticide and
Environmental Toxicology Branch, Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency. Available at:
www.oehha.org/water/phg/pdf/Cr_Gwiazda090909.pdf.
IARC (International Agency for Research on Cancer). 1990. Chromium
and chromium compounds. International Agency for Research on Cancer.
IARC Monogr Eval Carcinog Risks Hum 49:49-214.
Kerger BD, Paustenbach DJ, Corbett GE, Finley BL. 1996. Absorption
and elimination of trivalent and hexavalent chromium in humans
following ingestion of a bolus dose in drinking water. Toxicology and
Applied Pharmacology 141(1): 145-158.
Lai H, McNeill LS. 2006. Chromium redox chemistry in drinking water
systems. J Environ Eng 132(8): 842-851.
McCarroll N, Keshava N, Chen J, Akerman G, Kligerman A, Rinde E.
2010. An evaluation of the mode of action framework for mutagenic
carcinogens case study II: chromium (VI). Environmental and Molecular
Mutagenesis 51(2): 89-111.
NAS (National Academy of Sciences). 1993. Pesticides in the Diets
of Infants and Children. Washington DC: National Academy Press.
NRC (National Research Council). 2008. Phthalates and Cumulative
Risk Assessment: The Task Ahead. Available at: www.nap.edu/catalog/
12528.html.
NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2007. Actions on Draft NTP
Technical Reports Reviewed by the NTP Board of Scientific Counselors
Technical Reports Review Subcommittee, May 16-17, 2007, Minutes
available at: ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/
TRRS_MIns_May_2007_bs8rgMW[1]1.pdf.
NTP (National Toxicology Program). 2008. NTP Technical Report on
the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Sodium Dichromate
Dihydrate (CAS No. 7789-12-0) in F344/N Rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Drinking
Water Studies). NTP TR 546, NIH Publication No. 07-5887: National
Toxicology Program, National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department of
Health and Human Services. Available at: http://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/
files/546_web_FINAL.pdf.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2009.
Draft Public Health Goal for Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water:
Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Branch, Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency.
Available at: www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/Cr6PHGdraft082009.pdf.
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2010.
Peer Review Comments regarding 2001 Draft Public Health Goal for
Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water. Available at: www.oehha.ca.gov/
water/phg/chrom-2010.html.
USGS (United States Geological Survey). Mineral Commodity
Summaries: Chromium. January 2010.
Zhang JD, Li S. 1997. Cancer mortality in a Chinese population
exposed to hexavalent chromium in water. Journal of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine/American College of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine 39(4): 315-319.
Zhang JD, Li XL. 1987. [Chromium pollution of soil and water in
Jinzhou]. Zhonghua yu fang yi xue za zhi [Chinese Journal of Preventive
Medicine] 21(5): 262-264.
ATTACHMENT A
Cancer-Causing Chromium-6 Pollution in U.S. Tap Water,
Environmental Working Group (December 20, 2010) (available at http://
static.ewg.org/reports/2010/chrome6/html/home.html)
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Responses by Kenneth Cook to Additional Questions from Senator Boxer
Question 1. The Environmental Working Group's recent investigation
found chromium-6 in the tap water of 31 cities across the Nation.
Describe what the main message is from your report and the steps that
you believe EPA should take to address the potential public health
threats from chromium-6 in tap water?
Response. The main message from our ``Chromium-6 in U.S. Tap
Water'' study is that the pollution from chromium-6 in U.S. drinking
water is more widespread than was previously acknowledged or known by
water utilities and EPA. Americans have a right to know what
contaminants are in their tap water. Another message is that more
testing is needed on the prevalence of chromium-6 in drinking water and
that the EPA must set a safety standard as soon as possible. For those
reasons EWG fully supports EPA's Guidance for Enhanced Monitoring of
Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water, which was released on January
11, 2011. We are pleased to see that our study and EPA's guidance has
motivated cities and utilities to test their water. In most cases the
cities found similar or even higher levels of chromium-6 than our
results:
Honolulu, HI
EWG Study--2.00 parts per billion (ppb)
Honolulu Board of Water Supply--0.32 ppb to 4.00 ppb
from 11 samples
Madison, WI
EWG Study--1.58 ppb
Madison--0.40 ppb to 1.79 ppb from four wells
Milwaukee, WI
EWG Study--0.18 ppb
Milwaukee--0.19 ppb to 0.22 ppb from 18 samples
Bend, OR
EWG Study--0.78 ppb
Avion Water (private water supplier)--0.25 ppb to 0.65
ppb from four samples
We also fully support your legislation, S. 79, the Protecting
Pregnant Women and Children From Hexavalent Chromium Act of 2011, to
ensure that EPA does set a drinking water standard for this dangerous
chemical.
Question 2. Describe what your organization found regarding
industry's influence on the science concerning the potential health
effects from drinking chromium-6.
Response. In 2005 investigations by Environmental Working Group and
The Wall Street Journal revealed that ChemRisk, a consulting firm hired
by Pacific Gas & Electric Co. (PG&E) to fight the Hinkley, California
lawsuit had placed a falsified article in the Journal of Occupational
and Environmental Medicine (JOEM).
In the 1980's researchers in China's Liaoning Province found an
increased risk of stomach cancer and a ``significant excess of overall
cancer mortality'' among villagers who had drinking water polluted by a
chromium ore processing facility. These findings did not receive much
attention because they were published in a Chinese-language medical
journal.
In 1997, however, the JOEM published a paper, purportedly by the
same Chinese research team, which reversed the previous conclusion and
said the data actually ``do not indicate an association of cancer
mortality with exposure to [hexavalent-chromium]-contaminated
groundwater.'' EWG and The Wall Street Journal investigated the article
only to discover that the report was fabricated. The journal retracted
the fraudulent paper in 2006. Subsequently, California officials
conducted a re-assessment of the study data and found a statistically
significant increase in stomach cancer among people exposed to
chromium-6.
This industry deception alarms us especially given the extent of
chromium-6 contamination nationwide.
Question 3. Describe the Environmental Working Group's views on the
need to address perchlorate contamination in drinking water.
Response. We've believed that EPA must set a safe drinking water
standard on perchlorate for many years. We thank you for your
leadership in pushing the agency for more than a decade. We also
applaud Administrator Jackson's announcement at the February 2, 2011
hearing that EPA is moving forward with development of a first-ever
national drinking water standard for perchlorate. We look forward to
seeing the agency's proposed rule establishing this standard.
Scientific research has established that perchlorate in significant
amounts disrupts production of thyroid hormones, and adequate thyroid
hormones are crucial to normal brain development and growth in the
fetus, infants and young children.
EWG has documented the significant concerns and presence of
perchlorate including in our ``Rocket Fuel in Drinking Water'' report,
released in 2003, which determined that it had been found in drinking
water, groundwater or soil in at least 43 states. Our 2008 analysis of
FDA data, ``FDA Food Testing Shows Widespread Rocket Fuel Contamination
of Commonly Consumed Foods and Beverages,'' found that 75 percent of
nearly 300 commonly consumed foods and beverages--dairy, vegetables and
fruit--were contaminated with perchlorate.
The time for regulation of perchlorate is now. The science is well
established and we encourage EPA to move swiftly in finalizing
perchlorate regulations.
______
Response by Kenneth Cook to an Additional Question from Senator Carper
Question. How can the Federal Government focus its efforts to
improve drinking water quality on pollution prevention? What kinds of
tools and programs exist to prevent the pollution of drinking water and
what new ones are needed?
Response. The most cost effective and best way to prevent chromium-
6 pollution of the nation's drinking water is to keep it from getting
in there in the first place. Environmental Working Group fully supports
increased investment in source water protection, including aquatic
buffers and erosion and sediment control, and urges cities to follow
EPA's Guidance for Enhanced Monitoring of Hexavalent Chromium in
Drinking Water so that we can get a fuller perspective of the
prevalence of chromium-6 pollution. A more complete picture will allow
the Federal Government to better target financial resources for source
water protection.
We also urge congressional efforts to restore President Obama's
proposed fiscal year budget cuts to the drinking water and clean water
State revolving funds. We need to make a full investment in our water
infrastructure. The price of doing so will not go down, it will just
continue to increase. With investment delays, more Americans will be
exposed to dangerous chemicals in their drinking water.
______
Responses by Kenneth Cook to Additional Questions from
Senator Lautenberg
Question 1. The Safe Drinking Water Act currently allows EPA to
require only temporary monitoring for no more than thirty of the
hundreds of unregulated contaminants in our drinking water. This leaves
additional testing to groups like EWG. Do you think the Safe Drinking
Water Act should be amended to allow EPA to increase monitoring for
unregulated contaminants?
Response. In December 2009, Environmental Working Group released
our ``National Drinking Water Data base.'' (available at: http://
www.ewg.org/tap-water/home) This study assembled an unprecedented 20
million drinking water quality tests performed by water utilities
between 2004-2009. It showed 316 contaminants in water supplied to 256
million Americans in 48,000 communities in 45 states. Nearly 64
percent--202--of the 316 contaminants in drinking water remain
unregulated by the EPA. It is clear that Administrator Jackson has
taken a strong first step through the agency's drinking water strategy.
EPA needs to rid our drinking water of these so-called ``unregulated
contaminants.''
In 2010, EPA Administrator Jackson announced the agency's new
drinking water strategy with the goal of more quickly and effectively
reviewing and addressing the health risks posed by drinking water
contaminants. This new strategy includes goals to address contaminants
as groups, foster development of new drinking water technologies, use
of multiple authorities like TSCA, and partner with states to develop
shared access to monitoring data. These are all steps in right
direction.
On March 4, 2011 EPA released the proposed contaminants for the
third Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR 3) including
perfluorinated compounds. Unfortunately, EPA has not set a new drinking
water standard under the Safe Drinking Water Act since 2001. It is
important that EPA not be limited in the amount of chemicals they are
allowed to include in the UCMR. Instead, Congress should require that
EPA monitor a set minimum number of unregulated contaminants. Congress
should also continue its robust oversight of EPA's efforts--or lack
thereof--in setting safe drinking water standards.
Question 2. As you know, I have introduced legislation to reform
the Toxic Substances Control Act to require companies to prove that
chemicals are safe for their intended use. How would reforming TSCA
help improve drinking water quality?
Response. The Safe Chemicals Act would help improve drinking water
quality because the safety standard in the legislation requires that
EPA consider aggregate or cumulative exposures to a chemical for
vulnerable populations. The exposure must present a negligible risk of
an adverse effect. This safety standard means that upon enactment of
the Safe Chemicals Act, EPA will be tasked with looking at all routes
of exposure for chemicals including through drinking water, consumer
products and personal care products. EPA is already operating under its
new drinking water strategy, one tenant of which is to utilize multiple
authorities. Unfortunately the safety standard under TSCA is so weak
that only five chemicals have been regulated in 35 years. Under the
Safe Chemicals Act, EPA will be able to improve water quality by
regulating chemicals that pose a risk to human health through all
routes of exposure including drinking water.
Senator Boxer. Thank you. That is very helpful.
We will now hear from Ms. Diane VanDe Hei.
STATEMENT OF DIANE VanDe HEI, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION
OF METROPOLITAN WATER AGENCIES
Ms. VanDe Hei. Good morning, Madam Chairman, Ranking Member
Inhofe and the rest of the Committee.
My name is Diane VanDe Hei. I am Executive Director of the
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies. It is an
organization of the Nation's largest drinking water systems,
serving over 130 million people with safe drinking water.
Carrie Lewis, Superintendent of Water for the city of
Milwaukee, was invited to testify today, but due to weather
conditions in the Midwest, was unable to make it. I know she
would like to be here.
This morning, I would like to talk to you about the
drinking water regulatory process from the point of view of the
drinking water utility community and about the recent report
from the EWG group that detected traces of chromium VI in the
drinking water of 31 communities.
Like the members of the Committee, AMWA's members are
committed to ensuring the provision of safe, healthy drinking
water to the public. As you can see from Carrie's written
testimony, Milwaukee Water Works is a leader in testing its
water for unregulated contaminants, and frequently interacts
with both EPA and the customers regarding water quality. In
fact, Milwaukee tests for over 500 contaminants, and that
information is put on their public website, when they are only
required to monitor for 90. So they go above and beyond what is
required by Federal law and State law in terms of monitoring.
They are very open to the public in terms of what they find.
You will find with the rest of this testimony, the question is,
what do you tell them about what you found.
But even with the collaboration, the chromium VI issue has
been particularly difficult for Milwaukee, and many other
drinking water systems cited in the report. First, it was a big
surprise to many utilities to find out about the EWG report
through newspaper headlines. Most of them would have liked to
have had a phone call saying, here is a heads-up, this is what
we found, this is what is coming out. Furthermore, the report's
methodology of collecting a single sample from the distribution
system with no sense of where or when the sample was taken,
should not be used to draw broad inferences about a water
utility's quality.
While utilities want their customers to know what is in
their water, we must also understand what reported levels of
contaminants, often in the parts per billion or parts per
trillion level, mean for the public. This is where EPA comes
in. Utilities count on the agency to conduct solid peer-
reviewed research to inform us about which contaminants at what
levels we should focus on to protect public health and meet
water quality standards. The regulatory process put in place by
the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 1996 was designed to
do this. We believe the process as designed works well.
This is why AMWA has some concerns about the guidance EPA
released last month, to have water systems voluntarily sample
their water supplies for chromium VI. While we agree that the
public must be made aware of harmful contaminants in their
drinking water, before encouraging utility testing, the
screening methodology should be approved by EPA and the public
health impacts of the contaminants should be established.
Additionally, the January 11th guidance recommends using
California's certified laboratories to analyze water samples
for chromium VI at a reporting level of .06 parts per billion
and a 5-day holding time. Although California's method is only
approved for a reporting level of 1 part per billion and a 24-
hour holding time. So there is a problem. If you are sending
utilities to California laboratories to have their samples
tested, and the guidance is saying there is a 5-day holding
time and the method is only approved for 24 hours, the quality
control and what is the use of that data comes into question.
So that needs to be sorted out between EPA, its guidance and
the States and the utilities, what is the method they should be
using.
Morever, once water systems test for chromium VI, it is
unclear how to communicate the results to the public. We have
covered that.
Therefore, AMWA would urge EPA to continue moving forward
with its research into chromium VI, which will result in
additional data that can inform any appropriate regulation
through the Safe Drinking Water Act. AMWA believes that the
best public health protection will result if EPA follows the
existing regulatory framework that was designed by Congress to
the 1996 amendments. The drinking water community will support
and comply with the standards that are the product of this
established process, as we always have.
Thank you, Madam Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Lewis follows:]
Statement of Carrie Lewis, Superintendent, Milwaukee Water Works on
Behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies
Good morning Madame Chairman, Ranking Member Inhofe, and members of
the Committee. My name is Carrie Lewis and I am the Superintendent of
Milwaukee Water Works in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. The Water Works provides
high-quality drinking water to more than 860,000 people in Milwaukee
and 15 surrounding communities.
I also serve on the board of directors of the Association of
Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA), which is an organization
representing the largest publicly owned drinking water utilities in the
United States. AMWA's members provide clean and safe drinking water to
more than 130 million Americans from Alaska to Puerto Rico.
Today I am here to discuss AMWA's view of EPA's drinking water
regulatory process, as well as the approach Milwaukee Water Works takes
to removing contaminants from our drinking water supplies and the
testing we conduct to ensure that our water remains in compliance with
all State and Federal regulations. This issue has gained increased
attention due to a report released by the Environmental Working Group
(EWG) in December alleging that the drinking water of thirty-one cities
across the United States--including Milwaukee--contains detectable
levels of chromium-6. Chromium-6 is, according to EPA's draft
Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) toxicological assessment, a
suspected carcinogen if ingested by humans over a lifetime. Chromium-6
is a component of total chromium, which is regulated by EPA with a
maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 100 parts per billion (ppb). At this
time, there is not a separate Federal drinking water regulation for
chromium-6, nor does EPA require drinking water systems to test their
water supplies for the chemical.
Additionally, because Chairwoman Boxer has introduced S. 78 and S.
79, bills that would set timelines within which EPA would have to set
enforceable drinking water standards for perchlorate and chromium-6,
respectively, I will share some thoughts as to how the water utility
community believes we can work with the government to best protect
public health while adhering to the regulatory process established
through the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and also reasonably
allocating the resources currently available to local communities.
drinking water systems prioritize public health protection
Like all drinking water systems, Milwaukee Water Works is committed
to protecting public health. The utility meets all State and Federal
requirements for safe and healthful drinking water by subjecting its
Lake Michigan sourcewater to a multiple-step process to remove illness-
causing microorganisms and contaminants. The water is disinfected with
ozone, a highly reactive gas that destroys microorganisms, removes
taste and odor, and reduces byproducts from chlorine disinfection.
Coagulation, settling, and biologically active filtration remove
additional particles. Fluoride is added for dental health consistent
with CDC recommendations, and a phosphorous compound is added to help
control corrosion of lead and copper pipes. Finally, chloramine
disinfection ensures safe drinking water throughout the distribution
system and at consumer faucets.
In addition to this robust treatment regime, Milwaukee complies
with EPA regulations that require drinking water systems to test their
water supplies for more than ninety different regulated and unregulated
contaminants that are, based on the best available science, thought to
pose the greatest risks to human health. But Milwaukee Water Works
actually goes above and beyond this requirement, testing its source and
treated drinking water for over five hundred contaminants--more than
five times the number required by EPA. We voluntarily conduct this
monitoring as a precaution to ensure safe water, to collect baseline
data for study, to understand how contaminants may affect public
health, and to prepare for future regulations.
In 2004 Milwaukee became one of the first utilities in the United
States to test its source and drinking water for endocrine-disrupting
compounds (EDCs). In 2005, it was one of the first to test for
pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs). To date, none of
these substances have been found in Milwaukee's drinking water. In
2008, the Associated Press cited Milwaukee as one of only twenty-eight
major utilities in the U.S. to test source and treated water for
emerging contaminants such as EDCs and PPCPs, and Milwaukee was the
first U.S. utility to post its test results on the Internet. As you can
see, Milwaukee Water Works takes great pride in ensuring the safety and
quality of the drinking water that is distributed to our customers.
In response to concerns about chromium-6 raised by the EWG report,
in January the utility conducted independent tests for the chemical.
Three rounds of samples were collected from six separate locations:
untreated Lake Michigan water entering Milwaukee's two water treatment
plants; fully treated water as it leaves each treatment plant; and two
locations in the distribution system. Samples analyzed using EPA method
218.6 identified the presence of chromium-6 at 0.22 ppb in untreated
source water, at 0.20 ppb in treated water leaving each treatment
plant, and at 0.19 ppb at two points in the distribution system. We
immediately communicated this information to our customers, and also
confirmed to them that there is no health evidence or indication that
Milwaukee's drinking water is unsafe for human consumption or use.
Furthermore, there is no need for customers to purchase or install
special filtration devices at faucets, water fountains, or at any other
point-of-use location at homes and businesses.
While Milwaukee acted quickly following the release of EWG's
report, we would have begun our own monitoring for chromium-6 sooner if
EWG had shared their findings with us immediately after they tested
Milwaukee's water, rather than waiting several months to release their
data from across the country to the media en masse. Moreover, in the
absence of additional utility testing we were concerned that public
confidence in our drinking water supply would be undermined by the
widely reported results of a single water sample from a single faucet,
which according to EWG was collected from somewhere within our service
area sometime during the past several months. This uncertainty was
unacceptable to us, so we decided to move forward with our own testing.
Along these same lines, on January 11 EPA released a guidance to
help water systems voluntarily sample source water, plant treated
water, and water in the distribution system for chromium-6 on a
quarterly basis. But while AMWA appreciates the goal of properly
informing the public about the quality of drinking water using
standardized scientific methods, the association has several
reservations about the guidance. For example, the guidance refers to
using California's certified laboratories to conduct chromium-6
analysis at a reporting level of 0.06 ppb and a holding time of up to 5
days. However, California currently approves this method only for a
reporting level of 1.0 ppb and a 24-hour holding time. In addition,
questions about proper sampling technique and sample preservation are
not addressed in the guidance, which leads to uncertainty as to whether
the resulting data will be valid since EPA does not officially approve
the method described in the guidance.
Some of these questions have prompted some drinking water utilities
to choose to not test for chromium-6 until EPA has completed its risk
assessment for the contaminant, which is expected later this year. This
decision reflects the fact that, in the absence of solid human health
data from EPA, it is impossible to tell the public with any certainty
what exactly the results of these tests may mean. As a result, some
utilities will choose to expend their limited resources focusing on
testing and treating for other chemicals--those for which EPA has
already established a clear human health link. Each of these approaches
is valid, and they demonstrate the hazards of stirring concerns about a
particular contaminant before all of the necessary research is
complete.
sensible regulation through the safe drinking water act
As we've heard today, reports in the news media about unregulated
drinking water contaminants such as chromium-6, perchlorate, and
pharmaceutical and personal care products often lead to calls that EPA
should ``move expeditiously'' to set legal drinking water limits for
emerging contaminants. To that end, the bills introduced by Chairwoman
Boxer last week would require EPA to set enforceable drinking water
standards for perchlorate and chromium-6 no later than 1 year after the
enactment of each measure. But AMWA would caution against undermining
the SDWA process and forcing EPA to regulate certain contaminants
simply because they have been highlighted by an outside group or
featured in the news media. Instead, EPA must maintain the latitude to
conduct and complete sound, transparent research that determines
whether, and at what level, chromium-6 and other contaminants may pose
threats to human health.
This current system, put in place by the Safe Drinking Water Act
amendments of 1996, is a reasonable and effective way to establish
drinking water standards. Before making a determination to regulate a
drinking water contaminant, EPA must consider the potential adverse
effects of the contaminant on human health, the frequency and level of
the contaminant's occurrence in public drinking water systems, and
whether regulation will present a meaningful opportunity to reduce
public health risks. These requirements set a high bar for the Agency,
but they ensure that the regulations are well vetted and that dollars
subsequently spent by utilities to detect and remove these contaminants
are put to good use.
SDWA requires EPA to consider regulating new contaminants on an
ongoing basis, as new scientific data becomes available. Every 5 years,
EPA must publish a Contaminant Candidate List of unregulated drinking
water contaminants for which additional research will be prioritized.
EPA must make a decision on whether to regulate at least five of these
contaminants every 5 years, ensuring that the Agency has a frequent
opportunity to examine the best available science for the most
researched unregulated contaminants.
Every 6 years, EPA must review all currently regulated contaminants
and make a decision on whether there are any National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations for which current health effects assessments, changes
in technology, or other factors provide a health or technical basis to
support a regulatory revision that will maintain or strengthen public
health protection. For the last Six-Year Review, published in 2010, EPA
stated that it was awaiting the final risk assessment for chromium-6
before making a decision about revising the total chromium regulation.
The IRIS assessment for chromium-6 was released for peer review on
September 30, 2010.
Finally, SDWA requires EPA to maintain an Unregulated Contaminant
Monitoring Program to collect data on unregulated contaminants that are
suspected to be present in drinking water supplies, and gives the EPA
administrator the power to promulgate a drinking water regulation on an
expedited basis for a contaminant found to be an urgent threat to
public health following consultation with the Department of Health and
Human Services, the Centers for Disease Control, and the National
Institutes of Health. Clearly, EPA has at its disposal the regulatory
tools necessary to make informed and scientifically sound decisions
about drinking water regulations.
Perhaps just as importantly, SDWA recognizes that there are
occasions when it will be technologically impossible or infeasible for
a drinking water utility to remove a contaminant to the point where it
poses absolutely zero risk of a public health impact. Therefore, when
regulating a contaminant EPA publishes both a non-enforceable ``maximum
contaminant level goal'' (MCLG) which represents the level at which
there is no known risk to human health, and an enforceable MCL, a
binding limit set as close to the MCLG as is feasible after considering
the best available treatment technology and cost factors. To be clear,
as California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
explained in a December 31, 2010 press statement, a drinking water
contaminant goal ``is not meant to be the maximum `safe' level'' of a
given chemical in drinking water. Instead, ``it represents a stringent
health-protective goal'' that is used ``to develop and enforceable
regulatory standard.''\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ ``OEHAA Releases Revised Draft Public Health Goal for
Hexavalent Chromium,'' December 31, 2010. http://www.oehha.ca.gov/
water/phg/pdf/Chrom6press123110.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consequently, EWG's report should not be read to suggest that the
drinking water of Milwaukee or any other community poses a threat to
the public because its chromium-6 level meets or exceeds California's
proposed public health goal for the contaminant. To the contrary, the
city of Milwaukee Department of Public Health has determined that there
is no evidence of an imminent public health risk or threat of acute
illness due to low levels of chromium-6 in the city's water supply. For
these reasons, AMWA believes Congress should not force EPA to
prematurely terminate its study of chromium-6 or any other emerging
contaminant.
policy recommendations
As the committee performs important oversight of EPA's drinking
water program, AMWA's message is quite simple: public health protection
is paramount, and we fully support SDWA's defined process for
identifying, regulating and revising drinking water contaminants. But
Congress should not overreact to any outside organization's
unscientific report on drinking water quality by passing legislation
such as S. 78 or S. 79 and requiring EPA to regulate certain
contaminants within an arbitrary period of time. If Congress were to
require municipal water systems to increase their testing or alter
their treatment of water supplies in response to each and every report
published by an activist group, it would introduce into the process a
political component that the SDWA statute was designed to exclude.
Allowing Congress, not EPA, to decide when certain emerging
contaminants must be regulated would irrevocably weaken the Safe
Drinking Water Act, undermine public confidence in the water supply,
and add significant costs to local communities--all while delivering
questionable public health benefits.
Instead, AMWA believes that the best public health protections will
result if Congress, as Chairwoman Boxer argued in January, respects
EPA's authority to craft drinking water regulations and set
environmental standards ``in a measured, moderate, responsible way,''
and does ``not interfere with the ability of the EPA and the states to
act in accordance with the law to respond to what the scientists are
telling us.'' \2\ If, pursuant to the requirements of the Safe Drinking
Water Act, EPA research determines that the presence of a certain level
of chromium-6 in drinking water presents a human health risk, then the
Agency should establish an enforceable standard that can reasonably and
feasibly be met by the nation's drinking water systems. The drinking
water community will support and comply with standards that are the
product of this established process, as we always have.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ ``Senator Boxer Delivers Remarks on Protecting Our Landmark
Environmental Laws and Creating Jobs,'' January 6, 2011. http://
epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Majority.
PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=5cc0f6df-802a-23ad-4d13-bc6e386b53fe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are effective steps that AMWA urges Congress to take to
ensure that utilities have the resources available to keep clean and
safe drinking water flowing to all of their customers. For example,
AMWA supports reauthorization of the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (DWSRF), a Federal program that offers loans to help water systems
comply with Federal drinking water standards. While the program largely
aims to help small community water systems comply with SDWA standards
(especially considering that EPA has reported that ninety-six percent
of all health-based SDWA violations occur at utilities serving fewer
than 10,000 people \3\), it could be strengthened by making more funds
available for projects at very large water systems that serve nearly
half of America's population. Metropolitan utilities that serve more
than 100,000 people represent thirty-five percent of the drinking water
infrastructure need identified in EPA's 2007 Drinking Water Needs
Survey, but through 2009 had received only twenty-three percent of
DWSRF funds distributed since the program's inception. In addition to
strengthening the DWSRF, Congress should consider new and innovative
programs to help water utilities cope with rising infrastructure costs,
such as a water infrastructure bank or a similar program that focuses
on urban water infrastructure and public health.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ ``Testimony of Peter S. Silva, Assistant Administrator for
Water, and Cynthia J. Giles, Assistant Administrator for Enforcement
and Compliance Assurance, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Before
the Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate,'' December
8, 2009. http://epw.senate.gov/public/
index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore--id=b773e8ed 097b8a-4d87-
9835a-cf0f644ff6ef.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, Congress should reject calls to reduce funding for the
DWSRF as a means to cut Federal spending. While we can all agree that
the Federal budget deficit needs to be addressed, the fact remains that
the nation's drinking water systems will need to spend nearly $335
billion over the next 20 years just to maintain current levels of
service.\4\ These costs are not optional, and cannot be ignored without
putting public health at risk. A strong DWSRF program is essential to
preserve a safe and secure water supply.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ ``EPA's 2007 Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and
Assessment Fact Sheet,'' February 2009. http://water.epa.gov/
infrastructure/drinkingwater/dwns/upload/2009--03--26--needs survey--
2007--fs--needssurvey--2007.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, AMWA supported passage of last year's ``Reduction of Lead
in Drinking Water Act,'' which was sponsored by Chairwoman Boxer and
Ranking Member Inhofe and updated SDWA's statutory definition of
``lead-free'' as it applies to new pipes and plumbing fixtures that
carry drinking water. Improving technology made a lower lead standard
attainable, and the legislation won bipartisan support because it will
implement the new standard in such a way that will not saddle
communities with prohibitive costs. It is through such collaborative,
achievable measures that Congress can best protect public health and
the quality of the drinking water supply. Technical questions about
whether and at what level to regulate emerging contaminants in the
drinking water supply, on the other hand, should continue to be
considered at EPA through the transparent process outlined by Congress
in the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this important hearing
today. I look forward to answering any questions that you may have.
__________
Response by Carrie Lewis to an Additional Question from Senator Boxer
Question. Describe the importance that utilities place on ensuring
that they provide safe drinking water that protects public health,
including the health of pregnant women, infants, and children, from
dangerous contaminants.
Response. Protecting public health through the provision of clean
and safe drinking water is the top priority of Milwaukee Water Works
and all drinking water utilities. To ensure that the health of our
customers is protected, we rely on the Environmental Protection Agency
to tell us what levels of certain contaminants in drinking water
present a known public health risk, and to establish a maximum
contaminant level (MCL) for these contaminants. It is then our job to
treat our water so that it is in compliance with these established
standards.
While we take pride in providing safe drinking water to all of our
customers, we understand the special importance of protecting the
health of vulnerable populations, such as pregnant women, infants, and
children. We therefore appreciate that the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) requires EPA to consider the effect of contaminants on
vulnerable populations on several different occasions during the
regulatory process. First, as EPA decides whether to regulate a given
drinking water contaminant, SDWA Sec. 1412(b)(1)(C) requires the
Administrator to take into consideration ``the effect of such
contaminants upon subgroups . . . (such as infants, children, pregnant
women, the elderly, individuals with a history of serious illness, or
other subpopulations) . . . at greater risk of adverse health
effects.''
Additionally, when proposing an enforceable MCL for a drinking
water contaminant, SDWA Section 1412(b)(3)(C)(i)(V) requires EPA to
consider the health effects of the contaminant on the general
population as well as subgroups such as ``infants, children, pregnant
women, the elderly, individuals with a history of serious illness,''
and others that may be at greater health risk due to exposure to
contaminants in drinking water. We are pleased that the SDWA statute
requires the health and safety of these vulnerable subpopulations to be
taken into account, and that these considerations are subsequently
reflected in enforceable standards promulgated by EPA.
______
Responses by Carrie Lewis to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. I am always concerned about how cities and local
governments are dealing with the unfunded mandates that are passed down
from the Federal Government. I know stricter drinking water standards
and clean water standards force many of our communities to either raise
rates or seek additional funding from other sources. How can we ensure
that utilities like yours are not facing the constant threat of having
to raise rates and still meeting drinking water standards?
Response. First, I want to make clear that the drinking water
community believes that if sound scientific research demonstrates that
a drinking water contaminant poses a human health risk, EPA should
promulgate standards that protect the public to the maximum extent that
can be feasibly attained.
AMWA believes that the process established under the 1996
amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act is the best mechanism to
achieve the objective of protecting public health in a cost effective
manner. After determining that the best available science warrants the
regulation of a contaminant, EPA has 24 months to propose a maximum
contaminant level goal (MCLG), which represents the level at which the
contaminant would pose zero threat to public health. EPA also proposes
a drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCL), which is set as close
to the MCLG as feasible, as defined by Sec. 1412(b)(4)(D). SDWA then
provides EPA with an additional 18 months to promulgate a final MCLG
and MCL. This MCL is an enforceable standard set as close to the MCLG
as is feasible after considering factors such as the best available
treatment technology and cost.
Maintaining this process as EPA makes future drinking water
contaminant regulatory decisions--particularly the 18-month period
between the announcement of the proposed MCLG and MCL and the
promulgation of the binding MCL--is essential to ensuring that
regulations are based on sound science while also keeping costs under
control. If this 18-month period were truncated, we would be concerned
that EPA may be forced to issue binding MCLs without completely
considering the technical or financial feasibility of the proposed
standards. As a result, utilities could be required to comply with
mandates that otherwise might have been found to be infeasible, or to
spend excessive amounts of ratepayer dollars to attempt to meet these
requirements.
There are other steps Congress can take to help water utilities
cope with regulatory compliance costs and protect the public from
spikes in water rates. AMWA supports robust funding for the Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF), which offers loans to help water
systems improve their infrastructure to comply with Federal drinking
water standards. EPA's 2007 Drinking Water Needs Survey reported that
the nation's drinking water systems will need to spend nearly $335
billion over the next 20 years just to maintain current levels of
drinking water service, so for many communities DWSRF loans are a
helpful supplement to local funding.
Question 2. Please explain the process that your utility goes
through in deciding how to spend the limited resources and how those
decisions are affected by new regulations.
Response. Every year, budgeting and spending decisions at Milwaukee
Water Works become more challenging as we try to balance out spending
with anticipated revenue. We also try to prioritize our budget wish
list, separating ``must-do'' items such as meeting regulatory
requirements and protecting public health and safety, from ``important-
to-do'' items like some infrastructure projects. And last, there are
the ``nice-to-do'' things. This list is growing longer each year
because the ``must-do'' and ``important-to-do'' items take up a larger
and larger part of available revenue.
Municipal drinking water utilities in Wisconsin are regulated by
the Public Service Commission, which allows the utility to recover the
full cost of service plus a reasonable rate of return. Even so, it is
always a difficult decision to request water rate increases. When the
``must-do'' list expands, such as when additional regulations are
promulgated, costs are passed along to ratepayers and fewer
``important-to-do'' and ``nice-to-do'' projects get addressed.
Question 3. What are some of the challenges that utilities face in
responding to media reports about unregulated contaminants?
Response. First, Milwaukee Water Works has the benefit of a strong,
collaborative relationship with our local health department. Without
that joint agency response to media reports about contaminants the
utility would be very challenged to communicate the ``risk'' concepts
to the public, such as pathways of exposure of chemicals, acceptable
risk, and dose-response relationships.
But even with the joint agency response, it is difficult to explain
to the media and the public that trace levels of various substances
have always been present in drinking water, although advances in
technology now allow us to measure them at ever-lower concentrations.
The mere ability to measure for these contaminants at smaller and
smaller levels does not equate to increased public health risks, though
this increased knowledge can be used to inform future research.
Furthermore, it can be difficult to explain the concept of ``less
than'' a detection limit in a lab sample to reporters who think that
``<2'' (``less than 2'') means that the compound is present at a level
below 2. What this actually means is that the analytical method used
has a lower limit below which the method cannot quantify an amount, and
that the compound may or may not be present below that lower limit. But
when the media is asking for conclusive answers on water quality
measurements, it can be hard to explain that we are bound by the limits
of our testing capabilities.
Question 4. Did you ever request the EWG report data directly from
EWG? Did you ever determine where their sample came from?
Response. Milwaukee Water Works did not contact EWG directly
following the release of their chromium-6 report. This decision was
based on an earlier experience the utility had in trying to get the
group to correct errors in the December 2009 report which contained
information on bromate. In that instance, Milwaukee Water Works
believed that EWG incorrectly stated that our utility exceeded the
regulatory limit for bromate based on a single value above the limit in
their data set. Our view was that because the bromate regulation is
based on a running annual average of samples, it is erroneous to report
that a single sample value constitutes a violation.
Milwaukee Water Works made multiple efforts to get EWG to correct
this error in their bromate report, beginning 4 months before the
report was published, but we were rebuffed. This report was very
damaging to the utility, and fueled our belief that EWG is more
interested in generating headlines than publishing valid data. For this
reason, we decided that it would not be worthwhile to attempt to engage
with the group following the release of the chromium-6 report.
These beliefs were also reinforced when EWG chose to not directly
advise Milwaukee Water Works of their chromium-6 test results, but
instead released their data to the media. While I do understand that
EWG alerted staff of water associations such as AMWA that a report
about chromium-6 was coming, EWG did not provide specific information
about the cities tested--only that there would be 35 cities mentioned
in the report. EWG did not tell association staff the specific date of
the report release until a few days before it hit the papers, and the
group did not respond to association requests for information on the
sample locations for the cities identified in the report.
Question 5. Please explain the difficulty that the city has in
communicating with citizens about the EWG report and what it means for
them.
Response. The most common question we received was, ``Is the water
safe to drink?'' The Milwaukee Health Department felt confident to say
that ``there is no reason to believe the water is unsafe,'' but that
does not sound terribly reassuring. As I said before, water utilities
rely on EPA to tell us which contaminants pose health risks to the
public, and at this time the only Federal regulation of chromium-6 in
drinking water is through SDWA's 100 ppb MCL for total chromium.
Milwaukee's water meets this standard, but the EWG report has caused a
lot of confusion in the community.
In an attempt to provide more clarity to the public, the Milwaukee
Health Department confirmed that there was no disease in the community
that chromium-6 would be expected to cause. But when dealing with a
chronic (not acute) contaminant, that is not very reassuring. We also
tried to explain that nothing about the water had changed--there had
been no recent spill or other event that added the chromium-6 to the
water. But again, simply telling the public not to worry because this
contaminant had probably been in the water for some time is not very
effective, either.
Question 6. What is the expected background concentration of
hexavalent chromium in your source water? Is your source water from
groundwater or surface water combination? What causes the background
concentrations of chromium (trivalent and hexavalent) in your source
water to vary?
Response. Milwaukee Water Works did not expect any hexavalent
chromium to be found in our source water. The intakes for our treatment
plants are 1.5 miles out in Lake Michigan, a pristine surface water
source, and are rarely impacted by land-based activities associated
with chromium use. We do not (yet) have any information about whether
or not this parameter will vary, or what the cause may be. We have
initiated quarterly sampling of source water, treatment plant finished
water, and distribution system water, consistent with the guidance
published by EPA.
Question 7. How can chromium be removed from public drinking water
systems?
Response. EPA reports that treatment methods such as coagulation/
filtration, ion exchange, reverse osmosis, and lime softening are
effective for treating water to comply with the current total chromium
MCL of 100 ppb. But it is less clear how effective these methods may be
in treating water to achieve lower levels of chromium-6.
Several water utilities in California are currently conducting
studies to answer this question. Three technologies being evaluated at
the pilot scale for use by drinking water systems include strong base
anion exchange resin, weak base anion exchange resin and reduction/
coagulation/filtration (RCF) approaches. Reverse osmosis is not
considered viable for utilities in some regions, such as California,
because of the high percentage of reject water. However, the ultimate
efficacy of these treatment options will also depend on a combination
of factors, such as:
The level of chromium-6 permitted in finished water;
The quality of the raw water being treated;
Operational costs; and
Treatment waste disposal options and costs.
Question 8. Describe your challenges with the conversion of
trivalent chromium in source water to hexavalent chromium by water
treatment operations.
Response. Milwaukee Water Works does not have information about
this yet, but hope to learn more as we conduct quarterly sampling.
Question 9. Utilities have raised concerns with my office about
EPA's decisions regarding the technical assistance to monitor for
chromium 6, including the lack of a fully validated analytical method,
inability for the agency to collect and use the data generated and lack
of explanation of how to communicate the health effects to the public.
How can EPA clarify and assist Milwaukee with the technical assistance
it provided?
Response. Staff from Milwaukee Water Works did have a fruitful
telephone conversation with officials from EPA's Region 5 and the
Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources. We had a good discussion
about the tradeoffs of the various analytical methods, as well as the
merits of using an experienced laboratory certified in the type of
method (if not the exact method), and the importance of as short a
holding time as possible prior to analysis.
Despite these discussions, further clarification would be helpful.
Of greatest value would be some language for risk communication when
there is no or little information about a contaminant and its public
health effects. Chromium-6 will not be the last contaminant that will
pose a risk communication challenge to utilities. It is very difficult
to communicate uncertainty to customers without losing their
confidence, but scientific uncertainty is a reality. If Milwaukee Water
Works could quote the EPA about this, it would improve the credibility
of the communication.
Additional information that would be very helpful would be more
about the chemistry of chromium-3 and chromium-6, in simple terms that
we could use for our customers. We would also appreciate more
information from EPA on which specific questions to ask a laboratory
about how it would verify its sample results (QA/QC procedures) in
order to support the method detection level and method reporting levels
outlined in the guidance.
Question 10. Are you supportive of a drinking water regulatory
process that relies on science to help guide decisionmaking? Do you
think the current SDWA provides a clear, transparent, science driven
process for making decisions regarding drinking water regulation?
Response. Yes, Milwaukee Water Works and AMWA believe that the
drinking water regulatory process must be based on sound, peer-reviewed
scientific research. The current SDWA requires a careful, transparent,
science-based route to guide the development of drinking water
contaminant regulations, and we support following this process for all
such determinations in the future.
Question 11. Is there anything else you would like to add for the
record?
Response. I would just reiterate that our top priority is
protecting public health by delivering clean and safe drinking water to
our customers. Utilities rely on EPA to conduct careful, unbiased
research to determine at what concentration various drinking water
contaminants carry human health impacts, and pride themselves on
complying with the drinking water regulations that result.
______
Response by Carrie Lewis to an Additional Question from
Senator Lautenberg
Question. Ms. Lewis, you have testified that the Milwaukee Water
Works goes beyond the current monitoring requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act, monitoring for over five hundred (500)
contaminants.
Doesn't this show that additional monitoring to protect the
public's right-to-know can be feasible and cost-effective?
Response. All public drinking water systems must comply with EPA
regulations that require finished water to be tested for more than
ninety different contaminants that are, based upon the best available
science, thought to pose the most significant risk to human health in
drinking water. Utilities must report the results of this testing to
the public on an annual basis. Every 5 years, EPA is required by SDWA
to issue a new Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, which can
ultimately require utilities to temporarily monitor for as many as
thirty additional unregulated contaminants. This framework allows water
systems to make informed projections on how much money should be
budgeted for water quality testing.
For a variety of reasons, Milwaukee Water Works has decided to
devote additional resources to testing its water for many more
contaminants than is required by EPA. But this decision comes at a
cost, with our testing regime costing our ratepayers roughly $200,000
per year.
While other utilities could also test their water supplies for more
and more contaminants, we must remember that this additional testing
would come at a cost to them as well. This would mean either higher
water rates for the public, or fewer dollars available to address other
needs such as infrastructure replacements and upgrades. We believe that
each individual utility is best equipped to decide what, if any,
testing beyond EPA's requirements for contaminants linked to a
significant health risks makes sense for their own community.
To give another example of testing costs, the Metropolitan
Utilities District of Omaha, Nebraska reported in a January 13, 2011
news release that its compliance with EPA's guidance recommending
quarterly testing for chromium-6 will cost the utility $12,000 per
year. This may not sound like much, but the utility reported that it
represents nearly 0.9 percent of its annual water quality budget of
$1.4 million. It is therefore easy to predict how these costs could
dramatically impact utility budgets if testing for more and more
contaminants were to be required.
______
Response by Carrie Lewis to an Additional Question from Senator Carper
Question. How can the Federal Government focus its efforts to
improve drinking water quality on pollution prevention? What kinds of
tools and programs exist to prevent the pollution of drinking water and
what new ones are needed?
Response. The drinking water community has long believed that the
best way to ensure safe drinking water is to keep harmful contaminants
and pollutants out of source waters in the first place. Fortunately,
various Federal laws currently contribute to this objective. For
example, the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA)
gives EPA the authority to restrict the use of pesticides that may find
their way into source waters. The Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA)
gives EPA the authority to restrict the introduction of new
contaminants into the marketplace, particularly ones that may find
their way into our waterways. And under its Drinking Water Strategy,
EPA is beginning to share information and information needs between the
Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water and the Office of Chemical
Safety and Pollution Prevention.
Just last year, President Obama signed into law the ``Secure and
Responsible Drug Disposal Act,'' which requires the Attorney General to
issue regulations enabling communities to more easily hold take-back
events to collect unused pharmaceutical drugs. This should reduce the
amount of unused prescription drugs that consumers flush into the
wastewater system. And the most recent Farm Bill authorized the
Agricultural Water Enhancement Program (AWEP), through which farmers
and water systems can receive financial and technical assistance on
collaborative projects to improve water quality in their shared
watershed.
While these policies and programs help protect drinking water
quality, more can be done. For example, EPA can better use its
authority to require chemical manufacturers and importers to perform
reporting, recordkeeping and testing of chemicals to determine the
health effects of these chemicals and also restrict their use if they
are found to harm public health through drinking water exposure.
The protections of the Clean Water Act could be better used to
leverage the protection of drinking water. For example, the protection
of source waters for drinking water uses could and should be a
consideration in addressing non-point source pollution problems in the
development of TMDLs in a way that is consistent with the drinking
water MCLs. EPA should work to develop water quality criteria standards
for contaminants that are regulated in drinking water, particularly
those with acute effects, such as Cryptosporidium.
Finally, the 2012 Farm Bill will offer an opportunity to reduce the
flow of nitrates and other contaminants from farm operations into water
bodies by linking Federal agricultural assistance with activities that
protect and preserve nearby water quality. AMWA hopes to work with
members of the Senate to craft policies that achieve these goals.
Senator Boxer. OK. Mr. Chuck Murray, Fairfax Water, we
thank you so much for being here, General Manager.
STATEMENT OF CHARLES MURRAY, GENERAL MANAGER, FAIRFAX WATER
Mr. Murray. Thank you, Madam Chairman, members of the
Committee.
My name is Charles Murray, I am General Manager of Fairfax
Water, Virginia's largest drinking water utility and one of the
25 largest drinking water utilities in the Nation.
Fairfax Water is a non-profit public water authority
governed by a 10-member board of directors who are appointed by
the board of supervisors of Fairfax County. Fairfax Water
provides retail or wholesale service to nearly 1.7 million
people in northern Virginia. That translates into 1.7 million
reasons to provide drinking water of the highest quality.
I am testifying today on behalf of the American Water Works
Association, or AWWA. We welcome the opportunity to speak to
the drinking water issues that are before the Committee.
AWWA is an international non-profit scientific and
educational association of professionals dedicated to safe
drinking water. We continually support drinking water
regulations that are developed through a transparent process
based on the best available science and that provide meaningful
public health protection in an affordable manner. Two of the
key issues before the Committee are hexavalent chromium,
perchlorate and proposals to mandate regulation within a year.
We believe it is in the public interest to address these
concerns with these contaminants within the regulatory
framework that is already in place.
As you know, the Safe Drinking Water Act mandates rigorous
process for evaluating risks to public health and determining
what risk management actions are appropriate. The Act requires
that the regulatory process use the best available peer-
reviewed science, a principle that this Administration strongly
endorses.
These principles are critical to ensure that actual risks
are addressed and that limited resources are directed based on
complete information. Should funds be misdirected on risks that
have not been fully or appropriately vetted, a community's
resources cannot be recovered to address the genuine risks and
other important community needs.
As I stated earlier, we support drinking water regulations
that are developed through a transparent process, based on the
best science and provide meaningful health protection in an
affordable manner. This foundation of sound science must not be
compromised. The Safe Drinking Water Act affords the
Environmental Protection Agency a robust, transparent
methodology upon which it can evaluate, propose and promulgate
regulations. Unfortunately, the proposed legislation before the
Senate on chromium and perchlorate seems to discount the
principles of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the same principles
to which the Administration has committed.
The same can be said for EPA's recent actions. The tone,
delivery and content of EPA's responses to EWG's report
regarding hexavalent chromium implies that regulatory change is
an urgent and foregone conclusion. EPA has gone outside the
structure set forth in the Safe Drinking Water Act, which
places drinking water utilities in an untenable position.
These actions cause me great concern. EPA has urged
drinking water utilities to collect samples throughout the
treatment process to better understand the occurrence and
concentration of hexavalent chromium. However, the agency has
not afforded itself the benefit of the data yielded in this
sample collection, because there is no national repository for
the data. Had the process established under the Safe Drinking
Water Act been followed, the monitoring would have been
conducted under the unregulated contaminant monitoring rule and
would resolve any issues relating to the analytical methodology
and data collection.
As it stands, a community now must decide, absent critical
information, such as a clear understanding of the actual risks
associated with the presence of very low levels of hexavalent
chromium, if it should expend the resources to conduct this
monitoring. Should a drinking water utility conduct this
monitoring, how will it convey the results and their meaning to
its customers?
At Fairfax Water, we made the decision to monitor. This
decision was based on the level of concern expressed by our
customers. We have monitored and found that one of our water
sources has no detectable level of hexavalent chromium. In the
other source, the level was found at the reporting limit of the
method, so, extremely low levels.
But the real question that I am constantly asked to answer
is, is the water safe? Is the level of hexavalent chromium and
the level of perchlorate or the level of the next new
contaminant of interest in the water going to harm me and my
family? These are valid questions, ones that must be answered
by a consistent, robust, transparent framework.
So you may ask, how do we, Fairfax Water, answer these
questions. We posted our results to our website and explain
that there is a process in place at EPA to evaluate the risks
and make decisions about the appropriate level of regulation to
address public health concerns. We explain that EPA is
currently reviewing the risks and will finalize its risk
assessment for hexavalent chromium later this year. At that
time, EPA can make a determination if further regulatory action
is warranted.
We acknowledge that the processes for determining the
actual risks for human health from different substances or
compounds can seem frustratingly slow. Science can be
complicated. However, it is only by applying methodical, peer-
reviewed studies that we can know where actual risk lies. We
encourage the Congress to allow the unregulated contaminant
monitoring rule, the contaminant candidate list and the 6-year
review processes created in the 1996 amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water be allowed to work. EPA and AWWA and its members
are committed to supporting the Act and these tools that help
make sound regulatory decisions.
Further, we pledge to continue to provide field data,
participate in studies related to these processes, and make our
methodologies transparent. We realize these are tough times for
the Federal budget.
Senator Boxer. I am sorry, sir, could you just finish that
thought?
Mr. Murray. The bottom line is that Congress does not need
to legislative individual drinking water standards. The Safe
Drinking Water Act was amended in 1996 to provide a
scientifically sound and transparent method for selecting
substances for regulation.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murray follows:]
Statement of Charles Murray, General Manager, Fairfax Water, Va., on
Behalf of the American Water Works Association
Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee.
My name is Charles Murray and I am General Manager of Fairfax
Water, Virginia's largest drinking water utility and one of the
nation's 25 largest drinking water utilities. Fairfax Water is a non-
profit, public water authority governed by a 10-member board of
directors who are appointed by the Board of Supervisors of Fairfax
County. Fairfax Water provides retail or wholesale service to nearly
1.7 million people in the Northern Virginia communities of Fairfax,
Loudon and Prince William counties, the city of Alexandria, the Town of
Herndon, Ft. Belvoir, and Dulles Airport. To my staff and me at Fairfax
Water, that translates to nearly 1.7 million reasons to provide
drinking water quality of the highest quality.
This morning, I am testifying on behalf of the American Water Works
Association (AWWA), and we welcome this opportunity to speak to the
drinking water issues that are before the committee today. AWWA is an
international, nonprofit, scientific and educational association of
professionals dedicated to safe drinking water. We have always
supported drinking water regulations that are developed through a
transparent process, are based on the best available science, and that
provide meaningful public health protection in an affordable manner.
Two of the key issues before the Committee are chromium-6 and
perchlorate. As you know, the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) mandates a
rigorous process for evaluating risks to public health and determining
what risk management actions are appropriate. The Act requires that the
regulatory process use the best available, peer-reviewed science, a
principle this administration has strongly endorsed, as described by
the March 9, 2009, Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments
and Agencies on Scientific Integrity. These principles are important to
ensure that the Agency directs water providers to address actual risks
and doesn't misdirect limited resources based on incomplete or faulty
information. Once misdirected, a community's resources cannot easily be
recovered to address genuine risks and other important community needs.
Unfortunately, the recent EPA actions on chromium-6 seem to
discount the principles of the Safe Drinking Water Act, the same
principles to which the Administration is committed.
For example:
1. Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule. EPA's recent chromium-6
monitoring guidance does not employ a fully validated analytical
method.
Nor are there validated performance standards for laboratories.
Absent these things, it is not possible to be confident about the error
bar around any sample, to compare samples analyzed by different
laboratories, or even to confidently compare different samples analyzed
by the same laboratory. Moreover, there is no mechanism provided for
the Agency's collection of test results so as to inform future
potential regulatory decisions. Given these shortcomings, the
scientific value of the data that utilities may collect is unclear.
The Agency has available to it a regulatory structure that
addresses these issues through the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Rule (UCMR).
UCMR is a time-tested process for obtaining a meaningful and
actionable national occurrence dataset for contaminants of potential
concern in drinking water. All laboratories currently engaged in UCMR
monitoring are using well-characterized analytical methods that meet
known performance requirements. Similarly, sampling requirements are
developed with the goal of producing a dataset that supports regulatory
decisionmaking. If the Agency wished utilities to undertake extensive
testing for chromium-6, we believe the UCMR process would have provided
the appropriate tool.
2. Risk Communication / Health Advisories. EPA has not completed a
risk assessment to support its recommendations on chromium-6. Neither
water systems nor the public have a clear idea of whether minute
quantities of chromium-6 represent a health risk, and if so, the nature
of that risk. Therefore, utilities are placed in the untenable position
of not being able to explain to their customers the relevance of the
monitoring that EPA has recommended. Risk communication with the public
on potential health effects in drinking water is difficult under the
best of circumstances. The Agency's seemingly hurried response to
chromium-6 questions compounds this challenge.
The preliminary Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS)
Toxicological Review on chromium-6 has not completed peer review. The
Toxicological Review is built upon a number of embedded assumptions,
some of which are known to be controversial. Moreover, the IRIS
document is just the first step in the risk assessment process, as it
only characterizes the potential hazard associated with chromium-6.
Actually completing the risk assessment process will require
substantial effort by EPA. To date, EPA has not clearly conveyed this
process to the public.
3. Taking Regulatory Action. The tone, delivery, and content of
EPA's chromium-6 action implies that regulatory change is urgent and a
foregone conclusion. In fact, the current Maximum Contaminant Level
(MCL) for total chromium was addressed in the second 6-year review of
drinking water regulations that was published on March 29, 2010. As a
result of this review, EPA stated that ``The Agency does not believe a
revision to the NPDWR [National Primary Drinking Water Regulations] for
total chromium is appropriate at this time. A reassessment of the
health risks associated with chromium exposure is being initiated, and
the Agency does not believe that it is appropriate to revise the NPDWR
while that effort is in process.''
EPA has a clear process for reviewing existing Maximum Contaminant
Level Goals (MCLGs) and MCLs in response to evolving science. Under the
SDWA, the decision on whether or not an MCL should be revised includes
a consideration of whether doing so provides a meaningful opportunity
for health risk reduction. In its two 6-year reviews, the Agency has
had opportunities to lower the MCL for chromium and elected not to do
so. We believe this important fact should have been conveyed by the
Agency in its recent memorandum on chromium-6.
The decisionmaking process outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act
is consistent with both the Presidential Memorandum on Scientific
Integrity and the more recent Executive Order on Improving Regulation
and Regulatory Review. These two directives emphasize the importance of
making smart decisions based on the best available science so that
regulations result in a public health benefit.
AWWA believes EPA's recent activity related to chromium-6 discounts
the scientific rigor of the SDWA and contravenes the spirit of the
Presidential memorandum and executive order. We believe that future
actions on chromium-6 and other contaminants must use proven processes
and be better informed by sound science.
perchlorate
We believe that the same scientific processes and faithfulness to
the Safe Drinking Water Act must be maintained in considering whether
or how to regulate perchlorate in drinking water. As you know, the SDWA
defines three key criteria for regulation of contaminants:
i. the contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health
of persons;
ii. the contaminant is known to occur or there is a
substantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur in
public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public
health concern; and
iii. in the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of
such contaminant presents a meaningful opportunity for health
risk reduction for persons served by public water systems.
Given the weight of evidence available at that time and AWWA's
independent assessment of occurrence and exposure, we concurred with
EPA's preliminary determination that regulation of perchlorate would
not present a ``meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for
persons served by public water systems.'' We continue to support that
preliminary determination. AWWA also concurs with the agency's
Inspector General, who said that regulatory action under the Safe
Drinking Water Act is not appropriate.
Data from the UCMR has revealed that detection of perchlorate in
drinking water was geographically widespread but at very low
concentrations. Significantly, there is little correlation between
perchlorate detection in drinking water and known points of perchlorate
release to the environment identified by the USEPA (with the exception
of certain points in the Lower Colorado River). Perchlorate has been
detected in drinking water in less than 5 percent of the nation's large
community water systems (>10,000 population served). When detected,
perchlorate was typically present at concentrations of less than 12 ug/
L and was generally found in less than one-half of the sources for
systems which sampled multiple sources.
recommendations
We acknowledge that scientific processes for determining the actual
risks to human health from different substances or compounds can seem
frustratingly slow. However, it is only by following methodical, peer-
reviewed studies that we can know where actual risk lies. We recommend
that Congress allow the UCMR, Contaminant Candidate List and Six-Year
Review processes created in the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking
Water Act to be allowed to work. AWWA and its members pledge to
continue to provide field data and studies related to these processes
and to continue to make our methodologies transparent.
We also recommend that the resources of community water systems and
more significantly their customers be focused on the direct threats to
safe water about which we are certain. Studies by AWWA and EPA show
that hundreds of billions of dollars must be invested in water
infrastructure soon and very soon if we are to continue to provide safe
and sufficient water to our fellow citizens and the health protection
that wastewater systems provide. We realize that water utilities also
have responsibilities to maintain or work toward self-sustaining rates,
exercise the best asset management practices, and better communicate
the need for investment in water infrastructure. We pledge to continue
these efforts.
We realize these are tough times for the Federal budget. However,
there is a continuing need for additional funding for human health
effects research for drinking water contaminants. We urge Congress to
support additional funding in this arena and we urge that EPA's
research efforts be tied more closely to its regulatory program. We
would like to see the Agency's finite water research dollars
prioritized toward projects that study water contaminants.
We thank the Committee for its efforts to reauthorize and improve
the State revolving loan fund program in the last Congress. We offer
our cooperation in working toward similar legislation in this Congress.
conclusion
The bottom line is that Congress should not legislate individual
drinking water standards. The SDWA was amended in 1996 to provide a
scientifically sound and transparent method for selecting the
appropriate substances for regulation and for selecting the appropriate
maximum contaminant level for contaminants. We should allow the best
available science, not the political process, to be the ultimate driver
in regulatory decisions.
AWWA and its members look forward to continuing to work with all
facets of the drinking water community to ensure that the Nation
focuses its resources on the greatest threats to public health, and
that the nation's drinking water supply remains safe and affordable.
__________
Responses by Charles Murray to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. We hear a lot from the smaller drinking water utilities
around the country about problems complying with unfunded drinking
water mandates such as new rules or additional testing. How does
Fairfax Water respond to these mandates and challenges?
Response. Although Fairfax Water is not a small utility, the State
Revolving Loan Fund program is an essential tool used by small and
medium-sized drinking-water utilities to fund regulatory program-
compliance efforts. The funding for this program is essential to
providing safe drinking water to those served by the smaller systems.
Fairfax Water is not eligible to receive such funding, so these costs
are simply passed on to our customers.
Question 2. I appreciate your support for drinking water
infrastructure funding. I want you to know that I believe one of the
best ways to deal with the many issues involving drinking water is to
continue to fund the State Revolving Loan Fund program. We cannot
expect our communities to continue to provide safe drinking water if
they do not have the resources to meet their infrastructure needs. I
know you understand the tight budgets we are all facing. Could you
explain the process that your utility goes through in deciding bow to
spend the limited resources available to Fairfax water and how those
decisions are affected by new regulations?
Response. This is a critical question. Second only to the
importance of public health and safety in the delivery of public
drinking water is the financing for that water service. It is probably
the No. 1 concern of ratepayers and a non-profit public utility such as
ours. Fairfax Water uses a 10-year financial-planning horizon. We
carefully look at our planning, capital improvements, and operation and
maintenance needs, and then estimate our priorities for the next
decade. Drawing on that information, we create a 10-year Capital
Improvement Plan and a financial-planning document. These documents are
the inputs into our rate model. Our Board of Directors reviews these
plans annually. Our staff also conducts an annual analysis of our
rates, fees, and charges to ensure that we capture the true cost of
service. Fairfax Water typically raises its rates by a few cents each
year to keep up with the increasing cost of business. Steady, small
increases, consistently over time, are much better for our customers
than large, jarring increases intermittently. This consistent approach
has helped Fairfax Water maintain a AAA financial rating, thereby
keeping to a minimum the cost of borrowing monies.
When new regulations come along, it is important that the process
for developing these regulations recognizes that utilities need time to
factor the cost of the regulation into not only the financial-planning
process, but also the standard operations of the utility. Taking
regulations out of the normal development process and shortening the
timeframe does not allow a utility adequate time to prepare
financially, much less physically, for the implementation of new
treatment techniques.
As technology allows us to measure compounds at ever-lower levels,
the ability to remove compounds becomes more complex and exponentially
more expensive. As lower standards are contemplated, it often forces
drinking-water utilities to consider treatment techniques beyond
conventional methods, such as membrane filtration. Such methods are
extremely costly. There must be sufficient time in the regulatory
development process to allow drinking-water utilities to plan, fund,
install, and train for new technologies.
Question 3. In your testimony, you discuss EPA's issuance of
guidance outside of the UCMR process. Please tell the committee bow
testing for chromium-6 would have benefited from being included in the
UCMR instead of a separate guidance document?
Response. The EPA has suggested that drinking-water utilities
collect samples throughout the treatment process to better understand
the occurrence and concentration of hexavalent chromium. However, the
EPA has not afforded itself the benefit of this data. Under the
proposed action, there is no national collection repository for the
results. Had the monitoring been conducted under the Unregulated
Contaminant Monitoring Rule, any issues relating to analytical
methodology and data collection would have been resolved. Using the
methodology established in the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule,
all data collected would be available to EPA for analysis. As it
stands, absent critical information such as a clear understanding of
the actual risks associated with the presence of very low levels of
hexavalent chromium, a community must now decide if it should expend
the resources to conduct this monitoring. And should a drinking-water
utility conduct this monitoring, how will it convey the results to its
customers?
Question 4. Where is Fairfax most interested in focusing resources
over the next few years?
Response. Reinvestment in distribution-system infrastructure is
what we are most interested in.
Question 5. What are some of the challenges that utilities face in
responding to media reports about unregulated contaminants?
Response. Undoubtedly the biggest challenge of responding to
questions involving unregulated contaminants is the assumption that
drinking water is unsafe just because a contaminant is being discussed
or is in question. The purpose of research and testing for unregulated
contaminants is to determine whether these compounds are found at a
frequency and level of concern. Utilities often are put in a difficult
position of trying to respond to customer concerns before the science
is fully developed.
Question 6. Are you supportive of a drinking water regulatory
process that relies on science to help guide decisionmaking? Do you
think the current SDWA provides a clear, transparent, science driven
process for making decisions regarding drinking water regulation?
Response. Yes, I am absolutely supportive of a drinking-water
regulatory process that relies on science to help guide decisionmaking.
As I testified, I believe the Safe Drinking Water Act mandates a
rigorous process for evaluating risks to public health and determining
what risk-management actions are appropriate. The Safe Drinking Water
Act requires that the regulatory process use the best available, peer-
reviewed science. These principles are critical to ensure that actual
risks are addressed and that limited resources are assigned to the
highest risks based on complete and accurate information. Should funds
be misdirected on risks that have not been fully or appropriately
vetted, a community's resources cannot be recovered to address genuine
risks and other important community needs.
I support drinking-water regulations that are developed through a
transparent process, are based on the best available science, and that
provide meaningful public-health protection in an affordable manner.
This foundation of sound science must not be compromised. The Safe
Drinking Water Act affords the EPA a robust, transparent methodology
upon which it can evaluate, propose, and promulgate regulations.
______
Response by Charles Murray to an Additional Question from
Senator Carper
Question. How can the Federal Government focus its efforts to
improve drinking water quality on pollution prevention? What kinds of
tools and programs exist to prevent the pollution of drinking water and
what new ones are needed?
Response. As I testified, I support drinking-water regulations that
are developed through a transparent process, are based on the best
available science, and that provide meaningful public-health protection
in an affordable manner. This basis of sound science must not be
compromised. The Safe Drinking Water Act affords the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) a robust, transparent methodology upon which it
can evaluate, propose, and promulgate regulations.
In addition to the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act
provides real opportunities for improved source-water protection. The
EPA can link the discharge permitting authorities of the Clean Water
Act with the vulnerabilities identified in the Source Water Assessments
required by the Safe Drinking Water Act and create safer, cleaner
sources for drinking water by limiting upstream discharges of
contaminants.
Senator Boxer. OK, thank you very much.
Dr. Burke, I want you to know that Senator Cardin is very
proud that you are here today. I am going to put his
introduction of you into the record. But I think I should say a
couple of words about you.
You are from the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public
Health. You serve as a professor in the Department of Health
Policy and Management, Associate Dean of Public Health Practice
and Training, Director of both the Johns Hopkins Center for
Excellence in Environmental Public Health Tracking and the
Center for Excellence in Environmental Health Practice. You are
the Chair of the National Academy of Sciences Committee on
Improving Risk Analysis, along with positions on several other
commissions and boards, and lots of other things. An award
winner, and we welcome you.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS A. BURKE, Ph.D., MPH, PROFESSOR AND
ASSOCIATE DEAN FOR PUBLIC HEALTH PRACTICE, JOHNS HOPKINS
BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH, DIRECTOR OF THE JOHNS
HOPKINS RISK SCIENCES AND PUBLIC POLICY INSTITUTE
Mr. Burke. Thank you, Senator. It is good to be here, and I
have submitted written testimony. I would like to hit some of
the high points of the discussion, though, and summarize.
As you mentioned, I chair the National Academy panel on how
EPA does risk assessment. Today, I would like to address three
things. One, the broad issue of chromium VI in water; second,
our current approaches to risk assessment; and finally, leave
you with some recommendations as we think about how we protect
drinking water in the future.
First of all, being a professor, I had to give you some
pictures and some slides. At the end of my testimony, there are
some pictures that show just how mobile chromium is in the
environment. Although Hudson County, NJ, didn't make it into
the movie, certainly as a chromate capital throughout the
Nation, New Jersey grappled with this issue of chromium moving
through the environment and it is very soluble and it is not
surprising that we are beginning to find it as we look.
Perhaps most relevant today is that I led the States'
efforts to investigate the chromium slag, and also to look at
drinking water, and conducted some of the first tests of toxics
in drinking water. To the issue of can we do it, is it
feasible, we have made great progress in reducing toxic
chemicals in the water.
Now, the current EPA standard for chromium in drinking
water is outdated. It does not reflect current science. Because
our understanding has evolved, as you have heard today. There
is little argument today that chromium VI is a carcinogen. It
is a carcinogen by the route of oral exposure, drinking water.
Also, combined with the exploratory studies of the
Environmental Working Group, this is not a surprise to
scientists in the field, we have assumed that chromium VI, the
water-soluble part of chromium, would be present in the
Nation's drinking water, and indeed, we are beginning to
understand that evidence.
This is a wake-up call. But we have broader issues. The
challenges of chemical pollutants in drinking water go far
beyond that very narrow risk that EPA now regulates. We have
learned that virtually anything we flush down our drains shows
up in low levels in our tap water, from personal care products
to fuel additives, pharmaceuticals to persistent toxics, we
know that water contains a complicated mixture of chemicals. It
is time for us to rethink how we address these.
If you look at the way EPA does its work, one substance at
a time, one environmental medium at a time, it takes an awful
long time. In fact, if we are going to continue this one at a
time process, our National Academy panel that looked at this
said this system is bogged down and sometimes it takes 10 to 20
years for a risk assessment to be completed.
There are inherent uncertainties in the science. They have
made risk assessments a convenient target for those who seek to
avoid regulation or the cost of remediation. We have witnessed
these battles over MTBE, perchlorate, arsenic and now chromium
VI. Unfortunately, raising doubt about public health impacts
has become a successful strategy for delaying action.
As a former State regulator, I am a realist. I understand
the concerns about costs. There are no quick solutions to
removing toxic substances from our drinking water. Our tap
water reflects our way of life.
But if we are going to be responsible and preserve our
drinking water resources, we have to move forward. So I would
like to conclude with a brief list of recommendations for the
Committee to consider.
First, this one at a time, 20-year process, is bogged down.
We have to be more efficient. We need to shift from reaction to
chemicals in the water to prevention of contamination. We have
to improve the protection of our surface in-ground water
resources. We have to expand State and regional water
monitoring efforts.
The Environmental Working Group did a great service, I
think, by conducting this evaluation. But it is unfortunate
that our States and our EPA regions don't have the capacity to
conduct this kind of monitoring.
We have to recognize the potential cumulative impact of
this mixture of multiple contaminants, many of which have
common health end points, effects on development and
neurological development. Most importantly, perhaps, we have to
advance our drinking water treatment technologies to better
remove contaminants and their precursors.
Controlling pathogens has been a cornerstone of public
health to prevent infectious disease. Now we must also
recognize that monitoring and reducing chemical contamination
in our drinking water is an essential component of our public
health efforts to prevent chronic disease.
Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today. I
am anxious to answer questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Burke follows:]
Statement of Thomas A. Burke, Professor and Associate Dean for Public
Health Practice, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health and
Director of the Johns Hopkins Risk Sciences and Public Policy Institute
Thank you for the opportunity to address the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, Oversight Hearing on Public Health and
Drinking Water Issues. I am Dr. Thomas Burke, Professor and Associate
Dean at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. I am also
Director of Johns Hopkins Risk Science and Public Policy Institute. I
have served as a member of the National Academy of Sciences Board on
Environmental Science and Toxicology, and am a Member of the EPA
Science Advisory Board. I also served as Chair of the National Academy
of Sciences Committee on Improving Risk Analysis Approaches Used by the
U.S. EPA. Perhaps most relevant to today's topic, I served as Director
of Science and Research at the New Jersey Department of Environmental
Protection, and in response to tremendous concerns about the State's
high cancer rates, led the first State efforts to monitor and reduce
toxic chemical contaminants in drinking water. Later as Deputy
Commissioner of Health for the State, I participated in the State
efforts to implement the New Jersey Safe Drinking Water Act and to
establish health-based standards for toxic pollutants.
It is also relevant to today's hearing to tell you that I grew up
in Jersey City, in Hudson County New Jersey, the nation's center of
chromate production during much of the past century. Later, I led the
State Health Department efforts to investigate the public health
impacts of the uncontrolled disposal of billions of pounds of chromium
slag. I am all too familiar with our historical failure to act to
control worker and population exposures to chromium 6. As you can see
in the picture 1, I am also familiar with the great mobility of the
water-soluble chrome 6 in the environment. This picture is shows the
bright yellow chromium in a rain-flooded area near one of the hundreds
of disposal sites throughout the community. There were mountains of
this slag known as the `chemical mountains' throughout the county. My
wife Marguerite even recalls learning to ice skate on the frozen yellow
water near one of the chromate plants. Picture 2 shows the basement of
a home near a disposal site after flooding. Those crystals are
chromium, most likely with a high concentration of the carcinogenic
chromium 6. This hazard touches many communities throughout the
country, including my current home, Baltimore. Picture 3 show the
remediation work underway at a former chromate plant in the Inner
Harbor. Not a good place to try to contain a highly soluble
carcinogenic pollutant.
The EPA standard for chromium in drinking water is outdated, and
does not reflect current science. Our understanding of the public
health hazards of chromium has been continually evolving over the past
70 years--from early recognition of the acute effects of high exposure
on the skin, respiratory and digestive systems; to the epidemiological
studies demonstrating high lung cancer rates in workers. Now, the
findings of the National Toxicology Program of oral and intestinal
cancers in laboratory animals from ingestion of water soluble chromium
6, coupled with epidemiological evidence from communities exposed
through contaminated drinking water in China, provide a new perspective
on the public health risks. In addition, the EPA has recently
determined that hexavalent chromium is ``likely to be carcinogenic to
humans'' via the oral route of exposure. (EPA 2010) Additionally,
available evidence indicates that chromium interacts with DNA,
resulting in DNA damage and mutagenesis. Based on the weight of the
available evidence, hexavalent chromium is proposed to act through a
mutagenic mode of carcinogenic action. These findings, coupled with the
Environmental Working Group (EWG 2010) report of the widespread
presence of chromium 6 in the nation's drinking water supplies indicate
it is time to act to understand and reduce population risks.
California has been leading the Nation in the testing of drinking
water supplies for chromium 6. The California Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment has proposed a Public Health Goal of .06 ppb.
This is a sound public health approach and is consistent with the New
Jersey's Safe Drinking Water Act, which specifies that drinking water
standards for carcinogens be based on a health-based goal of one in one
million. The recent guidance issued by EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson,
also represents a step in the right direction in recognizing and
addressing the hazards of chromium 6.
The public health challenges of chemical pollutants in drinking
water go far beyond the current very narrow list of regulated
pollutants. The nation is more dependent than ever on re-used water.
With modern analytical methods we now know that the chemicals we flush
down that drain are showing up in low levels in our tap water. From
personal care products to fuel additives; pharmaceuticals to persistent
toxic chemicals; we now know that our water contains a complicated
mixture of chemicals with a broad range of potential yet unknown public
health impacts. Our national biomonitoring efforts have also indicated
that these chemicals are present in our bodies.
The Safe Drinking Water Act has been tremendously successful in
monitoring the quality of our water supplies and reducing exposure to
harmful pollutants. At both the State and national levels the
compliance with monitoring and health based standards has been
excellent and continually improving. We witnessed great reductions in
population exposure to organic solvents and disinfection by products.
(This despite the fact that states and EPA faced an outcry of protests
from industry claiming ``it couldn't be done, the costs would be
prohibitive''!)
Now we face new challenges. The recent NAS report on risk
assessment at EPA found that the system is ``bogged down''. (NAS 2009)
The timeframe for risk assessments is often decades long. The inherent
uncertainties toxicology and epidemiology studies have made the risk
assessments a convenient target for those who seek to avoid regulation
or the costs of remediation. We have witnessed these battles over MTB,
perchlorate, arsenic, and now chromium 6. Unfortunately, raising doubt
about public health impacts has become a successful strategy for
delaying action.
The NAS Report ``Science and Decisions'' (NAS 2009) recommends that
EPA begin to move beyond the current single substance, single media
approach to environmental decisions. From a public health perspective
it is important that we begin to recognize and address the cumulative
effects that constant low-level exposures to chemical may be having on
our health. Consideration of the cumulative impacts should guide not
only our assessment of public health risks, but also our enforcement
strategies to prevent pollution and our engineering strategies to
improve drinking water quality.
As a former State regulator, I am a realist. As a member of the EPA
SAB I am also aware of the limitations of the Agency's resources. There
are no quick or solutions to removing toxic chemicals from our drinking
water. Our tap water reflects our way of life and all the benefits that
chemicals have brought us. However, our current approach is outdated
and needs to be more responsive to emerging science. If we are going to
preserve our drinking water resource from emerging threats such as
``fracking'' for natural gas or the accumulation of nano-materials, we
must aggressively move forward with improved monitoring, exposure
evaluation, and assessment of public health risks. Lack of certainty
about contaminants and their potential effects cannot continue to be an
excuse for lack of action to protect public health.
I would like to conclude with a brief list of recommendations for
the Committee to consider:
Shift from reaction to contaminants to prevention of
contamination of our drinking water
Improve protection of surface and groundwater sources
Expand regional and State water monitoring efforts to
identify contaminants and their sources
Recognize of the potential cumulative impacts of multiple
contaminants with common health endpoints in the standards setting
process
Advance drinking water treatment technologies to better
remove chemical contaminants and their precursors
Controlling pathogens in drinking water has been a cornerstone of
our public health efforts to prevent infectious disease. Now we must
also recognize that monitoring and reducing chemical contamination of
our drinking water is an essential component of our public health
effort to prevent chronic disease
Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today on this
important public health challenge.
References
EPA (Environmental Protection Agency). 2010a. Toxicological Review
of Hexavalent Chromium (CAS No. 18540-29-9) (External Review Draft).
EPA/635/R-10/004A. September 2010. Available at: oaspub.epa.gov/eims/
eimscomm. getfile?p_download_id=498712.
EWG (Environmental Working Group) 2010. Cancer causing Chromium 6
in U.S. tap water. http://static.ewg.org/reports/2010/chrome6/html/
references.html
NTP. (2008) NTP technical report on the toxicology and
carcinogenesis studies of sodium dichromate dihydrate (CAS No. 7789-12-
0) in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 mice (drinking water studies). Washington,
DC: National Toxicology Program; NTP TR 546. Available online at http:/
/ntp.niehs.nih.gov/files/546_web_FINAL.pdf
OEHHA (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment). 2009.
Draft Public Health Goal for Hexavalent Chromium in Drinking Water:
Pesticide and Environmental Toxicology Branch, Office of Environmental
Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection Agency.
Available at: www.oehha.ca.gov/water/phg/pdf/Cr6PHGdraft082009.pdf.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Boxer. Thank you very much.
I would like to address our two water people. I first got
started in Marin County as a county supervisor, so I was pretty
close to the water district people and the whole issue of
drinking water. You are both saying, very clearly, Congress,
keep out of this, this has nothing to do with you, let's just
have the EPA do whatever they do and follow the law.
Well, let's just set aside for a minute any kind of
prejudices on who should act. Let's just make believe we are
just a person in the United States of America who is raising a
family who wants to make sure when they drink the water, it is
safe. They don't really care, if you, Mr. Murray, take action
on your own, because I know you care a lot about this, and you
might just say, we are not happy with our quality, we are going
to move forward without the Federal Government. They don't care
if the State government does it, they don't care if the Federal
Government--they don't care if the Environmental Working Group
brings to light all this, they want the water safe.
So let me tell you my view, because you are not going to be
happy with it, but in the interest of fairness here, I believe
that in the 1996 law, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the rewrite
of the Water Act, what Congress wanted to happen was for the
EPA to begin to move on these emerging contaminants. They
expected that EPA would move on these emerging contaminants.
They didn't expect that not one emerging contaminant would
be regulated from 1996 to as we sit here. Not one thing has
happened. Nothing. It reminds me of what happened when Senator
Feinstein threw up her hands when she looked at the exposure of
our kids to pthalates. She said, I am not waiting around for
the Consumer Product Safety Commission to act, they are not
acting. We are going to do it.
In essence, we did it. At that time, I said if we don't see
the national Government implementing the laws then Congress is
going to take it upon itself.
Now, in the 1996 Act, Congress is the one who said, you
shall regulate arsenic. Because I could tell you, knowing what
I see, I don't think arsenic, we could have had the same fight
over that.
Now, I understand from your point of view that you would
rather let things go as they are. But I want to say this. As
the author of the bill to regulate, to have EPA set a standard
for perchlorate, and I don't say what it should be, I just say
it should be based on science and also chromium VI based on
science, and someone from California, where we have set goals
and standards for these two very dangerous contaminants, and I
would put in the record, because I know we all want science. I
have it. I have the science here. Some people are asking for it
on perchlorate. I put in the record these scientific studies on
what perchlorate does to babies and to fetuses in the womb.
I am saying to you, to my water people out there, please
work with us. Now, EPA is going to set a standard, we hope, for
perchlorate. They are going to do it based on the science. I
hope that you will work with us. If in fact you support the
1996 law, as you said you do, and you are calling for regular
order, that is what EPA is doing, regular order. They are also
engaged in regular order when it comes to chromium VI. They
said what the Environmental Working Group did was a snapshot of
1 day. I think Mr. Cook has given great credibility today when
he compares what the systems are doing with his report, they
were pretty much on target there in his snapshot.
So I want to just say to all of you, and I will withhold my
questions until the next round, that I hope you will work with
us and not against us. Because we represent the same people.
Whether the EPA is moved forward because we say, set a
standard, and we show why, or they are moving forward because
they have seen some science that isn't definitive but is giving
them a sense of it, I need you to work with us, not against us.
We are your friends. I don't like unfunded mandates. Senator
Inhofe and I agree. We want to make it possible for you to do
your work.
But I told you what the cost of cancer is to our society
from the National Cancer Institute. You are looking at upwards
of $200 billion a year. So to say that you support the Drinking
Water Act and regular order is great. But what you don't say is
that there hasn't been one thing done by the EPA except what
Congress demanded, which is set a standard for arsenic, and now
we are going to move forward with perchlorate, I hope, and
chromium VI. Because if we don't do it, I will tell you what,
the States are going to start to do it. Pretty soon, the cities
are going to say, why aren't we doing it, because it is their
people that are going to say, protect us from chromium VI.
I will definitely give you a chance to answer in the next
round, but I want to give Senator Boozman a chance here.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Again, I think that we all agree that at some level, that
this is a serious problem. The question is, what level that is.
Help me, now, with California, their level, their suggested
level is .02 at this point? OK. But there is no, you have
Riverside, much higher than that. But there is no inducement
for them to go down to that, that is just a suggested place to
go.
I guess, and then it looked like that they went from, I
think in the testimony they went from .06 to .02, based on your
stuff. What I would like from you, Dr. Burke, and Mr. Cook, I
would really like the science that you have, give me a list of
stuff that I need to look at so we can see where we need to go.
I also think that it really makes a huge difference that if
we are talking about Riverside being at 1.69 now, what is the
cost it is going to have to incur to go down to .06? What
benefit are we going to get out of that?
Then also, what is the cost of going from .06 down to .02?
I don't mean to be rude, but the idea of them going from .06 to
.02 based on your study, where it is a tap in a city
throughout, I don't think that you all would do that, Dr.
Burke, in the sense if you truly were trying to, now, again, I
understand what you were doing and things.
But the problem is that the sweeping generalizations come
out of a scientific effort that you generally, I don't think,
Dr. Burke, would make based on an effort like that. In other
words, that is pretty shaky. So again, I would like to see good
studies, what you have there. Somebody at some point, Madam
Chair, I really would like to know the cost and the bang for
the buck, as opposed to, as we go to these very ratcheted, why
don't we just say zero? Yet there is a reason we don't say
zero, because it is expensive to do these. There is a finite
amount of money. You have to have some practicality in all
this.
Can you comment on that? I think you understand what I am
trying to say, not in a very good way.
Mr. Burke. I absolutely understand, as a former regulator.
We have to be practical. We have to move forward in public
health protection. But we have to face the realities of our
current limitations with pollution. There is an approach to
that. The approach is not to cite the cost as a reason not to
respond to the science. The approach is to get folks together
and say, what can we practically do to reduce population
exposure and how can we move forward.
Now, on other pollutants, like benzene, that is in
gasoline, it is all over the environment, the goal is zero,
because that is a well-recognized leukemogen. The public health
goal, and a goal to reduce cancer to one in a million, is a
target. But I think we have to get there incrementally. That is
possible.
But what we shouldn't be doing is throwing out the science
because of the cost. They are two separate issues. I think as
we move forward, we have to acknowledge that and have practical
steps. Ultimately, it is going to come down to protecting the
source water and doing what is feasible, as we have with other
pollutants.
So you raise a very important point.
Senator Boozman. I agree, you don't throw out the science
because of the cost. But you do have good science to go where
you are going, as opposed to emotion and not using common
sense.
Mr. Burke. Absolutely.
Senator Boozman. Sometimes we see that. That is a real
concern.
Mr. Burke. Absolutely.
Senator Boozman. Yes?
Mr. Cook. Senator, thank you, I think you have put your
finger on it. But I think most Americans don't understand that
under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA routinely concludes what
a safe level would be, and they come to that conclusion and
publish it. Then the regulated level that they enforce is
considerably higher, weaker. Precisely because they take into
consideration the kind of concerns that you have mentioned,
costs. We have limited resources. I think that is also what
Professor Burke was getting at.
So one of the questions in our study was, is it there? If I
may say, I think if we hadn't looked, there isn't a water
utility that is complaining about it now that would have looked
on their own. Second, we said in our report, it is a snapshot,
and the first thing we really need to consider, apart from the
science of toxicity that has been discussed so eloquently, is
how widespread is this? We need to look more widely. I think
that process is underway now, but it is still voluntary. We may
not get many more samples in. Or we may. I hope we do.
Then we can have this discussion. There is no question that
we are not worried about rats getting cancer. That is not why
we are studying the animals. We are worried because there is an
accumulation of evidence in this case that low level exposure
does pose a risk of cancer in people. Because of that, that is
why our study really made the impact that it made. If that
science hadn't ripened as far as it has ripened, matured as far
as it has matured, our study, I think, wouldn't have had any
impact. But the fact is, there is science.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much.
I want to tell you a story about Santa Monica, California,
a beautiful place, if you haven't visited it. Senator Boozman,
just on your way out, I want to tell you this quick story. In
Santa Monica, they found out they had huge amounts of MTBE in
the drinking water. The reason they found out is, no one
tested, you could smell it. You could taste it. It was a very
unsafe level.
So here is what happened. No one, for a period of time,
could drink the water. Senator Feinstein and I and members of
the House, both Republican and Democrat from California, were
able to get some funding. We helped them clean it up and now
they can drink the water in Santa Monica.
I can tell you that the worst thing we can do for our
economy and for everything else is to ignore these issues. I
know you don't want to, and I know what you are pressing toward
is the science, the feasibility. So on your way out the door, I
am going to tell you, I am going to send you a scientific
report on chromium VI that was done in California by one of our
universities, which was the key scientific factor in them
setting that low standard. It is absolutely true, sometimes you
don't go down to zero, because you don't have to go down to
zero. Sometimes you have to go down that low.
So it is about protecting the health. But I think it is
important to note that the EPA has to do a cost benefit
analysis, they have to, in addition to the science. They also
have to make a finding that what they are proposing, the
standard they are proposing is technologically and economically
feasible.
So I just wanted you to feel better about that. I have been
steeped in these things for a long time. I think that the
arguments you raised are absolutely appropriate. But I honestly
think we have answers to them.
So I look forward to working with you and sending you those
studies.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate that.
Again, though, you have a situation where on the chart several
California cities that are quite high compared to .02, and yet,
the reality is that the State, the Federal Government, has not
allocated those resources. It is, the question is, is .02 where
we want to be at? Is it .04, .06, whatever? At this point, that
is, I don't think we really know that.
Senator Boxer. Right. In California, we have set .02 as a
goal. They reduced it from .06 to .02, because the UC people
found, when they looked at the science and they looked at the
babies and they looked at the pregnant women, that that was the
level you could assure that they would be protected. But it is
a goal.
Because of your point that you are making, it has to be
technologically, economically feasible. It has to have a cost
benefit analysis.
So I honestly think we have the tools at our disposal to do
this right. But I also find, and I thank you for your
contribution, but I also find it disturbing that not one
emerging contaminant has been regulated since 1996. It makes no
sense, as the cancer rates skyrocket in this country. Something
is wrong there.
All I am asking for is honesty here, from everybody. If
people tell me, we can't afford it, that is my job, to help you
get help fixing it. I don't like unfunded mandates, and I never
have. I want to fund these issues. Because I don't want my
people exposed to chromium VI. If the water district is saying,
it is too costly, I need to help you. But we shouldn't mix up,
as I think Dr. Burke points out, the truth of what it is going
to mean to protect our people with the cost. We have to see
those two things and we have to work to make sure that we can
help these districts protect their people. We don't want
children being born whose brains are not developed as they
should. We don't want children being born with all kind of
birth defects. We found out, for example, with lead, the great
news is, when you protect them from exposure, they are fine.
Even the ones who had some exposure before.
So I think this Committee has a proud history of working
across party lines to protect the public. But I would ask,
since I have made a number of comments and I didn't give people
a chance to respond, I will go down and have you each make a
closing statement. Go ahead, Mr. Cook, and we will go next to
Ms. VanDe Hei.
Mr. Cook. Chairman Boxer, I commend you for the hearing. We
support your legislation. We supported it for a long time. We
have been worried about chromium VI, you have been worried
about it for well over a decade officially. So this is not a
new subject.
But I think that we stand ready to work with the Committee,
not just on the health and assessment side, but also on the
funding side. We have worked very cordially with our colleagues
at the water associations for many years, supported their
requests for additional money, lobbied side by side with them
in some cases on contaminant issues. So I think that you are
right, this is not a partisan issue, it is not a regional
issue, this is an American issue. We want to have clean water,
and we have some barriers in the way that we have to deal with.
So thank you.
Senator Boxer. Well, thank you for all your work.
If I could just say, keep on doing what you are doing. If
people don't like it, that is their right. I like it. Because I
want a snapshot. I don't take it as the last word. I just take
it as a warning, as a red flag, as a moment to say, wait a
minute, this is a snapshot today and this is a little
surprising. I think the group should welcome it, and I think
there are some that do. But I certainly welcome it, as Chairman
of this Committee, and I encourage you to keep on doing our
job. Because at a time of budget deficits, I think Mr. Murray
was honest about that, these are tough times, very tough times
for everybody.
But the world goes on and our kids are being born, and we
are relying on them for our future. We can't stop the science
or telling the truth to the American people. These are hard
times. We have to look at what we are facing and we have to
decide what is most important. What you are doing is saying,
time out, let's take a look at this. We don't want to look at
it, but let's do it.
So I am with you all the way in your work. I hope you
continue it.
Ms. VanDe Hei.
Ms. VanDe Hei. Thank you, Chairman Boxer.
I guess just a couple of things. I would like to say, in
our testimony we did not intend to say that Congress had no
role in the Safe Drinking Water Act. In fact, Congress enacted
the Safe Drinking Water Act and has a very important role in
oversight, to make sure that that Act is implemented the way
you intended it. So I would like to make that clear.
We also wonder why there have been no new contaminants
regulated, and we believe the process is there to do that. So I
would ask that perhaps someone look at EPA's structure, and
where the people at Triangle Park, what they are studying
versus what the program office needs in terms of data to sort
of support a regulation. About 18 years ago, those offices were
separated. We got program offices, science was taken away from
it. I think that is part of the reason why you don't see new
regulations coming down the road.
I would also like to followup with something that Ken
mentioned, and that is, there is confusion about what an MCLG
is and what an MCL is. We would support one number. We have
tried for years to get Congress to look at that issue, because
it is hard to explain to somebody why you can have an MCLG of
zero and a standard that is different than that. So we would
love to work with you on that part.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Mr. Murray.
Mr. Murray. Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think we are all seeking for meaningful opportunities for
risk reduction. We can argue that the Clean Water Act gave us a
framework to get to those meaningful opportunities for risk
reduction, and we can argue that maybe that process isn't
working as well as it should be working.
But we can't replace that process with water utilities
chasing the contamiannt du jour. Right now, Fairfax Water is
monitoring for 30 plus compounds, new compounds over the last
year, year and a half, that have been raised as contaminants of
concern. We don't know what to say about it. We post the data
on our website, and we don't have decent health effects
information to speak intelligently to our customers about it.
We remove a lot of them. But to what levels is it safe? So
I think your concerns with how we can improve the process of
getting to meaningful risk reduction is real. Thank you.
Senator Boxer. Thank you.
Dr. Burke.
Mr. Burke. I think the most important thing that the
Committee can do is break the logjam. You are absolutely right
about no movement forward since the mid-1990's. Even that
movement has been quite little. We are actually stuck back in
the late 1970's, I think, in Safe Drinking Water. I think it
comes down to this: prevention is not a bad word. In public
health, it is what we do. Lack of absolute certainty and
arguments about cost, and there shouldn't be an excuse for lack
of action.
So I would hope that as we move forward, you can use the
science, apply it better, take a hard look at the way EPA does
things, and streamline it so that we can better protect public
health.
Senator Boxer. Thank you so much, all of you.
We will have our test case with perchlorate and chromium
VI, because EPA is moving ahead. I hope our friends at the
water agencies will work with us. You are going to have a
chance to publicly comment. I will be looking forward to what
you say on this issue of perchlorate. It is all across the
country, it is all over the place. We already know the problem
it causes with thyroid.
So I hope you will work with us. Look, I think that
straightforward, honest declarations here are in order. If we
find that perchlorate is a danger, and we have proved it to the
water districts and we have proved it to everyone, I think the
water districts should support it and say, we will be honest,
we are going to need help in doing it. Let's get to that point,
rather than try to use every delaying tactic, so that we just
continue on with increasing cancer rates, with, I have a bill
that will get EPA more involved in coordinating cancer cluster
action.
When we hear people in different States that say, we don't
know what is happening, we don't know why there is this hot
spot of leukemia over here, and why there is a hot spot of
other problems over here. Right now, there isn't a way to
respond except with the local people doing something, the EPA
maybe being called and what we are trying to do is get all this
information under one roof and try to answer these questions. A
lot of the questions could lead back to water.
We have a cancer hot spot, it was brain tumor, it was a hot
spot of brain cancer in children in Idaho. Senator Crapo and I,
across party lines, have gotten together to move forward with
this cancer cluster bill. It may lead to the water. Because as
it turns out, we found out the one thing we know, there was
mining, and a lot of those toxins went into a lake, and the
kids swam in that lake. I don't know if it was in the drinking
water, we don't know all that.
But the point is, it is our responsibility to protect the
health and safety of our people, all of us. This is our job.
Whether you are a non-profit, a profit, we need to all be
mindful of that. We can't harm the people.
My role as Chairman here is just to point out that we are
not moving quickly enough on some of these contaminants that
have been around a long time. There is a lot of information.
States like Massachusetts, New Jersey, California, are moving
forward. It is really our job. Why should a person in
California be safer from chromium VI than he is in any other
State? It is not right. It is just one country under God. We
have to protect all of our people.
So I am going to look forward to working with all of you,
because you are all a piece of this puzzle. I think in the
spirit of cooperation that I hope we will continue to have that
we will be able to get behind some of these obvious problems
and solve them. Because that is our job.
I want to thank each and every one of you for being here
and for your very honest, straightforward testimony. We stand
adjourned, and thank you.
[Whereupon, at 12:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
Statement of Steve Lewis, City Manager, City of Norman, OK
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee, thank you for the
opportunity to testify. I am Steve Lewis, City Manager of Norman
Oklahoma and responsible to our citizens for the safety of their
drinking water. The city of Norman first learned of the Environmental
Working Group (EWG)'s reported levels of Chromium 6 in our water supply
through the news media. Norman, Oklahoma was identified as having one
of the highest levels of Chromium 6 of the 35 cities tested. In spite
of our requests, the EWG has refused to share the sampling data details
with us, so confirmation of their report has not been possible. What we
do know is that a single water sample was used to undermine public
confidence in the safety of our water supply.
Total chromium is regulated by the EPA as a primary drinking water
contaminant with a maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 100 parts per
billion (ppb). This level of protection was set by the EPA in 1992
based on the best available science. Two subsequent EPA reviews
concluded that the total chromium MCL is still protective of public
health and as precautionary as the current science dictates. We applaud
EPA's continued diligence to regulatory rulemaking based on good
science and look forward to the result of the current Chromium 6
scientific review to be finalized later this year.
In Norman, total chromium is tested in accordance with requirements
of the Oklahoma Department of Environmental Quality (ODEQ) and the
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Approximately 30
percent of our water supply is groundwater, where chromium occurs
naturally. Chromium testing results are reported annually to our
customers in our Consumer Confidence Report (CCR); the latest CCR
reported total chromium values for our groundwater wells between 11 and
86 ppb, all of which are below the regulatory limit of 100 ppb. Seven
new water wells have been tested for total chromium since issuance of
the CCR and their levels range from ``non-detect'' to 80 ppb. The
surface Water Treatment Plant, that treats Lake Thunderbird water, has
total chromium levels of ``non-detect''. All of our potable water,
whether groundwater or surface water, is 100 percent in compliance with
all current EPA regulations.
Based on EPA's suggested recommendations, the city of Norman has
begun comprehensive testing specifically for Chromium 6 at each of our
wells as well as within the distribution system. With this additional
information, Norman will be in a better position to address our
customers concerns and to respond if a change in the chromium
regulation is promulgated.
The residents of Norman may rest assured that the city of Norman is
committed to providing water that is safe to drink for all members of
our community. As previously noted, the EPA is currently evaluating new
health effects data on Chromium 6 and that evaluation is expected to be
complete in late 2011. Norman is prepared to vigorously respond in a
way that protects public health and meets Federal and State of Oklahoma
standards.
Consistent with our commitment to provide safe drinking water, the
Mayor and I have appointed a Chromium 6 Working Group that will be
constituted of senior city management and three members of the City
Council. There will also be representatives on a technical advisory
committee who bring expertise in chemistry and geology, public health,
and water system engineering to work with this group as we continue to
monitor the chromium public health issues.
But more is needed from our regulators, and this is my main point
to you today. We are in a new age of communication and information. The
EWG report was designed to alarm the American people as to the safety
of their drinking water and caused them to question the ability of
utilities like Norman to protect the public health of our customers;
when, in fact, the public water supply system in Norman Oklahoma
provides the safest and most economical drinking water option that good
science and good public health policy would dictate.
We need more from our regulators than just reports on the technical
details of rules and rulemaking. We need our regulatory bodies,
especially EPA, to engage the American public in an open and honest
discourse about the safety of their drinking water with the same media
approach that our detractors use. EPA's December 2010, response to the
EWG study was helpful, but did not provide any specific guidance
regarding how to respond to concerned customers. We need to be
proactive, not reactive.
The safety of the American Public's drinking water is one of the
most impressive success stories of the last 100 years. Protecting
public health means more than acting on the good science that EPA
develops and fosters. It means providing the confidence to our citizens
and customers that their drinking water is the safest source of water
available to them. To accomplish the complete mission of protection of
the public health, our industry must be able to communicate our message
more effectively than those who would have our customers think
otherwise. America's drinking water is safe, reliable and economical.
And we can all be proud of that fact.
Norman will continue to work closely with the ODEQ and the EPA to
assure our drinking water is safe for human consumption. Norman
continues to support research by the EPA, the Water Research Foundation
(WRF), and other government and scientific organizations. I appreciate
the opportunity to testify and demonstrate Norman's actions, and I am
pleased to respond to any questions you may have.
__________
Response by Steven Lewis to an Additional Question from Senator Boxer
Question. Describe the importance that utilities place on ensuring
that they provide safe drinking water that protects public health,
including the health of pregnant women, infants, and children, from
dangerous contaminants.
Response. The City's foremost priority is to provide safe drinking
water to the community. A safe and reliable water supply is the ``life
blood'' to any community and the utility employees and City leaders
take that responsibility very seriously. All utility employees must be
licensed to be able to work at the water treatment plant. Last year
alone, we performed over 170,000 water quality tests (some every 15
minutes) to insure the water meets all State and Federal quality
regulations.
______
Responses by Steven Lewis to Additional Questions from Senator Inhofe
Question 1. Mr. Lewis, I want you to know that I understand the
commitment of the city of Norman to providing water that is safe to
drink and protective of public health for all members of your
community. I remember in 2006, Norman addressed a similar challenge
regarding a federally mandated reduction of the MCL for arsenic from 50
ppb to 10 ppb. I know we helped the city of Norman secure $1.5 million
in Federal Grant moneys between 2005 and 2006 to help the city perform
major modifications to its groundwater supply and remain in compliance
with the new arsenic rule. How much is Norman spending to deal with
this new Chromium 6 report?
Response. We appreciate your help and concern in meeting the
previous mandated reduction of arsenic in the drinking water. Overall
the city of Norman spent over $11 million to deal with the change in
arsenic regulations, which caused a significant rate increase to our
customers.
We are currently performing additional testing and reviewing
alternatives to deal with a potential change in the chromium
regulation. We are also investing a considerable amount of time to
educate our customers about the issue and have formed a senior
management committee and a technical working group to help us determine
the status of this issue within the scientific community.
With regards to potential costs for treatment of chromium 6, we
cannot make an exact determination without guidance from the Federal
Government regarding appropriate treatment technologies and, if
applicable, what the Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) may be for
chromium six, or total chromium. Since the scientific review necessary
to determine these levels is incomplete, this point it is like hitting
a moving target. However, our current engineering estimates run
anywhere from about $44 million to over $100 million, depending on the
mandated removal levels.
Question 2. Have you received any more communication from EWG
regarding where and when the sample they tested was obtained? How would
that information help you understand the implication of this report?
Response. We have received information from EWG as to when the
sample was taken, but not as to where the sample was taken. The point
was not whether or not the sample resulted in a chromium reading. We
acknowledge there is naturally occurring chromium in the Garber-Welling
aquifer. The issue is to whether the test could be duplicated, whether
there was adequate laboratory QA/QC, and alarming our customers about a
substance where we already meet Federal regulations.
Question 3. Please explain the difficulty that the city has in
communicating with citizens about the EWG report and what it means for
them.
Response. As mentioned, the EWG report was unnecessarily alarming
to our customers about a substance that we currently monitor and for
which we have always been below the federally mandated regulatory
limits. The EWG report also stated that chromium is a `contaminant' and
`pollutant' which was misleading since the chromium in our supply
results from naturally and commonly occurring deposits in the earth's
crust. Because of the alarming nature of the report, customers believed
there was an acute (i.e. immediate) danger to their health from
drinking the water, not realizing that the possibility of any ill
effects would be from continuous consumption and only at levels above
the regulatory MCL, and would take many years to develop (if at all).
The report caused many, many customers to distrust the water utility
and the City, when we work hard to protect the public health and to
meet all State and Federal regulations.
Question 4. What is the expected background concentration of
chromium in your source water? Is your source water from groundwater or
surface water or a combination? What causes the background
concentrations of chromium (trivalent and hexavalent) in your source
water to vary?
Response. Water for the city of Norman comes from two sources:
groundwater and surface water. Lake Thunderbird is a reservoir that
Norman shares with Del City and Midwest City. On an annual basis, about
70 percent of Norman's water comes from this Lake. Water tested from
LakeThunderbird had a result of 9ppb for total chromium. The other
source of water for Norman is from the Garber-Wellington aquifer. This
is a large aquifer that serves many communities East of Oklahoma City.
We currently have 26 operating wells in this aquifer. Water from the
aquifer tested anywhere from 10ppb to 90ppb. The chromium in the
Garber-Wellington aquifer is naturally occurring.
Question 5. How can chromium be removed form public drinking water
systems?
Response. We are reviewing engineering option and opinions as to
how to remove chromium from water. Some of the options include, a lime
softening plant, ion exchange and membrane filters. Any of these
options will be a huge expense to our customers and significantly
increase their water rates.
Question 6. I am always concerned about how cities and local
governments are dealing with the unfunded mandates that are passed down
from the Federal Government. I know stricter drinking water standards
and clean water standards force many of our communities to either raise
rates or seek additional funding from other sources. How can we ensure
that utilities like yours are not facing the constant threat of having
to raise rates and still meeting drinking water standards?
Response. The city of Norman operates the Water and Wastewater
utilities as `enterprise funds', meaning the customers that use the
service, pay for the service. So, all the utility revenues must come
from the customers. As mentioned in a previous question, we had to
significantly increase water rates to meet the change in the arsenic
rule in 2006. Now, depending on what level the new chromium MCL is
determined to be, we will have to increase the water rate to our
customers.
As previously stated, we see it as our duty to protect the public
health at all times and work hand in hand with Federal and State
regulatory agencies to address new concerns that may appear on the
horizon. As persons that could potentially impact how the Federal
Government responds to the Chromium 6 issue, we only ask that you
ensure that if a new regulation is promulgated that the current
scientific process utilized to determine human health impacts from a
particular component is maintained and ``sound'' scientific reasons are
provided for this mandate to our utility. In addition, we ask that
these mandates, whatever they may be, have funding mechanisms in place
that provide some measure of relief for utilities, such as ourselves,
to protect the public health to the best of our abilities.
Question 7. Utilities have raised concerns with my office about
EPA's decisions regarding the technical assistance to monitor for
chromium 6, including the lack of a fully validated analytical method,
inability for the agency to collect and use the data generated and lack
of explanation of how to communicate the health effects to the public.
How can EPA clarify and assist Norman with the technical assistance it
provided?
Response. As you are aware, when we first learned about a proposed
chromium MCL in the parts per trillion we were shocked to learn there
was not a laboratory in the region that could provide testing results
at that detection limit. In addition, the chance for a laboratory error
(either in sample collection, storing or testing) when testing for
substances in the ppt range is very probable.
Question 8. Are you supportive of a drinking water regulatory
process that relies on science to help guide decisionmaking? Do you
think the current SDWA provides a clear, transparent, science driven
process for making decisions regarding drinking water regulations?
Response. The city of Norman supports the EPA in their regulatory
process that uses science to determine their decisionmaking. We would
be disappointed if regulations were determined based on inconclusive
data, bullying by special interest groups, fear or a `knee jerk'
reaction to assumptions.
Question 9. Is there anything else you would like to add for the
record?
Response. Not at this time.
______
Response by Steven Lewis to an Additional Question from
Senator Lautenberg
Question. If not for EWG's monitoring of your water systems, the
public would probably not be aware of the presence of chromium six in
their drinking water. Could stronger Federal monitoring requirements
help you catch these problems earlier and allow you to address them?
Response. Our community, our customers, and we as a utility were
already aware of the level of chromium in the water supply. Each year
we publish and mail to each customer the Consumer Confidence Report
(CCR). This report lists compliance information with respect to Federal
requirements for our drinking water supply. As an added service to our
customers, we also provide this information on the City's website that
is available any time. The EWG report created an unnecessary alarm in
the community about a substance that is already regulated and that we
currently meet the Federal Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). In our
opinion, stronger Federal requirements for monitoring would not have
any impact on this matter as all of the required information was
available to our utility and our customers through the normal Federal
monitoring requirements.
The EWG report put `the cart before the horse' so to speak, by
making alarming inferences about a substance before there is agreement
within the scientific and regulatory community regarding their
assertions. As stated, we (water utilities all over the nation) work
hard and are diligent in providing safe, potable water to all our
customers. We strive and promise to meet all State and Federal
regulations.
______
Response by Steven Lewis to an Additional Question from Senator Carper
Question. How can the Federal Government focus its efforts to
improve drinking water quality on pollution prevention? What kind of
tools and programs exist to prevent the pollution of drinking water and
what new ones are needed?
Response. Analytical technologies and techniques continue to
improve and, as a result, we are able to find more substances in the
water than ever before. Detecting substances in the parts per billion
(ppb) and parts per trillion (ppt) ranges reliably and consistently
outpace the State agencies' and local laboratories' ability to
duplicate these tests. In addition, the Federal Government and EPA must
insure that in addition to simply detecting additional substances in
water, sufficient scientific basis exists to determine if the substance
poses a problem to the population. This is critical because of the high
cost to the community to remove these substances. New federally
mandated drinking water regulations without Federal financial
assistance will directly impact how much our customers pay for their
water.