69–010 

Calendar No. 1054 

110TH CONGRESS REPORT " ! SENATE 2d Session 110–483 

PERCHLORATE MONITORING AND RIGHT-TO-KNOW ACT 

OF 2008 

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

Mrs. BOXER, from the Committee on Environment and Public 

Works, submitted the following 

R E P O R T 

together with 

MINORITY VIEWS 

[To accompany S. 24] 

[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office] 

The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which was 

referred the bill (S. 24) to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to 

require a health advisory and monitoring of drinking water for perchlorate, reports favorably thereon with an amendment and recommends the bill (as amended) do pass. 

PURPOSE AND SUMMARY OF THE LEGISLATION

The purpose of S. 24, the Perchlorate Monitoring and Public 

Right-To-Know Act of 2008 is to require monitoring, a health advisory, and public right-to-know for perchlorate in drinking water. 

The bill would require large public water system to monitor for the 

presence of perchlorate in drinking water. It would also require 

consumer confidence reports required under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act to include a disclosure of any perchlorate in drinking 

water at the level of detection. The bill would require such report 

to also include a discussion of the health impacts of perchlorate on 

vulnerable persons, including pregnant women, infants, and children. The bill would also require EPA to create a public health advisory for perchlorate that is fully protective, with an adequate 

margin of safety, of the health of vulnerable persons, including 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
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. 

pregnant women, infants, and children, taking into consideration 

body weight, exposure patterns and all routes of exposure. 

BACKGROUND AND NEED FOR THE LEGISLATION

BACKGROUND

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

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

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

Peoples’ health may be harmed by exposure to perchlorate, through 

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

the NAS: ‘‘Thyroid hormones are critical for normal growth and development of the central nervous system of fetuses and infants.’’ 

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

In 2005 the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found 395 

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

serving almost 17 million people in 26 states with perchlorate levels of at least 4 ppb. The State of California knows of perchlorate 

contamination in 274 active or standby water wells at levels of at 

least 4 ppb. 

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

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

sources—contaminated drinking water and food.2

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.’’ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
3 

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

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

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

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

the guidance failed to lower levels of allowed exposure to account 

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

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

protective of children’s health.’’ 

In 2007, EPA decided not to begin the process to regulate perchlorate in public drinking water, and said that in the future it 

would continue to evaluate new scientific information and make a 

final determination at a later date. EPA also ended drinking water 

monitoring requirements for perchlorate, stating that the agency 

believed that it had adequate monitoring data. The Agency said 

that it expected to make an initial determination of whether to regulate perchlorate in drinking water in 2008. 

NEED FOR LEGISLATION

EPA has known about perchlorate’s health risks since before 

2002. Scientific studies since that time have demonstrated that 

perchlorate contamination of drinking water and food sources is 

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

sufficient to affect the hormone system of vulnerable persons. 

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

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

S. 24 will help to ensure that the public is informed about perchlorate exposures from drinking water and the potential health effects from such exposures. 

SUMMARY OF MAJOR PROVISIONS OF THE BILL

S. 24, the Perchlorate Monitoring and Public Right-To-Know Act 

of 2008 would require EPA to create a public health advisory for 

perchlorate that is fully protective, with an adequate margin of 

safety, of the health of vulnerable persons, including pregnant 

women, infants, and children, taking into consideration body 

weight, exposure patterns and all routes of exposure. 

The bill would require large public water system to monitoring 

for the presence of perchlorate in drinking water. S. 24 would also 

ensure the public is fully informed about perchlorate in their drinking water supplies by requiring consumer confidence reports issued 

under the federal safe Drinking Water Act to include a disclosure 

of any perchlorate in drinking water at the level of detection. The 

bill would also require such report to also include a discussion of 

the health impacts of perchlorate on vulnerable persons, including 

pregnant women, infants, and children. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
4 

SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

Section 1. Short title 

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

Monitoring and Right-to-know Act of 2008’’. 

Section 2. Findings 

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

Section 3. Monitoring and health advisory for perchlorate 

Section 3 amends section 1412 of the Safe Drinking Water Act 

by requiring EPA to create a health advisory for perchlorate that 

is fully protective, with an adequate margin of safety, of the health 

of vulnerable persons, including pregnant women, infants, and children, taking into consideration body weight, exposure patterns and 

all routes of exposure. This section would also require large public 

water systems to monitor for perchlorate in their drinking water 

and would require sampling of a subset small water systems for 

perchlorate. 

This section would require consumer confidence reports issued 

under the federal safe Drinking Water Act to include a disclosure 

of any perchlorate in drinking water at the level of detection. The 

bill would also require such report to also include a discussion of 

the health impacts of perchlorate on vulnerable persons, including 

pregnant women, infants, and children. 

The section also clarifies that perchlorate is not one of the three 

regulated contaminants described in clause (vi) of section 

1414(c)(4)(B). 

LEGISLATIVE HISTORY AND VOTES

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

Works held a business meeting to consider S. 24, among other 

pieces of legislation. The Committee on Environment and Public 

Works considered Chairman Boxer’s amendment in the nature of 

a substitute to S. 24. The Committee favorably adopted the bill by 

a voice vote, with Senators Inhofe and Alexander both going on 

record as opposing passage of the bill. 

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

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

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

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

was discussed. 

ROLLCALL VOTES

S. 24 passed the Committee by voice vote on July 31, 2008, with 

Senators Inhofe, Alexander, and Craig recorded as voting No. 

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

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

Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes evaluation of the regulatory impact of the reported bill. Based on information from EPA, 

CBO estimates that the total cost to regulated entities for moniVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:05 Sep 27, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00004 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR483.XXX SR483

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
5 

toring drinking water and disclosing results would be about $1 million annually, and that the bill authorizes funding to help cover 

many of these costs. 

MANDATES ASSESSMENT

In compliance with the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 

(Pub. L. 104–4), the Committee finds that, in accordance with CBO 

estimates, the total cost of the requirements to monitor drinking 

water and disclose results would be about $1 million annually, 

which would fall well below the annual thresholds established in 

UMRA for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates ($68 

million and $136 million in 2008, respectively, adjusted annually 

for inflation). In addition, the bill would authorize EPA to provide 

funding to help cover small system costs. 

AUGUST 28, 2008. 

Hon. BARBARA BOXER, 

Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works, 

U.S. Senate, Washington, DC. 

DEAR MADAM CHAIRMAN: The Congressional Budget Office has 

prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 24, the Perchlorate Monitoring and Right-to-Know Act of 2008. 

If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be pleased 

to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Susanne S. Mehlman. 

Sincerely, 

PETER R. ORSZAG. 

Enclosure. 

S. 24—Perchlorate Monitoring and Right-to-Know Act of 2008 

S. 24 would require the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 

no later than 90 days after the bill’s enactment, to issue a health 

advisory for perchlorate in drinking water that fully protects susceptible populations, including pregnant women, infants, and children, taking into consideration body weight, exposure patterns, and 

all routes of exposure. (Perchlorate is a chemical used in rocket 

fuel.) EPA also would be required to establish a final regulation requiring drinking water to be monitored for the presence of perchlorate. Finally, this legislation would require that consumer confidence reports currently issued by public water suppliers include 

information on the presence of perchlorate in their drinking water 

and its potential health effects. 

Based on information from EPA, CBO estimates that imple- menting S. 24 would cost about $3 million over the 2009–2011 period, subject to the availability of appropriated funds. That funding 

would be used to support five additional personnel as well as contractor costs needed to meet the requirements of this legislation. 

Enacting the legislation would not affect direct spending or revenues. 

By requiring public water systems serving more than 10,000 individuals and a representative sample of smaller public water systems to monitor for perchlorate, S. 24 would impose intergovernmental and private-sector mandates, as defined in the Unfunded 

Mandates Reform Act (UMRA). The bill also would require those 

systems to disclose in their consumer confidence reports the presence of perchlorate in drinking water and its health risks to vulnerVerDate Aug 31 2005 06:05 Sep 27, 2008 Jkt 069010 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6659 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\SR483.XXX SR483

wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
6 

able populations. Based on information from EPA, CBO estimates 

that the total cost of the mandates would be about $1 million annually, which would fall well below the annual thresholds established 

in UMRA for intergovernmental and private-sector mandates ($68 

million and $136 million in 2008, respectively, adjusted annually 

for inflation). In addition, the bill would authorize EPA to provide 

funding to small systems to cover those costs. 

The CBO staff contacts for this estimate are Susanne S. 

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

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

for Budget Analysis. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(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 Centers for Disease Control (CDC) and others indicates that perchlorate is found as a naturally occurring substance and shows up in many areas around the country, even 

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

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

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

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

study found that when people with diets high in perchlorate were 

tested, the sensitive subpopulations were below the reference dose 

established by the National Academy of Sciences (NAS). The study 

included sampling populations that had high levels of perchlorate 

in their drinking water. 

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

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

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

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

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

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

subpopulations and is very conservative as it uses a precursor to 

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

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

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

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


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
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 currently possesses the 

authorities to publish health advisories and/or require monitoring 

of public water systems for perchlorate if the agency determines 

the science justifies such action. Currently, EPA is weighing the 

various scientific studies in accordance with the Safe Drinking 

Water Act to determine whether a health advisory or further monitoring and reporting are warranted. We do not believe Congress 

should undermine the sanctity of the Safe Drinking Water Act 

process by politicizing the outcome of whether rules and regulations are warranted without allowing an agency to adequately reflect on the best available science. Safe Drinking Water Act procedures were enacted to discontinue this type of Congressional intervention and to base rules and regulations on science, not political 

gains. 

LARRY E. CRAIG. 

JIM INHOFE. 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
(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) 

* * * * * * * 

SHORT TITLE

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

Act’’. 

PART A—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

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

Water Act Amendments of 1986, each national interim or revised 

primary drinking water regulation promulgated under this section 

before such enactment shall be deemed to be a national primary 

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

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

amendments. 

(2) * * * 

* * * * * * * 

(b) STANDARDS.— (1) IDENTIFICATION OF CONTAMINANTS FOR LISTING.— (A) GENERAL AUTHORITY.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(12) CERTAIN CONTAMINANTS.— 

(A) ARSENIC.— 

(i) SCHEDULE AND STANDARD.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(B) SULFATE.— 

(i) ADDITIONAL STUDY.—* * * 

* * * * * * * 

(C) PERCHLORATE.— 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS
10 

(i) HEALTH ADVISORY.—Notwithstanding any other 

provision of this section, not later than 90 days after 

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

and all routes of exposure. 

(ii) MONITORING REGULATIONS.— 

(I) IN GENERAL.—The Administrator shall propose (not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this subparagraph) and promulgate (not 

later than 120 days after the date of enactment of 

this subparagraph) a final regulation pursuant to 

section 1445(a)(2) requiring— 

(aa) each public water system serving more 

than 10,000 individuals to monitor for perchlorate beginning not later than 180 days 

after the date of enactment of this subparagraph; and 

(bb) the collection of a representative sample 

of public water systems serving 10,000 individuals or fewer to monitor for perchlorate in 

accordance with section 1445(a)(2). 

(II) DURATION.—The regulation shall be in effect 

until monitoring for perchlorate is required under 

a national primary drinking water regulation for 

perchlorate. 

(iii) CONSUMER CONFIDENCE REPORTS.— 

(I) IN GENERAL.—Subject to subclause (II), by 

regulation promulgated simultaneously with the 

promulgation of the final regulation under clause 

(ii), the Administrator shall require that each consumer confidence report issued under section 

1414(c)(4) shall disclose the presence of any perchlorate in drinking water, and the potential 

health risks of exposure to perchlorate in drinking 

water to vulnerable persons (including pregnant 

women, infants, and children), consistent with regulations promulgated by the Administrator. 

(II) EXCEPTION.—Notwithstanding subclause (I), 

perchlorate shall not be considered to be 1 of the 

3 regulated contaminants described in the matter 

following clause (vi) of section 1414(c)(4)(B). 

* * * * * * * 

Æ 


wwoods2 on PRODPC68 with REPORTS