69–010 

Calendar No. 1055 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 110–484 

PROTECTING PREGNANT WOMEN AND CHILDREN FROM 

PERCHLORATE ACT OF 2008 

SEPTEMBER 24 (legislative day, SEPTEMBER 17), 2008.—Ordered to be printed 

Mrs. BOXER, from the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

[To accompany S. 150] 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 

referred the bill (S. 150) to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to 

protect the health of pregnant women, fetuses, infants, and children by requiring a health advisory and drinking water standard 

for perchlorate, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and 

recommends the bill (as amended) do pass. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION

The purpose of S. 150, the Protecting Pregnant Women and Children from Perchlorate Act of 2008 is to require a health advisory 

and national primary drinking water regulation for perchlorate. 

The bill would also require EPA to create a public health advisory 

for perchlorate that is fully protective, with an adequate margin of 

safety, of the health of vulnerable persons, including pregnant 

women, infants, and children, taking into consideration body 

weight, exposure patterns and all routes of exposure. S. 150 as 

amended would also require the EPA to propose a national primary 

drinking water regulation for perchlorate within 9 months of the 

date of enactment of S. 150, and to finalize a national primary 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
2 

1 National Research Council, National Academy of Sciences, Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion (2005), available online at http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?recordlid=11202. 2 Ibid. 

3 Blount, et al.; Perchlorate Exposure of the U.S. Population, 2001–2002; Journal of Exposure 

Science and Environmental Epidemiology (2007) 17, 400–407; doi:10.1038/sj.jes.7500535; published online 18 October 2006. 4 Blount, et al.; Urinary Perchlorate and Thyroid Hormone Levels in Adolescent and Adult 

Men and Women Living in the United States; Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 114, 

Number 12, December 2006. 

drinking water standard for perchlorate within 18 months of the 

date of enactment. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

BACKGROUND

Perchlorate is a salt used to create flares, fireworks, and other 

items. It also occurs naturally in some areas, including in fertilizers imported from Chile. Once released into the environment, 

perchlorate can move through soil, into water, and then into food. 

People’s health may be harmed by exposure to perchlorate, through 

eating food or drinking water contaminated with this toxic substance. According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), certain exposure levels of perchlorate can affect ‘‘thyroid hormone production by inhibiting the uptake of iodine . . . .’’ 1 Also, according 

to the NAS: ‘‘Thyroid hormones are critical for normal growth and 

development of the central nervous system of fetuses and infants.’’ 

Vulnerable persons, including pregnant women, infants, and children are especially vulnerable to perchlorate’s impact on iodine uptake in the body. 

In 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found 395 

sites in 35 states with more than 4 parts per billion (ppb) of perchlorate. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) knows of 160 

drinking water systems, serving almost 17 million people in 26 

states, with perchlorate levels of at least 4 ppb. The State of California knows of perchlorate contamination in 274 active or standby 

water wells at levels of at least 4 ppb. 

In 2005, the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report found 

that low levels of perchlorate may pose health risks and recommended a safe level of exposure to perchlorate from all 

sources—contaminated drinking water and food.2

Since 2005, several studies show widespread perchlorate exposure. In October 2006, researchers at the federal Centers for Disease Control (CDC) found detectable levels of perchlorate in all 

urine samples taken during the 2001–2002 National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) of U.S. residents age six 

and older, with significantly higher levels found in children than 

in adults.3 In December 2006, researchers at the CDC published a 

follow-up study that showed that there was a ‘‘significant’’ relationship between the amount of urinary perchlorate and two different 

thyroid hormones in women. It was the first study to show a correlation.4

A 2007 study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of 

Sciences found that perchlorate concentrates in breast milk. A January 2008 broad study by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

found perchlorate in 74% of all foods tested, including baby food, 

and the study found: ‘‘Infants and children demonstrated the highest estimated intakes of perchlorate on a body weight basis.’’ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
3 

While science increasingly raises health concerns about perchlorate, EPA has not issued a drinking water standard for perchlorate and has ended monitoring requirements for perchlorate in 

drinking water, stating that the agency believed that it had adequate monitoring data. In February 2005, EPA issued perchlorate 

drinking water guidance of 24.5 parts per billion that failed to account for perchlorate exposures from food and water combined, and 

the guidance failed to lower levels of allowed exposure to account 

for childhood exposures or non-drinking water exposures. In August 2006, EPA issued perchlorate cleanup guidance, which EPA’s 

Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee stated ‘‘is not 

protective of children’s health.’’ 

In 2007, EPA decided not to begin the process to regulate perchlorate in public drinking water, and said it would review new scientific information and make a final determination at a later date. 

The Agency said that it expected to make an initial determination 

of whether to regulate perchlorate in drinking water in 2008. 

NEED FOR LEGISLATION

EPA has known about perchlorate’s health risks since before 

2002. Scientific studies since that time have demonstrated that 

perchlorate contamination of drinking water and food sources is 

widespread, and that current levels of exposure in some areas are 

sufficient to affect the hormone system of vulnerable persons. 

In the face of this scientific information, states have taken action, including California and Massachusetts, to create perchlorate 

drinking water standards; EPA has not taken action and has eliminated its perchlorate monitoring requirements. 

S. 150 will help to protect vulnerable persons, including pregnant 

women, infants, children, and others in our country from dangerous 

perchlorate exposures. It will also ensure that the public is fully informed about perchlorate exposures and the potential health effects 

from such exposures. These are common sense and long-overdue actions needed to protect public health. 

SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

The purpose of S. 150, the Protecting Pregnant Women and Children from Perchlorate Act of 2008, is to require a health advisory 

and national primary drinking water regulation for perchlorate. 

The bill would also require EPA to create a public health advisory 

for perchlorate that is fully protective, with an adequate margin of 

safety, of the health of vulnerable persons, including pregnant 

women, infants, and children, taking into consideration body 

weight, exposure patterns and all routes of exposure. 

S. 150 would also require the EPA to propose a national primary 

drinking water regulation for perchlorate within 9 months of the 

date of enactment of S. 150, and to finalize a national primary 

drinking water standard for perchlorate within 18 months of the 

date of enactment. The proposed and final standards must be protective, with an adequate margin of safety, of the health of vulnerable persons, including pregnant women, infants, and children, taking into consideration body weight, exposure patterns and all 

routes of exposure. The standard must establish a maximum contaminant level which is as close to the maximum contaminant goal 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
4 

for perchlorate, and as protective of vulnerable persons, as is feasible. Regulation of perchlorate under the Safe Drinking Water Act 

would also apply all of the Act’s other safeguards, including monitoring and public right-to-know protections, to drinking water supplies. 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

Section 1 establishes the short title of the Act as the ‘‘Protecting 

Pregnant Women and Children from Perchlorate Act of 2008’’. 

Section 2. Findings 

This section contains findings related to perchlorate contamination and health effects. 

Section 3. Monitoring and health advisory for perchlorate 

Section 3 amends section 1412 of the Safe Drinking Water Act 

by requiring EPA to create a health advisory and national primary 

drinking water regulation for perchlorate, a health advisory for 

perchlorate that is fully protective, with an adequate margin of 

safety, of the health of vulnerable persons, including pregnant 

women, infants, and children, taking into consideration body 

weight, exposure patterns and all routes of exposure. 

The section requires that EPA propose a national primary drinking water regulation for perchlorate within 9 months of the date of 

enactment of S. 150, and finalizes a national primary drinking 

water standard for perchlorate within 18 months of the date of enactment. 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND VOTES

VOTES

On July 31, 2008, the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works held a business meeting to consider Chairman Boxer’s 

amendment in the nature of a substitute to S. 150. The Committee 

favorably adopted the Boxer substitute by voice vote, with Senators 

Inhofe, Craig, and Alexander going on record as opposing passage 

of the bill. 

On May 6, 2008, the Committee held a legislative hearing titled, 

‘‘Perchlorate and TCE in Drinking Water’’. On April 29, 2008 the 

Committee held a hearing titled, ‘‘Oversight on EPA Toxic Chemicals Policies.’’ On February 6, 2007, the Committee held a hearing 

titled, ‘‘Oversight on Recent EPA Decisions,’’ at which perchlorate 

was discussed. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing 

Rules of the Senate, the committee notes that the Congressional 

Budget Office has found that it ‘‘cannot determine the nature or extent of possible regulations that would result from this bill, and 

consequently cannot determine whether the costs of the mandate 

in the bill would exceed the intergovernmental threshold established in UMRA. . . .’’ In addition, CBO found that ‘‘because most 

of the water systems owned by private entities are small, CBO estiVerDate Aug 31 2005 02:42 Sep 29, 2008 Jkt 069006 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR484.XXX SR484

rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
5 

mates that in any one year the costs to comply with the mandate 

would fall below the threshold established for private-sector entities ($136 million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation).’’ 

MANDATES ASSESSMENT

In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Public Law 104–4), the Committee notes that the Congressional 

Budget Office has said that it ‘‘cannot determine the nature or extent of possible regulations that would result from this bill and consequently cannot determine whether the costs of the mandate in 

the bill would exceed the intergovernmental threshold established 

in UMRA ($68 million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation). Because most of the water systems owned by private entities are 

small, CBO estimates that in any one year the costs to comply with 

the mandate would fall below the threshold established for privatesector entities ($136 million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation).’’ 

S. 150—Protecting Pregnant Women and Children from Perchlorate 

Act of 2008 

S. 150 would require the Environmental Protection Agency 

(EPA), no later than 90 days after the bill’s enactment, to issue a 

health advisory for perchlorate in drinking water that fully protects 

susceptible populations, including pregnant women, infants, and 

children. (Perchlorate is a chemical used in rocket fuel.) EPA also 

would be required under this legislation to establish a final regulation governing the amount of perchlorate that is permissible in 

drinking water. 

Based on information from EPA, CBO estimates that enacting S. 150 would cost about $4 million over the 2009–2011 period, subject 

to the availability of appropriations. That funding would be used 

to support about 10 additional personnel as well as contractor costs 

to meet the requirements of this legislation. 

Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

By requiring EPA to establish and enforce a drinking water regulation for perchlorate, S. 150 would impose an intergovernmental 

and private-sector mandate as defined in the Unfunded Mandates 

Reform Act (UMRA). The mandate would require operators of public water systems to monitor for the presence of perchlorate and to 

decrease its presence in water supplies. CBO cannot determine the 

nature or extent of possible regulations that would result from this 

bill and consequently cannot determine whether the costs of the 

mandate in the bill would exceed the intergovernmental threshold 

established in UMRA ($68 million in 2008, adjusted annually for 

inflation). Because most of the water systems owned by private entities are small, CBO estimates that in any one year the costs to 

comply with the mandate would fall below the threshold established for private-sector entities ($136 million in 2008, adjusted annually for inflation). 

The total cost of the intergovernmental mandate would depend 

on the level of perchlorate allowed by the regulation, which would 

affect the number of water systems that need to comply and the 

resulting monitoring and construction costs faced by operators of 

those systems. Over 40,000 public systems would be subject to new 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
6 

monitoring requirements once EPA establishes a regulation. Those 

monitoring costs could total about $5 million annually in the first 

three years the regulation would be effective, but those costs could 

decrease significantly in subsequent years. 

Total construction costs to install equipment or build new treatment facilities could be significant but would vary substantially depending on the number and size of water systems that would need 

to treat for perchlorate. Annual costs for construction also would 

depend on how long EPA allows for such activities. Based on discussions with industry sources and information from states and 

EPA officials, CBO expects that total construction costs could range 

from less than $30 million to more than $80 million annually over 

a 3–5-year period once the regulation is effective. The annual costs 

would depend in part on how long operators would be given to complete construction. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Susanne S. 

Mehlman (for federal costs), Burke Doherty (for the state and local 

impact), and Amy Petz (for the private-sector impact). This estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant Director 

for Budget Analysis. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
(7) 

MINORITY VIEWS 

Safe and affordable drinking water is a critical component for 

healthy and economically prosperous communities. The Safe Drinking Water Act is the legal authority for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to ensure that Americans continue to receive the 

safest water in the world for consumption and also adequately address new drinking water contaminants and concerns. The Safe 

Drinking Water Act provides significant opportunity for transparent scientific review and processes for regulatory determinations. S. 150, the Protecting Pregnant Women and Children from 

Perchlorate Act of 2007, disregards scientific review, critical drinking water act processes, and is misleading in the bill’s findings. For 

these reasons, we oppose this legislation. 

The bill’s findings are disingenuous and ignore several important 

facts. The findings strongly suggest the Department of Defense 

(DOD) and industry are responsible for any perchlorate found in 

water. Research by the Center for Disease Control (CDC) and others indicates that perchlorate is found as a naturally occurring substance and shows up in many areas around the country, even 

where there is no, and never has been, a DOD or industrial presence. Further, a recent collaborative effort in California found that 

100% of DOD sites pose ‘‘No Threat’’ to drinking water. 

Naturally occurring perchlorate has been found in large quantities in West Texas and from unknown sources in Hills, Iowa. Perchlorate doesn’t only appear in water, but is also commonly found 

in the food supply. A recent Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 

study found that when people with diets high in perchlorate were 

tested, the sensitive subpopulations were below the reference dose 

established by the National Academies of Science (NAS). The study 

included sampling populations that had high levels of perchlorate 

in their drinking water. 

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) knows of 160 drinking water systems in 26 states with perchlorate levels of at least 

4 ppb. EPA states: ‘‘There are approximately 156,000 public drinking water systems,’’ and ‘‘perchlorate was detected at levels above 

the minimum reporting level of 4 parts per billion (ppb) in approximately 2 percent of the more than 34,000 samples analyzed.’’ Those 

numbers are very similar to the findings in a 2005 GAO report. 

The findings dismiss the National Academy of Sciences’ recommended daily dosage of perchlorate. The NAS reference dose of 

24.5 parts per billion (ppb) is fully protective of the most sensitive 

subpopulations and is very conservative as it uses a precursor to 

an adverse health effect as a jumping off point. In 2005, a panel 

of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) concluded that perchlorate caused no observable health effects, adverse or otherwise, 

at levels as high as 0.007 mg/kg/day, equivalent to drinking water 

levels of 245 parts per billion (ppb). To ensure an adequate margin 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
8 

of safety for even potentially vulnerable subpopulations (e.g., pregnant and nursing mothers and their children) the NAS panel applied a ten-fold safety factor, resulting in a perchlorate Reference 

Dose of 0.0007 mg/kg/day, equivalent to a drinking water level of 

24.5 ppb. 

The CDC does not suggest that people in the United States are 

suffering health consequences at doses lower than the current EPA 

reference dose of 24.5 ppb. The underlying bill’s findings do not 

take into account new and ongoing studies of perchlorate. Additional work is needed to determine whether some unknown factor 

associated with perchlorate exposure might be the cause of the observed changes in thyroid function. In addition, the EPA’s Children’s Health Protection Advisory Committee’s (CHPAC) August 

2006 statement referenced in the committee report is not fully inclusive of all current scientific findings available. For instance, the 

CHPAC statement was unable to consider the 2007 findings of a 

study that measured perchlorate and iodine levels in the milk of 

57 lactating Boston-area women. No correlation was found between 

breast milk perchlorate and iodine levels. Additionally, the lack of 

correlation between breast milk perchlorate and iodine levels seemingly corroborates the Chilean findings which were unfortunately 

discounted in the CHPAC letter. 

According to Jonathan Borak (MD, FACP, FACOEM) Clinical 

Professor of Epidemiology and Public Health at Yale School of Medicine, ‘‘The ongoing public debate about environmental perchlorate 

exposure has led to misstatements and misinterpretations of the 

relevant scientific findings. The current state of knowledge should 

be clear. There is no evidence of excessive perchlorate in the U.S. 

diet and little likelihood that routine perchlorate ingestion would 

exceed the EPA and NAS Reference Dose. There is no evidence 

that perchlorate is a human carcinogen. There is evidence that the 

U.S. diet contains sufficient iodine, and sufficient iodine intake is 

protective against effects that might result from perchlorate excess.’’ 

The Environmental Protection Agency has the legal authority to 

regulate perchlorate in public water systems if ‘‘ . . . the contaminant may have an adverse effect on the health of persons; the contaminant is known to occur or there is a substantial likelihood that 

the contaminant will occur in public water systems with a frequency and at levels of public health concern; and in the sole judgment of the Administrator, regulation of such contaminant presents 

a meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction for persons 

served by public water systems [Section 1412(b)(1)(A)(i)–(iii) of the 

Safe Drinking Water Act].’’ Currently, EPA is weighing the various 

scientific studies that have been released as late as January of this 

year in accordance with the Safe Drinking Water Act requirements 

to determine whether regulating perchlorate in drinking water is 

warranted. Congress should not undermine the sanctity of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act by politicizing and predetermining outcomes 

prior to the completion of the scientific review process. The Safe 

Drinking Water Act procedures were enacted to discontinue this 

type of Congressional intervention and require EPA to base rules 

and regulations on science, not individual members’ political gains. 

LARRY E. CRAIG. 

JAMES M. INHOFE. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
(9) 

CHANGES IN EXISTING LAW

In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules 

of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill as reported 

are shown as follows: Existing law proposed to be omitted is enclosed in øblack brackets¿, new matter is printed in italic, existing 

law in which no change is proposed is shown in roman: 

* * * * * * * 

SAFETY OF PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS (SAFE DRINKING 

WATER ACT) 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1400. This title may be cited as the ‘‘Safe Drinking Water 

Act’’. 

* * * * * * * 

SEC. 1412. (a)(1) Effective on the enactment of the Safe Drinking 

Water Act Amendments of 1986, each national interim or revised 

primary drinking water regulation promulgated under this section 

before such enactment shall be deemed to be a national primary 

drinking water regulation under subsection (b). No such regulation 

shall be required to comply with the standards set forth in subsection (b)(4) unless such regulation is amended to establish a different maximum contaminant level after the enactment of such 

amendments. 

(2) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(b) STANDARDS.— 

(1) IDENTIFICATION OF CONTAMINANTS FOR LISTING.— 

(A) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(12) CERTAIN CONTAMINANTS.— 

(A) ARSENIC.— 

(i) SCHEDULE AND STANDARD.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) PERCHLORATE.— 

(i) HEALTH ADVISORY.—Notwithstanding any other 

provision of this section, not later than 90 days after 

the date of enactment of this subparagraph, the Administrator shall publish a health advisory for perchlorate that is fully protective, with an adequate margin of safety, of the health of vulnerable persons (including pregnant women, infants, and children), taking into consideration body weight, exposure patterns, 

and all routes of exposure. 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING
10 

(ii) PROPOSED REGULATIONS.—Notwithstanding any 

other provision of this section, the Administrator shall 

propose (within 9 months of the date of enactment of 

this subparagraph) and shall finalize (within 18 

months of the date of enactment) a national primary 

drinking water regulation for perchlorate— 

(I) that based on the factors in clause (i) and 

other relevant data, is protective, with an adequate 

margin of safety, of vulnerable persons (including 

pregnant women, infants, and children); and 

(II) the maximum contaminant level of which is 

as close to the maximum contaminant level goal 

for perchlorate, and as protective of vulnerable persons, as is feasible. 

* * * * * * 

* 

Æ 


rfrederick on PROD1PC67 with HEARING