Nov 6: The House of Representatives passed by a vote of 230 to 193 the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009 (H.R. 2868) [See WIMS 10/23/09]. According to a release from the Energy and Commerce Committee, the bill strengthens security at America's chemical plants and drinking water and wastewater facilities by establishing risk-based and reasonable security standards for these critical assets. H.R. 2868 reauthorizes the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) program, which is slated to expire October 2010, and improves the program in many ways. It also authorizes U.S. EPA to establish similar security programs for drinking water and wastewater facilities.
Representative Henry Waxman (D-CA), Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee said, "I am pleased that the House has acted to close the critical security gap at drinking water facilities and to strengthen security requirements for chemical facilities. The Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009 will reduce the risk that chemicals used by our own chemical facilities are turned against us through terrorist attack and other intentional acts. This bill will make our country safer."
Representative Edward Markey (D-MA), Chairman of the Energy and Environment Subcommittee said, "Today the House took decisive action to secure our nation's chemical plants and drinking water facilities from a potential terrorist attack. This bill will help shore up a potential vulnerability in our defenses, as the same chemicals that help purify our water and make the microchips used in our computers could potentially be turned into weapons of mass destruction. The bill contains language that I have championed for five years that provides authority to require the riskiest facilities to use safer chemicals or processes when they are technologically and economically feasible. This is central to protecting the millions of Americans that live near these facilities -- since terrorists cannot blow up what is no longer there."
According to a summary from the Committee, the Chemical and Water Security Act of 2009: (1) Makes the DHS CFATS program permanent. The legislation strengthens the chemical security program by requiring the review and, in some cases, the implementation of safer technologies, adding enforcement tools, and protecting the right of workers to participate in developing and implementing chemical facility security plans. (2) Authorizes EPA to create a risk-based, performance-based program for the water sector similar to the one established by DHS for chemical plants. This gives effect to the regulatory approach that the Obama Administration supports. (3) Requires the riskiest chemical facilities, drinking water facilities, and water treatment works to assess and, when appropriate, implement methods to reduce the consequences of a terrorist attack (also known as inherently safer technologies [ISTs]). (4) Strengthens the enforcement of the CFATS program by allowing citizens to bring suit against the Secretary of DHS for failure to perform non-discretionary obligations.
The American Chemistry Council (ACC) President and CEO, Cal Dooley, released a statement saying, “The legislation approved by the House today is an important step toward building upon the ongoing success of the Chemical Facility Anti-Terrorism Standards (CFATS) by making them permanent. While ACC is unable to endorse the bill due primarily to concerns over the potential impact of the authority granted to DHS to mandate the implementation of IST, we appreciate the efforts by both the House Energy & Commerce and Homeland Security Committee to seek our input to improve the legislation. Specifically, we were encouraged by changes that ensure proper protections for sensitive information and a civil lawsuit provision that bolsters oversight while still protecting private companies from frivolous lawsuits.
“We look forward to working with Senate in the same spirit to pass legislation that takes an aggressive but smart approach to regulating chemical security and ensures DHS has the resources to help us protect our facilities, our employees, the communities in which we operate, and the vital products we supply everyday to the nation.”
Rick Hind, legislative director of Greenpeace USA indicated, “Although it’s a compromise, this bill represents a historic first step toward protecting the 100 million Americans living in the shadow of high-risk chemical plants. Attempts by House Republicans to weaken the legislation were voted down. “The day after a terrorist attack at a chemical plant kills thousands of Americans, any suggestion that we should not require the use of safer chemicals at these plants will be considered totally crazy. Republicans should have been offering amendments to strengthen this modest legislation instead of trying to cripple it.”
Greenpeace cited the recent announcement from the Clorox Company which indicated it plans to convert all of their U.S. facilities from ultra-hazardous chlorine gas to liquid bleach to “strengthen our operations and add another layer of security,” according to their CEO Don Knauss. Clorox also indicated that these changes “won’t affect the size of the company’s workforce." Hind from Greenpeace added, “by leading the way in eliminating the potential consequences of a catastrophic terrorist attack or accident, Clorox provided Congress with compelling new evidence to enact chemical plant security legislation.”
Access a release from the Energy & Commerce Committee and link to the bill text (click here). Access legislative details for H.R. 2868 including the roll call vote (click here). Access the statement from ACC and link to additional information (click here). Access the ACC position and more on ISTs (click here). Access a lengthy release from Greenpeace (click here).
Showing posts with label Drinking Water. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Drinking Water. Show all posts
Monday, November 09, 2009
Wednesday, July 08, 2009
House Hearing On Regulation & Impacts Of Bottled Water
Jul 8: The House Energy and Commerce Committee, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, Chaired by Representative Bart Stupak (D-MI) held a hearing on the "Regulation of Bottled Water" to examine the current federal regulation of bottled water. Witnesses testifying at the hearing included representatives of the: Government Accountability Office; Food and Drug Administration; International Bottled Water Association; and Environmental Working Group (EWG).
In his opening remarks, Chairman Stupak indicated that In 2008, Americans consumed 8.6 billion gallons of bottled water. He said, "Bottled water is a billion-dollar-a-year industry, with sales up more than 83% this decade. Many Americans believe that water they drink from a bottle is healthier than water that comes from their faucets. The Water Research Foundation found that nearly 56% of bottled water drinkers cite health and safety as the primary reason they choose bottled water over tap water. As a result, Americans are willing to pay top dollar for bottled water, which costs up to 1,900 times more than tap water and uses up to 2,000 times more energy to produce and deliver."
Stupak continued, "Over the past several years, however, bottled water has been recalled due to contamination by arsenic, bromate, cleaning compounds, mold, and bacteria. In April, a dozen students at a California junior high school reportedly were sickened after drinking bottled water from a vending machine." He said, ". . .municipal tap water suppliers are required to tell their customers within 24 hours if they find dangerous contaminants that exceed federal levels. But this requirement does not apply to bottled water companies. Certified laboratories must be used to test tap water, but bottled water has no similar requirement.
The Subcommittee received two new reports which Stupak said "raise questions about why the regulations governing bottled water are weaker than those governing tap water, as well as the widespread public perception that bottled water is healthier than water from the tap." One report was from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that examines whether Federal and state authorities are adequately ensuring the safety of bottled water and the accuracy of claims regarding its purity and health benefits. The second was by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) which conducted an 18-month survey of bottled water labels and websites and concluded that just two of the 188 bottled water companies surveyed provided consumers with information on the source of their water, the manner in which it was treated, and any contaminants present.
The GAO report is entitled, Bottled Water: FDA Safety and Consumer Protections Are Often Less Stringent Than Comparable EPA Protections for Tap Water (GAO-09-610, June 22, 2009). GAO indicated that over the past decade, the per capita consumption of bottled water in the United States has more than doubled -- from 13.4 gallons per person in 1997 to 29.3 gallons per person in 2007. The GAO report addresses three issues: (1) the extent to which federal and state authorities regulate the quality of bottled water to ensure its safety, (2) the extent to which federal and state authorities regulate the accuracy of labels or claims regarding the purity and source of bottled water, and (3) the environmental impacts of bottled water.
In its report, GAO found that FDA’s bottled water standard of quality regulations generally mirror the U.S. EPA national primary drinking water regulations, as required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, although the case of DEHP (an organic compound used in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride plastics) is a notable exception. Specifically, FDA deferred action on DEHP in a final rule published in 1996 and has yet to either adopt a standard or publish a reason for not doing so.
GAO also found that FDA’s regulation of bottled water, particularly when compared with EPA’s regulation of tap water, reveal key differences in the agencies’ statutory authorities. Of particular note, FDA does not have the specific statutory authority to require bottlers to use certified laboratories for water quality tests or to report test results, even if violations of the standards are found. Among GAO’s other findings, the state requirements to safeguard bottled water often exceed FDA’s, but still are often less comprehensive than state requirements to safeguard tap water.
GAO said FDA and state bottled water labeling requirements are similar to labeling requirements for other foods, but the information provided to consumers is less than what EPA requires of public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Like other foods, bottled water labels must list ingredients and nutritional information and are subject to the same prohibitions against misbranding. In 2000, FDA concluded that it was feasible for the bottled water industry to provide the same types of information to consumers that public water systems must provide. The agency was not required to conduct rulemaking to require that manufacturers provide such information to consumers, however, and it has not done so.
Nevertheless, GAO’s work suggests that consumers may benefit from such additional information. For example, when GAO asked cognizant officials in a survey of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, whether their consumers had misconceptions about bottled water, many replied that consumers often believe that bottled water is safer or healthier than tap water. GAO found that information comparable to what public water systems are required to provide to consumers of tap water was available for only a small percentage of the 83 bottled water labels it reviewed, companies it contacted, or company web sites it reviewed.
Among the environmental impacts of bottled water GAO said there are effects on U.S. municipal landfill capacity and U.S. energy demands. Regarding impacts on landfill capacity, GAO found that about three-quarters of the water bottles produced in the United States in 2006 were discarded and not recycled, on the basis of figures compiled by an industry trade association and an environmental nonprofit organization. Discarded water bottles, however, represented less than 1 percent of total municipal waste that EPA reported entered U.S. landfills in 2006. Regarding the impact on U.S. energy demands, a recent peer-reviewed article found that the production and consumption of bottled water comprises a small share of total U.S. energy demand but is much more energy-intensive than the production of public drinking water.
EWG released its 18-month survey of bottled water labels and websites, including top domestic and imported brands. They found that consumers spend 1,900 times more for bottled water than for tap water, yet they rarely know basic information about exactly what's in their water bottle. EWG said their survey shows that far too often consumers have no simple way to learn "three essential facts: 1) where their bottled water comes from, 2) how or if it's treated, and 3) what chemical pollutants it contains." [See WIMS 10/15/08].
The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) submitted 31 pages of testimony and concluded, "Bottled water provides consumers with a convenient, healthy beverage choice. The standards of quality for bottled water are as protective of public health as those for public drinking water by law and practice. Such standards for bottled water are applied to each container and failure to meet those standards may result in a recall or FDA enforcement action. If a consumer is interested about what is in their bottled water, they have multiple methods of obtaining it, e.g., from the company website, contacting the company directly, researching state websites which post the information or IBWA’s website. If they are not satisfied with the response or the information provided, they have many choices among bottled water brands."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, charts, reports and letters (click here).
In his opening remarks, Chairman Stupak indicated that In 2008, Americans consumed 8.6 billion gallons of bottled water. He said, "Bottled water is a billion-dollar-a-year industry, with sales up more than 83% this decade. Many Americans believe that water they drink from a bottle is healthier than water that comes from their faucets. The Water Research Foundation found that nearly 56% of bottled water drinkers cite health and safety as the primary reason they choose bottled water over tap water. As a result, Americans are willing to pay top dollar for bottled water, which costs up to 1,900 times more than tap water and uses up to 2,000 times more energy to produce and deliver."
Stupak continued, "Over the past several years, however, bottled water has been recalled due to contamination by arsenic, bromate, cleaning compounds, mold, and bacteria. In April, a dozen students at a California junior high school reportedly were sickened after drinking bottled water from a vending machine." He said, ". . .municipal tap water suppliers are required to tell their customers within 24 hours if they find dangerous contaminants that exceed federal levels. But this requirement does not apply to bottled water companies. Certified laboratories must be used to test tap water, but bottled water has no similar requirement.
The Subcommittee received two new reports which Stupak said "raise questions about why the regulations governing bottled water are weaker than those governing tap water, as well as the widespread public perception that bottled water is healthier than water from the tap." One report was from the Government Accountability Office (GAO) that examines whether Federal and state authorities are adequately ensuring the safety of bottled water and the accuracy of claims regarding its purity and health benefits. The second was by the Environmental Working Group (EWG) which conducted an 18-month survey of bottled water labels and websites and concluded that just two of the 188 bottled water companies surveyed provided consumers with information on the source of their water, the manner in which it was treated, and any contaminants present.
The GAO report is entitled, Bottled Water: FDA Safety and Consumer Protections Are Often Less Stringent Than Comparable EPA Protections for Tap Water (GAO-09-610, June 22, 2009). GAO indicated that over the past decade, the per capita consumption of bottled water in the United States has more than doubled -- from 13.4 gallons per person in 1997 to 29.3 gallons per person in 2007. The GAO report addresses three issues: (1) the extent to which federal and state authorities regulate the quality of bottled water to ensure its safety, (2) the extent to which federal and state authorities regulate the accuracy of labels or claims regarding the purity and source of bottled water, and (3) the environmental impacts of bottled water.
In its report, GAO found that FDA’s bottled water standard of quality regulations generally mirror the U.S. EPA national primary drinking water regulations, as required by the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, although the case of DEHP (an organic compound used in the manufacture of polyvinyl chloride plastics) is a notable exception. Specifically, FDA deferred action on DEHP in a final rule published in 1996 and has yet to either adopt a standard or publish a reason for not doing so.
GAO also found that FDA’s regulation of bottled water, particularly when compared with EPA’s regulation of tap water, reveal key differences in the agencies’ statutory authorities. Of particular note, FDA does not have the specific statutory authority to require bottlers to use certified laboratories for water quality tests or to report test results, even if violations of the standards are found. Among GAO’s other findings, the state requirements to safeguard bottled water often exceed FDA’s, but still are often less comprehensive than state requirements to safeguard tap water.
GAO said FDA and state bottled water labeling requirements are similar to labeling requirements for other foods, but the information provided to consumers is less than what EPA requires of public water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act. Like other foods, bottled water labels must list ingredients and nutritional information and are subject to the same prohibitions against misbranding. In 2000, FDA concluded that it was feasible for the bottled water industry to provide the same types of information to consumers that public water systems must provide. The agency was not required to conduct rulemaking to require that manufacturers provide such information to consumers, however, and it has not done so.
Nevertheless, GAO’s work suggests that consumers may benefit from such additional information. For example, when GAO asked cognizant officials in a survey of the 50 states and the District of Columbia, whether their consumers had misconceptions about bottled water, many replied that consumers often believe that bottled water is safer or healthier than tap water. GAO found that information comparable to what public water systems are required to provide to consumers of tap water was available for only a small percentage of the 83 bottled water labels it reviewed, companies it contacted, or company web sites it reviewed.
Among the environmental impacts of bottled water GAO said there are effects on U.S. municipal landfill capacity and U.S. energy demands. Regarding impacts on landfill capacity, GAO found that about three-quarters of the water bottles produced in the United States in 2006 were discarded and not recycled, on the basis of figures compiled by an industry trade association and an environmental nonprofit organization. Discarded water bottles, however, represented less than 1 percent of total municipal waste that EPA reported entered U.S. landfills in 2006. Regarding the impact on U.S. energy demands, a recent peer-reviewed article found that the production and consumption of bottled water comprises a small share of total U.S. energy demand but is much more energy-intensive than the production of public drinking water.
EWG released its 18-month survey of bottled water labels and websites, including top domestic and imported brands. They found that consumers spend 1,900 times more for bottled water than for tap water, yet they rarely know basic information about exactly what's in their water bottle. EWG said their survey shows that far too often consumers have no simple way to learn "three essential facts: 1) where their bottled water comes from, 2) how or if it's treated, and 3) what chemical pollutants it contains." [See WIMS 10/15/08].
The International Bottled Water Association (IBWA) submitted 31 pages of testimony and concluded, "Bottled water provides consumers with a convenient, healthy beverage choice. The standards of quality for bottled water are as protective of public health as those for public drinking water by law and practice. Such standards for bottled water are applied to each container and failure to meet those standards may result in a recall or FDA enforcement action. If a consumer is interested about what is in their bottled water, they have multiple methods of obtaining it, e.g., from the company website, contacting the company directly, researching state websites which post the information or IBWA’s website. If they are not satisfied with the response or the information provided, they have many choices among bottled water brands."
Access the hearing website for links to all testimony, charts, reports and letters (click here).
Friday, January 09, 2009
EPA Issues Health Advisory For Perchlorate; Defers Regulation
Jan 8: U.S. EPA announced that it is seeking advice from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) before making a final determination on whether to issue a national regulation for perchlorate in drinking water. EPA's action follows a December 30, 2008, release of a major 213-page report from EPA's Office of Inspector General (OIG) entitled, General Scientific Analysis of Perchlorate [See WIMS 1/6/09].
EPA also issued an interim "health advisory" of 15 parts per billion (ppb) to assist state and local officials in addressing local contamination of perchlorate in drinking water and making a corresponding change to the factors it considers in cleaning up Superfund sites. States have the right to establish and enforce drinking water standards, and EPA encourages state-specific situations to be addressed at the local level. EPA said it expects to issue a final health advisory concurrent with the final regulatory determination for perchlorate. Benjamin Grumbles, EPA’s assistant administrator for water said, "This is a sensible step for protecting public health and preserving regulatory options as the science of perchlorate is reviewed."
On October 10, 2008, EPA issued a preliminary regulatory determination for public comment in the Federal Register. The Agency announced its intention on October 3, prior to the official Federal Register notice. The notice described the Agency’s decision that there is not a "meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction" through a national drinking water regulation for perchlorate. The agency received more than 32,000 comments on the notice. On October 3, environmental advocates [Earthjustice, representing the Environmental Working Group (EWG)] announced they planned to sue the Agency, saying, the decision would benefit weapons makers at the expense of millions of Americans' drinking water "spiked with rocket fuel." They said they would "fight in court to make sure this toxin is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act." [See WIMS 10/6/08].
EPA said that after considering public comments, as well as recommendations from EPA advisory groups and offices, it was asking the NAS to provide additional insight on various issues. Specifically, EPA is asking the NAS to evaluate its derivation of the Health Reference Level of 15 ppb, the use of modeling to evaluate impacts on infants and young children, and the implication of recent biomonitoring studies. The Agency is also asking NAS how it should consider the role of perchlorate relative to other iodide uptake inhibiting compounds and if there are other public health strategies to address this aspect of thyroid health.
EPA said it is replacing the existing preliminary remediation goal of 24.5 ppb with the interim health advisory value of 15 ppb. They said the goal will be used as a consideration when establishing cleanup levels for perchlorate at Superfund sites. The OIG reported that on February 18, 2005, EPA established a perchlorate reference dose (RfD) that corresponds to a drinking water equivalent level of 24.5 parts per billion (ppb). The OIG said that unlike EPA it used a cumulative risk assessment to analyze the risk from the multiple sodium iodide symporter (NIS) stressors and said that approach "is required to identify potential actions that will effectively lower the risk to public health."
OIG concluded that despite the fact that EPA did not use the proper cumulative risk assessment, "EPA’s perchlorate RfD is conservative and protective of human health, but limiting perchlorate exposure does not effectively address this public health issue. Potentially lowering the perchlorate drinking water limit from 24.5 ppb to 6 ppb does not provide a meaningful opportunity to lower the public’s risk."
EPA noted in its latest announcement that a "regulatory determination" is a formal decision by EPA as to whether it should initiate development of a national primary drinking water regulation for a specific contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act. A "health advisory" provides technical guidance to Federal, state, and other public health officials on health effects, analytical methods and treatment technologies associated with drinking water contamination. Health advisories also contain guidance values that are concentrations of a contaminant in drinking water that are likely to be without adverse health effects.
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access more information on EPA's health advisory (click here). Access multiple WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on the perchlorate issue (click here). [*Drink, *Toxics]
EPA also issued an interim "health advisory" of 15 parts per billion (ppb) to assist state and local officials in addressing local contamination of perchlorate in drinking water and making a corresponding change to the factors it considers in cleaning up Superfund sites. States have the right to establish and enforce drinking water standards, and EPA encourages state-specific situations to be addressed at the local level. EPA said it expects to issue a final health advisory concurrent with the final regulatory determination for perchlorate. Benjamin Grumbles, EPA’s assistant administrator for water said, "This is a sensible step for protecting public health and preserving regulatory options as the science of perchlorate is reviewed."
On October 10, 2008, EPA issued a preliminary regulatory determination for public comment in the Federal Register. The Agency announced its intention on October 3, prior to the official Federal Register notice. The notice described the Agency’s decision that there is not a "meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction" through a national drinking water regulation for perchlorate. The agency received more than 32,000 comments on the notice. On October 3, environmental advocates [Earthjustice, representing the Environmental Working Group (EWG)] announced they planned to sue the Agency, saying, the decision would benefit weapons makers at the expense of millions of Americans' drinking water "spiked with rocket fuel." They said they would "fight in court to make sure this toxin is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act." [See WIMS 10/6/08].
EPA said that after considering public comments, as well as recommendations from EPA advisory groups and offices, it was asking the NAS to provide additional insight on various issues. Specifically, EPA is asking the NAS to evaluate its derivation of the Health Reference Level of 15 ppb, the use of modeling to evaluate impacts on infants and young children, and the implication of recent biomonitoring studies. The Agency is also asking NAS how it should consider the role of perchlorate relative to other iodide uptake inhibiting compounds and if there are other public health strategies to address this aspect of thyroid health.
EPA said it is replacing the existing preliminary remediation goal of 24.5 ppb with the interim health advisory value of 15 ppb. They said the goal will be used as a consideration when establishing cleanup levels for perchlorate at Superfund sites. The OIG reported that on February 18, 2005, EPA established a perchlorate reference dose (RfD) that corresponds to a drinking water equivalent level of 24.5 parts per billion (ppb). The OIG said that unlike EPA it used a cumulative risk assessment to analyze the risk from the multiple sodium iodide symporter (NIS) stressors and said that approach "is required to identify potential actions that will effectively lower the risk to public health."
OIG concluded that despite the fact that EPA did not use the proper cumulative risk assessment, "EPA’s perchlorate RfD is conservative and protective of human health, but limiting perchlorate exposure does not effectively address this public health issue. Potentially lowering the perchlorate drinking water limit from 24.5 ppb to 6 ppb does not provide a meaningful opportunity to lower the public’s risk."
EPA noted in its latest announcement that a "regulatory determination" is a formal decision by EPA as to whether it should initiate development of a national primary drinking water regulation for a specific contaminant under the Safe Drinking Water Act. A "health advisory" provides technical guidance to Federal, state, and other public health officials on health effects, analytical methods and treatment technologies associated with drinking water contamination. Health advisories also contain guidance values that are concentrations of a contaminant in drinking water that are likely to be without adverse health effects.
Access a release from EPA (click here). Access more information on EPA's health advisory (click here). Access multiple WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on the perchlorate issue (click here). [*Drink, *Toxics]
Tuesday, January 06, 2009
OIG Reports EPA’s Perchlorate RfD Is Health Protective
Dec 30: The U.S. EPA Office of Inspector General (OIG) has release a major 213-page report entitled, Office of Inspector General Scientific Analysis of Perchlorate (Assignment No. 2008-0010, December 30, 2008). In a cover letter accompanying the report, OIG indicates it is providing an opportunity to the environmental risk assessor community to review and provide scientific comment on its analysis of perchlorate. OIG notes that on February 18, 2005, EPA established a perchlorate reference dose (RfD) that corresponds to a drinking water equivalent level of 24.5 parts per billion (ppb). A U.S. EPA regulatory determination is pending on whether to issue a National Primary Drinking Water Regulation for perchlorate.
OIG says that EPA’s potential regulation of perchlorate has garnered significant interest. Of concern, according to OIG, is whether EPA’s perchlorate RfD is protective of human health at all life stages. OIG says, "We analyzed the science supporting EPA’s perchlorate RfD. Congressional interest in this public health issue is reflected in bills H.R. 1747 and S.150, which would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require EPA to regulate perchlorate in drinking water. We found that EPA guidance supports the use of a cumulative risk assessment when multiple stressors act through the same mode of toxicity. However, both EPA’s 2002 proposed RfD and the National Academy of Sciences Committee to Assess the Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion used single chemical risk assessment to derive the perchlorate RfD. By contrast, we used a cumulative risk assessment to analyze the risk from the multiple sodium iodide symporter (NIS) stressors.
"Based on our scientific analysis documented in our report, perchlorate is only one of many chemicals that stress the thyroid’s ability to uptake iodide. The other NIS stressors include thiocyanate, nitrate, and the lack of iodide. All four of these NIS stressors meet EPA’s risk assessment guidance for conducting a cumulative risk assessment using the dose addition method. Our analysis includes a cumulative risk assessment of this public health issue using all four NIS stressors. A cumulative risk assessment approach is required to better characterize the risk to the public from a low total iodide uptake (TIU) during pregnancy and lactation. Further, a cumulative risk assessment approach is required to identify potential actions that will effectively lower the risk to public health.
"For our review of the perchlorate science, we are seeking scientific comments on the use and application of a cumulative risk assessment approach to characterizing the public health risk from a low TIU during pregnancy and lactation. We are seeking scientific comments from scientists, environmental risk assessors, and related organizations. Because we are only seeking scientific comments for consideration, we are requiring responders to provide the following information: name of individual and/or organization; contact information, and scientific background or credentials. We are seeking specific, scientifically supported comments on the OIG’s use and application of a cumulative risk assessment approach to characterizing the public health risk from a low TIU during pregnancy and lactation. We are requiring any discussion or comments on scientific studies or observations to be appropriately cited and available in the public literature." Scientific comments are being requested by no later than March 10, 2009.
In summary, OIG indicates, "The OIG Analysis indicates that although EPA used a single chemical risk assessment for perchlorate, a cumulative risk assessment that assesses and characterizes the combined human health risk from all NIS stressors would better describe the nature and sources of risk affecting this public health issue. The major findings, which directly address each of seven scientific issues identified in the 'Purpose' section of this report, are as follows:
"1) NAS [National Academy of Sciences] Unconventional RfD Approach Is Conservative and Protective; 2) Increasing Uncertainty Factors Not Effective for Protecting Public Health; 3) Hypothyroxinemia Occurs Before Hypothyroidism; 4) Low Fetal TIU First Adverse Effect; 5) Perchlorate RfD Alone Does Not Protect Most Sensitive Populations; 6) Thiocyanate and Nitrate Need to be Included in Risk Assessment; and, 7) Lack of Iodide Is Dominant NIS Stressor Impacting this Public Health Issue."
OIG concludes, "The OIG Analysis of the scientific literature identified that the risk from perchlorate exposure is only part of a larger public health issue that is defined by the subtle mental deficits occurring in children born to mothers with low maternal TIU during pregnancy and nursing. The TIU results from the combined biological effect of four NIS stressors acting on the thyroid: thiocyanate, nitrate, perchlorate, and lack of iodide. The diet constantly exposes everyone to each of the four NIS stressors, and an individual’s TIU level is the result of the combined effect of all four NIS stressors, not just perchlorate exposure. The OIG Analysis concludes that a single chemical risk assessment of perchlorate is not sufficient to assess and characterize the combined human health risk from all four NIS stressors. However, both EPA’s draft perchlorate RfD from the Argus rat study and the NAS Committee’s recommended perchlorate RfD from the Greer human exposure study used a single chemical risk assessment approach. Only a cumulative risk assessment can fully characterize the nature and sources of risk affecting this public health issue. Furthermore, a cumulative risk assessment allows an informed environmental decision to be made on how to mitigate the risk effectively.
"All four NIS stressors meet EPA’s risk assessment guidance requirements for conducting a cumulative risk assessment using the dose addition method. In the OIG Analysis, we conducted a cumulative risk assessment and determined that the risk from each of the four NIS stressors is not equal. The OIG Analysis also confirmed that EPA’s perchlorate RfD is conservative and protective of human health, but limiting perchlorate exposure does not effectively address this public health issue. Potentially lowering the perchlorate drinking water limit from 24.5 ppb to 6 ppb does not provide a meaningful opportunity to lower the public’s risk. By contrast, addressing moderate and mild iodide deficiency occurring in about 29% of the U.S. pregnant and nursing population appears to be the most effective approach of increasing TIU to healthy levels during pregnancy and nursing, thereby reducing the frequency and severity of permanent mental deficits in children."
On October 3, 2008, immediately after U.S. EPA announced that it had made a preliminary determination that there is not a "meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction" through a national drinking water regulation for exposure to perchlorate [See WIMS 10/3/08], environmental advocates [Earthjustice, representing the Environmental Working Group (EWG)] announced they plan to sue the Agency. EPA said it had conducted an extensive review of scientific data related to the health effects of exposure to perchlorate from drinking water and other sources and found that in more than 99 percent of public drinking water systems, perchlorate was not at levels of public health concern [See WIMS 10/6/08].
Access the complete OIG report including the cover letter and commenting instructions (click here). Access a release from EPA (click here). Access EPA's draft regulatory determination and extensive background information (click here). Access multiple WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on the perchlorate issue (click here). [*Drink, *Toxics]
OIG says that EPA’s potential regulation of perchlorate has garnered significant interest. Of concern, according to OIG, is whether EPA’s perchlorate RfD is protective of human health at all life stages. OIG says, "We analyzed the science supporting EPA’s perchlorate RfD. Congressional interest in this public health issue is reflected in bills H.R. 1747 and S.150, which would amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to require EPA to regulate perchlorate in drinking water. We found that EPA guidance supports the use of a cumulative risk assessment when multiple stressors act through the same mode of toxicity. However, both EPA’s 2002 proposed RfD and the National Academy of Sciences Committee to Assess the Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion used single chemical risk assessment to derive the perchlorate RfD. By contrast, we used a cumulative risk assessment to analyze the risk from the multiple sodium iodide symporter (NIS) stressors.
"Based on our scientific analysis documented in our report, perchlorate is only one of many chemicals that stress the thyroid’s ability to uptake iodide. The other NIS stressors include thiocyanate, nitrate, and the lack of iodide. All four of these NIS stressors meet EPA’s risk assessment guidance for conducting a cumulative risk assessment using the dose addition method. Our analysis includes a cumulative risk assessment of this public health issue using all four NIS stressors. A cumulative risk assessment approach is required to better characterize the risk to the public from a low total iodide uptake (TIU) during pregnancy and lactation. Further, a cumulative risk assessment approach is required to identify potential actions that will effectively lower the risk to public health.
"For our review of the perchlorate science, we are seeking scientific comments on the use and application of a cumulative risk assessment approach to characterizing the public health risk from a low TIU during pregnancy and lactation. We are seeking scientific comments from scientists, environmental risk assessors, and related organizations. Because we are only seeking scientific comments for consideration, we are requiring responders to provide the following information: name of individual and/or organization; contact information, and scientific background or credentials. We are seeking specific, scientifically supported comments on the OIG’s use and application of a cumulative risk assessment approach to characterizing the public health risk from a low TIU during pregnancy and lactation. We are requiring any discussion or comments on scientific studies or observations to be appropriately cited and available in the public literature." Scientific comments are being requested by no later than March 10, 2009.
In summary, OIG indicates, "The OIG Analysis indicates that although EPA used a single chemical risk assessment for perchlorate, a cumulative risk assessment that assesses and characterizes the combined human health risk from all NIS stressors would better describe the nature and sources of risk affecting this public health issue. The major findings, which directly address each of seven scientific issues identified in the 'Purpose' section of this report, are as follows:
"1) NAS [National Academy of Sciences] Unconventional RfD Approach Is Conservative and Protective; 2) Increasing Uncertainty Factors Not Effective for Protecting Public Health; 3) Hypothyroxinemia Occurs Before Hypothyroidism; 4) Low Fetal TIU First Adverse Effect; 5) Perchlorate RfD Alone Does Not Protect Most Sensitive Populations; 6) Thiocyanate and Nitrate Need to be Included in Risk Assessment; and, 7) Lack of Iodide Is Dominant NIS Stressor Impacting this Public Health Issue."
OIG concludes, "The OIG Analysis of the scientific literature identified that the risk from perchlorate exposure is only part of a larger public health issue that is defined by the subtle mental deficits occurring in children born to mothers with low maternal TIU during pregnancy and nursing. The TIU results from the combined biological effect of four NIS stressors acting on the thyroid: thiocyanate, nitrate, perchlorate, and lack of iodide. The diet constantly exposes everyone to each of the four NIS stressors, and an individual’s TIU level is the result of the combined effect of all four NIS stressors, not just perchlorate exposure. The OIG Analysis concludes that a single chemical risk assessment of perchlorate is not sufficient to assess and characterize the combined human health risk from all four NIS stressors. However, both EPA’s draft perchlorate RfD from the Argus rat study and the NAS Committee’s recommended perchlorate RfD from the Greer human exposure study used a single chemical risk assessment approach. Only a cumulative risk assessment can fully characterize the nature and sources of risk affecting this public health issue. Furthermore, a cumulative risk assessment allows an informed environmental decision to be made on how to mitigate the risk effectively.
"All four NIS stressors meet EPA’s risk assessment guidance requirements for conducting a cumulative risk assessment using the dose addition method. In the OIG Analysis, we conducted a cumulative risk assessment and determined that the risk from each of the four NIS stressors is not equal. The OIG Analysis also confirmed that EPA’s perchlorate RfD is conservative and protective of human health, but limiting perchlorate exposure does not effectively address this public health issue. Potentially lowering the perchlorate drinking water limit from 24.5 ppb to 6 ppb does not provide a meaningful opportunity to lower the public’s risk. By contrast, addressing moderate and mild iodide deficiency occurring in about 29% of the U.S. pregnant and nursing population appears to be the most effective approach of increasing TIU to healthy levels during pregnancy and nursing, thereby reducing the frequency and severity of permanent mental deficits in children."
On October 3, 2008, immediately after U.S. EPA announced that it had made a preliminary determination that there is not a "meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction" through a national drinking water regulation for exposure to perchlorate [See WIMS 10/3/08], environmental advocates [Earthjustice, representing the Environmental Working Group (EWG)] announced they plan to sue the Agency. EPA said it had conducted an extensive review of scientific data related to the health effects of exposure to perchlorate from drinking water and other sources and found that in more than 99 percent of public drinking water systems, perchlorate was not at levels of public health concern [See WIMS 10/6/08].
Access the complete OIG report including the cover letter and commenting instructions (click here). Access a release from EPA (click here). Access EPA's draft regulatory determination and extensive background information (click here). Access multiple WIMS-eNewsUSA blog posts on the perchlorate issue (click here). [*Drink, *Toxics]
Monday, October 06, 2008
Enviros Will Sue To Regulate Perchlorate If Necessary
Oct 3: Immediately after U.S. EPA announced that it had made a preliminary determination that there is not a "meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction" through a national drinking water regulation for exposure to perchlorate [See WIMS 10/3/08], environmental advocates announced they plan to sue the Agency. EPA said it had conducted an extensive review of scientific data related to the health effects of exposure to perchlorate from drinking water and other sources and found that in more than 99 percent of public drinking water systems, perchlorate was not at levels of public health concern.
Therefore, based on the Safe Water Drinking Act criteria, the Agency made its decision and is now seeking comment on its preliminary determination and will make a final determination for perchlorate after considering information provided in the 30-day public comment period. Despite the "preliminary" nature of EPA's decision, the environmental groups said the "decision represents a victory for the Department of Defense and military contractors, which for years have pressured EPA not to regulate perchlorate and other chemicals associated with weapons manufacturing."
Responding to the announcement, the nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice said it plans to challenge any final EPA decision in court, representing the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and other organizations concerned about the health effects of perchlorate in drinking water. Earthjustice attorney George Torgun said, "EPA's decision has industry's fingerprints all over it. Weapons makers will benefit at the expense of millions of Americans' drinking water spiked with rocket fuel. Clean, safe drinking water is essential. That's why we will fight in court to make sure this toxin is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act."
For years, perchlorate was disposed in the ground by the military and missile-makers. The highly soluble toxin has spread from bases and factories to wells and rivers across the country. The groups indicated that if limits for perchlorate in drinking water were set, the Defense Department and defense contractors could be found responsible for cleanups triggered by violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Hilda Solis (both D-CA) have pushed for legislation that would force EPA to set a federal perchlorate standard [See WIMS 5/6/08]. According to a release from Earthjustice, "Perchlorate concentrations of less than 5 parts per billion have been shown to inhibit iodine uptake by the thyroid gland, resulting in a decreased formation of two hormones necessary for proper oxygen consumption and metabolism. The harm is greatest in populations that are developing and growing rapidly, such as fetuses, infants, and young children."
Ben Dunham, Earthjustice environmental health policy analyst said, "According to EPA, at least 10 million people have rocket fuel in their drinking water. Yet today, the agency says there is not a 'meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction.' I'm sure the 10 million people drinking contaminated water think cleaning up their water supply would be 'meaningful.' Because perchlorate contamination is often concentrated around military facilities, EPA's failure to protect the public from polluted drinking water will hit military families especially hard. These families have already sacrificed so much for this country. This decision adds insult to injury, by allowing contamination to continue."
Dr. Anila Jacob, MD, MPH, Senior Scientist at EWG said, “The health and well-being of millions of breast-fed babies are being ignored by EPA so the defense industry and their agents in the Pentagon can avoid cleaning up the mess they’ve made." The groups cited a 2005 GAO report listing state-by-state drinking water supplies contaminated by perchlorate.
According to an announcement from the American Water Works Association (AWWA), Massachusetts and California have already set perchlorate standards at levels of 2 µg/L and 6 µg/L, respectively. AWWA, which recently completed two studies reviewing both occurrence and exposure of perchlorate, reported it “will work quickly to assess the details of the proposed regulatory determination and submit comments as appropriate based on the findings of these reports.” AWWA has posted information to help utilities communicate to customers about perchlorate.
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, issued a statement saying, "Once again on a Friday, when nobody is paying attention, the Bush administration announces a policy that will harm the American people. The Bush EPA's failure to set a standard for perchlorate, a dangerous contaminant found in drinking water, is outrageous and I will do everything in my power to reverse it. Perchlorate contamination endangers the health of our families, especially pregnant women and children, and to simply allow it to remain in our drinking water is immoral." Boxer indicated that EPA says perchlorate is found in the drinking water supplies of up to 16.6 million Americans; however, other independent researchers have estimated that 20 million or more Americans are exposed to the toxin.
Access a release from Earthjustice and link to the GAO report (click here). Access a release from EWG (click here). Access EWG's research and related information on perchlorate (click here). Access the announcement from AWWA and link to further information (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access EPA's draft regulatory determination and extensive background information (click here). [*Water]
Therefore, based on the Safe Water Drinking Act criteria, the Agency made its decision and is now seeking comment on its preliminary determination and will make a final determination for perchlorate after considering information provided in the 30-day public comment period. Despite the "preliminary" nature of EPA's decision, the environmental groups said the "decision represents a victory for the Department of Defense and military contractors, which for years have pressured EPA not to regulate perchlorate and other chemicals associated with weapons manufacturing."
Responding to the announcement, the nonprofit environmental law firm Earthjustice said it plans to challenge any final EPA decision in court, representing the Environmental Working Group (EWG) and other organizations concerned about the health effects of perchlorate in drinking water. Earthjustice attorney George Torgun said, "EPA's decision has industry's fingerprints all over it. Weapons makers will benefit at the expense of millions of Americans' drinking water spiked with rocket fuel. Clean, safe drinking water is essential. That's why we will fight in court to make sure this toxin is regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act."
For years, perchlorate was disposed in the ground by the military and missile-makers. The highly soluble toxin has spread from bases and factories to wells and rivers across the country. The groups indicated that if limits for perchlorate in drinking water were set, the Defense Department and defense contractors could be found responsible for cleanups triggered by violations of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Hilda Solis (both D-CA) have pushed for legislation that would force EPA to set a federal perchlorate standard [See WIMS 5/6/08]. According to a release from Earthjustice, "Perchlorate concentrations of less than 5 parts per billion have been shown to inhibit iodine uptake by the thyroid gland, resulting in a decreased formation of two hormones necessary for proper oxygen consumption and metabolism. The harm is greatest in populations that are developing and growing rapidly, such as fetuses, infants, and young children."
Ben Dunham, Earthjustice environmental health policy analyst said, "According to EPA, at least 10 million people have rocket fuel in their drinking water. Yet today, the agency says there is not a 'meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction.' I'm sure the 10 million people drinking contaminated water think cleaning up their water supply would be 'meaningful.' Because perchlorate contamination is often concentrated around military facilities, EPA's failure to protect the public from polluted drinking water will hit military families especially hard. These families have already sacrificed so much for this country. This decision adds insult to injury, by allowing contamination to continue."
Dr. Anila Jacob, MD, MPH, Senior Scientist at EWG said, “The health and well-being of millions of breast-fed babies are being ignored by EPA so the defense industry and their agents in the Pentagon can avoid cleaning up the mess they’ve made." The groups cited a 2005 GAO report listing state-by-state drinking water supplies contaminated by perchlorate.
According to an announcement from the American Water Works Association (AWWA), Massachusetts and California have already set perchlorate standards at levels of 2 µg/L and 6 µg/L, respectively. AWWA, which recently completed two studies reviewing both occurrence and exposure of perchlorate, reported it “will work quickly to assess the details of the proposed regulatory determination and submit comments as appropriate based on the findings of these reports.” AWWA has posted information to help utilities communicate to customers about perchlorate.
U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), Chairman of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, issued a statement saying, "Once again on a Friday, when nobody is paying attention, the Bush administration announces a policy that will harm the American people. The Bush EPA's failure to set a standard for perchlorate, a dangerous contaminant found in drinking water, is outrageous and I will do everything in my power to reverse it. Perchlorate contamination endangers the health of our families, especially pregnant women and children, and to simply allow it to remain in our drinking water is immoral." Boxer indicated that EPA says perchlorate is found in the drinking water supplies of up to 16.6 million Americans; however, other independent researchers have estimated that 20 million or more Americans are exposed to the toxin.
Access a release from Earthjustice and link to the GAO report (click here). Access a release from EWG (click here). Access EWG's research and related information on perchlorate (click here). Access the announcement from AWWA and link to further information (click here). Access a release from Senator Boxer (click here). Access EPA's draft regulatory determination and extensive background information (click here). [*Water]
Friday, May 25, 2007
Appeals Court Deals Blow To Industry MTBE Litigation Strategy
May 24: In the case of consolidated cases, In Re: Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liability Litigation, U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, Case Nos. 04-5974 & 04-6056. The case includes the consolidated cases of: State of California v. Atlantic Richfield Company, et al. and State of New Hampshire v. Amerada Hess Corporation, et al. The two cases are among scores of related actions removed from state court and transferred to the Southern District of New York by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation pursuant to MDL No. 1358, In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether (MTBE) Products Liability Litigation.
The case involves an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denying Plaintiffs-Appellants’ motions to remand. The Appeals Court ruled that, "Because the district court erroneously held that it had removal jurisdiction over these actions under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, and/or the bankruptcy removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1452, and no alternative ground for jurisdiction is satisfied, we vacate the order of the district court and remand with directions to return these cases to the forums from which they were removed." While the various states have been arguing that the cases should be tried in state courts; oil companies and refineries have argued that they were operating as "federal officers" in carrying out a mandate to add MTBE to their reformulated gasoline, and therefore, the cases should be heard in Federal courts.
According to the Appeals Court, two issues are presented: "(1) whether principles of sovereign immunity are violated when a state plaintiff voluntarily prosecutes a claim in state court and the action is removed from state to federal court pursuant to a statute that expressly authorizes removal; and (2) if not, whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this matter under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, the bankruptcy removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1452, or some other ground."
On the issue of "sovereign immunity," the Appeals Court ruled, "...California and New Hampshire have each made and acted upon the decision to commence a lawsuit. This voluntary act subjects them to the consequences that Congress may legitimately attach to such an action. Thus, we conclude that sovereign immunity does not bar the removal of these state-commenced actions to federal court."
On the second issue, the Appeals Court said in part, "The California and New Hampshire actions relate primarily to matters of public health and welfare, and the money damages sought will not inure, strictly speaking, to the economic benefit of the states. Instead, the clear goal of these proceedings is to remedy and prevent environmental damage with potentially serious consequences for public health, a significant area of state policy. Thus, even under the tests advocated by the defendant companies, these proceedings represent efforts by California and New Hampshire to enforce their 'police or regulatory power' and are not subject to removal..."
The Appeals Court also indicates that the district judge concluded, “defendants have sufficiently alleged that they added MTBE to gasoline at the direction of the EPA, a federal agency.” The Appeals Court said, "We cannot agree. The conclusion of the district judge is not based on an explicit directive in either the Clean Air Act or its implementing regulations. Significantly, after oral argument in this appeal, the district judge held that 'federal law did not require the use of MTBE...' the district judge and the defendants acknowledged that the EPA identified six other additives, besides MTBE, that could be blended into reformulated gasoline to meet the requirements imposed by the CAA and the regulations... That it may have been more convenient or less expensive for the defendants to use MTBE does not mean it would have been impossible for them to use other, less polluting additives..."
New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte issued a release saying that New Hampshire’s lawsuit against oil companies for MTBE contamination of state waters will be returned to state court, as a result the decision by the unanimous decision of the Second Circuit appeals court. She said the Appeals Court ruled that there was no Federal jurisdiction to hear New Hampshire’s state case and that it must be returned to state court, where it was originally filed.
In 2003, the State had sued oil companies that added the chemical methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) to gasoline sold in New Hampshire. The State sought full recovery for Statewide contamination of drinking water supplies. The oil companies immediately removed the case to Federal district court, which denied the State’s request to return to State court. The State appealed on grounds that there was no Federal jurisdiction over the State’s case. The appeals court agreed and remanded the state’s case to the Merrimack County Superior Court.
Ayotte said, “We are very pleased that the Federal appeals court agreed with us that the proper place to hear this important case about New Hampshire’s drinking water is in our State’s courts. We look forward to trying the case as soon as possible before a jury of New Hampshire citizens.”
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a release from the New Hampshire AG (click here). [*Remed, *Water, *Drink]
The case involves an appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York denying Plaintiffs-Appellants’ motions to remand. The Appeals Court ruled that, "Because the district court erroneously held that it had removal jurisdiction over these actions under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, and/or the bankruptcy removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1452, and no alternative ground for jurisdiction is satisfied, we vacate the order of the district court and remand with directions to return these cases to the forums from which they were removed." While the various states have been arguing that the cases should be tried in state courts; oil companies and refineries have argued that they were operating as "federal officers" in carrying out a mandate to add MTBE to their reformulated gasoline, and therefore, the cases should be heard in Federal courts.
According to the Appeals Court, two issues are presented: "(1) whether principles of sovereign immunity are violated when a state plaintiff voluntarily prosecutes a claim in state court and the action is removed from state to federal court pursuant to a statute that expressly authorizes removal; and (2) if not, whether the district court had subject matter jurisdiction over this matter under the federal officer removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1442, the bankruptcy removal statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1452, or some other ground."
On the issue of "sovereign immunity," the Appeals Court ruled, "...California and New Hampshire have each made and acted upon the decision to commence a lawsuit. This voluntary act subjects them to the consequences that Congress may legitimately attach to such an action. Thus, we conclude that sovereign immunity does not bar the removal of these state-commenced actions to federal court."
On the second issue, the Appeals Court said in part, "The California and New Hampshire actions relate primarily to matters of public health and welfare, and the money damages sought will not inure, strictly speaking, to the economic benefit of the states. Instead, the clear goal of these proceedings is to remedy and prevent environmental damage with potentially serious consequences for public health, a significant area of state policy. Thus, even under the tests advocated by the defendant companies, these proceedings represent efforts by California and New Hampshire to enforce their 'police or regulatory power' and are not subject to removal..."
The Appeals Court also indicates that the district judge concluded, “defendants have sufficiently alleged that they added MTBE to gasoline at the direction of the EPA, a federal agency.” The Appeals Court said, "We cannot agree. The conclusion of the district judge is not based on an explicit directive in either the Clean Air Act or its implementing regulations. Significantly, after oral argument in this appeal, the district judge held that 'federal law did not require the use of MTBE...' the district judge and the defendants acknowledged that the EPA identified six other additives, besides MTBE, that could be blended into reformulated gasoline to meet the requirements imposed by the CAA and the regulations... That it may have been more convenient or less expensive for the defendants to use MTBE does not mean it would have been impossible for them to use other, less polluting additives..."
New Hampshire Attorney General Kelly Ayotte issued a release saying that New Hampshire’s lawsuit against oil companies for MTBE contamination of state waters will be returned to state court, as a result the decision by the unanimous decision of the Second Circuit appeals court. She said the Appeals Court ruled that there was no Federal jurisdiction to hear New Hampshire’s state case and that it must be returned to state court, where it was originally filed.
In 2003, the State had sued oil companies that added the chemical methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) to gasoline sold in New Hampshire. The State sought full recovery for Statewide contamination of drinking water supplies. The oil companies immediately removed the case to Federal district court, which denied the State’s request to return to State court. The State appealed on grounds that there was no Federal jurisdiction over the State’s case. The appeals court agreed and remanded the state’s case to the Merrimack County Superior Court.
Ayotte said, “We are very pleased that the Federal appeals court agreed with us that the proper place to hear this important case about New Hampshire’s drinking water is in our State’s courts. We look forward to trying the case as soon as possible before a jury of New Hampshire citizens.”
Access the complete opinion (click here). Access a release from the New Hampshire AG (click here). [*Remed, *Water, *Drink]
Wednesday, January 03, 2007
Boxer & AWWA Differ On Monitoring For Perchlorate
Dec 22: U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA), incoming Chair of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, issued a statement on EPA’s final rule which will require monitoring drinking water for up to 25 unregulated chemicals under the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule (UCMR2) [See WIMS 1/2/06]. Boxer said the rule will not require testing drinking water for the toxic chemical perchlorate. She said the toxin has been found in millions of Americans’ drinking water. EPA’s original 1999 rule ordered testing for perchlorate, and just last year EPA proposed to extend that requirement. However, she indicated in a release that, in the wake of industry opposition, the new final rule says that “based on public comment and further consideration, EPA has removed the requirement for monitoring perchlorate….”
The Senator said, “I am distressed that the agency has said there will be no required testing of our drinking water for the dangerous chemical perchlorate. This is another unwelcome holiday gift from EPA to the American public, one of several recent EPA actions undermining health protection. As a result of this new rule, Americans will not have up-to-date information on whether their tap water is contaminated with this toxin. I also remain deeply concerned that EPA has dragged its feet and refused to set a safety standard for perchlorate in our drinking water. Until EPA sets a standard, at the very least we should know if it's in our drinking water. We will not let this kind of action stand. We will closely examine this issue when the new Congress convenes.”
An October 21, 2005, letter from the American Water Works Association (AWWA), representing 4,200 utilities that supply roughly 80 percent of the nation's drinking water, commenting on the regulation indicated, "...we have significant concerns with an apparent disconnect between the CCL [Contaminant Candidate List] and the UCMR and the inclusion of perchlorate in the proposed UCMR2... AWWA recommends that perchlorate not be included in the final UCMR2. The perchlorate monitoring is unnecessary and will not provide meaningful data that for any regulatory decisions for any potential perchlorate drinking water regulation."
AWWA argued that, "The National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) conducted a review of the health effects of perchlorate and concluded that a daily ingestion of up to 0.0007 milligrams per kilogram of body weight can occur without adversely affecting the health of even the most sensitive populations. EPA translated this to a Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) of 24.5 ug/L, assuming a 70 kg body weight and 2 L per day consumption.
"Based on our evaluation of the current regulatory data, it does NOT appear that any potential perchlorate regulation would be below 4 ppb, which was the UCMR1 minimum reporting level. Therefore, the monitoring requirement for perchlorate in the proposed UCMR2 is duplicative and unnecessary, and would be an inappropriate use of utilities’ limited resources. Requiring utilities to spend more than $4 million to obtain perchlorate occurrence data that is not needed for regulatory development is not justified. EPA already has a large, robust occurrence database above 4 ppb from UCMR1, and this occurrence database is adequate for a regulatory determination for perchlorate."
Access the statement from Senator Boxer (click here). Access an overview of the UCMR2 from AWWA regulations (click here). Access the AWWA comment letter of 10/21/05 (click here). Access an EPA release (click here). Access a pre-publication copy of the final rule (click here). Access EPA's UCMR 2 website for extensive information (click here). [*Drink]
The Senator said, “I am distressed that the agency has said there will be no required testing of our drinking water for the dangerous chemical perchlorate. This is another unwelcome holiday gift from EPA to the American public, one of several recent EPA actions undermining health protection. As a result of this new rule, Americans will not have up-to-date information on whether their tap water is contaminated with this toxin. I also remain deeply concerned that EPA has dragged its feet and refused to set a safety standard for perchlorate in our drinking water. Until EPA sets a standard, at the very least we should know if it's in our drinking water. We will not let this kind of action stand. We will closely examine this issue when the new Congress convenes.”
An October 21, 2005, letter from the American Water Works Association (AWWA), representing 4,200 utilities that supply roughly 80 percent of the nation's drinking water, commenting on the regulation indicated, "...we have significant concerns with an apparent disconnect between the CCL [Contaminant Candidate List] and the UCMR and the inclusion of perchlorate in the proposed UCMR2... AWWA recommends that perchlorate not be included in the final UCMR2. The perchlorate monitoring is unnecessary and will not provide meaningful data that for any regulatory decisions for any potential perchlorate drinking water regulation."
AWWA argued that, "The National Academy of Sciences’ (NAS) National Research Council (NRC) conducted a review of the health effects of perchlorate and concluded that a daily ingestion of up to 0.0007 milligrams per kilogram of body weight can occur without adversely affecting the health of even the most sensitive populations. EPA translated this to a Drinking Water Equivalent Level (DWEL) of 24.5 ug/L, assuming a 70 kg body weight and 2 L per day consumption.
"Based on our evaluation of the current regulatory data, it does NOT appear that any potential perchlorate regulation would be below 4 ppb, which was the UCMR1 minimum reporting level. Therefore, the monitoring requirement for perchlorate in the proposed UCMR2 is duplicative and unnecessary, and would be an inappropriate use of utilities’ limited resources. Requiring utilities to spend more than $4 million to obtain perchlorate occurrence data that is not needed for regulatory development is not justified. EPA already has a large, robust occurrence database above 4 ppb from UCMR1, and this occurrence database is adequate for a regulatory determination for perchlorate."
Access the statement from Senator Boxer (click here). Access an overview of the UCMR2 from AWWA regulations (click here). Access the AWWA comment letter of 10/21/05 (click here). Access an EPA release (click here). Access a pre-publication copy of the final rule (click here). Access EPA's UCMR 2 website for extensive information (click here). [*Drink]
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Third Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List
Oct 16: In a Federal Register announcement [71 FR 60704-60708], U.S. EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water has started the process to develop the third Contaminant Candidate List (CCL3) to help identify unregulated contaminants that may require a national drinking water regulation in the future. The CCL 3 contaminant nominations process is an opportunity to provide information on contaminants that the general public, stakeholders, agencies, and industry think should be considered for the CCL. Nominations must be received on or before December 15, 2006. The Agency will also accept nominations during the notice and comment period following EPA’s publication of the proposed CCL.
According to EPA, there are thousands of naturally occurring and man-made contaminants that have the potential to enter sources of drinking water (e.g., pesticides, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, industrial chemicals). Some of these contaminants may pose no risk to human health, but others may cause cancer or have endocrine disrupting, reproductive, or developmental effects. Naturally occurring microbial contaminants may also cause acute illness. To ensure that public health is protected, EPA must assess the universe of unregulated drinking water contaminants to determine if they may require regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
The CCL is the primary vehicle used by EPA to target and prioritize unregulated contaminants in drinking water for research and analysis to determine which new contaminants should be regulated. SDWA requires that EPA publish, every five years, a list of unregulated chemical and microbial contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and which may require regulation under SWDA. EPA is also required to consult with the scientific community and provide notice and opportunity for public comment prior to publication of the CCL.
Access EPA's Contaminant Candidate List 3 (CCL 3) Nominations website for complete details including links to the FR announcement and the nominations website (click here). [*Drink]
According to EPA, there are thousands of naturally occurring and man-made contaminants that have the potential to enter sources of drinking water (e.g., pesticides, pharmaceuticals, personal care products, industrial chemicals). Some of these contaminants may pose no risk to human health, but others may cause cancer or have endocrine disrupting, reproductive, or developmental effects. Naturally occurring microbial contaminants may also cause acute illness. To ensure that public health is protected, EPA must assess the universe of unregulated drinking water contaminants to determine if they may require regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
The CCL is the primary vehicle used by EPA to target and prioritize unregulated contaminants in drinking water for research and analysis to determine which new contaminants should be regulated. SDWA requires that EPA publish, every five years, a list of unregulated chemical and microbial contaminants that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems and which may require regulation under SWDA. EPA is also required to consult with the scientific community and provide notice and opportunity for public comment prior to publication of the CCL.
Access EPA's Contaminant Candidate List 3 (CCL 3) Nominations website for complete details including links to the FR announcement and the nominations website (click here). [*Drink]
Friday, October 13, 2006
EPA Issues Final Drinking Water Groundwater Rule
Oct 12: U.S. EPA issued a new rule which they say will provide greater protection to the drinking water of more than 100 million Americans. The rule targets utilities that provide water from underground sources and requires greater vigilance for potential contamination by disease-causing microorganisms. Benjamin Grumbles, assistant administrator for water said, "These first-ever standards will help communities prevent, detect and correct tainted ground water problems so citizens continue to have clean and affordable drinking water." Systems must begin to comply with the new requirements by December 1, 2009.
The risk-targeting strategy incorporated in the rule provides for: regular sanitary surveys of public water systems to look for significant deficiencies in key operational areas; triggered source-water monitoring when a system that does not sufficiently disinfect drinking water identifies a positive sample during its regular monitoring to comply with existing rules; implementation of corrective actions by ground water systems with a significant deficiency or evidence of source water fecal contamination; and compliance monitoring for systems that are sufficiently treating drinking water to ensure effective removal of pathogens. A ground water system is subject to triggered source-water monitoring if its treatment methods don't already remove 99.99 percent of viruses. Contaminants in question are pathogenic viruses -- such as rotavirus, echoviruses, noroviruses -- and pathogenic bacteria, including E. coli, salmonella, and shigella. Utilities will be required to look for and correct deficiencies in their operations to prevent contamination from these pathogens.
Access a release (click here). Access EPA's Groundwater Rule website for links to the prepublication copy of the 287-page final rule, fact sheet, Q&A document, quick reference guide, supporting documents and background (click here). [*Drink]
The risk-targeting strategy incorporated in the rule provides for: regular sanitary surveys of public water systems to look for significant deficiencies in key operational areas; triggered source-water monitoring when a system that does not sufficiently disinfect drinking water identifies a positive sample during its regular monitoring to comply with existing rules; implementation of corrective actions by ground water systems with a significant deficiency or evidence of source water fecal contamination; and compliance monitoring for systems that are sufficiently treating drinking water to ensure effective removal of pathogens. A ground water system is subject to triggered source-water monitoring if its treatment methods don't already remove 99.99 percent of viruses. Contaminants in question are pathogenic viruses -- such as rotavirus, echoviruses, noroviruses -- and pathogenic bacteria, including E. coli, salmonella, and shigella. Utilities will be required to look for and correct deficiencies in their operations to prevent contamination from these pathogens.
Access a release (click here). Access EPA's Groundwater Rule website for links to the prepublication copy of the 287-page final rule, fact sheet, Q&A document, quick reference guide, supporting documents and background (click here). [*Drink]
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
