Polar Bear Listed As A Threatened Species

May 14: Secretary of the Interior Dirk Kempthorne announced that he was accepting the recommendation of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Director Dale Hall to list the polar bear as a threatened species under the Endangered Species Act (ESA). The listing is based on the best available science, which shows that loss of sea ice threatens and will likely continue to threaten polar bear habitat. This loss of habitat puts polar bears at risk of becoming endangered in the foreseeable future, the standard established by the ESA for designating a threatened species.

On March 10, the Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC), the Center for Biological Diversity and Greenpeace sued the Bush administration for missing the legal deadline to issue a final decision on whether to list the polar bear under the Endangered Species Act due to global warming [See WIMS 3/10/08]. On April 29, a Federal judge found the Bush administration guilty of violating ESA and ordered the administration to issue a final listing decision for the polar bear by May 15, 2008 [See WIMS 5/1/08].

In making the announcement, Kempthorne said, "I am also announcing that this listing decision will be accompanied by administrative guidance and a rule that defines the scope of impact my decision will have, in order to protect the polar bear while limiting the unintended harm to the society and economy of the United States." Kempthorne further stated, "While the legal standards under the ESA compel me to list the polar bear as threatened, I want to make clear that this listing will not stop global climate change or prevent any sea ice from melting. Any real solution requires action by all major economies for it to be effective. That is why I am taking administrative and regulatory action to make certain the ESA isn't abused to make global warming policies."

In January 2007, the Fish and Wildlife Service proposed listing the polar bear as threatened throughout its range based on receding sea ice. Last year, Arctic sea ice fell to the lowest level ever recorded by satellite, 39 percent below the long-term average from 1979 to 2000. The amount of sea ice loss in years 2002-2007 exceeded all previous record lows. USGS models project declines in September sea ice of more than 30 percent by the middle of the 21st century. Four of the 10 models project declines in September sea ice in excess of 80 percent by the mid -21st century. Seven of the 10 models show a 97 percent loss in September sea ice by the end of the 21st century. Based on actual observations of trends in sea ice over the past three decades, these models may actually understate the extent and change rate of projected sea ice loss.

In making the decision to list the polar bear as a threatened species, Kempthorne also announced he was using the authority provided in Section 4(d) of the ESA to develop a rule that states that if an activity is permissible under the stricter standards imposed by the marine Mammal Protection Act, it is also permissible under the Endangered Species Act with respect to the polar bear. This rule, effective immediately, will ensure the protection of the bear while allowing us to continue to develop our natural resources in the arctic region in an environmentally sound way. The conservation measures provide that the production, interstate sale, and export of native handicrafts by Alaska natives may continue and that the subsistence harvest of polar bears is not affected.

Secretary Kempthorne reiterated President Bush's statement last month that the ESA was never intended to regulate global climate change. He said, "Listing the polar bear as threatened can reduce avoidable losses of polar bears. But it should not open the door to use of the ESA to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from automobiles, power plants, and other sources. That would be a wholly inappropriate use of the ESA law. The ESA is not the right tool to set U.S. climate policy." Last month President Bush said, "The Clean Air Act, the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act were never meant to regulate global climate change." [See WIMS 4/28/08]

Kempthorne acknowledged Canada has not listed polar bears as threatened even though they have two-thirds of the world's population of the species. "Last week, I went to Canada and explored this issue. The Canadian law is different from U.S. law with respect to endangered species, both in its criteria for listing and administrative process for making listing determinations." While in Canada, Kempthorne signed a Memorandum of Understanding with his Canadian counterpart, John Baird, the minister of environment, for the conservation and management of polar bear populations shared by the U.S. and Canada.

Kempthorne indicated that to make sure the ESA is not misused to regulate global climate change, Kempthorne promised the following actions: The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is proposing the 4(d) rule mentioned above. Director Hall will issue guidance to staff that the best scientific data available today cannot make a causal connection between harm to listed species or their habitats and greenhouse gas emissions from a specific facility, or resource development project or government action. The Department will issue a Solicitor's Opinion further clarifying these points. The Department will propose common sense modifications to the existing ESA regulatory language to prevent abuse of this listing to erect a back-door climate policy outside our normal system of political accountability.

Additionally, the Department will continue to: monitor polar bear populations and trends, study polar bear feeding ecology, work cooperatively with the Alaska Nanuuq Commission and the North Slope Borough for co-management of the polar bears in Alaska, provide technical assistance to the participants of the 1988 North Slope Borough Inuvialuit Game Council Agreement for the conservation of polar bears in the Southern Beaufort Sea region and monitor the effects of oil and gas operations in the Beaufort Sea region.

Earthjustice issued a release saying it welcomed protection for polar bears under ESA, but called on the government to put the brakes on oil and gas activities in polar bear habitat. The public interest law firm indicated, "The Bush administration announced that polar bears would be listed as 'threatened' under the Endangered Species Act. The administration, however, is employing a loophole called a 4(d) rule that appears calculated to limit protection for the ice bears and their shrinking sea-ice habitat in areas where oil and gas development is planned or proceeding. Essentially the administration has signaled that it will extend the bears no greater protection from oil and gas development than they previously had under the Marine Mammal Protection Act."

Access a lengthy release from Fish and Wildlife Service (click here). Access the Final Rule Determination of Threatened Status for the Polar Bear (click here). Access the Special Section 4(d) Interim Final Rule (click here). Access the DOI Polar Bear Conservation and Management website (click here). Access a release from Earthjustice (click here). Access a release from the Center for Biological Diversity one of the original petitioners for the ESA listing (click here). [*Wildlife]

Water Supply Challenges For The 21st Century

May 14: The House Science & Technology Committee, Chaired by Representative Bart Gordon (D-TN) held a hearing on Water Supply Challenges for the 21st Century. Witnesses included representatives of the Water Policy Program, University of California-Santa Barbara, Bren School of Environmental Science and Management; National Research Council Water Science and Technology Board; the Institute for the Study of Planet Earth, Professor of Geosciences and Atmospheric Sciences, University of Arizona; JPMorgan Chase, US Corporate Research; and the U.S. National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS) & the NOAA Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research Climate Program Office.

In an opening statement, Representative Gordon said, "The recent droughts experienced in the west and the southeast and increased competition for water supplies suggest that we must take a closer look at how we are managing our water resources. Thirty-six states expect to experience significant water shortages by 2013. Population growth, increased per capita water use, degraded water quality, and climate change have all impacted our available supplies of water. In my district, water sources have dried up and wells have run dry, and towns have been forced to implement water restrictions to deal with decreased supply. According to the Tennessee Valley Authority, the first eight months of 2007 were the driest in the last 118 years of Tennessee history.

"When severe water shortages occur, the economic impact is substantial. In 2007, the Tennessee Valley Authority was forced to shut down a nuclear reactor due to a lack of acceptable cooling water in the Tennessee River. According to a 2000 report from NOAA, each of the eight water shortages over the past 20 years from drought or heat waves resulted in $1 billion or more in monetary losses. A recent report by JP Morgan indicated that a single production interruption at a semiconductor plant could cost $200 million in lost revenue. I believe with investment in research and development, public education and better information on the status of our water supplies we can avoid the high costs, social disruption, and environmental damage associated with water shortages."

Testimony from the Bren School indicated that, "Climate models consistently indicate a warmer future for the U.S. West. Evidence of warming trends is already being seen in winter temperatures in the Sierra Nevada, which rose by almost 2 degrees Celsius (4 degrees Fahrenheit) during the second half of the 20th century. Trends toward earlier snowmelt and runoff to the Sacramento–San Joaquin Delta over the same period have also been detected. Water managers are particularly concerned with the mid-range elevation levels where snow shifts to rain under warmer conditions, thereby reducing snow-water storage. California’s Department of Water Resources, along with the California Energy Commission, has been tracking the climate change science since the 1980s." Arizona State University also testified on what it called, "One of the chief potential challenges to ensuring a reliable water supply will be climate variability and climate change."

NOAA also testified on the impacts of climate change and drought and said, "Adaptive capacity to manage climate changes can be increased by introducing adaptation measures into development planning and operations (sometimes termed ‘mainstreaming’). This can be achieved by including adaptation measures in land-use planning and infrastructure design, or by including measures to reduce vulnerability in existing disaster preparedness program (such as introducing drought warning systems based on actual management needs). Major barriers to implementing adaptive management measures are adaptation itself is not yet a high priority, and that the validity of local manifestations of global climate change remains in question."

JPMorgan testified that, ". . .investors are much less concerned about water supply risks than they should be. We recently published a report contending that water-supply risks are far more important to many companies than investors believe. We also found that very few companies seem fully aware of these risks. While many companies now produce public relations brochures that tell how they are reducing water use per unit of production, almost none of these companies thoroughly assesses what we call its water “footprint,” the total usage of water in the production and consumption of its product. Investors have no way of evaluating the risk of business disruption due to water scarcity, or of comparing risks among companies."

JPMorgan also said, " I know there is a great deal of talk on Capitol Hill about federal loans or loan guarantees for new-generation nuclear plants and for coal plants with carbon capture and sequestration. Both of these technologies require very large amounts of water. I think it is important that the social cost of those large water withdrawals be reflected in the prices users pay for electricity from those plants. It’s simply bad policy for the government to be subsidizing water usage. . ."

The National Research Council testified that, ". . . problems are especially pronounced in the West and in the Southeast. Both these areas are sites of rapidly-growing populations and have been affected by climate variability, drought, and a tightening water supply picture as multiple and new users vie for changes to more traditional allocation rules and patterns. Lasting solutions to these challenges of water supply and demand balances, as well as water quality, will require creative, science-based, and economically feasible strategies. . ."

Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, a webcast and related information (click here). [*Water, *Climate]

DOE Report: 20 Percent Wind Energy By 2030

May 12: The U.S Department of Energy (DOE) released a first-of-its kind report that examines the technical feasibility of harnessing wind power to provide up to 20 percent of the nation’s total electricity needs by 2030. Entitled, 20 Percent Wind Energy by 2030, the report identifies requirements to achieve this goal including reducing the cost of wind technologies, citing new transmission infrastructure, and enhancing domestic manufacturing capability. Most notably, the report identifies opportunities for 7.6 cumulative gigatons of CO2 to be avoided by 2030, saving 825 million metric tons in 2030 and every year thereafter if wind energy achieves 20 percent of the nation’s electricity mix.

DOE Assistant Secretary of Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy for the U.S. Department of Energy Andy Karsner said, “DOE’s wind report is a thorough look at America’s wind resource, its industrial capabilities, and future energy prices, and confirms the viability and commercial maturity of wind as a major contributor to America’s energy needs, now and in the future. To dramatically reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance our energy security, clean power generation at the gigawatt-scale will be necessary, and will require us to take a comprehensive approach to scaling renewable wind power, streamlining siting and permitting processes, and expanding the domestic wind manufacturing base.”

Prepared by DOE and a broad cross section of stakeholders across industry, government, and three of DOE’s national laboratories, the report presents an in-depth analysis of the potential for wind in the U.S. and outlines a potential scenario to boost wind electric generation from its current production of 16.8 gigawatts (GW) to 304 GW by 2030. For its technical report, DOE also drew on the expertise of the American Wind Energy Association and Black and Veatch engineering consultants and the report reflects input from more than fifty energy organizations and corporations.

With the U.S. leading the world in new wind installations and having the potential to be the world leader in total wind capacity by 2010, DOE’s report comes at an important time in wind development. Last year, U.S. cumulative wind energy capacity reached 16,818 megawatts (MW) -- with more than 5,000 MW of wind installed in 2007. Wind contributed to more than 30 percent of the new U.S. generation capacity in 2007, making it the second largest source of new power generation in the nation -- surpassed only by natural gas. The U.S. wind energy industry invested approximately $9 billion in new generating capacity in 2007, and has experienced a 30 percent annual growth rate in the last 5 years.

Access a DOE release (click here). Access the complete 248-page report (click here). Access links to additional wind energy documents and information from DOE (click here). [*Energy]

President Will Veto House-Senate Farm Bill Compromise

May 8: Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Agriculture, Nutrition and Forestry and of the Senate-House conference committee on the new farm bill, announced a final farm bill conference agreement with principal negotiators at a press conference on Capitol Hill [See WIMS 4/29/08]. He said the agreement will lead to a formal conference report, which will then be passed by the Senate and House before being sent to the White House.

Immediately Secretary of Agriculture Ed Schafer issued a statement saying, "Today, the United States House and Senate announced the completion of a farm bill that unfortunately fails to include much needed reform and increases spending by nearly $20 billion. At a time of record farm income, Congress decided to further increase farm subsidy rates, qualify more people for taxpayer support, and move programs toward more government control. We should not remove farm commodities from market forces and make them dependent upon government support programs. . . For a year and a half, the Administration has been consistently clear that Congress needs to move forward with a good farm bill that the President can sign. They have failed to do so. This legislation lacks meaningful farm program reform and expands the size and scope of government. I have visited face to face with our President and he was direct and plain. The President will veto this bill."

In announcing the compromise bill, Senator Harkin said, “This is a strong, bipartisan farm bill that benefits every American from Cumming, Iowa, population 162 to New York City, population 8 million. The bill provides a strong safety net, so it’s good for our farmers and producers. Consumers will like it because it will increase farmers’ markets and ensure a safe, dependable supply of high quality food. For low-income Americans, it ensures nutrition needs are met and for school children, increases their access to fresh fruits and vegetables. And as production increases, the farm bill will ensure our precious natural resources are protected. . .

“To meet soaring worldwide demand for food and energy crops, millions of new acres of land are being brought into production, including environmentally fragile land. To address this challenge, we authorize nearly $4.4 billion in additional funds for the Environmental Quality Incentives Program and the Conservation Stewardship Program over the next 10 years. With this support, the Conservation Stewardship Program will enroll nearly 13 million acres each year. . . All-time high gasoline prices are wreaking havoc with family budgets, but, without the inputs of biofuels, prices at the pump would be as much as 50 cents higher. The new farm bill will dramatically ramp up the agricultural sector’s capacity to produce clean renewable energy. Significantly, it provides more than $1 billion to expand the supply of biofuels made from biomass and crop byproducts other than grain. The bill also provides new support to farmers who grow energy crops, and to entrepreneurs who build refineries to convert biomass into fuel.”

Harkin issued a separate statement on the President's announced veto plans saying, "Like any compromise bill resulting from hard bargaining among regional and other interests, this farm bill is far from perfect. But no piece of legislation is. It includes significant reforms, as well as these major advances. It deserves the President’s signature. Inexplicably, the White House seems intent on destroying the harvest just as the seeds are being planted."

Environmental Defense Fund (EDF), an active participant in the Farm Bill issue, said the compromise bill was a "mixed bag." They said, "The good news is that conference committee members recognized the need to boost conservation funding at a time when very high commodity prices are increasing pressure on our land, water, and important wildlife habitat. The bad news is that this new funding falls short of what’s needed to provide farmers, ranchers, and private forest landowners with the resources they need to help us solve some of the nation’s biggest environmental problems.” EDF also criticized the House-Senate conference committee for increasing, rather than decreasing, farm subsidies.

Access a release from Senator Harkin and link to a 12-page summary of the compromise bill (click here). Access the Senate Farm Bill Conference website (click here). Access Harkin's statement on the President's announced veto (click here). Access the House Farm Bill website including links to audio and video of the press conference (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2419 (click here). Access a May 8 release from USDA (click here). Access an audio (click here) and transcript of a May 9 USDA press conference on the bill (click here). Access the USDA Farm Bill website (click here). Access a release from EDF (click here). [*All, *Agriculture]

U.S. Consumers Score Lowest On Geographic Society Greendex

May 7: The National Geographic Society (NGS) and the international polling firm GlobeScan unveiled a new mechanism for measuring and comparing individual consumer behavior as it relates to the environment. "Greendex™ 2008: Consumer Choice and the Environment -- A Worldwide Tracking Survey" looks at environmentally sustainable consumption and behavior among consumers in 14 countries. NGS said this first-of-its-kind study reveals surprising differences between consumers in developed and developing countries in terms of environmentally friendly actions. This year's results are a baseline against which results of future annual surveys will be compared, in order to monitor improvements or declines in environmentally sustainable consumption at both the global level and within countries.

The Greendex survey was conducted online earlier this year among 14,000 consumers in Australia, Brazil, Canada, China, France, Germany, Great Britain, Hungary, India, Japan, Mexico, Russia, Spain and the United States. A panel of 27 international experts in global sustainability helped identify which consumer behaviors were most crucial to investigate. One thousand people in each country answered questions that measured their behavior in the areas of housing, transportation, food and consumption of goods; each respondent earned a score that reflected the environmental impact of his or her consumption patterns, which included size and energy-efficiency of residence, commuting mode and distance and use of fresh water, among dozens of other measures. Consumers were then assigned a Greendex score (a measure of the relative environmental sustainability of their consumption patterns) out of 100. Consumers in Brazil and India scored highest; U.S. consumers scored lowest.

NGS said that unlike other measures that rank countries according to the environmental performance of their governments, businesses and other factors, the Greendex is the first to rank the performance of individual consumers, rather than countries as a whole. The results are strikingly different from existing performance rankings like the Environmental Performance Index [See WIMS 1/23/08], the Environmental Sustainability Index or Ecological Footprint.

Terry Garcia, NGS's executive vice president of Mission Programs said, "The Greendex gives us an unprecedented, meaningful look at how consumers across the globe are behaving. It will allow us over time to assess the progress that people are making to conserve, minimize waste and protect natural resources for the future. Consumers who score highest have a responsibility to maintain their behavior and provide an example to those who need to improve. We hope the study inspires all consumers, particularly those in countries where consumers scored lowest, to adopt the best behaviors of those who scored well, and that consumers in countries with expanding economies, who may consume more in the future, will do so responsibly."

The findings show that consumers in Brazil and India tie for the highest Greendex score for environmentally sustainable consumption at 60 points each. They are followed by consumers in China (56.1), Mexico (54.3), Hungary (53.2) and Russia (52.4). Among consumers in wealthy countries, those in Great Britain, Germany and Australia each have a Greendex score of 50.2, those in Spain register a score of 50.0 and Japanese respondents, 49.1. U.S. consumers have the lowest Greendex score at 44.9. The other lowest-scoring consumers are Canadians with 48.5 and the French with 48.7.

Access a lengthy release with links to individual country profiles (click here). Access backgrounders, fact sheets and related release on the Greendex (click here). Access the Greendex website for additional information and links to calculate your personal Greendex score (click here). [*All]

Senate Hearing On Science and Environmental Regulatory Decisions

May 7: The Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Subcommittee on Public Sector Solutions to Global Warming, Oversight, and Children’s Health Protection held a hearing on "Science and Environmental Regulatory Decisions." Full committee Chair, Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), serves as Chair of the Subcommittee. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: George Gray, PhD., U.S. EPA Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development and representatives of the Union of Concerned Scientists; Covanta Energy Corporation; George Washington University; New York University School of Medicine, Nelson Institute of Environmental Medicine; a Private Advisor on Toxicology and Human Health Risk Analysis; the Gradient Corporation; and Environmental Defense Fund.

Senator Boxer issued an opening statement saying, "EPA was created by President Nixon as an independent agency, designed to protect families, children, and our natural environment from harm. Unfortunately, what we will hear today is that the Bush Administration is discarding the best available science, and instead is seeking the advice of special interests that would benefit from weak environmental standards. A clear pattern has emerged at EPA. When it comes to who wins and who loses, time and time again, the polluting special interests come out on top, at the expense of the health of the American people. . .

"EPA has a special children’s health advisory committee, because children are particularly vulnerable to the toxic effects of pollution. This important scientific advice has been repeatedly ignored by the agency. For example, the agency refused to follow that Committee’s proposals to better protect children from smog pollution, toxic fine soot pollution, lead contamination in air, and perchlorate contamination of tap water -- all of which are especially dangerous to children. . ." She recounted several examples of the "Administration’s rejection of scientific advice."

Finally, she said, "And just in the last few days, a senior EPA appointee, Mary Gade, told the Chicago Tribune she was forced to resign for aggressively pursuing the cleanup of a dioxin-contaminated site in Michigan [See WIMS 5/2/08, and related article below]. The Bush EPA is failing to meet its mandate to protect public health as an independent, science-driven institution. The American people are paying the price with their health. This is an unacceptable pattern, and it must be reversed."

On May 2, U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI), a member of the Subcommittee, sharply criticized the Bush Administration for repeatedly putting politics before science at the Environmental Protection Agency. Whitehouse, a former Rhode Island U.S. Attorney and Attorney General who was deeply involved in the Senate Judiciary Committee’s investigation into the Administration’s firing of several U.S. Attorneys, issued a lengthy statement on the Senate Floor saying Ms. Gade’s resignation “seems like déjà vu all over again from an administration that values compliance with a political agenda over the best interests of the American people.”

Full Committee Ranking Member James Inhofe (R-OK) also delivered an opening statement indicating that,"Too often the environmental policy decisions made by EPA and other science-based agencies are driven by political or personal agendas. You see this in types of research that gets funded or the types of grants that get awarded. It is my hope that this hearing will help shed some light on how science is used by policy-makers and that we can arrive at some concrete suggestions for making the process better."

He said, "More science means better decisions—more defensible decisions. . . However, in the rush to try and dissect these individual cases and lay blame on whether science was adhered to properly or not, the bigger picture message gets lost. Our air is cleaner than it ever has been before; the levels of the six criteria pollutants are continuing to decline, air toxics monitoring is expanding and reductions in benzene, acid rain, and haze are contributing to significant improvements in air quality and environmental health.

"However, despite these improvements, in the last 2 years, EPA has significantly strengthened or proposed to strengthen 3 of the 6 criteria pollutants, all driven by citizen suits and court ordered deadlines, and the agency once again has been attacked by stakeholders on both sides for doing so. Reduction levels are now being debated so intensely and at such marginal levels that one must stop and consider if there ever will be a level requisite to protect the public health with an adequate margin of safety that will satisfy the critics. Instead, we are left with a brand new web of economic burdens that we are passing on to the states, many of which are just now beginning to make real improvements from the previous strengthening. What we have are more environmental regulations hindering environmental progress.

"I am pleased to recognize Dr. McClellan, a past Chair of the Clean Air Science Advisory Committee, who has detailed the many flaws and questionable approaches taken in justification of the recent final ozone rule, as well as the 2006 PM rule and others. I look forward to his comments on how the science panel often no longer offers its judgment of the scientific integrity of the process, but its policy opinions."

Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, opening statements and a webcast (click here). Access a release and floor statement from Senator Whitehouse (click here). [*All]

Senate Hearing On Perchlorate And TCE In Water

May 6: Senate Environment and Pubic Works Committee, Chaired by Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) held a hearing entitled, Perchlorate and TCE in Water. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included: Benjamin Grumbles, Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. EPA; representatives of the California EPA; Ohio EPA; the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA); Massachusetts Department of Environmental Protection; a State of New York legislator; HealthRisk Strategies; Medical University of South Carolina; and the Environmental Working Group. Additionally, Senator Boxer and Ranking Member James Inhofe delivered opening statements.

Senator Boxer said, "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 trichloroethylene, usually just called 'TCE.' Perchlorate is used to make rocket fuel, but when it gets into drinking 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’ 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 had 106 sites. . . And we know that we are exposed to perchlorate from many sources, not just drinking water. A January 2008 study by the FDA found perchlorate in 74% of all foods tested, including baby food."

Boxer said that EPA had done "very little" to address the problem. She said, "I told EPA last week that if the Bush Administration failed to protect our people, Congress would step in. I have two bills to protect people from perchlorate contamination. The first bill, the “Perchlorate Monitoring and Right to Know Act,” S. 24, says that EPA is to restore the rule requiring that drinking water be tested for perchlorate, and that the results of those tests must be disclosed to the public. My second bill, the “Protecting Pregnant Women and Children from Perchlorate Act,” S. 150, requires EPA to quickly set a perchlorate standard for drinking water that protects pregnant women and children. In addition, Senator Clinton, Senator Dole, myself, and several colleagues have a bill, the “TCE Reduction Act,” S. 1911, that would protect people exposed the TCE."

Senator Inhofe indicated that he was opposed to all three of these pieces of legislation mentioned by Senator Boxer. He said, "Each bill assumes that the scientific data and findings are complete and that they require the Environmental Protection Agency to establish a Maximum Contaminant Level, or MCL, within a specified amount of time for both perchlorate and TCE. My concern isn’t that these chemicals may be harmful to human health at a certain level, but rather that politicians feel compelled to introduce legislation forcing EPA’s hand on what could become a 'contaminant of the month' scenario without scientific backing. It should also be noted that TCE already has a set MCL based on principals outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act. . .

"The legislative approach taken in S. 24, S. 150, and S. 1911 is simply politicians meddling in the scientific process clearly laid out in the Safe Drinking Water Act. Mike Baker from the Ohio Environmental Protection Agency will speak on behalf of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators about the current process and the concern of legislating contaminants rather than following the process outlined in the Safe Drinking Water Act. . ." [See WIMS 1/3/07]

EPA testified that the Agency has been working on the science related to perchlorate for more than ten years. "In 2003, EPA sent its January 2002 external review draft of the perchlorate risk assessment to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) for review. The NAS panel released a report in January 2005 which recommended that the Agency use a reference dose (RfD) of 0.0007 mg/kg/day (0.7 µg/kg/day) based on a human study (Greer et al., 2002). The RfD is an estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the human population (including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of adverse effects during a lifetime. EPA endorsed their recommendation and used the NAS panel report "Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion” as the basis for establishing its RfD which was subsequently posted to the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) database in February 2005."

He said in January 2006, EPA issued guidance for contaminated sites which recommended a revised preliminary remediation goal (PRG) of 24.5 ppb perchlorate in water. The PRG was calculated from EPA’s RfD using standard exposure values of 70 kg body weight and 2 liters of water consumed per day. This calculation provides the drinking water equivalent level, assuming
no other sources of perchlorate exposure." He also said, "In addition, if a state has promulgated a drinking water standard for perchlorate (e.g., Massachusetts adopted 2 ppb as a drinking water standard), that value would be considered an Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement (ARAR) and used as the ground water cleanup level for sites in that state."

He indicated that the Agency has "significant concerns with the bills introduced by Senators Boxer and Clinton. With respect to drinking water our primary concern with these bills is that they return the Agency to the time before 1996 when Congress dictated the drinking water regulations developed by the Agency." He concluded saying, the Agency is "working expeditiously to address potential risks from perchlorate and to evaluate the need for and feasibility of a stronger standard for TCE using this 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 in the 1996 amendments. As noted above, we are committed to making a final regulatory determination for perchlorate by the end of 2008, and for TCE as soon as the necessary analyses have been completed."

Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, opening statements and a webcast (click here). [*Water/Drink, *Toxics]