U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

85–531 PDF 2015

S. HRG. 110–1255 

PERCHLORATE AND TCE IN WATER 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND 

PUBLIC WORKS 

UNITED STATES SENATE 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 6, 2008 

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

( 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress.senate 

(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS 

ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman 

MAX BAUCUS, Montana 

JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut 

THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware 

HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON, New York 

FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey 

BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland 

BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont 

AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota 

SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island 

JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma 

JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia 

GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio 

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia 

DAVID VITTER, Louisiana 

JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming 

LARRY E. CRAIG, Idaho 

LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee 

CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri 

BETTINA POIRIER, Majority Staff Director and Chief Counsel 

ANDREW WHEELER, Minority Staff Director 

(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

TUESDAY MAY 6, 2008 

OPENING STATEMENTS 

Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California ........................ 1 

Barrasso, Hon. John, U.S. Senator from the State of Wyoming .......................... 3 

Bond, Hon. Christopher S., U.S. Senator from the State of Missouri ................. 5 

Klobuchar, Hon. Amy, U.S. Senator from the State of Minnesota ...................... 79 

WITNESSES 

Grumbles, Benjamin, Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental 

Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 11 

Alexeeff, George V., Deputy Director for Scientific Affairs, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, California Environmental Protection 

Agency ................................................................................................................... 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 40 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ................................................................................................... 49 

Senator Cardin ................................................................................................. 50 

Senator Inhofe .................................................................................................. 51 

Baker, Mike, Chief, Division of Drinking and Ground Waters, Ohio Environmental Protection Agency, on Behalf of the Association of State Drinking 

Water Administrators .......................................................................................... 53 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 55 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ................................................................................................... 59 

Senator Cardin ................................................................................................. 59 

Senator Inhofe .................................................................................................. 61 

West, Carol Rowan, Director, Office of Research and Standards, Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection ................................................. 64 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 66 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ................................................................................................... 71 

Senator Cardin ................................................................................................. 72 

Senator Inhofe .................................................................................................. 72 

Lupardo, Donna A., Assemblywoman, 126th District, State of New York ......... 81 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 84 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 86 

Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe ............................. 87 

Charnley, Gail, Principal, Healthrisk Strategies .................................................. 88 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 90 

Wiles, Richard, Executive Director, Environmental Working Group .................. 92 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 94 

Responses to additional questions from: 

Senator Boxer ................................................................................................... 109 

Senator Inhofe .................................................................................................. 111 

Hoel, David G., Professor, Medical University of South Carolina ....................... 117 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 119 

Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer .............................. 137 

Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe ............................... 137 

Page

IV 

ADDITIONAL MATERIAL 

Statements: 

R. Thomas Zoeller, PhD., Professor, Biology Department, University of 

Massachusetts Amherst; Background for Perchorate and TCA in Water 147 

Environmental Working Group, Perchlorate Timeline 50 Years of Deception and Delay ............................................................................................... 157 

Urinary Perchlorate and Thyroid Hormone Levels Adolescent and Adult 

Men and Women Living in the United States ............................................ 164 

Jonathan Borak & Company Inc. .................................................................... 171 

G. Charnley Health Risk Strategies; Perchlorate: Overview of Risks and 

Regulation ...................................................................................................... 178 

Daniel Wartenberg, PhD., Professor and Cheif of Environmental Epidemiology, Department of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey ...................................................................................... 216 

Environmental Health Perspectives; Evaluation of the U.S. EPS/OSWER 

Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG) for Perchlorate in Groundwater: 

Focus on Exposure to Nursing Infants ........................................................ 223 

Articles: 

ProQuest: The National; How Environmentalists Lost the Battle Over 

TCE Series ..................................................................................................... 268 

ProQuest: The Washington Post; Dangers of Rocket Fuel Chemical 

Downplayed; [Final Edition] ........................................................................ 274 

Pro Quest: The Wall Street Journal; Ground War: Inside Pentagon’s 

Fight to Limit Regulation of Military Pollutant; Rocket Fuel Got Into 

Water The Issue: At What Level Does It Pose Health Risk; The Meaning of a Rat Study ......................................................................................... 276 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Total Diet Study: Dietary intake 

of perchlorate and iodine .............................................................................. 283 

Temporal Patterns in Perchlorate, Thiocyanate, and Iodide Exretion in 

Human Milk .................................................................................................. 295 

(1) 

PERCHLORATE AND TCE IN WATER 

TUESDAY MAY 6, 2008 

U.S. SENATE, COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS, Washington, DC. 

The full committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:05 a.m. in room 

406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Barbara Boxer (chairman of the full committee) presiding. 

Present: Senators Boxer, Barrasso, Bond, Cardin, Klobuchar, 

Whitehouse. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Senator BOXER. Good morning. The Committee shall come to 

order. 

Because it is a different type of schedule day today, we will have 

colleagues coming in all through the morning. So what I have told 

Senator Inhofe is that we would keep the record open when they 

come in, and at that time they could either put their statement in 

the record or give their statement. We will hold all statements to 

5 minutes, and that includes all of our panelists as well. We want 

to thank you all for coming. 

The other issue is, and I have spoken to Senator Inhofe about 

this as well, I have to be briefly running down to give a statement 

on behalf of a bill I have to create or add on to a marine sanctuary 

in California. The moment I have to do that, I will have to recess 

and come right back, so it is a little bit or a marathon-type of day 

for me. So thank you for your understanding. 

So we will start the clock at 5 minutes. 

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency is working on a public relations campaign telling us this week that we should celebrate 

National Drinking Water Week. This chart is off of their website, 

to celebrate National Drinking Water Week. Great. It is great because when Congress passed the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and all the landmark laws, it was a moment in history that we should celebrate every year. 

However, until EPA sets scientifically based health standards for 

dangerous tap water contaminants and strictly enforces the law, it 

is impossible to celebrate this Administration’s drinking water 

record. Slogans and PR campaigns are no substitute for action. 

In fact, today we will hear about EPA’s particularly disturbing 

failures to address significant risks to our families from two widespread drinking water contaminants: perchlorate and TCE. Perchlorate is used to make rocket fuel, but when it gets into drinking 

2 

water, this toxic chemical can interfere with the thyroid and affect 

hormone systems which control the way the body develops. Infants 

and pregnant women are especially vulnerable to perchlorate. 

Researchers have found that over 20 million Americans safe 

drinking water supplies contain perchlorate. GAO found in 2005 

that there were nearly 400 sites in 35 States contaminated with 

perchlorate. My State of California has 106 sites. The evidence of 

significant exposure to perchlorate and assorted health risks has 

strengthened in recent years. In 2006, scientists at the CDC found, 

and I am quoting the CDC scientists, ‘‘Widespread human exposure 

to perchlorate’’ in the U.S. in young children. They found many 

women who were exposed to perchlorate in their drinking water 

had significant changes in thyroid hormone levels. 

This isn’t a game we are playing. This is the health of the American people. We know we are exposed to perchlorate from many 

sources, not just drinking water. A January, 2008 study by the 

FDA found perchlorate in 74 percent of all foods tested, including 

baby food. 

What has the EPA done? The answer is very little. In December, 

2006, EPA revoked its rule requiring some water systems to monitor for perchlorate and disclose the test results to the public. EPA 

said it had enough data on perchlorate. It had enough data. It 

didn’t need to have anybody test the drinking water supplies. It 

didn’t need to have the public know because EPA had enough data. 

However, several months later, in May 2007, EPA said, oh, really, it didn’t have enough data on perchlorate exposure, especially 

from food, to regulate perchlorate in drinking water. 

Talk about speaking out of both sides of your mouth. This is the 

perfect case. We don’t need to test anymore. We have enough information, but we can’t set a standard because we don’t have enough 

information. 

Even when many water industry officials, like the American 

Water Works Association urge the EPA to set a perchlorate standard, EPA refused to do it, flat-out refused. EPA has issued a guidance for perchlorate cleanup. That, they have done, but based this 

level on a 154-pound adult whose only exposure to perchlorate is 

from drinking water. Now, that is the way we did it in the past. 

A 154-pound man, what is safe for him? And they didn’t even do 

that because they said, we are just going to consider the perchlorate from drinking water. 

This guidance fails to protect children and pregnant women. It 

fails to consider the fact that people also are exposed to perchlorate 

in other ways such as through food and milk. EPA’s Children’s 

Health Protection Advisory Committee said the clean-up guidance 

is ‘‘not protective of children’s health and is not supported by the 

underlying science and can result in exposures that pose 

neurodevelopment risks in early life.’’ That is EPA’s own Children’s 

Health Protection Agency. It is no wonder you hear Bush officials 

saying, gee, we don’t really need that office anymore. 

The story for TCE is unfortunately very similar. EPA proposed 

a risk assessment in 2001. It found the chemical could be up to 40 

times more toxic than previously thought. In 2002, EPAEs Science 

Advisory Board commended EPA’s assessment and urged the agency to proceed with revising and finalizing it. But according to press 

3 

accounts, the Department of Defense and their contractors and 

OMB, the Office of Management and Budget, stopped EPA from 

moving forward, successfully lobbied for delay, and for a National 

Academy of Sciences report on TCE. 

Now, in 2006, the National Academy of Sciences found that evidence of TCE FEs cancer risks had grown since 2001 and recommended EPA finalize risk assessments using currently available 

data so that clean-ups can be made expeditiously. Yet GAO reported last week that EPA will not finalize its TCE assessment 

until 2010. 

Where is the EPA? A shadow of its former self, doing harm to 

people by not acting. There are lots of words, but no action. While 

the Federal EPA delays or, worse, rolls back safeguards, children 

and families are exposed to dangerous toxic chemicals. I told EPA 

last week that if the Bush administration failed to protect our people, Congress will. I have two bills to protect people from perchlorate contamination. The first bill, the Perchlorate Monitoring 

and Right-To-Know Act, S. 24, says EPA is to restore the rule requiring that drinking water be tested for perchlorate and the results of those tests be disclosed to the public. 

My second bill, the Protecting Pregnant Women and Children 

from Perchlorate Act, requires EPA to quickly set a perchlorate 

standard for drinking water that protects pregnant women and 

children. 

I wish that everyone who has said in his or her life, our children 

are our future, or I love my grandchildren more than I love myself, 

everyone who has said that, if everyone who said that forced their 

elected officials who have said that to act now, it would be the best 

thing for our Country. 

Senator Clinton, Senator Dole and myself and several colleagues 

also have a bill, the TCE Reduction Act, S. 1911, that would protect people exposed to TCE. Congress will not sit idly by while EPA 

fails to adequately protect our children. Chuck Schumer has a bill 

to ban bisphenol-A. Dianne Feinstein and I had a bill—it passed— 

to ban phthalates. 

So this is what is happening because EPA does nothing. We must 

step in to require action that will ensure that our children and our 

families can turn on their taps and be assured that what comes out 

is safe to drink. If we can’t do that, then shame on us. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Barrasso. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN BARRASSO, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WYOMING 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

As you say, TCE is a carcinogenic industrial solvent. It has been 

used to clean engines and rocket motor parts in my home State of 

Wyoming, primarily by the Department of Defense. Wyoming has 

had an important legacy to the defense of this Country, and nuclear missile silos have been in Wyoming since the early days of 

the cold war. Wyoming residents are proud of this legacy, but we 

also believe that the Federal Government has a responsibility to 

leave Wyoming as clean as when they found it. 

I have raised the issue, Madam Chairman, with the Army Corps 

of Engineers regarding TCE contamination in the city of CheyVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:50 Feb 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00007 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85531.TXT VERN
4 

enne’s water wells at Belvoir Ranch in Wyoming, which is west of 

Cheyenne. The Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality believes that this contamination is directly linked to a former nuclear 

missile site known as Atlas D Missile Site 4. The missile site is 

currently listed as a formerly utilized defense site. These sites were 

operational from 1960 to 1965. They were the first generation of 

intercontinental ballistic missiles armed with nuclear warheads. 

The Army Corps of Engineers is well aware of TCE leakage from 

this site. In a latter to me, the Corps amazingly stated that their 

information does not support the conclusion that the missile site is 

the cause of the water contamination discovered in Cheyenne’s 

nearby wells. The Army Corps suggests, ‘‘the potential for the existence of other contributing sources’’ of the contamination. 

In the same letter, the Corps announced that they will now be 

conducting a study to determine whether there is a connection between the missile site and the wells. They will now study the historical TCE use in the area. 

Well, given the rural undeveloped terrain of the area in question 

and the historical fact that TCE was heavily used by the military 

in the area, it seems clear that the Government is needlessly delaying the technical and financial assistance that the city and the 

State have asked for. 

This problem has been studied for more than a decade. A major 

study was initiated in 1995 during the Clinton administration. The 

map that I have here shows a brown line that shows where the 

Army Corps believes the TCE is. However, to the right over here, 

you can see this dotted line that shows where the city of Cheyenne’s water wells are. The series of brown boxes around this area 

shows where the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality 

has tested the groundwater. Fourteen of the brown boxes tested 

positive for traces of TCE. So this has all tested positive, and this 

is where the Army Corps says absolutely they realize the TCE 

plume is moving. 

Given the close proximity of the Atlas missile site to the site, 

common sense would conclude that there is a connection to the contamination in the city’s water wells. Unfortunately, this is not how 

the Federal Government works. After additional meetings with the 

Army Corps of Engineers, I have been informed that additional 

testing is needed in the area between the city FEs wells and the 

missile site to definitively prove that there is a connection. Those 

tests will be occurring in the next few months and we will not 

know the results until the end of the year. 

The city of Cheyenne and the Wyoming Department of Environmental Quality are containing the TCE, but they have been asking 

the Army Corps for help. It is an expensive process to clean TCE 

from the water. Currently, that cost is being borne entirely by Wyoming taxpayers. The Federal Government, through the Army Corps 

and the EPA should provide technical and financial assistance 

sooner, rather than later. This situation needs to be resolved quickly for the betterment of Wyoming residents. 

I look forward to the testimony. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

5 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Madam Chair, I will pass. We can go directly to the testimony. 

Senator BOXER. Senator Bond. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MISSOURI 

Senator BOND. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you 

for holding this hearing today. 

This hearing allows us to examine the politicization of environmental protection, attempts to roll back environmental law, and 

disregard sound science. Now, some may think that I am 1 day 

early. That is the goal of tomorrow’s hearing, as I understand it. 

However, I would say that before stones are thrown today, we 

should examine the glass house some of us are living in today. 

Part of the purpose of this hearing is to establish the need for 

a bill currently before the Senate, S. 150. That legislation would require EPA to issue regulations on perchlorate levels in drinking 

water. Sponsors of this legislation are well meaning, and I have no 

question about their motives and their concerns. They have the 

best interests of their constituents at heart, but they fail to acknowledge that their effort is the very definition of political regulation. It is politicians here in the Senate dictating the outcome of 

EPA’s environmental decision making. 

And yet in past months and again tomorrow, these same folks 

may be trying to tell us that political officials should not tell career 

scientists and environmental specialists what to do. Their perchlorate bill also represents a roll-back of environmental law. Ironically, Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act a dozen 

years ago to get politicians out of the business of deciding which 

compounds to regulate. The Safe Drinking Water Act now includes 

a specific process designed to protect public health. The law specifically requires risk assessment and the use of science in decision 

making. 

Under the law, the Administrator must present information to 

the public and conduct a health risk reduction and cost analysis. 

But advocates would sweep away the environmental law and go 

straight to the conclusion they favor. Apparently, rolling back environmental laws are OK with them if and when they choose. 

This effort also includes a minimization of the work of the National Academy of Sciences. Witnesses will tell us today why we 

should not follow the natural conclusions of an NAS study on perchlorate. How many times have we heard charges of heeding the 

advice of political figures instead of peer-reviewed science? 

Indeed, 2 weeks ago an NAS study by the National Research 

Council was heralded when it determined that short-term exposure 

to ozone is likely to cause premature death in some cases. Two 

weeks later when the NAS is not so helpful, it becomes an inconvenient truth to be minimized or discounted. 

Now, I agree with the sponsors of this hearing that we must protect the health of women and children from compounds like perchlorate. We must understand the prime pathway perchlorate is 

getting into the bodies of our infants and children, and put a stop 

to that. Studies indicate the primary route is through baby food, 

6 

dairy products and vegetables, and we need to take a hard look at 

regulating that. 

But the decision on whether or not to regulate perchlorate in 

water, as with all of these technical decisions, is best left to the scientific experts, using the processes established by our environmental law. We should not do as some propose and override our environmental law, minimize peer-reviewed science, or act by political 

fiat. 

I join with you in welcoming EPA Assistant Administrator Grumbles. I will have some questions for the record for him. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

[The prepared statement of Senator Bond follows:] 

STATEMENT OF HON. CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, U.S. SENATOR FROM

THE STATE OF MISSOURI

Madame Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today. This hearing allows 

us to examine the politicization of environmental protection, attempts to roll back 

environmental law and the disregard of scientific study. 

Some may think that I am 1 day early. That is the goal of tomorrow’s hearing 

as I understand it. However, I would say that before stones are thrown tomorrow, 

we should examine the glass house some are living in today. 

Part of the purpose of this hearing is to establish the need for a bill currently 

before the Senate, S. 150. That legislation would require EPA to issue regulations 

on perchlorate levels in drinking water. 

Sponsors of this legislation are well meaning. They have the best interests of their 

constituents at heart, but they fail to acknowledge that their effort is the very definition of political regulation. It is politicians here in the Senate dictating the outcome of EPA’s environmental decision making. 

And yet in past months and again tomorrow these same folks are trying to tell 

us that political officials should not tell career scientists and environmental specialists what to do. 

Their perchlorate bill also represents a roll-back of environmental law. Ironically, 

Congress amended the Safe Drinking Water Act a dozen years ago to get politicians 

out of the business of deciding which compounds to regulate. 

The Safe Drinking Water Act now includes a specific process designed to protect 

public health. The law specifically requires risk assessment and the use of science 

in decision making. Under the law, the Administrator must present information to 

the public and conduct a health risk reduction and cost analysis. 

But advocates would sweep that environmental law aside and go straight to the 

conclusion they favor. Apparently, rolling back environmental laws are ok with 

them if and when they choose. 

This effort also includes a minimization of the work of the National Academy of 

Sciences. Witnesses will tell us today why we should not follow the natural conclusions of an NAS study on perchlorate. But how many times have we heard charges 

of heeding the advice of political figures instead of peer reviewed science? 

Indeed, 2 weeks ago, an NAS study by the National Research Council was heralded when it determined that short-term exposure to ozone is likely to cause premature death in some cases. Two weeks later when the NAS is not so helpful, it 

becomes an inconvenient truth to be minimized or discounted. 

Now I agree with the sponsors of this hearing that we must protect the health 

of women and children from compounds like perchlorate. We must understand the 

prime pathways perchlorate is getting into the bodies of our infants and children 

and put a stop to that. Studies indicate the primary route is through baby food, 

dairy products and vegetables, and so we need to take a hard look at regulating 

that. 

But the decision on whether or not to regulate perchlorate in water, as with all 

of these technical decisions, is best left to the scientific experts using the processes 

established by our environmental law. We should not do as some propose and override our environmental law, minimize peer reviewed science, or act by political fiat. 

Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Senator Bond, at our last hearing what we learned from the GAO 

is that indeed there is politics in the risk assessment process. That 

7 

was what GAO found within EPA, that they are shunting the scientists to the back. 

I also want to say since we will be marking up two perchlorate 

bills in June, and so we will have another robust debate at that 

time, I wanted to mention that we don’t set any standard. We say 

follow the science, but act within certain timeframe. So we don’t set 

the standard or put politics in it. We are just trying to put the 

science back into it and give them a deadline because in your State 

and my State, and I can tell you, I know you alluded to it, people 

are getting very high levels of exposure. 

We want to see action by the scientists. We want to see a standard set. 

Senator BOND. Madam Chair, I wouldn’t think you would say 

that NAS is putting politics in the science. 

Senator BOXER. No, what I said is—— 

Senator BOND. I am referring to the NAS study. 

Senator BOXER. I am talking about the GAO. I am reminding you 

that we had a full hearing on a GAO report that looked at the IRIS 

system and the way risk assessment is being done and the fact 

that EPA is trying to shunt the scientists to the back, put the DOD 

contractors to the front at the table, and they said it is very dangerous, GAO. 

On perchlorate, what I am saying to you is, we do not set a 

standard. We ask the EPA to act. We will have that debate. 

Senator BOND. Based on sound science. 

Senator BOXER. Absolutely. So I am going to share that with you 

and hope maybe to win you over. 

By the way, working with you on other issues, if you could talk 

among yourselves for a minute, I am very proud of the work we 

are doing on the veterans. 

Senator BOND. Thank you. We do have strong bipartisan cooperation. 

Senator BOXER. Yes, we do. 

Senator BOND. Senator Boxer and I have been working on other 

things. We may have an occasional disagreement. 

Senator BOXER. Once in blue moon. 

Senator BOND. A slight variance here, but we work together 

when it comes to taking care of our wounded heroes coming home. 

Thank you, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. We do. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Grumbles, we look forward to your testimony. 

STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you, Madam Chair. It is an honor to be 

here. EPA truly appreciates the opportunity to discuss our important work on perchlorate and TCE. 

Madam Chair, since you mentioned it, I do feel it is important 

to say that the agency strongly supports environmental education, 

the use of websites, and getting out the word and raising awareness about the importance of source water protection and drinking 

water protection, but it is not the only effort or the only tool. The 

regulatory tool is critically important. That is why we are proud 

8 

that over the last several years, we have moved to finalize several 

nationally significant and important drinking water rules. 

I would also say, Madam Chairman, that it doesn’t take an act 

of Congress for us. It didn’t take an act of Congress for us to make 

a decision to revise the coliform rule which we are working on right 

now. It didn’t take an act of Congress for us to issue an aircraft 

drinking water rule. It also didn’t take an act of Congress for us 

to revise the lead and copper rule based on the knowledge we have 

learned over the last several years. 

But we share a lot with you and have a lot in common in terms 

of the goals and using the framework of the regulatory determination process that is set out in the 1996 amendments. We are committed to using the best available science to ensure our policies 

continue to protect public health and the environment. We are 

working with other Federal agencies to gather and understand 

data needed to inform our decision making. 

This allows us to share the considerable expertise of other senior 

Government scientists, as well as ensure that each agency’s research and analysis benefit from the findings of counterparts who 

are evaluating similar issues in other agencies. 

As you know, we also consult with the National Academy of 

Sciences when we need assistance in evaluating emerging or conflicting scientific issues. With respect to perchlorate, as has been 

stated, in 2005 the NAS released a report recommending a reference dose. The agency adopted that reference dose. A year later, 

we issued guidance for contaminated sites which recommended a 

revised preliminary remediation goal for perchlorate in water. It 

was calculated using the reference dose, which was based on the 

National Academy of Sciences’ work. It used standard exposure values of 70 kilograms body weight and two liters of water consumed 

per day. This calculation provides the drinking water equivalent 

level, assuming no other sources of perchlorate exposure. But we 

understand, and we have been gathering data that indicates there 

are other sources of exposure. 

Madam Chair, I just want to also underscore the decision we 

made did not continue regulation of unregulated contaminants, but 

not to continue the monitoring of perchlorate. We never said it is 

because we had enough data. What we said was we had enough 

data on occurrence based on the contaminant monitoring rule. We 

have spent the last several years gathering additional information 

on relative sources that contribute to the overall determination to 

make as to whether or not to regulate for perchlorate. 

As you know, we need to know that the contaminant is likely to 

cause an adverse effect on the health of persons. We know that perchlorate can have an adverse effect and we are concerned about 

that. We have set a reference dose that is based on a more protective no-effect level and it is based on the most sensitive sub-population, which is the fetus of a pregnant woman with iodine deficiency or hypothyroidism. 

Second, we need to determine if the contaminant is known or 

likely to occur in public water systems at a frequency and level of 

public health concern. The results of our regulation from monitoring of unregulated contaminants such as perchlorate demVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:50 Feb 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00012 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85531.TXT VERN
9 

onstrated that it was detected at levels above four parts per billion 

in 4 percent of the public water systems. 

But we also have to answer the question under the statute of is 

there a meaningful opportunity to reduce risk if we issue a new national regulation on perchlorate. We have been spending a lot of 

time on that, Madam Chairman, and we have been coordinating 

with other agencies, CDC and in particular FDA. We find it is very 

important to have the total diet study from the FDA. It is the most 

comprehensive effort to date, we believe, on the different sources 

of contamination and exposure to perchlorates such as food, not 

just water. It provides an important additional tool for us to make 

our determinations. 

I understand your frustration on how long the process is taking, 

but we believe it is important to do the work and we intend to 

issue a final regulatory determination before the end of 2008. 

With respect to TCE, as you know, it is a different contaminant 

and we have already been regulating it. We have been managing 

the risk in drinking water for many years. Currently, there is a 

five part per billion standard. We began, however, reevaluating the 

risk assessment for TCE several years ago and we also, with other 

agencies, sought additional comments from the Science Advisory 

Board, and then following up on that, from the National Academy 

of Sciences. 

Right now, we are evaluating TCE, both in terms of reevaluating 

the risk assessment based in information we have gotten from the 

NAS and others. The other thing, Madam Chairman, is that my office, the Water Office, is evaluating TCE under our 6-year review 

process under the Safe Drinking Water Act. We are analyzing new 

scientific and technological data and information on health effects 

associated with each regulated contaminant such as TCE. We are 

taking this very seriously and we are looking at it very closely. 

The other aspect I want to add is that TCE is prevalent. It is a 

prevalent groundwater contaminant at hazardous waste sites, so 

we are concerned about vapor intrusion and when it occurs. We are 

working with Federal partners, State regulators, industry, academia, environmental groups and the general public to understand 

the rapidly developing science of vapor intrusion. We are developing recommendations for—— 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Grumbles, could you complete? I have let 

you go over a minute and a half, but if you could complete. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Yes. So we are developing recommendations for 

interim toxicity values with respect to vapor intrusion. 

In conclusion, Madam Chair, the agency is committed to robust 

protection of public health from contaminants in drinking water 

using the science-based framework. We believe this framework is 

sound and respectfully request that you allow us time to complete 

the required analyses and determinations to ensure appropriate 

science-based protection of public health from these and other contaminants as envisioned by the 1996 amendments. 

We are committed to making a final regulatory determination for 

perchlorate by the end of this year, and for TCE, as soon as the 

necessary analyses have been completed. 

Thank you for your patience and the opportunity to discuss this 

with you. 

10 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Grumbles follows:] 

11 


85531.001
12 


85531.002
13 


85531.003
14 


85531.004
15 


85531.005
16 


85531.006
17 


85531.007
18 


85531.008
19 


85531.009
20 


85531.010
21 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Mr. Grumbles. 

So you are going to act at the end of 2008. Is it possible that EPA 

could decide not to regulate perchlorate? Is that an option? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. That is an option. That is a distinct possibility 

and we are in the final stages of assessing the latest information 

we have. We would, first, before we issue a final determination, we 

would issue a preliminary determination and take public comment 

on that, Madam Chair. 

Senator BOXER. OK. So it is a distinct possibility that the EPA 

in protecting the public may determine not to set a standard for 

perchlorate? Is that correct? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. It is. It is a distinct possibility to make another 

determination as well, but that is the stage we are in. 

Senator BOXER. Right. Well, that is what I hear is going to happen. That is what I hear. You have a lot of good people over there 

who talk to us. I am just saying if that happens, and you can look 

the American people in the eye and say, we are protecting you, no 

standard. And you have stopped testing. Why did you stop testing? 

Why did you tell the water systems they didn’t have to test for perchlorate and let people know if perchlorate is in their water? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. After the rounds of the regulations that required 

utilities to monitor for perchlorate, we got a robust amount of data 

from 3,800 systems, and we felt that is a sufficient amount of data 

that can help us to meet one of the three statutory requirements 

under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

I would note two things, Madam Chair. One is that we can still 

require additional contaminant monitoring if the science leads us 

to that result. 

Senator BOXER. OK. I understand. But you think—you the agency—the Government has enough information. Don’t you think that 

people who are drinking the water have a right to know how much 

perchlorate is in there? They are not stupid. They read the papers. 

I can imagine what is going on with TCE in Wyoming. My friend 

told me. People are upset. 

Now, you have enough information. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. But we are not saying we—— 

Senator BOXER. Excuse me. EPA said that, you had enough information that you didn’t have to test anymore. Is that right? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, the important clarification is that we felt 

because we want to get on with the process and make a determination on whether or not to issue a new regulation, we felt we had 

sufficient data on one of the three elements, and that is the occurrence data. Now, that was based on various assumptions. We have 

never said to any utility, you should not test for it, or you should 

stop testing. 

Senator BOXER. But you stopped requiring it. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. That is correct. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. With the right to re institute that if more science 

comes in. 

Senator BOXER. You always have that right, but EPA said—and 

here it is, I will put it in the record—we agree with the comments 

that it is not clear that the agency needs additional information on 

the occurrence of perchlorate in drinking water. 

22 

Now, it is a year and a half since you stopped the testing. You 

still haven’t acted. You now say you are going to act at the end of 

2008, and it is a distinct possibility you could conclude you are not 

going to set a standard. So if that is the case, and that is what I 

believe is going to happen after all this folderol, there won’t be a 

Federal standard. The States will have to do it. 

People will be completely ignorant of the whole situation because 

they won’t be protected by the Drinking Water Act by EPA and 

they won’t have the information. It is unbelievable to me that at 

the minimum, at the minimum, you give people information. Let 

them make their judgments. Let them have the political information. Let them make it a reason to support a Senator or not support a Senator or a President or whatever. So I think keeping people ignorance is part of what this is about. 

I just want to ask you something else. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. But Madam Chair, I just have to say, EPA firmly 

supports getting as much information as we can out there on perchlorate. Now, what that means is that it is not just the occurrence 

measurements. It is also getting critical information about other 

types of exposure such as food. So we have been spending the time 

to get that additional information because we are concerned. It is 

not just water, it is food. 

Senator BOXER. Mr. Grumbles, you know what? I was not born 

yesterday, as I keep reminding people. You just have to look at me 

to get it. I was not born yesterday. What is the best way to give 

people information? Let them know if it is in their drinking water. 

Isn’t that a lot easier than, oh, go up on our website? 

Let me ask you this. You testified that EPA’s preliminary remediation goal for perchlorate clean-up is based on protecting a 154- 

pound adult. Shouldn’t EPA lower this number to account for the 

larger amount of water and food that infants and children consume 

for their body weight compared to adults? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. It has been very much a part of our discussions 

of the need to revisit the preliminary remediation goal as we have 

spent the last couple of years getting additional information, 

Madam Chair. So my answer to your question is that, yes, that is 

a distinct possibility of revising the preliminary remediation guidelines, particularly as we have gotten additional information from 

the Food and Drug Administration. 

Senator BOXER. Well, you set the standard in 2006. This isn’t 

like it happened many years ago. You set it to protect a 154-pound 

male. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Right. 

Senator BOXER. And now you are saying, a little while later, a 

year later, because I am questioning you, well, maybe you ought to 

change it. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, everyone embraces the concept of adaptive 

management. We set a time as quickly as we could. 

Senator BOXER. Adaptive management? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. That is right. 

Senator BOXER. What does that mean? What does that mean? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. That means that right after the National Academy of Sciences came out with their report, the agency shortly 

after that adopted a reference dose. After the reference dose, the 

23 

heads of the Superfund program realized they wanted to have a 

preliminary remediation goal. So they went with the best information available and they made assumptions, Madam Chair, about 

the types of exposure. 

Senator BOXER. Right. Lots of words. Lots of words. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. The answer to the question is what it means is, 

as you get additional information about food exposure, you go back 

and you look at is the preliminary remediation goal the proper 

number at this point. 

Senator BOXER. Well, let me put in the record your own Children’s Health Advisory panel made up of scientists—and I wish 

Senator Bond was here—and doctors. I am putting this letter in 

the record. They told Mr. Johnson on March 8th, 2006 the new 

PRG is not supported by the underlying science and can result in 

exposures that pose neurodevelopmental risks in early life. So don’t 

give me you are just learning this, when your own people—— 

[The referenced document follows:] 

24 


85531.109
25 


85531.110
26 


85531.111
27 


85531.112
28 


85531.113
29 


85531.114
30 


85531.115
31 


85531.116
32 


85531.117
33 


85531.118
34 

Mr. GRUMBLES. That was another aspect to it, ma’am. 

Senator BOXER. Excuse me. I am speaking. Excuse me. 

You know why I get so angry with you? It is not a personal 

anger. It is because you say things that are not backed up by the 

facts. You say as you get additional information you are going to 

get tougher. You have that information from your own panel. They 

told you what you were doing was dangerous. And now you are sitting here under, I would agree, hostile questioning from me and 

saying, oh yes, Madam Senator, we are going to take another look 

at it. I just don’t buy it. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I think to be fair, you ought to allow me the 

chance to say—— 

Senator BOXER. Well, let me finish. I am giving you a chance. 

Mr. GRUMBLES [continuing].—that the reason, one of the areas of 

concern they had, and it is not just with EPA, but it was with the 

National Academy of Sciences, was the focus on what is the most 

sensitive sub-population. That wasn’t the preliminary remediation 

goal discussion. It was focused on the reference dose and how the 

agency got to its DWEL, the drinking water equivalency level. 

So there has been a very robust debate, Madam Chair, as to 

what is the most sensitive sub-population. I think part of the concern that the Children’s Health Advisory group had was that we 

ended up adopting the perspective of the National Academy of 

Sciences and indeed, the fetus of a pregnant woman. 

The other issue I was trying to get at and explain on adaptive 

management, Madam Chair, was that the preliminary remediation 

goal when it was set, it was also based on an assumption of the 

data that we had. They made the assumption that 100 percent of 

the contamination source would be coming from water, and we are 

in the agency discussing it. Well, we know that food is another significant source. So that is what I meant by the need to embrace 

adaptive management. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I am going to turn to Senator Barrasso, but 

I am going to read you some more of this letter. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. OK. 

Senator BOXER. Because the things that you say just don’t comport with the facts. Your own Children’s Health Advisory Committee, made up of scientists, told you, told Stephen Johnson, told 

the world in this letter, that the standard you had set for the 

clean-up was not good enough. I said, I read before, it is not protective of children’s health. And you tell me adaptive management— 

let’s see, what does that mean? You set a standard in a low way 

and you get caught at it, and you get called before a Senate Committee that you might have to adapt and go back? 

I am sorry. I find it cynical. Let me read the rest of this. The 

Children’s Health Advisory Panel finds it disturbing that this 

change in the PRG was made without dissemination of a decision 

support document or any opportunity for public input. We recommend that OSWER lower the PRG, taking into account infant 

exposure and susceptibility. They are very concerned, and this letter states it. 

You don’t have to wait for anything else. These are the people 

that you are supposed to rely on. Supposed to rely on. So I can only 

say to you—— 

35 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Can I say one more important—— 

Senator BOXER. Let me finish, please, and yes, then you can respond. 

I can only say to you that your explanation here today doesn’t 

make any sense. Oh, you have to wait for science, when your own 

scientists who care about children have already told you. And you 

have admitted you may not even set a standard for perchlorate, 

and you don’t think that having the ordering, if you will, requiring 

water systems to test for perchlorate really is a good idea. 

So everything I add up says to me danger, flashing red light for 

the public. Again, EPA, the shadow of its former self, celebrating 

our great drinking water, and in the back rooms here derailing 

what your own scientists want to do to protect kids. It is very disturbing. 

Yes, sir? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you. I just simply wanted to say that the 

relationship we have with the Children’s Health Advisory Board is 

an important one. I said it is a distinct possibility, Madam Chair, 

that we might determine not to regulate perchlorate. It is also— 

and this is important—it is also a distinct possibility that we may 

issue a health advisory. And part of the dynamics that are involved 

in that is over the last couple of years we have gotten a lot more 

information, supplementing the National Academy of Sciences, 

about potential risks to children or infants. So that is important to 

us. 

We also have made clear from the beginning, Madam Chair, that 

our goal was to make a final determination by this year, and that 

we had enough occurrence data. We also realize we may need to 

revise that approach in terms of monitoring in the future, just like 

with any emerging contaminant. 

Senator BOXER. OK. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I would like you to know that my State has 

enough information, and they do have a perchlorate standard. 

Senator. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Thank you, Mr. Grumbles. 

I think you started your testimony before you got to your written 

remarks, talking about that it doesn’t take an act of Congress to, 

and then you went through a number of things, lead and copper, 

airline drinking water. Is that your concern with a bill like this, 

that we don’t really need an act of Congress on this? I am kind of 

getting that as a sense of what you are saying here today. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. We think congressional oversight of the agency 

as it moves through this regulatory process is critically important, 

but when it comes to legislating a specific decision on whether or 

not to regulate and to set a very aggressive timeframe schedule, we 

have serious concerns about that. So Senator, that is the point, is 

that we have concerns about a legislative directive that overrides 

the current regulatory framework for decision making. 

Senator BARRASSO. I wanted to get back to the issue I was talking about earlier with Cheyenne, Wyoming. As the support regulatory agency, I would ask that you please look into this matter 

and help clear up the bureaucratic red tape so that the Wyoming 

36 

Department of Environmental Quality can get the assistance that 

they are requesting to help with the issues that I have addressed. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Senator, most certainly we will look into that. 

Senator BARRASSO. And then with my remaining time, as you 

have been collecting your thoughts, is there anything else you 

would like to add that you haven’t had a chance to say here in 

some of the dialog? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, we feel that it is important to take both 

perchlorate and TCE very seriously. On perchlorate, the scientific 

issues that surround the health effects and also if there is a meaningful opportunity to reduce risk to human health as required 

under the Safe Drinking Water Act, that is where we have been 

spending our time over the last several years because we recognize 

it is widespread. It does have risks to health, as the National Academy of Sciences and others have confirmed. 

So we are committed to going through the process, to working 

with Congress, and making sure that a science-based decision is 

made. 

On TCE, we have been regulating it for some time. We are aggressively pursuing additional guidance on vapor intrusion and the 

reevaluation of the risks, given the scientific issues evolving over 

the degree to which cancer is caused by TCE. It is a priority issue 

as well for us. In the Drinking Water Office, Senator, we are committed to reviewing it and other contaminants for potential further 

regulation under our process of the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

Senator BARRASSO. So it is your concern, then, that with the current Safe Drinking Water Act and how to regulate water contaminants, that this bill may override that Safe Drinking Water Act in 

terms of the listing process and others? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, it would. It would. And we understand, and 

Congress has used its prerogative to direct the agency to regulate 

specific named contaminants in the past. We see the value, and I 

think many others see the value, in the 1996 framework, the 1996 

Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments that said rather than identifying specific ones or having to regulate an X number by X years, 

you go through a systematic process. 

The downside, Senator, is that systematic process can take some 

time because we have three statutory criteria that we need to go 

through. And we need to make sure pursuant to the statute that 

it is the best available peer-reviewed science. So it takes some 

time, but we think that overall it is an excellent framework and 

we would just urge caution to members in legislative directives 

that picks which of the 60 or 50 contaminants to regulate, and sets 

a timeframe that may be so ambitious that may not result in a legally sustainable final product. 

Senator BARRASSO. So you are working with groups like the Food 

and Drug Administration and the Center for Disease Control, in 

determining what is best for our children and ways to protect 

them? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. We have been working with them and other 

agencies and scientific organizations. We are spending a lot of time 

lately with the Food and Drug Administration and the bio-monitoring study that CDC did was an important one. 

Senator BARRASSO. Madam Chair, I have no further questions. 

37 

Senator BOXER. I am going to put the rest of my questions in 

writing to you. 

I am going to just close with this. Senator Barrasso, thank you 

very much for showing us the TCE problem in your State. I am 

going to ask unanimous consent to place into the record a list of 

the contaminated sites throughout this Country. There are 45 

States that have a problem with TCE. We need a more protective 

standard there. 

There are also 11 Superfund sites contaminated with TCE, 

where human exposure is not under control. The source of this is 

the EPA. So you have a situation here where you have sites where 

human exposure is not under control and we have TCE in 45 

States, 321 Superfund sites in 45 States and territories contaminated with TCE. You can’t drag your feet anymore. 

I would say for perchlorate, you have 35 States that have perchlorate in the water at serious levels. You already have your Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee saying you are not 

doing enough. You have American Water Works Association, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies—and this gets to Senator 

Barrasso’s point—they have urged EPA to set a perchlorate standard for drinking water. These are not environmental organizations. 

The American Water Works Association, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, they want a standard. 

I think it gets to Senator Barrasso’s very important point. Is it 

better for EPA to act or is it better for Congress to act? Well, let 

me answer that question. EPA should act, if it was the Environmental Protection Agency, but they are not doing it. That is the 

problem. I mean, go and tell Senator Feinstein to wait until you 

deal with phthalates. Go and tell Senator Schumer to deal with 

other chemicals. People are just not going to listen, and people like 

Senator Barrasso, who is a very patient man, I think he wants action here in terms of clean-up for his State. 

The point is, your answers—and I am speaking only for myself— 

are just very light. They don’t give me any comfort at all. As a matter of fact, they even make me more concerned, hearing that we 

may not have a standard. The fact of the matter is, there are sites 

that are out of control here. Your own scientists have told you to 

act. Now, we know a couple of States have acted on perchlorate. 

That is the other thing that is going to happen, Senator. The 

States are going to start setting standards. Right now, I know California has six, Massachusetts has two, and many other States are 

waiting. So we are going to have a patchwork quilt. 

In the meantime, consumers of water don’t know how much perchlorate is in their water because the EPA decided it wasn’t necessary. So if they go down the path where they are not going to 

set a standard at the end of the day, which is a quote, ‘‘distinct 

possibility,’’ and plus they are not requiring testing, our people are 

in the dark without any help, and we are talking about very dangerous chemicals here. 

So thank you for coming. We will give you a bunch more questions in writing, and we call up the next panel. Thank you, sir. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you. 

Senator BOXER. I want to welcome panel two. 

38 

George Alexeeff is Deputy Director for Science Affairs, Office of 

Environmental Health Hazard Assessment from my great State of 

California. We welcome you. 

Mike Baker is Chief, Division of Drinking and Groundwater, 

Ohio EPA, on behalf of the Association of State Drinking Water 

Administrators. 

Carol Rowan West is Director, Office of Research and Standards, 

Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection. 

So we are going to ask you to keep your opening statements to 

5 minutes, and we will begin with you, Dr. Alexeeff. 

STATEMENT OF GEORGE V. ALEXEEFF, DEPUTY DIRECTOR 

FOR SCIENTIFIC AFFAIRS, OFFICE OF ENVIRONMENTAL 

HEALTH HAZARD ASSESSMENT, CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

Dr. ALEXEEFF. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the 

Committee for the opportunity to testify on perchlorate and TCE 

in water. I am George Alexeeff, Deputy Director for Scientific Affairs for the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, 

which we refer to as OEHHA, in the Environmental Protection 

Agency of California. 

As part of our duties under the California Safe Drinking Water 

Act, OEHHA develops public health goals, or PHGs, for drinking 

water. Perchlorate has been detected in hundreds of drinking water 

sources in California. Perchlorate inhibits the uptake of iodide, an 

essential nutrient, by the thyroid gland. Inadequate iodide uptake 

disrupts proper thyroid function. Thyroid hormones such as T4 and 

T3 help regulate growth and maturation of tissues, particularly the 

brain. 

Disruption of these hormones can lead to impaired development 

in fetuses. Several epidemiologic studies indicate that iodide deficiency during pregnancy may affect brain development and may 

cause intellectual deficits in children. 

Our review of the scientific literature found that the fetuses of 

pregnant women are the most sensitive population to perchlorate’s 

health effects. Impairment of thyroid function in expectant mothers 

may affect the brain of the fetus, resulting in delayed development 

and decreased learning capacity. 

In 2004, OEHHA published a public health goal for perchlorate 

in drinking water of six parts per billion. The level was adopted as 

the State’s drinking water standard. OEHHA’s draft perchlorate 

assessment underwent two rounds of independent peer review by 

the University of California scientists, as well as several public 

comment periods. We based our PHG on a controlled human study 

referred to as the Greer study, which contained the best data for 

assessing perchlorate’s health effects. However, this study was limited because there were only 37 subjects. To ensure we did not underestimate the chemical’s effects on pregnant women and fetuses, 

we added a tenfold margin of safety. Our PHG also took into account the higher water consumption rate of pregnant women and 

the potential for perchlorate exposure from food. 

In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences recommended a similar approach. In 2006, the CDC released a major national study 

which supports the concerns that we identified. The CDC study 

39 

found that in women, perchlorate exposure was associated with 

changes in thyroid hormone levels. The thyroid hormone level 

changes were consistent with the expected effects of perchlorate. 

OEHHA evaluated this data and published a confirmatory article. 

I will now turn to TCE. Over 350 drinking water sources in California have reportable levels of TCE contamination. Cancer is the 

primary health effect of concern from TCE exposure. Animal studies indicate that TCE induced liver and lung carcinomas in mice. 

Kidney tumors were reported in male rats. The National Toxicology 

Program has concluded that TCE is reasonably anticipated to be a 

human carcinogen. 

Over the past 20 years, California has treated TCE as a carcinogen. In 1988, California listed TCE as a chemical known to the 

State to cause cancer. In 1990, TCE was listed as a toxic air contaminant based on carcinogenic effects. In 1999, OEHHA published 

a public health goal of 0.8 parts per billion of trichloroethylene in 

drinking water. 

In developing this PHG, we reviewed the animal studies and the 

limited human studies. Our risk assessment confirmed that this 

chemical is a potential human carcinogen. We have followed the 

U.S. EPA cancer review process with great interest and awaited 

the publication of the National Academy of Sciences’ report released in 2006. We note that the NAS concluded that the evidence 

on carcinogenic risk and other health hazards from exposure to trichloroethylene has strengthened since 2001. 

I hope this summary gives you a better idea of why California 

has concerns about perchlorate and TCE in water, and how we 

have identified the level of risk to public health. 

Thank you for giving me this opportunity to testify before you 

today. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Alexeeff follows:] 

40 


85531.011
41 


85531.012
42 


85531.013
43 


85531.014
44 


85531.015
45 


85531.016
46 


85531.017
47 


85531.018
48 


85531.019
49 


85531.233
50 


85531.234
51 


85531.235
52 


85531.236
53 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Baker, welcome. 

STATEMENT OF MIKE BAKER, CHIEF, DIVISION OF DRINKING 

AND GROUND WATERS, OHIO ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE 

DRINKING WATER ADMINISTRATORS 

Mr. BAKER. Thank you and good morning, Madam Chairman and 

Committee members. I am Mike Baker. I am Chief of the Division 

of Drinking and Groundwaters at the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency. I am also the President-elect of the Association of 

State Drinking Water Administrators, also known as ASDWA. 

ASDWA supports and represents the collective interests of States, 

territories and the Navajo Nation in our administration of national 

drinking water requirements. I am pleased to be here today to offer 

testimony on ASDWA’s behalf. 

Overall, ASDWA supports the fundamental construct of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act as it relates to determining which contaminants are likely to occur in drinking water and whose regulation 

would provide a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction. 

An underlying tenet of the act is that standard-setting should be 

driven by sound science. That includes robust data on the occurrence of contaminants, information about the abilities of these contaminants to cause health effects, information about technologies 

and costs to remove or reduce these contaminants, and the expected benefits of doing so. 

We do appreciate this Committee’s concerns about perchlorate 

and TCE. We are, however, concerned about the precedent of using 

legislative action that supersedes the provisions of the statute for 

a particular contaminant. Recent media stories about pharmaceuticals in personal health care products in our sources of drinking water are one example highlighting the need for a rational scientific-based approach to determining which contaminants should 

be regulated and at what levels. 

In my own State of Ohio and a few other States, we are grappling with another type of emerging contaminants, PFOA, one of 

several flouropolymers used for decades by a variety of manufacturing processes. This particular compound is being detected in the 

environment, animals, and people around the world. Customers of 

an Ohio public water system contaminated by PFOA have the highest level of this chemical ever detected in humans. Clearly, we are 

very concerned about any of these compounds being in our drinking 

water at unsafe levels. 

We expect to see more and more emerging contaminants. We live 

in a society that uses a myriad of chemicals. That fact, coupled 

with our increasing ability to detect contaminants at low levels, 

will undoubtedly raise additional concerns about the safety of our 

drinking water. Therefore, unless a transparent scientific approach 

is used, we are concerned EPA will jump from one contaminant to 

another based on media and political attention, rather than on 

meaningful public health gains. 

States do agree that EPA needs to make timely decisions on contaminants of concern. Public health protection depends on sound 

and timely decisions. As my colleagues on this panel have and will 

54 

describe, in the absence of timely decisions by EPA, a few States 

can and do establish their own standards. Most States, however, 

simply do not have the necessary resources, nor the expertise, and 

we depend on EPA for timely decisions. 

In the case of perchlorate and TCE, EPA should be held accountable for describing what data and information, if any, is lacking to 

support a regulatory decision and make decisions about whether or 

not to further regulate as rapidly as possible. 

All of us at the Federal, State and local levels, have important 

roles to play to ensure people have access to safe and affordable 

drinking water. This includes preventing contaminants from reaching the source of our drinking water in the first place. For Congress, an important role is to ensure adequate funding to support 

research so that information about contaminants is available when 

it is needed. 

We must also keep in mind regulations come with a cost burden 

to State drinking water programs, public water systems, and their 

customers. Many States and water utilities are already struggling 

to meet the demands of current regulations. We appreciate your 

support for the Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Fund and respectfully recommend more funds be appropriated to support a 

growing infrastructure need. 

Additional Federal dollars are also needed for State drinking 

water programs to carry out Federal regulatory requirements. Current funding levels, which have remained at roughly the same levels for over a decade, during the same time States have had to 

adopt over 15 Federal regulatory requirements, is simply inadequate and needs to be increased. States and public water supplies 

need your support. 

I thank you for the opportunity to offer testimony and would be 

pleased to answer any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Baker follows:] 

55 


85531.020
56 


85531.021
57 


85531.022
58 


85531.023
59 


85531.237
60 


85531.238
61 


85531.239
62 


85531.240
63 


85531.241
64 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Mr. Baker. 

And now we are going to hear from Carol Rowan West, Director, 

Office of Research and Standards, Massachusetts Department of 

Environmental Protection. Welcome. 

STATEMENT OF CAROL ROWAN WEST, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF 

RESEARCH AND STANDARDS, MASSACHUSETTS DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

Ms. WEST. Thank you, Chairman Boxer and Committee members, for the opportunity to testify today on the issue of perchlorate 

in drinking water. As a scientist and Director of the Office of Research and Standards at the Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection, I have spent over 15 years evaluating the 

toxic effect of chemicals and setting standards that are protective 

of public health. 

I have no doubt that perchlorate is a chemical that should be 

regulated in the Nation’s drinking water supply, given the fact that 

this chemical is one that affects the thyroid gland and can effect 

the levels of thyroid hormones that are needed for the proper development of the brain in the fetus, infants and young children. The 

health effects of perchlorate are well known and are based on 

sound science. 

The Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ work on perchlorate began 

in 2001, when perchlorate was detected in the groundwater at 600 

parts per billion at the Massachusetts Military Reservation on 

Cape Cod. The contaminated groundwater plume migrated to nearby public water supply wells. Given the lack of Federal and State 

standards for perchlorate and the potential for perchlorate to affect 

brain development in children, we felt compelled to set a drinking 

water standard. We promulgated a two parts per billion perchlorate standard in 2006 based upon a thorough review of all the 

scientific information along with an independent review by an external scientific advisory committee. 

After all of the public water supplies were tested in Massachusetts, we found a number of unanticipated situations including perchlorate levels as high as 1,300 parts per billion in one public 

water supply. We found that all of the contaminated public water 

supplies were from non-military sources of perchlorate, including 

blasting, fireworks and sodium hypochlorite, a chemical that is 

used to treat and disinfect drinking water. 

As mentioned earlier, there appears to be sufficient evidence that 

there is widespread contamination of perchlorate in the United 

States. Surveys show that 26 States and two territories have perchlorate in their drinking water, and 37 States and territories have 

approximately 400 hazardous waste sites with perchlorate present 

in them. 

In addition, there are new studies that demonstrate the pervasiveness of perchlorate exposures to the American public, raising 

issues regarding human safety. The Food and Drug Administration 

has found that 59 percent of the total food samples tested contain 

perchlorate, including baby food. The FDA estimated that children 

the age of 2 years old would receive the highest intake of perchlorate a day. At this age, the brain is rapidly growing and it puts 

these young children at risk, especially given the fact that the 

65 

amount of perchlorate from water and from food may go over the 

level of producing thyroid hormone level alterations that could affect brain development. 

A very recent study just published on Boston women and breast 

milk contamination with perchlorate found that all 49 of the 

women tested had perchlorate, and the levels ranged from 1.3 to 

411 parts per billion. And last, as mentioned earlier, the Centers 

for Disease Control has found through its national survey that perchlorate is pervasive in the American public and that in the highrisk group of women with low iodide intake, that they are finding 

alterations in thyroid hormone levels. 

All of these studies indicate widespread contamination and exposure to perchlorate in both water and the food supplies of Americans. The benefits of having a national perchlorate drinking water 

standard are that all of the public water supplies will be tested so 

we will have complete information. Then action can be taken to 

treat the water to protect children’s health. We recommend that 

the U.S. EPA should take a leadership role to set a perchlorate 

drinking water standard which protects children’s health. Perchlorate contamination is a national issue and national action is 

needed. Federal action will lead to consistent protection of children’s health across the United States. And last, the clean-up of 

water supplies and sites has the additional benefit of also decreasing the levels of perchlorate in food, including breast milk. 

Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I will be pleased to answer any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. West follows:] 

66 


85531.024
67 


85531.025
68 


85531.026
69 


85531.027
70 


85531.028
71 


85531.242
72 


85531.243
73 


85531.244
74 


85531.245
75 


85531.246
76 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

Ms. West, can you explain for us what are the results of too 

much perchlorate in terms of the thyroid? What actually happens 

and how does it impact a pregnant woman and how does it affect 

the fetus? 

Ms. WEST. When women are pregnant, they have a lot of stress 

on their thyroid gland. They sometimes also have a lower amount 

of dietary iodide in order to make thyroid hormones. So when pregnant women are exposed to perchlorate, their thyroid hormone 

level is reduced. 

Now, the fetus depends on thyroid hormone levels from the 

mother, and when the mother is exposed, she may not be able to 

provide the necessary levels of thyroid hormone to the fetus. In 

early life stages of the fetus, they aren’t producing any thyroid hormone whatsoever, so they are totally dependent on what the mother can deliver. So if the mother isn’t making enough thyroid hormone, it is going to have an impact on the brain development of 

that child. 

Senator BOXER. So this is very serious. You said in some systems 

there are 411 parts per billion that has been found? 

Ms. WEST. In one breast milk sample from Boston, Massachusetts, where we do not have perchlorate in our drinking water. May 

we add: However, here the perchlorate exposure is from food that 

has taken up perchlorate from contaminated water. 

Senator BOXER. Doctor, do you want to add to any of those adverse impacts, or did Ms. West pretty well cover it? 

Dr. ALEXEEFF. I think she covered it very well. I would just add 

that perchlorate also prevents iodide from transferring to the placenta through the fetus, and also it blocks iodide transfer to breast 

milk for the newborn. 

Senator BOXER. And that could result in developmental disabilities? 

Dr. ALEXEEFF. That would add to the effect of perchlorate itself. 

So there is a perchlorate effect on the thyroid of either the newborn 

or the fetus and the mother, as well as the lower amount of iodide. 

Senator BOXER. Well, I am going to talk to Mr. Baker because 

I think his approach—I understand where he is coming from. I 

don’t agree with his conclusion, but I think your mind might be 

open to the few things that I say here. First of all, here is the problem. To say that Congress shouldn’t get involved, it is a bad precedent, I hear you. I don’t want to get involved. I don’t want to. Senator Klobuchar doesn’t want to. Senator Lautenberg and Senator 

Clinton and those of us who are working on this Committee to protect our people don’t want to. We want the EPA to act. 

Now, we hear today from two very straightforward witnesses 

with no axe to grind, they are not politicians, they are experts on 

health, that what can happen if there is too much perchlorate in 

the water, it is very, very serious for a pregnant woman and her 

fetus, and could have devastating impacts, and for all we know 

probably is having devastating impacts as we speak because there 

is no standard. 

So what happens is, we have information dating back, well, probably 20 years, but we know since 1992 EPA has talked about the 

proper standard for perchlorate. Listen to this. This is dated JanuVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:50 Feb 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85531.TXT VERN
77 

ary 25th, 2002. I want to thank my staff for finding this out here. 

‘‘A long-awaited U.S. EPA draft toxicological report issued on January 18th finds that perchlorate is likely to be more harmful to 

human health than previously thought.’’ EPA, 2002. In response to 

the report’s conclusion that perchlorate concentrations of less than 

one part per billion are safe for human consumption in drinking 

water, the California Department of Health reduced its advisory 

action level from 18 parts per billion to 4 parts per billion. 

So the work of EPA in the past in letting folks know the danger 

has led to State action. Very good. But why do we hear today—and 

Senator Klobuchar may be shocked to hear this—that our EPA witness said—what were his words?—it is a distinct possibility that 

they may come out with no standard whatsoever for perchlorate. 

So here is where we are, and this is where I want to talk to Mr. 

Baker and try to get him to see it a little bit differently. When you 

talk about it is a bad precedent for Congress to move in here, I say 

to you I don’t want to go down that road, but we have already gone 

down that road. Senator Feinstein and I had an amendment that 

passed the Senate pretty overwhelmingly, I don’t remember the 

exact vote, to ban phthalates. Why? EPA does nothing. 

Are we supposed to sit back and say it is bad precedent to do 

this? Or are we going to protect the people? That is the issue here. 

I agree. Legislation to get into protecting the people chemical by 

chemical isn’t my favorite way to go. I want to get an EPA that 

does something. It would be a lot easier on us here so we don’t 

have to sit and have these kinds of hearings. We also have the 

Children’s Health Advisory Panel tell the EPA that they are not 

doing enough, that they are very worried. 

So you can’t tell me, Mr. Baker, with all due respect, that if I 

care so much about my people that I am willing to push for this 

standard, and we are not setting the standard, we are just saying 

to EPA get off your delay and do this. That is what our bill says. 

First, we say we should test for it and let the public know. And 

second, we say, you should set a standard by a date certain because 

this thing is going. If I told you, for example, that this President 

or some other President woke up some morning and just acted in 

my view irrationally and said, we are by executive order temporarily suspending all environmental protection laws because it is in 

the best national security of our Nation to do it. Let’s say, you 

know, Presidents do things we don’t agree with. Obviously, I don’t 

think you would say, Congress, don’t get involved. I mean, at some 

point when nothing gets done, we are accountable to the people 

that we represent. Now, I know that your drinking water association doesn’t support having a standard set for perchlorate, but I am 

sure you know the American Water Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies has urged that EPA set 

a perchlorate standard. I think it is unusual to see someone who 

has to deal with this take this kind of attitude. I respect you and 

you have every right to, but if I look at Ohio, you should see, you 

are the 12th worst State for TCE. You have perchlorate. You have 

TCE and you are the 12th worst State for TCE. 

So I guess what I want you to think about is this. The minute 

we set a standard here, you will be eligible for some clean-up 

funds. I agree with you completely that there is not enough fundVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:50 Feb 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85531.TXT VERN
78 

ing. We are spending $5,000 a minute in Iraq, you would think we 

would have some funding to help you clean this up. That is a whole 

other debate. But I wonder if you would think about this, that by 

backing the EPA in this foot-dragging, you are putting off the day 

when you could be eligible for funds to clean up your water supply, 

and you are not protecting the people that you serve very well either. 

So I just wonder if you would be open to reconsideration and perhaps join with the largest water utility and trade associations, two 

of the largest, and urge them to set a standard, EPA to set a standard. 

Mr. BAKER. Madam Chairman, certainly as an administrator of 

a State drinking water program, along with my other colleagues 

that have that responsibility, we share the concern about any contaminants that are in our water supplies at an unsafe level. 

One clarification, it is not ASDWA’s position that we are opposed 

to EPA establishing a standard. It may very well be that after looking at the occurrence data through the UCMR, the studies by the 

NSA, the studies by the Food and Drug Administration, the information generated by other States, that a standard for perchlorate 

is an appropriate action. 

We also believe they have the building blocks in place at this 

point in time to make a regulatory decision. We certainly hope and 

encourage them to make that decision very, very soon. So we share 

that, but we continue to have the concern that if we use legislative 

action to set the standard for perchlorate and TCE now, then with 

the myriad of chemicals that we know are out there, we know are 

starting to show up in our drinking water supplies, we know, as 

we are able to detect them at very low levels, we are going to raise 

additional questions. We just think we need to use the appropriate 

structure in place that we vett all of these chemicals through in 

making those decisions about what to regulate. 

Senator BOXER. So you want them to set a standard? 

Mr. BAKER. We want them to make a decision on it very quickly. 

Senator BOXER. Well, good, then you should back my bill because 

that is exactly what we are saying. We say set a standard by a certain date. 

The last thing I want to do is put into the record, and then I will 

turn to my colleague, an article that appeared—and this is really 

important—on April 28th, 2003. This whole stonewalling that we 

saw here from the EPA is not news. The headline in The Wall 

Street Journal back then was, EPA bans staff from discussing issue 

of perchlorate pollution. The Pentagon and several defense contractors who face billions of dollars of potential clean-up liability vehemently oppose EPA’s high health risk assessment, arguing perchlorate is safe at levels 200 times higher than what the EPA says 

is safe. The Bush administration has imposed a gag order on the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency from publicly discussing 

perchlorate pollution even as two new studies reveal high levels of 

rocket fuel may be contaminating the Nation’s lettuce supply. 

[The referenced material was not received at the time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. So I think the reason we were so interested in 

having this hearing is what you are seeing here today from the 

EPA is just a continuation of the stonewall. The reasons we are 

79 

going to have some action on this in June once we complete our 

global warming on the floor is because a lot of us have had it. We 

agree, Mr. Baker, they should do it. They should do it according to 

the science, and that is just what our bill says. 

And last, last, last, thank you to California and Massachusetts. 

You have been leaders. I just so respect what you are doing. 

Senator Klobuchar. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. AMY KLOBUCHAR, 

U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MINNESOTA 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. And thank you, 

Chairwoman Boxer, for holding this hearing. 

In Minnesota, thankfully, we haven’t found a lot of perchlorate 

contamination, but we also haven’t done a lot of testing, so it is 

possible we may have a problem we don’t know about. I will tell 

you that we do have a number of TCE contamination sites, and we 

also have hundreds of smaller TCE contamination sites. These 

clean-ups have been carried out on TCE, but it has been described 

to me by our water experts that it takes a long time to get rid of 

it. No matter how many times you rinse it, it is kind of like cleaning a greasy pan with cold water. It is estimated that it will take 

25 years to break down. 

But I want to get to the topic you all have testified about, and 

follow up on some of Chairman Boxer’s questions. 

Ms. West, I was struck by your testimony about all of the scientific work that you have had to do in Massachusetts at the State 

level. One of my concerns here as I look at all of these issues, 

whether it is climate change or whether it is the regulation of these 

dangerous substances, that more and more work has been pushed 

to the State level without the resources to go with it, especially for 

instance in the climate change area. It gets absurd because you 

have 33 States trying to form together to do a climate registry because nothing has been done on the national level. 

Could you talk a little bit about the burden that has been placed 

on your State? Have you gotten the resources for it in terms of trying to set some standards for perchlorate? 

Ms. WEST. Well, just going back a little bit historically, back in 

2003, EPA seemed to be rapidly advancing in setting a reference 

dose for perchlorate. I believe that in 2003 they were supposed to 

have a draft reference dose. So we actually were going to rely on 

their work, but then it got delayed so we took up our own work. 

Now, the Office of Research and Standards is very fortunate. We 

have 11 staff toxicologists and risk assessors. We worked almost 

full time on perchlorate until 2006, when we promulgated our 

standards. The work also entailed the director of our drinking 

water supply program the Bureau of Waste Site Clean-Up staff and 

the Commissioner’s office. Our four regional offices were also involved, because we had to go to cities and towns to deal with the 

contamination, find out what the sources were, and do clean-ups. 

So it was a very large effort for us to undertake. I do think if 

there were Federal action that it would reduce the burden on the 

States having to do this type of work. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. You also said something that makes a lot of sense to me. Since we know that perVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:50 Feb 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00083 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85531.TXT VERN
80 

chlorate can cause developmental harm to pregnant women and 

children, that it would make some sense to set the standard now 

and refine it later, or do something, because what concerns me here 

is we have some scientific research, but yet nothing is happening 

on the EPA level. It seems to me we should err on the side of caution. 

Do you want to respond to that and how you could envision this 

getting done? 

Ms. WEST. Well, I totally agree with you. I think that there is 

well-known information on the health effects of perchlorate. It is 

based on sound science. There is much information to put together 

to set a drinking water standard. I look at this situation, and I say 

what is missing? Nothing, we have the data. We have everything 

that we need. We have protocols for setting drinking water standards. If we follow those and take action, I think we have all that 

we need. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Dr. Alexeeff, you talked about how California set a standard and there is peer review. Do you feel that 

there is enough national information to move forward? 

Dr. ALEXEEFF. Yes, of course we do. We are in the process now. 

There has been so much additional information. We are coming up 

on our 5-year cycle for reconsidering perchlorate, and seeing if our 

current standard is reflective of the actual data. So we think there 

was sufficient data when we set our standard in, well, both in 2004 

for the goal, and then 2007 for the official State standard. Since 

that time, there has just been additional information supporting it. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Dr. Alexeeff, in your written testimony, you 

talked about pregnant mothers and fetuses and brain development. 

You mentioned that studies have shown that children’s performance in school can be affected. Have there been other effects on 

children that have been documented? 

Dr. ALEXEEFF. Well, the actual way that perchlorate causes an 

effect is by blocking iodide from being used to make the important 

hormones for brain development. There is a lot of information on 

the importance of iodide. If we don’t allow our bodies to utilize the 

iodide that is there, we won’t have proper brain development in 

children. There is more than enough data showing that. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And this is my last question here. With the 

California standards, you do look at that, or from other parts of the 

Country as well, scientific data? 

Dr. ALEXEEFF. Well, to a certain extent. We looked at certainly 

all of the health information that was available. We are aware of 

the contamination in various parts of the Country, and of course 

a lot of our drinking water is from the Colorado River, which is one 

of our major concerns because it is contaminated with perchlorate 

as well. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you very much. 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, Senator. 

Senator Klobuchar has said that she is going to come back, and 

when I have to leave, she will chair the third panel, so we should 

have a seamless hearing today. 

Senator, thank you so much. You are always such a helpful part 

of this Committee. I thank you very much. 

81 

I ask unanimous consent to enter into the record recent studies 

describing perchlorate exposure to people and its impact on human 

health: statements by Professor Daniel Wartenberg and Professor 

Tom Zoller on TCE and perchlorate; newspaper articles describing 

White House and Federal agencies’ interfering with the creation of 

protective TCE and perchlorate standards; a letter from EPA’s 

Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee; and a scientific 

article criticizing EPA’s perchlorate remediation goal as being 

unprotective. So we will put those in the record. 

[The referenced documents were not received t the time of print.] 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, panelists. I think you have been terrific, very direct, and very helpful. 

If our final panel would please come up. 

Donna Lupardo is an Assemblywoman in the State of New York; 

Gail Charnley, Ph.D., HealthRisk Strategies; David Hoel, Ph.D., 

Professor at the Medical University of South Carolina; and Richard 

Wiles, Executive Director, Environmental Working Group. 

We welcome you all. We are very pleased to have you. I invite 

you to drink the water if you want to. 

So we will start off with Assemblywoman Lupardo from the 

126th Assembly District of New York. Thank you very much, 

Assemblywoman. 

STATEMENT OF DONNA A. LUPARDO, ASSEMBLYWOMAN, 

126TH DISTRICT, STATE OF NEW YORK 

Ms. LUPARDO. Thank you, Madam Chair and members of the 

Committee for your commitment to this issue and for allowing me 

to present my remarks on this topic. 

First, let me say that I am not a scientist. I am not an epidemiologist. I am simply an advocate for the community that I represent in the New York State Assembly. I represent the 126th District. It includes the city of Binghamton and the towns of Union 

and Vestal. Located in the town of Union is the village of Endicott, 

birthplace of IBM and Endicott-Johnson shoes. My remarks today 

reflect Endicott’s long journey into the world of TCE contamination 

and my own journey to find answers. 

Prior to my election, I was a member of the Resident Action 

Group of Endicott, along with Congressman Hinchey. The group 

helped raise public awareness about the dangers of vapor intrusion 

and drinking water contamination. Working together, the Endicott 

site was reclassified back in 2003 after it was discovered that 

undergroundwater contamination produced toxic vapors into people’s homes and businesses. 

I also served as a member of the Stakeholder Planning Committee which met regularly with members of ATSDR and our 

State’s Department of Health and Environmental Conservation. 

In Endicott, there are over 480 homes spread out over 300 acres 

fitted with ventilation systems designed to address chemical vapor 

intrusion because of a large underground plume of contamination. 

These vapors are the legacy of the microelectronic industry that 

once dominated our local economy. Fortunately for Endicott residents, there was a responsible party available. IBM was in a position to assist with the costs of not only the ventilation systems, but 

with pumping stations, monitoring wells, ambient air testing, and 

82 

an air stripper needed to address the contamination of wells that 

supply drinking water to 46,000 residents in the town of Union, including my own home in Endwell. 

In August 2005, the New York State Department of Health released a Health Statistics Review for the Endicott site that documented elevated rates of testicular cancer, kidney cancer, and 

heart birth defects in the Endicott area. The review found that 

these elevated rates were statistically significant, meaning that 

they are unlikely to be due to chance alone. This review validated 

what residents had been talking about for years. Unfortunately, 

their fears only grew. 

I also serve on the Environmental Conservation Committee in 

the New York State Assembly. After conducting several hearings 

around the State, we issued a report in 2006 entitled Vapor Intrusion of Toxic Chemicals: An Emerging Public Health Concern. One 

finding is particularly relevant to today’s hearing. 

We found that the New York State air guideline for TCE of 5.0 

micrograms per cubic meter of air was not based on the most protective presumptions supported by science. In developing its guidance for TCE, our Department of Health made a number of choices 

that resulted in a less protective standard, including the choice not 

to consider epidemiologic studies used by EPA in its 2001 draft assessment, the choice not to use a new and stronger epidemiological 

study as a source of quantitative values, and the choice not to consider animal studies which show an association between exposure 

to TCE and testicular cancer, lymphoma and lung cancer based on 

a lack of human evidence. 

As a result, TCE guideline is two orders of magnitude higher 

than the most risk-based concentrations for TCE in air developed 

by California, Colorado, New Jersey, and several EPA regional offices which range from .016 to 0.2 micrograms per cubic meter of 

air. New York also changed its TCE guidelines in 2003 in the middle of the IBM clean-up, leaving many homeowners confused and 

frustrated because they were no longer eligible for ventilation systems. They went from a 0.22 microgram to their current level of 

5.0 micrograms per cubic meter of air. 

Our Environmental Conservation Committee strongly recommended that our Department of Health revise its current indoor 

air guideline for TCE to reflect the most protective assumptions 

about toxicity and exposure supported by science. We believed that 

in the face of uncertainty regarding the threat of harm to human 

health posed by vapor intrusion, that the Department of Health 

should err on the side of caution and adopt a much more conservative approach. Unfortunately, Madam Chair, they did not. 

While we are attempting to address this issue legislatively in 

New York State, we desperately need Federal leadership on this 

topic. The Toxic Chemical Exposure Reduction Act would finally 

provide a national primary drinking water regulation for TCE and 

an all important reference concentration of TCE vapor that is protective of susceptible populations, along with important health 

advisories. It would put an end to a confusing hodgepodge of individual State guidelines and arbitrary regulations. 

As you said before, Madam Chair, we don’t want to legislate this. 

We are running into resistance trying to legislate it, frankly. 

83 

Just a couple of points to wrap up. I am also encouraged that the 

legislation establishes the integrated risk information system reference concentration of TCE vapor. I am, however, deeply concerned that EPA’s new interagency review process will actually increase the challenges that they face in evaluating and regulating 

chemicals. The IRIS data base could soon become obsolete because 

of the backlog of ongoing assessments. I hope that the TCE assessment does not fall prey to policy biases that overshadow good 

science, as you have said many times. 

Senator BOXER. I am going to ask you to finish up. 

Ms. LUPARDO. Yes. 

Finally, the last point, I would be remiss if I did not briefly mention another related matter. It has to do with the OSHA standard. 

They have set an exposure limit of 100 parts of TCE per million 

part of air for an 8-hour workday, 40-hour workweek. Surely a separate investigation of workplace exposures is warranted, especially 

for communities like Endicott where many residents were exposed 

at home and at work. 

Thank you for allowing me to testify. I am deeply grateful for 

your efforts. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Lupardo follows:] 

84 


85531.031
85 


85531.032
86 


85531.247
87 


85531.248
88 

Senator BOXER. Thank you very much, Assemblywoman Lupardo. 

Dr. Charnley. 

STATEMENT OF GAIL CHARNLEY, PRINCIPAL, 

HEALTHRISK STRATEGIES 

Ms. CHARNLEY. Thank you for the opportunity to speak with you 

all today. 

EPA has a well-established process for studying drinking water 

contaminant levels that has been evolving for 30 years and has resulted in one of the safest drinking water supplies in the world. 

The Safe Drinking Water Act and its amendments reflect the best 

of Congress’ ability to craft statutes that are effective and sensible. 

Setting drinking water standards or any other limit on human 

exposure to chemical contaminants requires balancing the need to 

be precautionary and protect public health with the need to develop 

an adequate factual basis to justify regulation. In other words, EPA 

must act to prevent health risks from drinking water contaminants, but must also determine that regulating contaminants 

would present a meaningful opportunity to reduce health risk. 

There are costs associated both with regulating too soon when 

health risks turn out to be negligible, and with regulating too late 

after health risks have occurred. Finding the right balance is what 

the Safe Drinking Water Act empowers EPA to do. 

There are many examples of the challenging process involved in 

trying to set exposure limits for substances in a world of evolving 

science. Perchlorate is a perfect example. Until recently, EPA’s continued efforts to characterize the hazards of perchlorate have been 

repeatedly thwarted by peer-review panels. Perchlorate first made 

it onto EPA’s radar screen in 1985 when it was found to be a contaminant of Superfund sites in California. Toxicity data were 

sparse and a provisional reference dose was adopted by EPA in 

1992. 

That provisional dose was replaced by a different provisional reference dose in 1995. Peer review of that provisional reference dose 

concluded in 1997 that it was not adequately supported by data 

and proposed a toxicity testing strategy. EPA listed it as an unregulated drinking water contaminant of potential concern in 1998 

and released a draft risk assessment with yet another provisional 

reference dose. 

Another peer review recommended waiting for the results of the 

study that had been recommended in 1997. A revised draft risk assessment was released in 2002 that incorporated the new data and 

proposed a fourth provisional reference dose. Peer review of that 

reference dose by the National Academy of Sciences resulted in a 

fifth reference dose, which is the one that was adopted in 2005. Of 

course, reference doses are advisory, not regulatory. 

Meanwhile, what about the costs of regulating versus not regulating perchlorate? The Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to 

establish contaminant levels at which no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons occur and which allows an 

adequate margin of safety. So let’s ask that question: Are known 

or anticipated adverse effects on health occurring? One approach to 

answering that question is to compare EPA’s reference dose to the 

levels we are actually exposed to. 

89 

The reference dose is the perchlorate exposure level anticipated 

to be without adverse effects. Based on the data from the Centers 

for Disease Control, we know that the average exposure to perchlorate in the U.S. is about one-tenth the reference dose and the 

highest exposures are about one-third the reference dose. Based on 

CDC and FDA data, our exposure is 10,000 times less than what 

the National Academy of Sciences concluded would be required to 

produce adverse effects in healthy adults. 

The good news is that the American public is apparently not 

being exposed to perchlorate levels that are likely to pose a risk to 

our health. Does that mean we shouldn’t regulate perchlorate? Not 

necessarily. Perchlorate occurs naturally in the environment, but is 

also a widespread anthropogenic contaminant and probably should 

be regulated. Fortunately, however, there appears to be no imminent public health threat that justifies regulating in advance of the 

science. 

And of course, just because there is no drinking water standard 

at present doesn’t mean that precautionary risk management 

measures shouldn’t be taken to prevent further contamination, but 

I think it does illustrate how legislation compelling EPA to regulate perchlorate would run the risk of freezing the standard in 

place in reaction to politics, not risk-based priorities, and essentially constitutes an environmental earmark. 

Former EPA Administrator Bill Reilly referred to this phenomenon as regulating based on moments of episodic panic in reaction to news stories, not science. EPA’s landmark 1987 report, Unfinished Business, concluded that its priorities were influenced too 

much by public opinion and emphasized the desirability of setting 

agency priorities based on risk where possible. I believe in setting 

priorities based on science and directing resources where they will 

have a demonstrable impact on public health, and not in environmental earmarks or symbolic acts that misdirect limited resources 

without public health benefit. 

Thank you very much. I would like to also add to the record a 

paper that I recently had accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal called Perchlorate: Overview of Risks and Regulation. 

[The referenced document was not received at time of print.] 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Charnley follows:] 

90 


85531.033
91 


85531.034
92 

Senator BOXER. Thank you. 

You are right. There is politics in the system. GAO just said it 

is at the risk assessment level that EPA is putting politics into the 

system and shunting the scientists to the back. You are right on 

that point. It is not here. It is there. And that is the sad thing. 

We are going to skip over Dr. Hoel for a minute because I have 

so little time. Since I asked Richard Wiles to be here, I would like 

to hear his statement, if you don’t mind, sir. 

Go ahead. 

STATEMENT OF RICHARD WILES, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, 

ENVIRONMENTAL WORKING GROUP 

Mr. WILES. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify today. I will focus my remarks today on 

perchlorate. 

Perchlorate provides a textbook example of how a corrupted 

health protection system, where polluters, the Pentagon, the White 

House and the EPA have conspired to block health protections in 

order to pad budgets, curry political favor, and protect corporate 

profits. 

With perchlorate, we have reached that rare moment in environmental health when there is nothing left to do but act. All of the 

pieces needed to support strong health protections are in place. 

Contamination of food, tap water and breast milk is widespread 

and well documented. We have a clear understanding of the dangers to infants, children and women of childbearing age. 

A strong body of science ties perchlorate exposures to potentially 

very serious adverse effects on the human population, anchored by 

a study of more than 1,100 women by the CDC that links perchlorate levels in the population to dangerous low thyroid hormone 

levels in women of childbearing age. 

It is rare that science provides us with such a clear picture of a 

pollutant’s harmful effects, which have been termed consistent with 

causality by the CDC. It is even more unusual to have this level 

of evidence and to do nothing. Yet this Administration has failed 

to act. 

Instead of action, we have delay. And worse, as exposed by this 

Committee last week, we have the institutionalization of a new 

delay strategy replete with secret White House reviews of science 

and a shift of public health decision making away from agencies 

with the expertise to agencies responsible for the pollution. 

This begs the question why. The answer is the enormous magnitude of the liability. Simply put, perchlorate is an environmental 

and public health nightmare of epic proportions for the Department 

of Defense and its contractors, and rather than address it head-on 

and protect the public health, they have spent 50 years and millions of dollars trying to avoid it. Ninety percent of all perchlorate 

in the United States was manufactured for use by the DOD or 

NASA. Perchlorate contaminates at least 153 public water systems 

serving about 25 million people in at least 28 States. At least 61 

DOD facilities are contaminated with perchlorate, and 35 of those 

are listed on the national priorities list for Superfund site designation. 

93 

Hundreds of miles of the Colorado River are also polluted with 

perchlorate. This not only means that the tap water of Las Vegas, 

Phoenix, parts of Los Angeles, and San Diego are laced with perchlorate, but it also means that much of the Nation’s winter vegetable crops are contaminated because they are irrigated with perchlorate-polluted water from the Colorado River. 

The goal of defense contractors and the Pentagon has been to 

avoid clean-up of their massive perchlorate mess regardless of the 

health consequences to the American people. To date, they have 

been largely successful. It is abundantly clear that without congressional intervention, the public will not receive the protection that 

is so clearly justified by the science and so obviously necessary 

given the widespread contamination of food, water and people. 

No State health agency that has independently evaluated perchlorate supports the EPA’s safe contamination level, the so-called 

preliminary remediation goal, PRG, of 24.5 parts per billion. California has set a drinking water standard at six parts per billion. 

New Jersey has proposed one at five parts per billion. Massachusetts has set a safe level at two parts per billion. But most States 

depend on the EPA. 

EPA’s own children’s health experts have strongly criticized the 

standard. In March, 2006, the EPA’s top independent science advisory group, the Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee, 

wrote a strong letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson protesting the PRG. In the words of the committee, ‘‘The perchlorate 

PRG does not protect infants and children and should be lowered.’’ 

The agency ignored the advice. 

Five months later, in September 2006, the CDC published a 

landmark study on the potential health impacts of chronic perchlorate exposure. The study of 1,100 women found a statistically 

significant dose-dependent association between perchlorate exposure and changes in thyroid hormone levels in all women in the 

study. The study showed convincingly that measurable adverse 

health effects from perchlorate exposure are occurring in the American population at levels previously thought to be safe and at exposure levels commonly experienced by the average person. 

Madam Chair, members of the Committee, the time to protect 

the public from perchlorate is now. We commend Senator Boxer for 

her leadership on the issue and urge this Committee to move 

quickly on S. 150, the Protecting Pregnant Women and Children 

From Perchlorate Act. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Wiles follows:] 

94 


85531.035
95 


85531.036
96 


85531.037
97 


85531.038
98 


85531.039
99 


85531.040
100 


85531.041
101 


85531.042
102 


85531.043
103 


85531.044
104 


85531.045
105 


85531.046
106 


85531.047
107 


85531.048
108 


85531.049
109 


85531.249
110 


85531.250
111 


85531.251
112 


85531.252
113 


85531.253
114 


85531.254
115 


85531.255
116 


85531.256
117 

Senator BOXER. Thank you, sir. 

Now, here is where we are. I am going to turn the gavel over to 

Senator Klobuchar, and Dr. David Hoel has not spoken yet. So 

after that point, it would go to you and then back and forth. 

But I just want to say to this panel, all, thank you so very much 

for being here and helping us grapple with these very serious matters. Thank you very much. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. [Presiding.] Dr. Hoel. 

STATEMENT OF DAVID G. HOEL, PROFESSOR, MEDICAL 

UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA 

Mr. HOEL. Thank you very much. It is an honor to be here. 

I haven’t testified now for many years, now that I have been at 

the university, which I should say for 20 years I was at the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences. I was the Director of Risk Assessment, and that is the institute for the environment within the National Institutes of Health. 

I primarily now work with radiation health effects, but have paid 

some attention to the chemical issues. I was a member of the SAB’s 

panel on perchlorate and the SAB’s panel on TCE, as well as a peer 

reviewer for the National Academies’ report on TCE. So I have a 

little knowledge of what is going on there. 

I would like to talk to you briefly about the process of setting levels for carcinogens that are used by IRIS or the EPA currently, and 

how these approaches are different from what is going on somewhat in Europe in the World Health Organization and so on. 

Now, if we take TCE, which I will talk about, and the cancer of 

TCE, it is primarily kidney cancer, according to the Academy, that 

is the driver among the cancers. Liver cancer is equivocal and they 

dismissed lung cancer and so on. But taking the kidney cancer, 

when EPA did evaluate this and set their levels, they considered 

three studies—a Finnish worker study, a German worker study, 

and a rat study—and came up with three levels. The problem is 

each level disagreed by a factor of 100. 

So the difference between the lowest and the highest was a factor 

of 10,000, which wouldn’t give you much confidence in attempting 

to set any sort of level based on this. 

What is the problem here? One is doing things by individual cancer sites in individual studies. What can be done is to do joint analyses as is done in radiation health effects. The World Health Organization and IARC recently came out with a study of 400,000 nuclear workers in 15 countries, a joint analysis. Joint analyses have 

also been done at IARC. I supported one financially when I was at 

NIH for phenoxy acid herbicides, which is a dioxin-type of exposure. They have done other studies where they bring these groups 

together. NCI has done some of this in radiation cancer. 

Short of that, you can do med analyses, but you have to do it 

properly with appropriate doses and bringing in the analysis. 

I am running out of time here. I am starting to lecture. 

In any case, there are modern statistical methods and you will 

see these in the radiation business. UNSCEAR, which is the 

United Nations report, will be coming out this summer on the new 

standards for radiation health effects that are used worldwide. 

118 

Some of the new statistical methods are being done there using 

Bayesian techniques and uncertainties and so on. 

Now, of course, my issue is to integrate the scientific laboratory 

understandings with the animal toxicology, with the pharmacokinetics and bring that together to come up with some intelligent 

risk estimates in cancer. My recommendations are, EPA should use 

this integrated approach and follow the advise of their SAB and 

the National Academy NRC Committee. It should focus on the best 

estimate of risk with the uncertainty on the best estimate of risk, 

and not just working with upper bounds. It should consider the recommendation that the National Academy gave them, and that was 

that the data wasn’t sufficiently good for the epidemiology and they 

should use the animal data for setting the TCE standards, and use 

the human data to validate what is coming up from the animal 

studies. 

OK, that is one issue. 

The second recommendation I would make is that there is no 

process for developing methods in risk assessment by the EPA. It 

seems like they should get some quality outside advice. Maybe 

members from the NRC Committee could help them during the 

process of developing their risk estimates, as opposed to presenting 

the risk estimate and then getting criticisms and comments on it. 

Finally, there is a basic issue of developing research programs. 

Senator Domenici had one for low-dose radiation effects, and that 

has been going on for a number of years—good basic laboratory 

work through the Office of Science of DOE—and similar things 

should be done for chemicals in our environment. 

I will stop here. Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoel follows:] 

119 


85531.257
120 


85531.258
121 


85531.259
122 


85531.260
123 


85531.261
124 


85531.262
125 


85531.263
126 


85531.264
127 


85531.265
128 


85531.266
129 


85531.267
130 


85531.268
131 


85531.269
132 


85531.270
133 


85531.271
134 


85531.272
135 


85531.273
136 


85531.274
137 


85531.296
138 


85531.297
139 


85531.298
140 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. Thank you very much. 

Assemblywoman Lupardo, I understand you represent the district where my legislative director has her home town. Is that correct? Moira Campion? Thank you for being here. 

You expressed concern during your testimony about EPA’s new 

policy on creating the IRIS risk assessments. The Government Accountability Office recently testified that the new policy would undercut the credibility of these assessments because it kept interagency comments secret. Do you think that the people that you 

represent, and from what you have see of this issue, that they 

would want an open scientific process when the Federal Government develops the safety level that would be used to protect people 

from TCE? 

Ms. LUPARDO. There is no doubt about it, Senator. They are desperately in need of solid leadership on this topic. I have been trying 

everything I can at the State level, but there is resistance to micromanaging the science. That’s why we are looking to the EPA for 

their assistance. It is frustrating to think that we can go to all this 

trouble and perhaps even pass this legislation, only to see it mired 

down in this sort of bureaucratic mess. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Could you expand a little and explain in 

more detail why it is so important for your constituents to install 

ventilation systems in their homes due to TCE contamination? 

Ms. LUPARDO. Well, after it was discovered about the underground plume of contamination, and the subsequent health studies 

showing elevated cancer and other risks, there was really no choice 

but to have these systems installed so that homes could be livable. 

We have almost 500 homes that are being vented.. There is even 

some evidence that the ambient air in that community has been affected, especially when there is heavy cloud cover, from all the 

venting in the community as well. So, it is extremely important 

that we have those systems in place. We were lucky. As I said before, we had a responsible party. Many communities do not have 

that luxury. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. If EPA had updated its safety standard for 

TCE exposure and set a strict new standard that considered all 

types of exposure to TCE, could this have helped your constituents? 

Ms. LUPARDO. Yes, most definitely. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. How would it have helped? How would it 

have helped? 

Ms. LUPARDO. Their situation would have certainly received 

much more timely attention. Also because of some arbitrary decision that was made at our State Health Department where they 

changed the standard mid-stream, they would have been protected 

by the most protective standard supported by science instead of 

some bureaucratic change. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Ms. Charnley, do you agree with Massachusetts’ perchlorate 

standard? 

Ms. CHARNLEY. Well, do I agree with the number or the fact that 

they set one? 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Do you agree with the fact that they have 

a standard? Do you agree with the number? Both questions. 

141 

Ms. CHARNLEY. I think that they are certainly well within their 

prerogative to set a standard. I think that the number is too stringent. I say that because one of the things about perchlorate is that 

it acts by the same biological mechanism of action as, say, nitrates 

and thiocynates, which are present ubiquitously in our food and 

water. We are exposed to about 1,000 times higher doses of those 

substances every day based on the RfD, compared to perchlorate, 

but we don’t seem to be worried about those. 

So I think that if you regulate perchlorate, you should think 

about it in the larger context of the other substances that we are 

exposed to that act the same way, the cumulative and aggregate 

risks, and the larger public health context. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And so when you commented on the standard, I think that you said it didn’t have a defensible standard basis 

at the time. Is that right? 

Ms. CHARNLEY. I think that is probably what I must have meant, 

yes. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Right. And then the State of Massachusetts 

criticized your comments and pointed out that, and this is a quote, 

‘‘a panel of independent scientists with extensive expertise in the 

areas of toxicology, risk assessment and epidemiology developed 

the proposed standard.’’ They went on to say, ‘‘This independent 

committee concluded that the basis of the proposed standard was 

well supported and appropriate.’’ 

Ms. CHARNLEY. But they didn’t consider these other possibilities. 

That is all. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Since you commented on the proposed 

standard and you said that it did not have a defensible scientific 

basis, has that changed at all? Do you believe that it has a defensible scientific basis? 

Ms. CHARNLEY. No, for the reasons I just stated. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Thank you. 

Senator Whitehouse. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

I have what appears to be a Wall Street Journal article talking 

about the perchlorate issue from 2003. It says the following: ‘‘In another step, the White House Office of Management and Budget intervened last month to delay further regulatory action on perchlorate by referring the health debate to the National Academy of 

Sciences for review. Pending that study, which could take an additional 6 to 18 months, the EPA ordered its scientists and regulators 

not to speak about perchlorate, said Suzanne Ackerman, an EPA 

spokeswoman. The gag order prevented EPA scientists from commenting or elaborating Friday on two lettuce studies which show 

lettuce available in U.S. supermarkets appears to absorb and concentrate perchlorate from polluted irrigation water in significant 

amounts.’’ 

The reference to the National Academy of Sciences—I am just 

trying to connect the dots here. Mr. Wiles, in your testimony, you 

highlighted a 2003 effort by the White House to stack the National 

Academy of Sciences panel with industry consultants. To highlight 

your testimony, you said that senior White House political officials 

with no scientific expertise actively participated in reviewing the 

scientific charge sent to the National Academy of Sciences on perVerDate Aug 31 2005 11:50 Feb 05, 2015 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00145 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 S:\_EPW\DOCS\85531.TXT VERN
142 

chlorate. You further said that White House and Pentagon officials 

were involved in discussions about who should be appointed to the 

NAS panel. And finally, you said that the panel initially included 

a paid industry expert witness and two other paid consultants to 

the perchlorate industry. 

Is the National Academy of Sciences appointment process that 

you describe in your testimony the same one that I referenced in 

The Wall Street Journal article? Do you know? 

Mr. WILES. I presume that it is, yes. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. There has just been the one National 

Academy of Sciences review? 

Mr. WILES. Yes, there is only one report that has been done. 

That is correct. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. OK. 

I appreciate very much Assemblywoman Lupardo’s testimony 

about the substantive problems of exposure in her community and 

how hard she has had to fight to remedy them. But I am also concerned about the structural problem in and surrounding EPA of 

whether or not the organization itself has been polluted with politics and the extent to which it is breaking up the infrastructure 

that protects the integrity of its own processes. 

I was surprised to read the description of the National Academy 

of Sciences’ process. I am wondering, Mr. Wiles, if you could comment on is that unusual? What does it mean in terms of the credibility of the National Academy of Sciences? We have had my colleagues here today sort of throw out National Academy of Sciences 

as the Good Housekeeping seal of approval here. If it had the National Academy of Sciences imprimatur, it must be legitimate. Are 

we to take that with some skepticism under these circumstances? 

How do you put this into a large context? 

Mr. WILES. I actually used to work at the National Academy of 

Sciences, at the National Research Council, managing these committees. I can say from experience that the influence of politics and 

that vested interests are having on the process now I think is unprecedented. 

What we cited in our testimony was an investigation that looked 

at public records from the White House that showed clear intervention in the process of selecting this committee by non-scientists 

within the White House. You had initially three industry consultants. One was actually someone paid, who made a living as an expert witness in litigation. That person was ultimately removed. 

But what happens when you have industry consultants on these 

panels that have to reach a consensus finding is that finding is diluted in favor of the industry’s interests, which typically are financial as opposed to public health. So it is a very serious problem, but 

that is just the corruption of the NAS process. The influence of industry interests on the process is just a small part of the overall 

corruption of science that we have seen in this Administration that 

I think was well documented last week in a hearing that was held 

before this Committee. 

We have seen unprecedented levels of industry influence on 

every scientific panel and committee from committees of the National Institutes of Health, all the way through to committees at 

EPA that are all designed to—they are the first line of defense that 

143 

the American public has against chemical pollution in the environment, and they have been in many respects taken over by the polluting industry under this Administration. 

Senator WHITEHOUSE. Well, my time has expired, and I will end 

here, but it does remind me of the story about the two folks who 

are arguing over the merits of a particular debate. One said to the 

other, you know, you can have your own opinion, but you don’t get 

to have your own facts. I think we are a little bit that way. You 

can have your own opinion. You can have your own policy outcome, 

but you shouldn’t get to have your own science. That should be 

neutral. 

I appreciate it. Thank you, Chairman. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Senator Barrasso. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you very much, Madam Chairman. 

Dr. Hoel, if I could, you made a reference in your testimony that 

this bill would compel an analysis within 180 days. From a scientific standpoint, is that something that is reasonable, to put a 

certain number of days limit? I think you had some concerns about 

that. 

Mr. HOEL. The reason I said I thought 180 days was a very short 

period was that the recommendations I was making about how to 

do a more scientifically credible job in this risk assessment process 

or carcinogens, EPA is going to have to do something a little different. I also suggested that they try to bring in some peer-reviewing during the process—advice from outside scientists and so on— 

so they would come up with a credible product. 

Now, if you were to do that, which would be different from the 

way EPA has done things in the past, my guess is they could not 

pull it together in 180 days. You certainly probably wouldn’t be 

able to get the quality advisors brought in considering how long it 

takes to do Academy of Science committees and things of that sort. 

Senator BARRASSO. Do you have any estimate on what the right 

time figure would be if you had to insert a time figure? 

Mr. HOEL. I really don’t know. I was just sort of struck that if 

I had to arrange this from scratch with these changes, with 180 

days you might have to cut some corners scientifically. 

Senator BARRASSO. In your opinion, is there an immediate health 

risk that makes this bill necessary? For TCE? 

Mr. HOEL. No. I think that if you look at the epidemiology, as 

the Academy had looked at, they talk about kidney cancer is the 

concern. They have calculated very low risk levels for TCE based 

on the cancer studies. But the question is, these results are coming 

out of Germany and there are some very high doses. Some of the 

workers got a continual dose of about 100 ppm of TCE in their 

work, with levels up to 400 to 500 ppm. The study that they did 

use, the top doses were I think 1,000 ppm. So there is a lot of uncertainty there, but these are very high doses, and they in fact suggest they try to find some studies where you might have some 

lower doses that would intersect with that. 

There have been other studies, other epidemiological studies, say 

the one out of Denmark for TCE workers where they measured 

TCE in the workers. They found no increase in kidney cancer. So 

it is kind of mixed. 

144 

Senator BARRASSO. Dr. Charnley, if I could, you said in your testimony that legislation compelling the EPA to regulate perchlorate 

would freeze a standard in place in reaction to politics, not really 

risk-based priorities, and essentially constitutes an environmental 

earmark. Are you saying that such legislation if passed would basically be politics trumping science? Is that what I am hearing? 

Ms. CHARNLEY. Well, I think that the priority-setting process 

that is in place courtesy of the Safe Drinking Water Act is appropriate. I think that there is no imminent public health threat that 

means we should regulate tomorrow. I think we probably should 

regulate, yes. But as long as there is still some discussion about 

relative source contributions and various other issues underway, I 

think that process should be completed. 

Senator BARRASSO. When you talked about the average exposure 

in the United States to perchlorate being about one-tenth of EPA’s 

reference dose, we are not talking about really protecting the average American? Or are we just talking about pregnant women, 

where the protection is needed? What should we do there? 

Ms. CHARNLEY. Yes. It is the pregnant women and the developing fetus who are the sensitive sub-populations. I think that any 

regulation of perchlorate should take into account children’s differences in exposure. There is no question about that. But I think 

that the studies of pregnant women have not found any impacts of 

perchlorate exposure on either their hormone levels or on those of 

their offspring. There are quite a number of recent studies that 

have looked at that, and I think should continue to look at that, 

of course. But I am not convinced that there is an imminent public 

health threat. 

Senator BARRASSO. Thank you. 

Madam Chairman, I think my time has expired. Thank you very 

much. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Assemblywoman Lupardo, I was just talking to staff and I read some of the earlier information for this hearing about how the GAO is in fact very critical about the delay that 

is going on with EPA and how much it has made it very difficult 

for local units of government and States to deal with this. 

Could you talk about the impact of waiting for too long in terms 

of the EPA acting, and what you have had to do as a result of that? 

Ms. LUPARDO. We have been really working around the edges of 

this. We have done the best we can to protect the individuals, the 

hundreds and hundreds of families and individuals in our community, waiting for the Federal Government to come to our rescue and 

aid, and having our own Health Department resist us at every 

turn, to provide a more restrictive standard. 

It turns out, and I am looking at the GAO highlights summary 

as well, that a new IRIS process is being put in place that is going 

to delay this even further, I just don’t even know how I am going 

to go back and explain this to my constituents. I can appreciate 

what you were saying before about the 180 days. That may be too 

short of a timeframe perhaps, but we can’t use this delaying tactic, 

it would seem, to further put my constituents at risk. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you. 

Mr. Wiles, all the bills do is to require the EPA to use the best 

available science. Is that right? 

145 

Mr. WILES. That is correct. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. And we have National Academy of Science 

reports on both TCE and perchlorate. Aren’t we at risk of just reviewing this to death at some point? 

Mr. WILES. We are, not to mention that we have the CDC study 

of 1,100 women which I think is very unusual when you have the 

CDC with such a large study of exposure and adverse effects measured in the population just from ambient exposure, exposures that 

occur every day. 

And then under questioning from Republicans in the House on 

the Energy and Commerce Committee, the CDC was very clear 

that they feel that they do not need further research to support 

their finding, and that the finding is consistent with causality, 

which is about as strong a finding as you are every going to get. 

So failing to act now with such strong evidence of exposure and 

harm is really unprecedented and completely unwarranted. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. How would you describe, Mr. Wiles, the extent of people’s exposure to perchlorate in the United States, and 

in particular the exposure of infants and children? 

Mr. WILES. Well, according to the CDC, it is ubiquitous. In other 

words, everyone is exposed. I think what we heard today from earlier witnesses and what the CDC research has shown is that 

women of childbearing age are potentially at risk, and their developing babies are if they were to get pregnant, due to exposures that 

the moms have. And then breast milk is also very highly contaminated, phenomenally highly contaminated based on what earlier 

witnesses said. 

So we have a clear danger to the public health from a compound 

that we know how it acts. It is not debated that perchlorate is toxic 

to the thyroid, that it interferes with normal thyroid function. So 

there literally is nothing left to do but act, and that is what this 

Administration does not want to do. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Why do you think it has taken EPA so long 

to create a perchlorate drinking water standard? 

Mr. WILES. Well, the pressure has been clearly coming from the 

Department of Defense, the Air Force, and defense contractors. 

That goes back as early as 1962 when the first group was formed 

to lobby, if you will, to pressure regulators into not acting to clean 

up groundwater supplies beginning in the 1960’s. So there are at 

least four, if not five, decades of work on the part of DOD and contractors to avoid regulation and it continues to this day. 

The difference with this Administration is that this attitude of 

not protecting the public health is extended all the way to the EPA 

now, who has adopted the Defense Department line and the Lockheed Martin line that we don’t need to act. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Last question, Mr. Wiles. Do you support 

the bill that Senator Clinton and others have introduced to require 

the EPA to use available science to create drinking water standards and publicly available data for perchlorate and to revise or 

create Federal standards for TCE, also using currently available 

data? 

Mr. WILES. Absolutely. We support both bills, and we do believe 

that action by the Congress is clearly necessary to move this issue 

forward and to protect the public health. 

146 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. WILES. Thank you. 

Senator KLOBUCHAR. OK. Very good. 

I just want to thank our witnesses for coming. I would just point 

out that the GAO report is worth mentioning here in terms of their 

criticism of what has gone on here in terms of the delay. This is 

another Government agency criticizing another Government agency 

that we have waited for too long. As the testimony of 

Assemblywoman Lupardo shows, this is putting a great burden on 

local governments and State governments in a patchwork manner 

to deal with this. 

The best thing that we could, as a Country, would be if the EPA 

acted in this area. I believe I am speaking on behalf of a number, 

not all, but a number of the members of this Committee. We hope 

that this hearing will push this, and if that doesn’t work, Congress, 

as we said, is going to have to move forward with our legislation. 

Thank you very much. This hearing is adjourned. 

147 


85531.203
148 


85531.204
149 


85531.205
150 


85531.206
151 


85531.207
152 


85531.208
153 


85531.209
154 


85531.210
155 


85531.211
156 


85531.212
157 


85531.050
158 


85531.051
159 


85531.052
160 


85531.053
161 


85531.054
162 


85531.055
163 


85531.056
164 


85531.057
165 


85531.058
166 


85531.059
167 


85531.060
168 


85531.061
169 


85531.062
170 


85531.063
171 


85531.064
172 


85531.065
173 


85531.066
174 


85531.067
175 


85531.068
176 


85531.069
177 


85531.070
178 


85531.071
179 


85531.072
180 


85531.073
181 


85531.074
182 


85531.075
183 


85531.076
184 


85531.077
185 


85531.078
186 


85531.079
187 


85531.080
188 


85531.081
189 


85531.082
190 


85531.083
191 


85531.084
192 


85531.085
193 


85531.086
194 


85531.087
195 


85531.088
196 


85531.089
197 


85531.090
198 


85531.091
199 


85531.092
200 


85531.093
201 


85531.094
202 


85531.095
203 


85531.096
204 


85531.097
205 


85531.098
206 


85531.099
207 


85531.100
208 


85531.101
209 


85531.102
210 


85531.103
211 


85531.104
212 


85531.105
213 


85531.106
214 


85531.107
215 


85531.108
216 


85531.119
217 


85531.120
218 


85531.121
219 


85531.122
220 


85531.123
221 


85531.124
222 


85531.125
223 


85531.126
224 


85531.127
225 


85531.128
226 


85531.129
227 


85531.130
228 


85531.131
229 


85531.132
230 


85531.133
231 


85531.134
232 


85531.135
233 


85531.136
234 


85531.137
235 


85531.138
236 


85531.139
237 


85531.140
238 


85531.141
239 


85531.142
240 


85531.143
241 


85531.144
242 


85531.145
243 


85531.146
244 


85531.147
245 


85531.148
246 


85531.149
247 


85531.150
248 


85531.151
249 


85531.152
250 


85531.153
251 


85531.154
252 


85531.155
253 


85531.156
254 


85531.157
255 


85531.158
256 


85531.159
257 


85531.160
258 


85531.161
259 


85531.162
260 


85531.163
261 


85531.164
262 


85531.165
263 


85531.166
264 


85531.167
265 


85531.168
266 


85531.169
267 


85531.170
268 


85531.171
269 


85531.172
270 


85531.173
271 


85531.174
272 


85531.175
273 


85531.176
274 


85531.177
275 


85531.178
276 


85531.179
277 


85531.180
278 


85531.181
279 


85531.182
280 


85531.183
281 


85531.184
282 


85531.185
283 


85531.186
284 


85531.187
285 


85531.188
286 


85531.189
287 


85531.190
288 


85531.191
289 


85531.192
290 


85531.193
291 


85531.194
292 


85531.195
293 


85531.196
294 


85531.197
295 


85531.198
296 


85531.199
297 


85531.200
298 


85531.201
299 


85531.202
300 

Æ