[Senate Report 110-483] [From the U.S. Government Publishing Office] Calendar No. 1054 110th Congress Report SENATE 2d Session 110-483 ====================================================================== PERCHLORATE MONITORING AND RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT OF 2008 _______ September 24 (legislative day, September 17), 2008.--Ordered to be printed _______ Mrs. Boxer, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works, submitted the following R E P O R T together with MINORITY VIEWS [To accompany S. 24] [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was referred the bill (S. 24) to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require a health advisory and monitoring of drinking water for perchlorate, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends the bill (as amended) do pass. Purpose and Summary of the Legislation The purpose of S. 24, the Perchlorate Monitoring and Public Right-To-Know Act of 2008 is to require monitoring, a health advisory, and public right-to-know for perchlorate in drinking water. The bill would require large public water system to monitor for the presence of perchlorate in drinking water. It would also require consumer confidence reports required under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act to include a disclosure of any perchlorate in drinking water at the level of detection. The bill would require such report to also include a discussion of the health impacts of perchlorate on vulnerable persons, including pregnant women, infants, and children. The bill would also require EPA to create a public health advisory for perchlorate that is fully protective, with an adequate margin of safety, of the health of vulnerable persons, including pregnant women, infants, and children, taking into consideration body weight, exposure patterns and all routes of exposure. Background and Need for the Legislation BACKGROUND Perchlorate is a salt used to create flares, fireworks, and other items. It also occurs naturally in some areas, including in fertilizers imported from Chile. Once released into the environment, perchlorate can move through soil, into water, and then into food. Peoples' health may be harmed by exposure to perchlorate, through eating food or drinking water contaminated with this toxic substance. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), certain exposure levels of perchlorate can affect ``thyroid hormone production by inhibiting the uptake of iodine. . ..''\1\ Also, according to the NAS: ``Thyroid hormones are critical for normal growth and development of the central nervous system of fetuses and infants.'' Vulnerable persons, including pregnant women, infants, and children are especially vulnerable to perchlorates impact on iodine uptake in the body. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \1\National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion (2005), available online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11202 --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In 2005 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found 395 sites in 35 states with more than 4 parts per billion (ppb) of perchlorate. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) knows of 160 serving almost 17 million people in 26 states with perchlorate levels of at least 4 ppb. The State of California knows of perchlorate contamination in 274 active or standby water wells at levels of at least 4 ppb. In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report found that low levels of perchlorate may pose health risks and recommended a safe level of exposure to perchlorate from all sources--contaminated drinking water and food.\2\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \2\Ibid. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Since 2005, several studies show widespread perchlorate exposure. In October 2006, researchers at the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found detectable levels of perchlorate in all urine samples taken during the 2001-2002 National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) of U.S. residents age six and older, with significantly higher levels found in children than in adults.\3\ In December 2006, researchers at the CDC published a follow up study that showed that there was a ``significant'' relationship between the amount of urinary perchlorate and two different thyroid hormones in women. It was the first study to show a correlation.\4\ --------------------------------------------------------------------------- \3\Blount, et al.; Perchlorate Exposure of the U.S. Population, 2001-2002; Journal of Exposure Science and Environmental Epidemiology (2007) 17, 400-407; doi:10.1038/sj.jes.7500535; published online 18 October 2006. \4\Blount, et al.; Urinary Perchlorate and Thyroid Hormone Levels in Adolescent and Adult Men and Women Living in the United States; Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 114, Number 12, December 2006. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- A 2007 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences found that perchlorate concentrates in breast milk. A January 2008 broad study by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found perchlorate in 74% of all foods tested, including baby food, and the study found: ``Infants and children demonstrated the highest estimated intakes of perchlorate on a body weight basis.'' While science increasingly raises health concerns about perchlorate, EPA has not issued a drinking water standard for perchlorate and has ended monitoring requirements for perchlorate in drinking water, stating that the agency believed that it had adequate monitoring data,. In February 2005, EPA issued perchlorate drinking water guidance of 24.5 parts per billion that failed to account for perchlorate exposures from food and water combined, and the guidance failed to lower levels of allowed exposure to account for childhood exposures or non-drinking water exposures. In August 2006, EPA issued perchlorate cleanup guidance, which EPA's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee stated ``is not protective of children's health.'' In 2007, EPA decided not to begin the process to regulate perchlorate in public drinking water, and said that in the future it would continue to evaluate new scientific information and make a final determination at a later date. EPA also ended drinking water monitoring requirements for perchlorate, stating that the agency believed that it had adequate monitoring data. The Agency said that it expected to make an initial determination of whether to regulate perchlorate in drinking water in 2008. NEED FOR LEGISLATION EPA has known about perchlorate's health risks since before 2002. Scientific studies since that time have demonstrated that perchlorate contamination of drinking water and food sources is widespread, and that current levels of exposure in some areas are sufficient to affect the hormone system of vulnerable persons. In the face of this scientific information, States have taken action, including California and Massachusetts, to create perchlorate drinking water standards. EPA has not taken action and eliminated perchlorate monitoring requirements. S. 24 will help to ensure that the public is informed about perchlorate exposures from drinking water and the potential health effects from such exposures. Summary of Major Provisions of the Bill S. 24, the Perchlorate Monitoring and Public Right-To-Know Act of 2008 would require EPA to create a public health advisory for perchlorate that is fully protective, with an adequate margin of safety, of the health of vulnerable persons, including pregnant women, infants, and children, taking into consideration body weight, exposure patterns and all routes of exposure. The bill would require large public water system to monitoring for the presence of perchlorate in drinking water. S. 24 would also ensure the public is fully informed about perchlorate in their drinking water supplies by requiring consumer confidence reports issued under the federal safe Drinking Water Act to include a disclosure of any perchlorate in drinking water at the level of detection. The bill would also require such report to also include a discussion of the health impacts of perchlorate on vulnerable persons, including pregnant women, infants, and children. Section-by-Section Analysis Section 1. Short title Section 1 establishes the short title of the Act as the ``Perchlorate Monitoring and Right-to-know Act of 2008''. Section 2. Findings This section contains findings related to perchlorate contamination and health effects. Section 3. Monitoring and health advisory for perchlorate Section 3 amends section 1412 of the Safe Drinking Water Act by requiring EPA to create a health advisory for perchlorate that is fully protective, with an adequate margin of safety, of the health of vulnerable persons, including pregnant women, infants, and children, taking into consideration body weight, exposure patterns and all routes of exposure. This section would also require large public water systems to monitor for perchlorate in their drinking water and would require sampling of a subset small water systems for perchlorate. This section would require consumer confidence reports issued under the federal safe Drinking Water Act to include a disclosure of any perchlorate in drinking water at the level of detection. The bill would also require such report to also include a discussion of the health impacts of perchlorate on vulnerable persons, including pregnant women, infants, and children. The section also clarifies that perchlorate is not one of the three regulated contaminants described in clause (vi) of section 1414(c)(4)(B). Legislative History and Votes On July 31, 2008, the Committee on Environment and Public Works held a business meeting to consider S. 24, among other pieces of legislation. The Committee on Environment and Public Works considered Chairman Boxer's amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 24. The Committee favorably adopted the bill by a voice vote, with Senators Inhofe and Alexander both going on record as opposing passage of the bill. On May 6, 2008, the Committee held a legislative hearing titled, ``Perchlorate and TCE in Drinking Water''. On April 29, 2008 the Committee held a hearing titled, ``Oversight on EPA Toxic Chemicals Policies.'' On February 6, 2007, the Committee held a hearing titled, ``Oversight on Recent EPA Decisions,'' at which perchlorate was discussed. Rollcall Votes S. 24 passed the Committee by voice vote on July 31, 2008, with Senators Inhofe, Alexander, and Craig recorded as voting No. Regulatory Impact Statement In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes evaluation of the regulatory impact of the reported bill. Based on information from EPA, CBO estimates that the total cost to regulated entities for monitoring drinking water and disclosing results would be about $1 million annually, and that the bill authorizes funding to help cover many of these costs. Mandates Assessment In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-4), the Committee finds that, in accordance with CBO estimates, the total cost of the requirements to monitor drinking water and disclose results would be about $1 million annually, which would fall well below the annual thresholds established in UMRA for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates ($68 million and $136 million in 2008, respectively, adjusted annually for inflation). In addition, the bill would authorize EPA to provide funding to help cover small system costs. August 28, 2008. Hon. Barbara Boxer, Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. Dear Madam Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 24, the Perchlorate Monitoring and Right-to-Know Act of 2008. If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S. Mehlman. Sincerely, Peter R. Orszag. Enclosure. S. 24--Perchlorate Monitoring and Right-to-Know Act of 2008 S. 24 would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), no later than 90 days after the bill's enactment, to issue a health advisory for perchlorate in drinking water that fully protects susceptible populations, including pregnant women, infants, and children, taking into consideration body weight, exposure patterns, and all routes of exposure. (Perchlorate is a chemical used in rocket fuel.) EPA also would be required to establish a final regulation requiring drinking water to be monitored for the presence of perchlorate. Finally, this legislation would require that consumer confidence reports currently issued by public water suppliers include information on the presence of perchlorate in their drinking water and its potential health effects. Based on information from EPA, CBO estimates that implementing S. 24 would cost about $3 million over the 2009- 2011 period, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. That funding would be used to support five additional personnel as well as contractor costs needed to meet the requirements of this legislation. Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues. By requiring public water systems serving more than 10,000 individuals and a representative sample of smaller public water systems to monitor for perchlorate, S. 24 would impose intergovernmental and private-sector mandates, as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). The bill also would require those systems to disclose in their consumer confidence reports the presence of perchlorate in drinking water and its health risks to vulnerable populations. Based on information from EPA, CBO estimates that the total cost of the mandates would be about $1 million annually, which would fall well below the annual thresholds established in UMRA for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates ($68 million and $136 million in 2008, respectively, adjusted annually for inflation). In addition, the bill would authorize EPA to provide funding to small systems to cover those costs. The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Susanne S. Mehlman (for federal costs), Burke Doherty (for the state and local impact), and Amy Petz (for the private-sector impact). This estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director for Budget Analysis. MINORITY VIEWS Safe and affordable drinking water is a critical component for healthy and economically prosperous communities. The Safe Drinking Water Act is the legal authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that Americans continue to receive the safest water in the world for consumption and also adequately address new drinking water contaminants and concerns. The Safe Drinking Water Act provides significant opportunity for transparent scientific review and processes for regulatory determinations. S. 150, the Protecting Pregnant Women and Children from Perchlorate Act of 2007, disregards scientific review, critical drinking water act processes, and is misleading in the bill's findings. For these reasons, we oppose this legislation. The bill's findings are disingenuous and ignore several important facts. The findings strongly suggest the Department of Defense (DOD) and industry are responsible for any perchlorate found in water. Research by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and others indicates that perchlorate is found as a naturally occurring substance and shows up in many areas around the country, even where there is no, and never has been, a DOD or industrial presence. Further, a recent collaborative effort in California found that 100% of DOD sites pose ``No Threat'' to drinking water. Naturally occurring perchlorate has been found in large quantities in West Texas and from unknown sources in Hills, Iowa. Perchlorate doesn't only appear in water, but is also commonly found in the food supply. A recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) study found that when people with diets high in perchlorate were tested, the sensitive subpopulations were below the reference dose established by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The study included sampling populations that had high levels of perchlorate in their drinking water. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) knows of 160 drinking water systems in 26 states with perchlorate levels of at least 4 ppb. EPA states: ``There are approximately 156,000 public drinking water systems,'' and ``perchlorate was detected at levels above the minimum reporting level of 4 parts per billion (ppb) in approximately 2 percent of the more than 34,000 samples analyzed.'' Those numbers are very similar to the findings in a 2005 GAO report. The findings dismiss the National Academy of Sciences' recommended daily dosage of perchlorate. The NAS reference dose of 24.5 parts per billion (ppb) is fully protective of the most sensitive subpopulations and is very conservative as it uses a precursor to an adverse health effect as a jumping off point. In 2005, a panel of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that perchlorate caused no observable health effects, adverse or otherwise, at levels as high as 0.007 mg/kg/day, equivalent to drinking water levels of 245 parts per billion (ppb). To ensure an adequate margin of safety for even potentially vulnerable subpopulations (e.g., pregnant and nursing mothers and their children) the NAS panel applied a ten-fold safety factor, resulting in a perchlorate reference dose of 0.0007 mg/kg/day, equivalent to a drinking water level of 24.5 ppb. The CDC does not suggest that people in the United States are suffering health consequences at doses lower than the current EPA reference dose of 24.5 ppb. The underlying bill's findings do not take into account new and ongoing studies of perchlorate. Additional work is needed to determine whether some unknown factor associated with perchlorate exposure might be the cause of the observed changes in thyroid function. In addition, the EPA's Children's Health Protection Advisory Committee's (CHPAC) August 2006 statement referenced in the committee report is not fully inclusive of all current scientific findings available. For instance, the CHPAC statement was unable to consider the 2007 findings of a study that measured perchlorate and iodine levels in the milk of 57 lactating Boston-area women. No correlation was found between breast milk perchlorate and iodine levels. Additionally, the lack of correlation between breast milk perchlorate and iodine levels seemingly corroborates the Chilean findings which were unfortunately discounted in the CHPAC letter. According to Jonathan Borak (MD, FACP, FACOEM), Clinical Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health at Yale School of Medicine, ``The ongoing public debate about environmental perchlorate exposure has led to misstatements and misinterpretations of the relevant scientific findings. The current state of knowledge should be clear. There is no evidence of excessive perchlorate in the U.S. diet and little likelihood that routine perchlorate ingestion would exceed the EPA and NAS Reference Dose. There is no evidence that perchlorate is a human carcinogen. There is evidence that the U.S. diet contains sufficient iodine, and sufficient iodine intake is protective against effects that might result from perchlorate excess.'' The Environmental Protection Agency currently possesses the authorities to publish health advisories and/or require monitoring of public water systems for perchlorate if the agency determines the science justifies such action. Currently, EPA is weighing the various scientific studies in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act to determine whether a health advisory or further monitoring and reporting are warranted. We do not believe Congress should undermine the sanctity of the Safe Drinking Water Act process by politicizing the outcome of whether rules and regulations are warranted without allowing an agency to adequately reflect on the best available science. Safe Drinking Water Act procedures were enacted to discontinue this type of Congressional intervention and to base rules and regulations on science, not political gains. Larry E. Craig. Jim Inhofe. Changes in Existing Law In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill as reported are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in [black brackets], new matter is printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman: * * * * * * * ---------- SAFETY OF PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS (SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT) * * * * * * * SHORT TITLE Sec. 1400. This title may be cited as the ``Safe Drinking Water Act''. Part A--* * * * * * * * * * Sec. 1412. (a)(1) Effective on the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986, each national interim or revised primary drinking water regulation promulgated under this section before such enactment shall be deemed to be a national primary drinking water regulation under subsection (b). No such regulation shall be required to comply with the standards set forth in subsection (b)(4) unless such regulation is amended to establish a different maximum contaminant level after the enactment of such amendments. (2) * * * * * * * * * * (b) Standards.-- (1) Identification of contaminants for listing.-- (A) General authority.--* * * * * * * * * * (12) Certain contaminants.-- (A) Arsenic.-- (i) Schedule and standard.--* * * * * * * * * * (B) Sulfate.-- (i) Additional study.--* * * * * * * * * * (C) Perchlorate.-- (i) Health advisory.--Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, not later than 90 days after the date of enactment of this subparagraph, the Administrator shall publish a health advisory for perchlorate that is fully protective, with an adequate margin of safety, of the health of vulnerable persons (including pregnant women, infants, and children), taking into consideration body weight, exposure patterns, and all routes of exposure. (ii) Monitoring regulations.-- (I) In general.--The Administrator shall propose (not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this subparagraph) and promulgate (not later than 120 days after the date of enactment of this subparagraph) a final regulation pursuant to section 1445(a)(2) requiring-- (aa) each public water system serving more than 10,000 individuals to monitor for perchlorate beginning not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this subparagraph; and (bb) the collection of a representative sample of public water systems serving 10,000 individuals or fewer to monitor for perchlorate in accordance with section 1445(a)(2). (II) Duration.--The regulation shall be in effect until monitoring for perchlorate is required under a national primary drinking water regulation for perchlorate. (iii) Consumer confidence reports.-- (I) In general.--Subject to subclause (II), by regulation promulgated simultaneously with the promulgation of the final regulation under clause (ii), the Administrator shall require that each consumer confidence report issued under section 1414(c)(4) shall disclose the presence of any perchlorate in drinking water, and the potential health risks of exposure to perchlorate in drinking water to vulnerable persons (including pregnant women, infants, and children), consistent with regulations promulgated by the Administrator. (II) Exception.-- Notwithstanding subclause (I), perchlorate shall not be considered to be 1 of the 3 regulated contaminants described in the matter following clause (vi) of section 1414(c)(4)(B). * * * * * * * ----------