<DOC>
[109th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:30340.wais]
OVA-POLLUTION IN THE POTOMAC: EGG-BEARING MALE BASS AND IMPLICATIONS
FOR HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED NINTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 4, 2006
__________
Serial No. 109-186
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
30-340 WASHINGTON : 2007
_____________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512ÿ091800
Fax: (202) 512ÿ092250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402ÿ090001
COMMITTEE ON GOVERNMENT REFORM
TOM DAVIS, Virginia, Chairman
CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
DAN BURTON, Indiana TOM LANTOS, California
ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida MAJOR R. OWENS, New York
JOHN M. McHUGH, New York EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN L. MICA, Florida PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania
GIL GUTKNECHT, Minnesota CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York
MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland
STEVEN C. LaTOURETTE, Ohio DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio
TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois
CHRIS CANNON, Utah WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri
JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee DIANE E. WATSON, California
CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts
MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
DARRELL E. ISSA, California LINDA T. SANCHEZ, California
JON C. PORTER, Nevada C.A. DUTCH RUPPERSBERGER, Maryland
KENNY MARCHANT, Texas BRIAN HIGGINS, New York
LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of
PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina Columbia
CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania ------
VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont
JEAN SCHMIDT, Ohio (Independent)
BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
David Marin, Staff Director
Lawrence Halloran, Deputy Staff Director
Benjamin Chance, Clerk
Michael Galindo, Clerk
Phil Barnett, Minority Chief of Staff/Chief Counsel
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on October 4, 2006.................................. 1
Statement of:
Grumbles, Benjamin, Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Water, Environmental Protection Agency; Mark Myers,
Director, U.S. Geological Survey; Susan Haseltine,
Associate Director of Biology, U.S. Biological Survey; and
Gregory Masson, Chief, Branch of Environmental
Contaminants, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service............... 16
Grumbles, Benjamin....................................... 16
Myers, Mark.............................................. 29
Murray, Charles, general manager, Fairfax Water; Andrew D.
Brunhart, Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission; Thomas
Jacobus, general manager, Washington Aqueduct; Joseph
Hoffman, executive director, Interstate Commission on the
Potomac River Basin; Ed Merrifield, executive director/
riverkeeper, Potomac Riverkeeper, Inc.; and Erik Olson,
director of advocacy, Natural Resources Defense Council.... 56
Brunhart, Andrew D....................................... 61
Hoffman, Joseph.......................................... 90
Jacobus, Thomas.......................................... 84
Merrifield, Ed........................................... 101
Murray, Charles.......................................... 56
Olson, Erik.............................................. 107
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Brunhart, Andrew D., Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission,
prepared statement of...................................... 63
Cummings, Hon. Elijah E., a Representative in Congress from
the State of Maryland, prepared statement of............... 9
Davis, Chairman Tom, a Representative in Congress from the
State of Virginia, prepared statement of................... 3
Grumbles, Benjamin, Assistant Administrator for the Office of
Water, Environmental Protection Agency, prepared statement
of......................................................... 19
Hoffman, Joseph, executive director, Interstate Commission on
the Potomac River Basin, prepared statement of............. 92
Jacobus, Thomas, general manager, Washington Aqueduct,
prepared statement of...................................... 86
Merrifield, Ed, executive director/riverkeeper, Potomac
Riverkeeper, Inc., prepared statement of................... 103
Murray, Charles, general manager, Fairfax Water, prepared
statement of............................................... 59
Myers, Mark, Director, U.S. Geological Survey, prepared
statement of............................................... 31
Olson, Erik, director of advocacy, Natural Resources Defense
Council, prepared statement of............................. 110
Ruppersberger, Hon. C.A. Dutch, a Representative in Congress
from the State of Maryland, prepared statement of.......... 13
OVA-POLLUTION IN THE POTOMAC: EGG-BEARING MALE BASS AND IMPLICATIONS
FOR HUMAN AND ECOLOGICAL HEALTH
----------
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2006
House of Representatives,
Committee on Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 1:05 p.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Tom Davis
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Tom Davis, Cummings, Van Hollen,
and Ruppersberger.
Also present: Representatives Gilchrest and Moran.
Staff present: David Marin, staff director; Larry Halloran,
deputy staff director; Keith Ausbrook, chief counsel; A. Brooke
Bennett, counsel; Michael Galindo and Benjamin Chance, clerks;
Ali Ahmad, staff assistant; Phil Barnett, minority staff
director/chief counsel; Robin Appleberry, Krista Boyd, and
Alexandra Teitz, minority counsels; Earley Green, minority
chief clerk; and Jean Gosa, minority assistant clerk.
Chairman Tom Davis. Good afternoon, and welcome to this
oversight hearing on egg-bearing male fish in the Potomac
River. Recent Washington Post stories on this topic have
spawned a great deal of interest, and justifiable concern,
about the implications of this odd phenomenon for the
environment, for the fish and for us.
Today we will hear from those who watch over what goes
into, and what comes out of, our vital regional waterway, the
Potomac River.
First, let us understand just how far and wide the Potomac
reaches. If you look at the green line on this map, you will
see that the river runs from West Virginia into the Chesapeake
Bay. Its uses are as varied as the communities through which it
meanders. Humans use it for boating and recreational fishing.
Fish and wildlife use it as their habitat. And local utilities
use it to provide drinking water. In other words, what happens
in the Potomac doesn't affect only one species of fish in
Washington, DC. It has repercussions for all the life that
thrives on its flow.
So, what about these fish that scientists have found in our
river? Do they have three heads? Three eyes? Are they growing
legs? No. That is not the case at all. The findings by the U.S.
Geological Survey and the Fish and Wildlife Service are far
subtler, but troubling nevertheless. What they and other
researchers have found is egg yolk and immature ova being
produced in male reproductive organs. That's what is known.
Still unknown are the exact causes, pathways and mechanisms of
this unusual biology activity.
Some believe the fish could be reacting to organic chemical
compounds such as human estrogen from processed sewage or
animal estrogen from agricultural run-off. There is also the
possibility the reaction has been triggered by manmade
chemicals in pesticides and cosmetics, or it could be a
combination of both. Those questions are still under
investigation, and we look forward to hearing from Department
of Interior representatives about their research and findings
to date.
So, what about the drinking water coming from the Potomac?
How safe is it, and who is responsible for keeping it safe?
This seemingly straightforward question has a complicated
answer. In 1974, Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act,
requiring the Environmental Protection Agency to set standards
and testing requirements for contaminants. Those requirements
are then implemented by the States. Because it runs through so
many jurisdictions, the Potomac presents an interesting and
challenging case. Testimony by our witnesses today will shed
some light on the difficulties of navigating through the
twisting rapids and rocky shoals of Federal and State water
quality regulations.
The good news is that many water utilities meet or exceed
current EPA standards. But the menu of chemicals and
contaminants finding their way into our waters is constantly
changing, and the science of detecting and eliminating those
contaminants, frankly, has to play catch-up.
EPA, along with other Federal agencies, has been studying
chemicals and compounds thought to be causing the intersex fish
phenomenon. We will hear from them, and from local water
utilities, on how they advance the science and maintain
vigilant testing regimes to keep harmful compounds out of our
water.
At the end of the day, researchers have yet to determine
what is scrambling the bass eggs. The preliminary conclusion as
of now is that the fish ova-pollution probably has no impact on
human health. Still, as the chairman of the House committee
with jurisdiction over the District of Columbia, and as the co-
chair of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed Task Force, I and many
others want to know more. We need to be certain these sensitive
biological markers are being monitored and studied so we can
detect and eliminate potentially harmful substances from the
river ecosystem before they cause downstream environmental or
human health effects.
I would like to thank our witnesses for being here today,
and we look forward to hearing from each of you.
I would ask unanimous consent that the distinguished
gentleman from the Commonwealth of Virginia Mr. Moran be
allowed to participate in today's hearing.
Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
[The prepared statement of Chairman Tom Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.001
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.004
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.005
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman. I thank you
for holding this vitally important hearing to investigate the
discovery of abnormalities in fish in the Potomac Watershed and
possible implications for human and ecological health.
The Potomac River supplies about 75 percent of the drinking
water consumed by almost 4 million residents of the
metropolitan Washington region, which includes the District of
Columbia, Montgomery County, Arlington and Fairfax County. I
think we can all agree on the need to make sure that this water
is clean and safe for human consumption.
Any safety breach of the Potomac water supply has the
potential to create a public health crisis of great magnitude.
So, with this in mind, I am terribly concerned about the recent
discovery that bass in the Potomac are displaying significant
abnormalities.
Specifically, researchers found that more than 80 percent
of the male smallmouth bass they sampled were growing eggs, and
7 of 13 male largemouth bass had unusual feminine
characteristics. As you know, Mr. Chairman, scientists study
the health of fish and other similarly sized species to
determine the health of the ecological system in which they
reside. That is why many have taken the recent findings with
regard to smallmouth and largemouth bass in the Potomac as an
indication that problems exist in the entire ecosystem, and
possibly in the human population as well.
Researchers attribute the fish abnormalities to pollution
in the waters in the form of endocrine disruptors, which are
chemicals that interfere with human and animal biological
processes. Endocrine-disrupting compounds include natural and
synthetic hormones, pesticides and compounds used in plastics.
In 1998, the U.S. Geological Survey noted that at least 45
synthetic chemicals have been identified as potential endocrine
disruptors. Unfortunately, we do not know which of these
chemicals or which combination of chemicals is creating the
problem we are seeing in the Potomac. We similarly do not know
with great certainty what the impact on humans will be. The
effects of human exposure to endocrine disruptors are not well
understood, but some have raised concern that exposure could
lead to reproductive abnormalities or cancer.
Faced with this possibility, we cannot afford to waste time
in investigating and addressing the problem that has been
identified, but I understand that this has not been the case.
The EPA has not yet implemented its Endocrine Disruptor
Screening Program 10 years after Congress mandated that it do
so, and 7 years after the statutory deadline. This is simply
inexcusable.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on how
we can address this problem in an effective and efficient way.
Again, Mr. Chairman, I thank you for calling this hearing.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you, Mr. Cummings.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Elijah E. Cummings
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.006
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.007
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your
statement. Mr. Cummings and my concerns reflect those that both
of you have stated. It does seem that we are talking about
endocrine-disrupting chemicals. There was a book written by a
woman several years ago that brought to light this phenomenon,
but I didn't know that it was going to come so close to home in
the Potomac River.
The problem is that this may very well be the tip of an
iceberg. Clearly we have a situation that merits a good deal of
attention, and that's why a hearing like this is so important
to see what kind of attention is being given it by the experts.
There was some written testimony provided by Dr. Myers of
the U.S. Geological Service, a survey, and they--samples from
95 different emerging contaminants, drug, hormones, detergents,
disinfectants, insecticides, fire retardants and so on. He
found that at least one of those chemicals was present in 80
percent of the streams in this area, and in 75 percent of the
streams there was a mixture of those potentially toxic
chemicals.
Now, they all have different reactions, but there's been
very little research on what happens when different chemicals
are put together, and I think we need a lot more research to
see what the combined reaction might be of some of these
chemicals that are so omnipresent in our water supply that we--
I am afraid that the direction in which we are going is sort of
like a ship without a radar.
We don't know which specific chemicals are responsible for
this--our situation with regard to the fish. We don't know what
constitutes a safe and/or a harmful concentration of chemicals,
and we don't know what we can do in order to reduce our
exposure to them. But until we do know the answers to those
questions, the public's health could well be jeopardized.
So I think this is a very serious issue, an important
hearing, and I appreciate you, Mr. Chairman, for calling the
hearing. And for my two very good friends and colleagues on
either side of us, they came all the way down from Baltimore to
attend it, so it shows they recognize the importance of it.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thanks very much. Mr. Ruppersberger.
Thanks very much for coming down from Baltimore.
Mr. Ruppersberger. The Government Reform Committee is the
investigative arm, and there are a lot of things that we look
at, but when it comes to an issue like this, it's important
because of our water supply, because of how it affects us and
how it affects our way of life.
This discovery of intersex fish in the Potomac is clearly a
problem. What we do know is that small and largemouth bass with
male organs and female characteristics as an example of
carrying immature eggs is a problem in the region. We do know
this is caused by endocrine disruptors in the water, and
endocrine disruptors are found in everything from chemicals to
keep barnacles off boats, perfume and plastics.
Basically we can find this everywhere and in everything.
These chemicals can lock onto receptors and animals and force
the organism to react differently. What we are finding is that
male fish are being affected by displaying female traits. Now,
I am concerned about this because not only does it show our
local watershed environment is in distress, but I am concerned
for the safety of our drinking water. It is still unclear about
the effects of endocrine disruptors on people. There is
evidence that ingested amounts of these chemicals can slow the
development of younger people, but may have no effect on
adults.
Intersex fish have been found around the country. Because
of this concern last year the EPA convened a meeting in Las
Vegas to start to look into a large source of endocrine
disruptors from personal pharmaceutical products. It gathered
scientists, academia, industry and government together to look
at the scope of the problem and how it is affecting our Nation.
I know some water systems have already employed reverse osmosis
water treatment systems to pull out and collect organic
chemicals and endocrine disruptors. I applaud those steps, and
hopefully we can encourage local water facilities to do the
same.
The way I see it, we must first secure the water supply;
second, find the source of the pollutants; and establish a
system to address the problem. These are the opportunities.
These are the opportunities to see environmentalists and
consumer safety, government and industry work together on
solutions. My concern is that we always seem to have fixes for
the tail end of solutions. I really hope that we address the
source of the problem.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Hon. C.A. Dutch Ruppersberger
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.008
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.009
Chairman Tom Davis. I would ask unanimous consent that the
distinguished gentleman from the State of Maryland Mr.
Gilchrest be allowed to participate in today's hearing as well.
Without objection.
Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. Gilchrest. Mr. Chairman, thank you for allowing me to
sit on the dais today and for the other Members from Virginia
and Maryland who show a keen interest in this particular issue.
I don't think we probably should be surprised at this
issue. I think what we have done for the past 100 years,
through human activity, and with the development and discharge
of persistent toxic chemicals, is turning much of our land
area, our water area, into the kind of habitat that the Earth
hasn't seen for several billions of years, and what happens
under those circumstances is that some of the most primitive
life forms that in the subsequent aeons of time have evolved
become more pervasive.
What I would like to know, through the course of your
testimony--and I appreciate all of you for coming today--is do
you have a list of the fairly well-known persistent toxic
chemicals that are used or have been used in the manufacturing,
industrial sector for many, many decades now, and which of
those persistent toxic chemicals are similar to the natural
process of reproduction?
I guess the question I am asking is do you have a list of
persistent toxic chemicals that we know have some similarity to
the kind of molecules in the endocrine system that is the
reproductive system or the process of reproduction? Can those
persistent toxic chemical molecules that are similar to the
molecules in the reproduction system mimic those natural
molecules and cause this kind of a situation, this kind of a
problem?
The landscape around the waterways has been deforested. We
have filled in wetlands. We have paved over areas. We took a
rifleshot for these persistent toxic chemicals right into our
water bodies. We have seen this now for more than a decade,
perhaps for 20 years, in reptiles and fish all over the world,
whether it's the Everglades, the Thames River, the Susquehanna
River.
We also know in certain areas not only because of
agriculture, not only because of pesticides and herbicides, not
only because of chlorine, but we also know it's in sewage
sludge. So it should be no surprise that we have a pretty
pervasive problem that because of human activity has not been
compatible with nature's design.
Once we recognize that, it takes a lot of will, political
will, community will, will from people that are making these
policies or evaluating these situations, it will take a
concerted effort, scientifically and politically and human
activity, whether we are dealing with sewage or persistent
toxic chemicals mimicking the reproductive system in the
endocrine system--whatever it takes we need to make human
activity much more compatible with nature's design if there is
going to be any in the decades or centuries to come.
But I do want to thank the chairman for holding this
hearing, and I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you, Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank
you and my colleagues for organizing the hearing and for the
witnesses that will be testifying today. I don't have a lot to
add to what's been said, but I do believe that we need to
address this issue and get to the bottom of it quickly.
I think too much time has gone by since Congress originally
asked the EPA to look at this issue. I am sure we will hear
testimony as to exactly what is being done at EPA and the other
agencies that deal with the drinking water in this region.
But this is clearly an alarming picture where we have seen
the spread of the impact of the endocrine inhibitors on fish
populations.
I guess there was a first indication of this many years
ago. It seemed to have been isolated. That seems to have been
spread. There are obviously a couple of questions that we need
to answer for the public. One is exactly what are the causes of
this? No. 2, what are all the sources of this? Obviously the
major question we all have is what is the impact on human
health and the public health?
So I hope we can begin to get to the bottom of those
questions. As Mr. Cummings said, and others refer to it, the
Congress did ask EPA some time ago to identify some of these
chemicals and regulate them, if needed. As I understand it, we
were supposed to have a program in place by 1999. We have had
lots of studies and advisory groups. We haven't moved forward
on this issue. I know it's a complicated issue. I know the
science is difficult.
On the other hand, it is a question that, you know, has
potentially huge widespread impact. So I think we do need to
address this with greater urgency.
Chairman Tom Davis. We now move to our first panel of
witnesses. We have the Honorable Benjamin Grumbles, no stranger
to this committee, the Assistant Administrator of the Office of
Water for the Environmental Protection Agency; the Honorable
Mark Myers, the new Director of the U.S. Geological Survey,
just sworn in, welcome and congratulations; Dr. Susan
Haseltine, who is the Assistant Director of Biology for the
U.S. Geological Survey. Thank you, Doctor, for being with us
today; and Dr. Gregory Masson, Chief, Branch of Environmental
Contaminants for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
It's our policy that we swear in witnesses before you
testify.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. My understanding is Mr. Grumbles and
Mr. Myers are going to testify, and you are going to be our
answerers on some of the questions; is that right, Doctors?
Thank you. Welcome.
STATEMENTS OF BENJAMIN GRUMBLES, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR
THE OFFICE OF WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; MARK
MYERS, DIRECTOR, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY; SUSAN HASELTINE,
ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR OF BIOLOGY, U.S. BIOLOGICAL SURVEY; AND
GREGORY MASSON, CHIEF, BRANCH OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONTAMINANTS,
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN GRUMBLES
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and all the members
of the committee. It's an honor to be here to talk about a most
pressing subject and representing EPA. I am Ben Grumbles,
Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water.
Mr. Chairman, I want to assure you that EPA is going to
continue to be proactive and protective on this issue. Our
mission is to protect the public health and the environment,
and specifically, when it comes to water, it's to work together
in a collaborative way to rely on the best possible science and
to work to make sure that America's waters are clean, safe and
secure.
So what I am going to talk about in the testimony, which
goes into great detail, but the summaries that I am going to
provide to the committee is to focus on the statutory and
regulatory framework; also highlight some of the research
activities and some specific activities working with our
partners at the Federal, State and local level in the Potomac
Watershed, part of the greater Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
Mr. Chairman, the first thing I want to mention is that the
key to being protective of public health and the environment is
to be proactive, and the Clean Water Act is one of the first of
several regulatory, statutory tools that we have.
Now, under the Clean Water Act, it's all about keeping the
water clean and safe; and, specifically, one of the items under
the Clean Water Act we take very seriously is setting water
quality criteria, science-based criteria, for aquatic life and
also human health.
The agency is proactive on that front. We are establishing
new criteria. Just in the last year and a half we established
criteria for monophenols and tributyltin based on the end
points, the impacts on reproductive developmental systems.
We continue to emphasize in using that tool, the standard-
setting tool under the Clean Water Act, the importance of
keeping our eyes focused on emerging contaminants such as
pharmaceutical and endocrine-disrupting systems.
I also want to highlight the Safe Drinking Water Act, a
critically important statute to ensure that both source water
protection is carried out and that the product--whether it is
the Fairfax Water Authority or the Washington aqueduct,
continues to provide drinking water that is clean and safe for
this region.
Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, there's several
critically important tools that are relevant in the context of
this situation. One of them is that the U.S. EPA carries out a
6-year review process. That is a process where at least every 6
years we review existing maximum contaminant level to see if
they need to be revised.
I can assure you that as we go through that process, the
Agency is very much aware of the increasing evidence, the
widespread nature of these endocrine disruptors that are
occurring in water systems, and using the tools under that 6-
year review process.
Another key tool is the contaminant candidate listing
system, where we periodically list new contaminants for
regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act. We are taking
very seriously this increasing evidence of endocrine-disruptor
chemicals and looking at that CCL process as an opportunity.
The other one is the unregulated contaminant monitoring
rule where we require systems to monitor for unregulated
contaminants. That is a great opportunity, and we are using
that to require increased monitoring for these emerging
contaminants.
The other key statutory programs involve FIFRA and the
process--of TSCA of reviewing potential new chemicals, and we
use that. That's a very important part of the EPA strategy to
nip in the bud potential problems and to be preventive and
proactive.
The Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, Mr. Chairman, I
am here to tell you that we are working to implement that
provision put in the 1996 act, that there are technical
challenges, it's cutting-edge science. I am also here to tell
you that we will work harder and faster in making more progress
on that front.
But I am also here to say that is by no means the only tool
that we have in our tool box, and we are using a wide variety
of tools to help get the job done and be proactive and
protective.
On the research front, research priority for the U.S. EPA
is to carry out more field studies and lab work on the causes
and effects and occurrence of these endocrine-disrupting
chemicals and to develop better technologies so that they can
be treated, and the potential for harm is reduced dramatically.
The last thing, Mr. Chairman, I just want to mention is
that the key to having a sustainable and successful effort on
something as important both locally and nationally as this is
to work through a partnership and collaboration. So within the
Potomac Watershed, we, with other partners at the State and
local level, are part of a source water protection partnership
for the Potomac, and obviously one of the priority issues in
that context are these emerging contaminants, these
pharmaceuticals and other forms of endocrine-disrupting
customers. So we look forward to doing a lot more work on that
front.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for your attention and that of
all the colleagues on this important subject. I would be happy
to answer question when appropriate.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grumbles follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.010
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.011
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.012
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.013
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.014
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.015
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.016
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.017
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.018
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.019
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Myers, thank you for being with us.
STATEMENT OF MARK MYERS
Mr. Myers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee, for the opportunity to present the Department of
Interior's science regarding the characteristics of the fish in
the Potomac River.
But, I would also like to thank you for allowing me to
bring some real experts to the subject and hopefully can answer
some questions. I will try to keep my comments brief and to the
backbone so that you have more time to get to the details you
are interested in.
The term intersex or intersexual characteristics describes
a range of abnormalities in which both male and female
characteristics are present within the same fish. The
occurrence of intersexual fish has been related to endocrine
disruptors that affect the reproductive system. Endocrine
disruptors also interfere with the natural balance of hormones
that regulate development, reproduction, metabolism, behavior
and the internal state of living organisms.
The presence of this abnormal condition has been used as an
indicator to exposure to estrogenic chemicals that have been
documented in a variety of wild fish species in rivers and
estuaries around the Nation and in other countries.
The USGS has found such fish in the Colorado, the Columbia,
Mississippi, Missouri, Rio Grande, Las Vegas Wash and many
other locations in the country.
The USGS has studied fish health for many years. Recently
the USGS has documented fish and a number of fish health
problems in the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed associated
with changing water quality and habitat conditions. One of the
major findings is the presence of intersexual characteristics
in smallmouth and largemouth bass in the Potomac River.
In 2003 and 2004, in response to fish kills and increased
observations of external sores and wounds on smallmouth bass
and other species, the West Virginia Department of Natural
Resources and the USGS began to initiate fish health
assessments at selected sites in the Potomac River. In 2005,
samplings expanded to additional sites in the Shenandoah and
Potomac Watersheds specifically to look at character areas
associated with intersexual characteristics.
Preliminary findings suggest that intersex fish are
widespread throughout the Potomac and Shenandoah Rivers, but at
a much lower incident rate in other rivers in West Virginia.
Potential causes for intersex fish include chemical
contamination and changes in temperature regime and habitat.
Current research on intersexual characteristics has related
numerous endocrine-disruptor chemicals to the reproduction
effects in fish. These chemicals include previously banned
chemicals such as DDT, chlordane, natural and anthropogenic
hormones, herbicides, fungicides, industrial chemicals and an
increasing use of chemicals including personal care products
and pharmaceuticals.
Potential sources of these endocrine disruptors include
human and animal wastes, leachates from landfills, agriculture
and individual use of herbicides, pesticides and even
atmospheric deposition.
A limited amount of information is available on the
distribution of these endocrine disruptors in the Chesapeake
Bay and major river basins. During 1992 to 1996, the USGS
conducted extensive sampling in the Potomac and Susquehanna
River basins. Chlordane, DDT and PCBs were detected in
streambed sediments and aquatic tissues in the Potomac basin.
In addition the USGS has taken samples from the Potomac
basin as part of several national surveys of chemicals of
emerging and environmental concern since 1999, which include
endocrine disruptors.
Data from these samples from 1999 and 2000 indicate at
least one of these chemicals was found in at least 80 percent
of the streams with mixtures of chemicals occurring at 75
percent of the sites.
There is clearly a need to further document the extent of
the intersexual characteristics from the Chesapeake Bay and
other watersheds. Identifying the chemicals that are impacting
the fish, their sources, fate and transport will help managers
develop solutions for the problem.
The USDA, in partnership with the Fish and Wildlife Service
and other agencies, are conducting studies to discuss some
aspects of the Potomac River basin. Field studies--field
collections for these studies were completed in mid-June 2006,
and all samples are currently being analyzed. The final report
of these studies is expected in spring of next year. What we
have learned there may be applied to other areas, other
watersheds.
In summary, Interior bureaus have been carrying out and
will continue field collections and analysis in the Potomac
River Watershed. We look forward to continued collaborative
efforts with State, Federal and private partners to find better
ways to understand impacts of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in
the Nation's fish and wildlife resources.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, for
the opportunity to present this testimony. Again, I have with
me two real experts on the subject, Dr. Haseltine from my shop
and Dr. Masson from the Fish and Wildlife Service. We would be
happy to answer any questions.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Myers follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.020
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.021
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.022
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.023
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.024
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.025
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.026
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.027
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.028
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.029
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.030
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me start, Mr. Grumbles, with you.
EPA has been criticized for the time it has taken for the
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program to get up and running. I
think it was established 10 years ago in 1996. It's certainly a
long time to be waiting, especially when you consider that the
issue is of such importance to human health. It seems that it
is several years overdue from the NRDC lawsuit and
congressional mandate. Why has it taken so long?
Mr. Grumbles. Mr. Chairman, a couple of things. One is this
is cutting-edge science, as Congressman Van Hollen mentioned.
It's complex. It requires validated assays. That's the concept
in the statutory provision, which means not just EPA, but many
others involved need to make sure that multiple assays, not one
single type of test, but that multiple types of tests, are
used, and that they can be produced and reliable.
Mr. Chairman, the solutions are driven by the science. We
are committed to making an accelerating process under this
program, getting it right so that it is scientifically
defensible. So it's been a combination of things.
We are here to tell you that we are going to make
significant progress. We are going to be looking to take the
first tests under the Tier 1 screening part of the program by
the end of next year.
Chairman Tom Davis. Do you have enough money for it? Has it
been funded appropriately?
Mr. Grumbles. I think the challenge has been less of a
funding challenge and more a scientific challenge. The
Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Advisory Committee
spent several years, a good use of time, coming up with
recommendations and ideas. There have been some false starts in
some of the assays identified, or approaches, but it has really
been less of the funding and more of the difficult, complex,
scientific issues.
Chairman Tom Davis. You know, basically this is a new field
of science with no validated test systems. Why couldn't you use
existing data or tests?
Mr. Grumbles. Well, we are committed to doing a couple of
things, using the tools that we have, but continuing to put a
priority within the Office of Research and Development on
developing new tools, new methodologies and new approaches. So
we are fully committed to pushing as best we can, without
sacrificing scientific integrity, the development of these
validated assays and identifying priority areas and developing
implementation procedures.
Chairman Tom Davis. Just so we have a better sense, how
long should it have taken or should it take, for a new
screening program to start producing results from the time
Congress requires, to the time it is implemented?
Mr. Grumbles. Mr. Chairman, I think from--our objective has
been to get it done as quickly as we can in collaboration with
the other organizations in the scientific community. So, it's
something that we realize--it is one very important tool. We
have many other tools that we are using, regulatory tools, to
get at those most critical end points using the Safe Water
Drinking Act and the Clean Water Act, but we really do see the
screening program as an important one.
We are confident now that important discussions have been
occurring from the scientific community we will make progress
on it.
Chairman Tom Davis. Let me switch to Mr. Myers and his
team, then I will ask you to answer this, too. I think the
question for everybody, we are trying to get a sense of how
great the human health concern is of the chemicals in the
Potomac Watershed. That's really the underlying question. Do
you have any sense of how the results of the test could be
extrapolated from fish who spent 100 percent of their lives in
the water to humans?
Also, in your written statement, Mr. Myers, you indicated
that similar concerns have been raised over polar bears and
panthers, which are probably better comparisons to humans than
to fish. Is your agency able to shed some light on human health
based on these studies?
Mr. Myers. Mr. Chairman, I will say a few words and then
turn it over to the other panel, particularly with the mammals
to Dr. Masson.
But the first part of any rigorous scientific analysis is
to fully understand, A, the suite of chemicals that are present
at the various locations where you see the occurrences. So you
need a robust enough water and sediment sampling program. The
second part is enough physical evidence in the fish, enough
sampling, an adequate sampling over a wide range of conditions.
The other component is you want to try to reproduce the same
situations that are occurring in the laboratory so you can
isolate and demonstrate which chemicals are actually causing
this.
Again, we are looking at a wide suite of chemicals here. We
are looking at very small concentrations of chemicals, parts
per billions or trillions in some cases. This is extremely
dilute, which makes it difficult.
Another component is the difficulties--we are dealing with
some very fancy manufactured chemical compounds, some of them
very small scale. Again, the techniques to develop and detect
these things in very small concentrations, the ability to
isolate which indicators are happening and which combination of
naturally occurring events in the water temperature, turbidity,
etc., along with the chemical combination is actually causing
the changes.
So, again, it takes a tremendous amount of work and a
tremendous amount of----
Chairman Tom Davis. What you are saying, it doesn't take
much to cause these?
Mr. Myers. It appears--now, again, the linkage between
which chemicals are causing it and the other environmental
conditions for each species has to be sorted out.
With that, I will turn it over to, maybe, Dr. Masson to
discuss it in the large mammals and on the other species that
we are seeing intersexual characteristics.
Mr. Masson. Thank you, Dr. Myers.
First of all, I appreciate the opportunity to be here, and
hopefully some of my testimony will help you.
I am Dr. Greg Masson. This is my area of expertise. I
started working on endocrine disruption about 17 years ago in
Florida on the alligators and did some work on the Florida
panther, so I have a keen interest in the subject matter. With
the Fish and Wildlife Service we also have a keen interest, and
we work very well with USGS and EPA on these matters.
As to the contaminants of concern and the potential for
endocrine-disrupting effect and the relationship to humans, we
obviously deal with the animal components and the effects on
the animals, and any interpretation for humans would be left to
those agencies to deal with human health.
However, I can elaborate a little bit and say that
endocrine systems within vertebrate animals are essentially the
same; that we have the same basic hormones as humans, as do
cattle, horses, alligators, fish, etc.; so that there are
similar systems, and these inferences may or may not be brought
by those health agencies.
These are contaminants of concern that generally last a
short time, are extremely difficult to measure in the animal
systems. And the biomarkers that Mr. Grumbles had been
referring to are new techniques and are only advisable and only
testable in those animals that can lay eggs generally.
Mammal systems are much more difficult systems to evaluate,
obviously, and the bass system is different also.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Dr. Masson, maybe you are the appropriate person to answer
this question, just a followup to the chairman's question.
First of all, is it OK to eat these fish?
Mr. Masson. That is an excellent question.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you.
Mr. Masson. And it is extremely difficult because these
compounds are extremely difficult to measure. We have discussed
that, and I think the appropriate people that would answer that
would be those people within the States that put out the health
advisories for the consumption of fish.
But as far as the chemicals concerned and their physical
properties, they are not known to bioaccumulate essentially, so
they do not generally last a long time.
Mr. Cummings. Let me ask you a different way. If the fish
up there was put on a plate and fried and put in front of you,
would you eat it?
Mr. Masson. The bass that is exhibited there?
Mr. Cummings. That one right there.
Mr. Masson. Without having dissected it and not having
looked at the microscopic examination, yes.
Mr. Cummings. You would eat it. The reason why I ask that
is because I think we are all concerned. We all understand that
this is our watch, and we here, sitting up here, I know you
all, too, share the concern that we want to make sure that
people live in a safe environment. I look at what just happened
with spinach. People all over the country were throwing away
spinach just 2 or 3 weeks ago, and probably rightfully so, I
mean, because it just set off alarm bells.
I guess what we are just trying to get to is to break it
down so that we will have an understanding as to how, as the
chairman said, all of this affects the people that we
represent. We certainly are concerned about the ecosystem, and
so it seems to me--I don't want us to--I want us to try to get
down to the basics.
You know, when we found that there was a problem with
spinach, and I am not trying to say that this is any way
analogous, but it's the only thing I can think of for the
moment, all kinds of alarm bells went off.
I am wondering at what scale, on a scale of 0 to 10, when
we see fish that have the characteristics of two sexes, I
mean--I mean, a scale of 1 to 10--does some kind of an alarm
bell go off? It's been 10 years now, and I understand what you
are talking about, how complicated it is. We are talking about
chemicals, we are talking about combinations. I am wondering on
a scale from 0 to 10, 10 being superalarm, red alert, where
does this fall? Can somebody answer that for me?
Mr. Grumbles. Congressman, I would like to take a shot at
answering your questions. They are excellent questions. I think
everybody wants to know is the water safe to drink, are the
fish safe to eat?
Based on what we know, the water is safe to drink. After it
has been treated by the systems and in compliance with the Safe
Drinking Water Act, it's safe to drink the treated water from
the Potomac.
The fish, are the fish safe to eat? They should be safe to
eat if there's not an advisory, if there's not a local fish
advisory warning against eating the fish for some particular
contaminant. The question is, though, which we all are
acknowledging, this is an emerging area, these endocrine-
disruptor chemicals. We really need to learn more.
For me, on a scale of 1 to 10, an 8, in the sense of a need
to continue to be proactive; to accelerate more of the science,
the studies about not just occurrence and the sources, but the
impacts on humans. We don't have a lot of information about
impacts, direct threats to humans.
But you are right, fish are sentinels. They are warning
signs, and we need to take it all very seriously and be
proactive and get more science under our belt.
Mr. Cummings. Let me say this, because my time is running
out. Let me just say this: This is my concern. We have an area
in Baltimore where people, families grew up, and they later
found out that there was a large--a lot of cancer,
disproportionate amount of cancer, and now they basically have
gotten rid of everybody in that area.
Now, when those people were there, everybody is saying this
is a wonderful, a swell place to live. I don't want us looking
back 10 years from now saying that we did not move with the
appropriate urgency, and then people have gotten cancer. I can
imagine a woman looking at this hearing right now possibly
saying to herself, if she is thinking about having a family, a
husband and wife saying, well, wait a minute now, wait a
minute, if that's what it is doing to fish, then how does that
affect me and my children yet unborn?
Those are basic quality-of-life issues that I think we all
have a duty to try to protect the people who we are working
for. I guess that's what I am trying to get it at, Mr.
Chairman. Any of you may want to comment on that briefly?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Would you like to say anything.
Mr. Myers. Congressman, we take the issue very seriously.
We will do whatever we can to support in the scientific
community. I think a couple of--there are multiple levels of
issue here. The first is how is the ecosystem itself being
affected, how is this affecting the stability and the
population of the fish, and then how does that work up the food
chain to the other parts of the community, including the
humans?
So if you start out, one of the difficulties in this
problem is that we are seeing very low concentrations of
something that is very persistent and not coming off a single
point source. We are looking at multiple different types of
chemicals. We are looking at a very complex relationship
between the chemicals. Again, they don't accumulate, so it is
not like heavy metals or something that accumulates in
increasing amounts in the soil; they are just there in a low-
level, continuous way, multiple chemicals, multiple sources,
very hard thing to regulate.
Again, it's a wide suite of chemicals. So, again, we are
trying to get basic knowledge on this. It's not just in the
Potomac, but whether we have documented it in many other
watersheds as well. So it is a nationwide issue. We are
struggling with it. Again, hopefully, through some good
science, we can help start to answer your questions.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Gilchrest.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Yesterday at the dock at Turner's Creek, I bought eight
eels, pretty large-size eels, 2\1/2\ feet long, pretty thick,
for $20, which is a pretty good price for the amount of meat I
was getting.
That is indicative of up and down the Chesapeake Bay.
People go to hundreds of places around their community--a
waterman comes in with catfish or perch or rockfish or oysters
or whatever, and someone at the dock purchases it, or it goes
to market.
So I think the sense of urgency, to wrap this up and have
some understanding of whether or not you are going to eat that
fish on your plate or be concerned about eating that fish on
that plate, whether it has mercury contamination, persistent
toxic chemicals, I think we really need to get moving on the
Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program as quickly as possible.
The questions I have, the source of these complex
chemicals, I guess, would cover the gamut of sewage,
industrial, air deposition, agriculture, stormwater runoff, any
of those. They are all potential sources in the sewage--is it
sewage alone, or is it chemicals mixed with the sewage as it
gets processed?
Mr. Grumbles. Congressman, a couple of things. One is you
are absolutely right. There's a wide array of different
sources. Our research and development office is developing a
brand-new information system to be able to track and identify,
do some real detective work on the possible causes.
Mr. Gilchrest. So the question about sewage, and I know----
Mr. Grumbles. We have evidence that outfalls at sewage
treatment plants--that there are endocrine-disruptor chemicals
or that there are pharmaceuticals. It's a combination.
Mr. Gilchrest. So those endocrine disruptors, in the sewage
in particular, it's been mentioned here a couple of times, they
are short-lived. Are there any endocrine disruptors that are
persistent, that would be considered persistent toxic
chemicals, and what might they be?
Ms. Haseltine. There are persistent endocrine disruptors,
but there are many more that are not persistent, and I must say
that in some of them, once they get into the biota, we don't
really know that much about how long they persist, because they
tend to be modified so much and conjugated. That is one of the
reasons that EPA is having such a hard time with this screening
process.
Mr. Gilchrest. Can you give me an example of what some of
the persistent endocrine disruptors are?
Ms. Haseltine. There are traditional organochlorine
pesticides that we deal with all the time, and also many of the
anthropogenic hormones that we use in veterinary.
Mr. Gilchrest. How do they actually disrupt the endocrine
system? You have these very various persistent chemicals. You
have short-lived chemicals. When they get into the fish or the
alligator or the panther or the polar bear because of their
exposure, is it molecule to molecule? Does the chemical
molecule mimic the natural endocrine molecule; is that how it
works?
Ms. Haseltine. There are a couple of theorized delivery
mechanisms. The most researched is that they adhere to the
receptors that we all have in our bodies for these hormones, so
they mimic what natural hormones would do.
Mr. Gilchrest. So if a molecule can mimic the natural
hormone, is there a level or a degree of exposure that could
affect the endocrine system in a fish versus a human?
Ms. Haseltine. There are some laboratory results which go
to that issue, but there is not enough information for me to
give you a definitive answer on that.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is there a timeframe where a definitive
answer might be understood?
Ms. Haseltine. I think all I could say to you is we are
working as hard as we can to come up with these. You know, one
of our challenges is that we would like to be able to look at
mixtures of these chemicals, because that is what we are
finding in the environment, and that makes our job harder.
Mr. Gilchrest. Is that what has happened in the Everglades
or the Great Lakes or some of these other areas you have
described used as a benchmark to see what the short-lived
chemicals are, what are the persistent chemicals, to have some
clear understanding of the amount of exposure a fish needs or a
mammal needs?
Ms. Haseltine. I would say that we are still at the stage
where we are looking at the general distribution and the
environment. We don't have a handle on that system adequately.
Perhaps EPA has more information.
Mr. Grumbles. No, that's true. It's one reason why this
area is a priority for the agency in getting more information
and research. Your questions are good ones.
I just wanted to emphasize something. You were talking
about the fish, and EPA works very closely with FDA, whether
it's commercially sold fish, which is more of the FDA
prerogative or area of expertise and jurisdiction, or a
recreationally caught fish.
Fish are such an important part of the diet and balanced
diet, and there are so many benefits. One of the important
aspects of this hearing and getting out more information is
identifying what information do we have, to what extent are
there health risks?
We don't have a lot of information that these intersex fish
are presenting a problem or a risk to humans. When we find--and
are finding--or USGS is throughout the country--incidences
where there are endocrine-disrupting chemicals or traces of
pharmaceuticals, we are not finding high amounts of it, so it's
not directly translating in and a threat to human health. But
it is a real warning sign, and that's why it is helping to
define the research agenda and the pace of the research.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you very much. I also would wish with
your partnership that you are talking about, local, State and
Federal, that you have a strong partnership with the Corps of
Engineers Enforcement Division for protecting forestlands and
wetlands. That's some of the sources of these problems.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Chairman Davis.
Well, Dr. Masson, first I want to ask you about a book that
I read many years ago, it's just coming back to mind now. It
was touted at the time as kind of a followup to Silent Spring.
It was a book about endocrine disruptors. What was the title
and the name of the author?
Mr. Masson. I presume you are talking about the book
written by Theo Coburn on chemically induced alterations in
animals in 1992?
Mr. Moran. No, it had a much sexier title than that.
Mr. Masson. There was another one called Earth in the
Balance?
Mr. Moran. No, the one by Theo Coburn. I was just trying to
remember the title--Our Stolen Future. Thank you.
Mr. Masson. Yes, the more recent book, I am sorry.
Mr. Moran. I asked a lot of people about that in EPA and
the like, and they almost to a person dismissed it, saying that
she was exaggerating, that she was finding individual
situations that didn't have much relevance to the larger
picture and so on. Looking back on that, it must have been at
least 10 or 12 years, has much of what she said been borne out
to have both relevance and accuracy today?
Mr. Masson. With hindsight being 20/20, there are some
accuracies that she has, and there are some parts of her book
that obviously were fictional, and it can be interpreted in
that manner. But as Mr. Grumbles said, on a scale of 1 to 10,
using animals as his sentinel for all of our concern for the
human and the American people, you know, a 7 is appropriate,
that this is a concern for them. And some of the scenarios that
she had depicted in her book, Our Stolen Future, can be
explained, just like a lot of the quotes from Nostradamus can
be explained in that regard, but, you know, enough that they
can be corroborated.
Mr. Moran. Mr. Grumbles, we have had our run-ins before,
interior appropriations on water issues, but I find you to be a
professional, and I have been impressed by you.
I have to say, though, that I am not impressed by the
Environmental Protection Agency. It just seems that overall,
that Agency looks for every excuse it can find to delay
implementation of regulations designed to protect the public
health.
This is another case in point. I don't blame you because
you weren't around in 1996, but this was 10 years ago. As the
chairman has pointed out, EPA was instructed to make
recommendations on how to develop a screening and testing
program for endocrine disruptors. That was timely, it was
important, it should have been done.
Two years later, there was a notice outlining the program.
Then a year later it said that there was a scientific advisory
panel review; 1999 you settled--EPA settled with the Natural
Resources Defense Council, agreeing to use its best effort to
complete validation and so on. In 2000, there was a progress
report which couldn't have outlined any progress.
So this is a bipartisan condemnation of EPA, at least in
terms of the endocrine disruptors program. That might be
somewhat heartening.
But, boy, in the last 5 years, there's been even less
action. There was a validation subcommittee formed in 2001.
There was a report to Congress in 2002 on progress, of which
there really was none. Then there was, in December 2002, a
notice on proposed chemical selection for the initial round of
screening; and, then, again, there was another notice in
September 2005 on chemical selection approach for initial
screening. There has not been one chemical screened, as far as
I can see.
Now, can you tell me, any chemicals that have gone through
this screening process as was instructed to you?
Mr. Grumbles. Congressman, I respectfully disagree with
your opinion.
I can tell you that the Agency is being as proactive and
protective as we can. The science needs to drive the solutions,
and when it comes to the screening program, as I said, we are
working to accelerate the pace of that program.
Now, I can say there has been progress. We have worked, we
have set up the two-tier system. We are not just dismissing,
Congressman, when you mentioned the dismissing concerns, far
from dismissing concerns about various types of chemicals.
The Agency has embraced the notion that it needs to focus
on more than just estrogen and on more than just pesticides;
that it needs to focus more on human impacts, but also
ecological. We are committed to work with you and with others
to get more results and to do it more quickly.
Mr. Moran. I mean, those are nice words, Mr. Grumbles, and
those are kind of the words that we got in response to similar
questions. But in this Washington Post article that brought
this to light, it said that even though in 1996 Congress
required EPA to develop a screening program to identify which
chemicals are endocrine disruptors, 10 years later the Agency
hasn't tested a single chemical. Is there one chemical you have
tested?
Mr. Grumbles. Under that program that is being developed,
no. And we will, by the end of next year, once we get the
protocols right. But under other authorities, Congressman, we
had been very proactive and aggressive, and we will continue to
be, and we will look for new opportunities for some of the
tools that I have mentioned, the Safe Drinking Water Act, the
contaminant candidate listing process for new and emerging
chemicals.
I can give you many instances, and I would be happy to
submit it for the record, where the professionals at EPA, and
the research office, as well as in the pesticides and the water
offices, are being proactive. We have studies under way to
identify the occurrence of pharmaceuticals and the causes and
effects.
So I would disagree with the characterization,
respectfully, and say this is an emerging area, there's
cutting-edge science that is required, and we are committed to
working with our other Federal and non-Federal partners to give
this important subject significant attention.
Mr. Moran. Fortunately for you my time is up, Mr. Grumbles.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again, thank
you all for your testimony.
Mr. Grumbles, you mentioned in your testimony that the fish
were kind of like sentinels, and I think other people said that
they're like canaries in the coal mine, so I think when we
begin to see these disturbing effects in the fish, we really
need to take a more urgent look at it, and I think you
understand that, and just to piggy-back a little on that, the
other half of that is the urgency with which the science is
pursued and the amount of effort and time, and I guess I would
just ask whether or not the EPA has yet identified the list of
chemicals that it intends to test.
Mr. Grumbles. I know that we've got some priority. We've
got a--very much part of our work plan and agenda is to
identify priority chemicals/pharmaceuticals. We have identified
priorities, under our Research Office Program, specific
pharmaceuticals and endocrine disruptors, and in terms of the
screening program, that's very much a part of the protocols and
the tiering process that we're going to use.
Mr. Van Hollen. OK. Could you provide the committee with a
list of the----
Mr. Grumbles. I'd be happy to provide you with the
materials that we've got. Yes, sir.
Mr. Van Hollen. Good. Is atrazine on that list?
Mr. Grumbles. I don't know the answer.
We do have--to answer your question on atrazine, which is a
chemical that is coming up quite a bit in the discussions over
endocrine disruptors, we do have a standard for that. The
Agency has established a standard criterion for atrazine under
the Clean Water Act as a regulatory tool.
Mr. Van Hollen. Right, but I want to ask you. Is that one
of the tests, one of the validating tests, you're looking at
for atrazine? Let me ask you about that.
As I understand, the test is 3 parts per billion; is that
correct? That's the current test? That's the water quality test
for atrazine?
Mr. Grumbles. Three parts per billion?
Mr. Van Hollen. That's my understanding. Is that accurate?
Mr. Grumbles. Do we know--I think--can we confirm that for
you and provide it?
Mr. Van Hollen. Yeah. The reason I ask that is--look, the
European Union has taken a look at some of these issues and
pesticides, and they've decided that they are dangerous to the
human health. In fact, the European Union has banned atrazine.
Now atrazine has been found recently in the Potomac River
waters. I have here the Washington Aqueduct, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers' analysis from 2005. Last April, they found
the atrazine level to be 0.5 parts per billion, which is under
the EPA standard, but the question is whether or not the EPA
standard is adequate, because my understanding is that--
research tests that have been performed, once that unfolds,
show that you can have a significant negative impact at 0.1
parts per billion. Are you familiar with that research?
Mr. Grumbles. Personally, I'm not. I am familiar with the
work that the Pesticides Office is doing to regulate atrazine,
and identify, with the Research Office.
Mr. Van Hollen. I guess the question is--there have been a
couple studies. There were studies on humans, actually, in 2003
and 2006 on atrazine which actually showed that there was a
significant impact on men exposed to atrazine at lower levels
than the current standard, and so I guess my question is here's
something where the European Union has already said, look, we
think this is dangerous enough to the public health that we're
going to ban it. So it would seem to me that we would be taking
a really hard and urgent look at this, and my question is,
given the fact that it has been found in the Potomac River and
other rivers in the country, what are you doing to followup on
both the tests that were on animals and on humans that show
that the 0.3 part-per-billion test was not sufficient to
protect the human health, and from the perspective of the
Europeans, they said we're not even--we're not going to mess
with this. Let's just not allow it.
Mr. Grumbles. A couple comments, Congressman.
I'm going to need to get back to you on some of the
specific things because I can't describe each and every one,
and need to coordinate with staff on that, and will be happy to
provide that to you and the other committee members.
The other thing, though, is the basic point about
pesticides. I know that the Agency recognizes--and certainly,
the Research Office--our research priorities are focused very
much on pesticides and synthetic hormones, and pesticides is
one of the priority areas.
I also know that we are coordinating on an international
front, providing information and also sharing, learning lessons
and also giving lessons about different approaches on this
cutting-edge science, and pesticides is very much an important
part of it; so are some of the other--the pharmaceuticals and
various endocrine disruptor chemicals.
One of our messages, Congressman, is we are going to pursue
aggressively regulatory tools and research, and stewardship is
one item, and one of the messages that we are providing to
homeowners and to citizens is that the toilet is not a trash
can, and as more and more pharmaceuticals are in the
marketplace and are being disposed of, you need to think twice
before you flush it down the toilet, and that is not advisable,
that there needs to be other ways to manage with these
pharmaceuticals as we learn more about their impacts on the
environment and potentially on human health.
Mr. Van Hollen. Right. Do we look--Mr. Grumbles, do we look
carefully at the decisions made by the Europeans and learn from
the studies and conclusions they've drawn? I guess my question
is pretty simple here.
I mean are the Europeans wrong to ban it or are they more
protective of human health?
Mr. Grumbles. I don't know. I can't speak to the merits of
banning or not banning on that. I know that inclusivity and
sharing with other jurisdictions is important. We know about
the U.K. and their pilot studies on endocrine disruptors, and
we will continue to work to see--to learn more and also to
share our knowledge.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Just two quick followups. EPA testing isn't just limited to
the screening program, though, right?
Mr. Grumbles. That's correct.
Chairman Tom Davis. So it's fair to say the EPA is doing
nothing?
Mr. Grumbles. No, that's not fair to say.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK. OK. Talk about the screening
program. Talk about the other things you're doing.
Mr. Grumbles. Well, I can speak to several.
Particularly as Congressman Gilchrest mentioned in raising
very valid questions about sewage in the mixtures and
components of sewage, one of the actions that the Agency is
taking is a national pilot study of pharmaceuticals and
personal care products in fish tissue, also a targeted national
sewage sludge survey to obtain national estimates of source
concentrations for about 50 chemicals. We're also doing a
monitoring study of 30 emerging contaminants as well as 60
conventional pollutants discharged from sewage treatment
plants. We've had sampling at four sites, and more sites will
be selected, and we're really working with the utilities
because they are in the front lines on this front when it comes
to doing studies about the occurrence, and also our Research
Office is providing funding for technologies to more
effectively treat and remove the pharmaceuticals or other types
of endocrine-disrupting chemicals at the utility itself.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Any more questions?
Mr. Gilchrest. One quick one, Mr. Chairman.
Is there any connection or potential connection between
this Endocrine Disruptor Program, all of the screening that's
being done and a broader look at TMDLs?
Mr. Grumbles. ``TMDLs'' are Total Maximum Daily Loads that
the Congressman is very much aware of because it's essentially
a term in the Clean Water Act for developing a pollution budget
for waterways that are not meeting their water quality
standards and where more needs to be done and more action needs
to be taken.
I think it's very useful to connect the dots between
emerging contaminants and also the tools that we use and our
State partners use in accelerating the restoration of impaired
waterways. A lot of the TMDLs that have been developed to
date--and it's well over 20,000 TMDLs across the country--have
dealt with the conventional pollutants, but there are certainly
an emerging number that deal with the toxic pollutants that are
persistent and bioaccumulative ones, and as we gather more
information on the scientific front about pharmaceuticals or
other types of endocrine-disrupting chemicals, we are going to
be providing that information and integrating it into the State
Clean Water Act regulatory programs, and the TMDL is a perfect
way to identify an action plan to reduce loadings that are
causing the impairment.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you, and a lot of these issues dealing
with persistent toxic chemicals affecting the ecological
systems that we all rely upon, sometimes there's international
arrangements or international protocols or international
collaboration on this research.
Is there any of that with this?
Mr. Grumbles. Yes, sir, and I'm--I will also commit to
provide more information to the committee from our Office of
Research and Development and our International Affairs Office
about the international collaborations. I think this is a--this
is not just a local matter. As USGS and others have indicated,
there is a growing number of sites where these types of
intersex fish problems are being noticed. We are detecting
endocrine-disrupting chemicals and pharmaceuticals, for
example, and it's not limited to the United States. It's in
other parts of the world, and that's a key part of the strategy
is to gather more information and to share it globally.
Mr. Gilchrest. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Yeah, just a quick question because this is
obviously a big area.
My understanding is there are about 87,000 different
chemicals in commercial use, and I guess the question I would
have for you is do you have any idea how many or what
percentage of those chemicals find their way into the drinking
water, No. 1, and No. 2, how many of those do we test for, and
that's why I'm curious as to, you know, whether you've put
together a list and how you've prioritized, because there are
so many chemicals out there that we're clearly not testing for.
We need to come up with, you know, a rational way of deciding
how we're going to go about this and try and obviously cover as
many as possible.
So do you have any idea, of the approximately 87,000
chemicals that are commercially produced, how many, percentage,
find themselves into the waterway, No. 1, and No. 2, how many
do we test for?
Mr. Grumbles. Well, your point about prioritizing and
having targeted research and prioritizing the chemicals, we are
focusing on the endocrine programs on this issue on pesticides
and also on high production volume chemicals.
When it comes to the Safe Drinking Water Act and the
regulatory program, as you know, Congressman, we rely very much
on the unregulated contaminant monitoring rules where we have--
we're working on a third rule regulation that identifies
specific unregulated contaminants for monitoring by utilities.
I'm very excited about the future of the contaminant
candidate listing program under the Safe Drinking Water Act
because that is a mechanism where we do the best we can to
identify out of those thousands of chemicals, unregulated
chemicals, which ones present the greatest health risk, which
ones have the greatest degree of occurrence, which ones will
present the most meaningful opportunity for reducing risk to
human health.
So that process will continue. I don't have a specific
number for you, Congressman, you know, in comparison to the
87,000, but we are going to be using and will continue to use a
screening process to identify priority chemicals for regulation
under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Mr. Van Hollen. OK. Thank you.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Moran, do you want to----
Mr. Moran. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to congratulate Dr. Myers on his confirmation by the
Senate. Congratulations, and it's nice to see Dr. Haseltine
here with us as well.
We cited the study that you had done, Dr. Myers, and you've
submitted it as written testimony. Is there other histological
evidence of these endocrine disruptors being present in streams
in the area?
Mr. Myers. Thank you for that question, Congressman.
I know I've made the studies--we've put some of the
references in the testimony, but I will defer to Dr. Haseltine,
who can talk about maybe a few of the key studies that have
gone on.
Ms. Haseltine. As I understood your question, you wanted to
know the number of studies that have been done in this one----
Mr. Moran. No, just other--we focused on the one that the
doctor cited in the testimony from Dr. Myers. Are there others
corroborating that?
Ms. Haseltine. Yes. There are endocrine disruption studies
that we're carrying out and have carried out all over the
country with various species of fish, and from the Mississippi
drainage to the Colorado, we are looking at this--for this
phenomenon and at this phenomenon in association with water
quality and other environmental changes.
Mr. Moran. No. I understand you're looking at it, but there
were some pretty startling discoveries in the Potomac, for
example. There weren't smallmouth bass, so you looked at
largemouth bass, and you found that 70 percent of them or
something had eggs in them. So this was a pretty widespread
phenomenon among the bass.
Has that been corroborated by other studies that haven't
been mentioned in this, particularly in this immediate area?
Ms. Haseltine. No. I would not say that it has at those
levels, but I think we need to be cautious in interpreting that
because this study that showed those high incidences was
looking specifically below sewage outfalls, and most of our
studies more generally sample fish in the environment. So,
while, you know, obviously this needs followup, I would say
that the sampling design would lead to more----
Mr. Moran. But the initial conclusion would be that it's
coming from the sewage. They live in the----
Ms. Haseltine. There certainly is a correlation.
Mr. Moran. There is a high correlation, and when they are
swimming in the area that is immediately impacted by the sewage
outflow, there--the endocrine disruptors cause them to be what
we call ``intersex fish,'' and that was 70 percent of them,
apparently, in the one--in this immediate area, the Potomac.
OK.
Well, that's probably a good segue to the next panel, Mr.
Chairman.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Let me just ask one last question. This has been mostly
upstream in the West Virginia area and less downstream; is that
right? Have we sampled fish downstream as well?
Ms. Haseltine. I think we're just starting to sample fish
further downstream, and you have some of the initial results.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Thank you.
Mr. Van Hollen. Mr. Chairman, I thought I saw something
about the presence of this problem around the Woodrow Wilson
Bridge. Was I wrong about that or did--I thought I saw a report
about that.
Ms. Haseltine. Yeah, that was one of the sites. Right.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK. This is obviously an important
issue, not only for D.C. and the Potomac, so we're going to
followup with your progress on the screening program and the
work of all of the Federal agencies to reduce these risks to
human and wildlife health.
So I'm going to thank this panel, and we'll discharge you,
and we'll take about a 3-minute recess as we move to our next
panel. Thank you all very much.
[Recess.]
Chairman Tom Davis. The committee will come back in. I want
to thank you all for staying with us.
We have on the second panel Mr. Charles Murray, the general
manager of the Fairfax Water. Thank you for being here. Mr.
Andrew Brunhart, the general manager of Washington Suburban
Sanitary Commission. Thank you. Mr. Thomas Jacobus, general
manager of the Washington Aqueduct. Thank you for being with
us. Mr. Joseph Hoffman, the executive director of the
Interstate Commission on the Potomac River Basin. Thank you.
Mr. Ed Merrifield, executive director with the Potomac
Riverkeepers, and Mr. Erik Olson, the director of the Advocacy
for the Natural Resources Defense Council. I know you're no
stranger to this committee.
I want to thank all of you for being here. You know it's
our policy we swear you in before you testify. So, if you
would, just rise with me.
[Witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Tom Davis. You've all heard the first panel. Your
entire statements are in the record. We'll give you 5 minutes
to kind of sum up or say whatever you'd like to say, and then
we'll move to questions.
Mr. Murray, we'll start with you. Thank you, and Fairfax
Water for all the great things you're doing. Thanks.
STATEMENTS OF CHARLES MURRAY, GENERAL MANAGER, FAIRFAX WATER;
ANDREW D. BRUNHART, WASHINGTON SUBURBAN SANITARY COMMISSION;
THOMAS JACOBUS, GENERAL MANAGER, WASHINGTON AQUEDUCT; JOSEPH
HOFFMAN, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INTERSTATE COMMISSION ON THE
POTOMAC RIVER BASIN; ED MERRIFIELD, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR/
RIVERKEEPER, POTOMAC RIVERKEEPER, INC.; AND ERIK OLSON,
DIRECTOR OF ADVOCACY, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
STATEMENT OF CHARLES MURRAY
Mr. Murray. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. Thank you for the opportunity to present comments at
this important hearing. My name is Charles M. Murray, and I am
the general manager of Fairfax Water, Virginia's largest
drinking water utility.
Fairfax Water is a nonprofit public water authority
governed by a 10-member citizen board of directors who are
appointed by the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors. Fairfax
Water provides retail or wholesale service to nearly 1.5
million people in the northern Virginia communities of Fairfax,
Loudoun and Prince William Counties, the city of Alexandria,
the town of Herndon, Fort Belvoir, and Dulles Airport. Fairfax
Water operates state-of-the-art water treatment plants on both
the Potomac and Occoquan Rivers.
As a large drinking water utility, we are regulated under
the Safe Drinking Water Act through the Environmental
Protection Agency. As with all community water utilities,
Fairfax Water is dependent upon the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency [EPA], to set standards protective of public
health through the resources provided by Congress and the Safe
Drinking Water Act. In Virginia, the Virginia Department of
Health has been delegated regulatory authority for drinking
water utilities. I'm proud to report to you that Fairfax Water
meets all Federal and State drinking water regulations, and has
never had a violation of any maximum contaminant level. In
fact, Fairfax Water takes pride in not only meeting these
regulations but in surpassing regulatory requirements for
producing top-quality and aesthetically pleasing water.
You've asked me today to address my awareness and concern
regarding a recent USGS study and a subsequent article in the
Washington Post discussing egg-bearing male bass fish found in
the Potomac River. Unfortunately, the USGS has not yet shared
the report referred to in the Post article, so I cannot comment
on it. What I can speak to are three things: My personal
philosophy on the profession of drinking water treatment,
Fairfax Water's activities in the National Capital Region to
protect the Potomac River Watershed, and Fairfax Water's
participation in advancing the science associated with
understanding endocrine disruptors.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, you're dedicated
to serving the people of the United States in the best way
possible. We at Fairfax Water are similarly committed to
serving our customers. A statement that hangs on my office
wall, written by a former executive director of the American
Water Works Association, captures the importance of our work,
and I'd like to share it with you now.
``We are, all of us, water beings on a water planet. Water
is life. Without it, all living things die. Our dependence on
water is absolute; our psyches know this and signal us in
myriad ways of water's elemental importance and significance.
That is why we love the water and remember experiences
associated with it. Of the earth's vast resources of water only
a small fraction is fresh and drinkable. A few people among the
globe's billions have been charged with the task of ensuring
everyone else has a reliable supply of safe water. Supplying
potable water is an essential human activity, a great
responsibility, and a vocation of distinction,'' and those
words were written by Jack Mannion.
As you can see, with this philosophy in mind, it's with a
sense of responsibility and commitment that I and the people of
Fairfax Water perform our duties as the major northern Virginia
drinking water provider.
To that end, Fairfax Water is a founding partner--or a
founding member of the Potomac River Source Water Protection
Partnership that Mr. Grumbles referred to earlier. The
Partnership is a voluntary organization of water utilities,
State, interstate, and Federal partners whose representatives
are dedicated to source water protection. The Partnership has
identified endocrine-disrupting compounds [EDCs], as a priority
issue, and the Partnership is following the latest research
into which specific chemicals may be causing the endocrine-
disrupting effects on fish in the Potomac River.
The short-term goals include defining and prioritizing EDCs
based on a review of current knowledge and consultation with
experts, assessing potential sources of EDCs in the Potomac
River and identifying appropriate, best-management practices
for their control. The long-term goal is to enhance local
understanding of EDC identity, sources, distribution, possible
human and ecological health effects, management practices to
limit their presence in the environment, and methods of
treatment and removal.
In addition to the Potomac Partnership, Fairfax Water,
along with many water utilities across the Nation, contributes
to and participates in the activities of the American Water
Works Association Research Foundation [AwwaRF]. AwwaRF is a
member-supported, nonprofit organization that sponsors research
to enable water utilities, public health agencies and other
professionals to provide safe and affordable drinking water to
consumers. AwwaRF is the research arm of the drinking water
supply community. I serve on the Board of Trustees for the
Foundation, and my utility, Fairfax Water, is a longtime
investor in AwwaRF as are most of the water agencies in the
greater D.C. area. AwwaRF operates a $30 million-a-year
drinking water research program, and to date, AwwaRF has
conducted 21 projects totaling about $5 million to specifically
study the issue of endocrine disruptors. It is this research
that will ultimately help lead us to understand the
significance of endocrine disruptors in the aquatic
environment.
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to close by noting that
AwwaRF is once again seeking funding from the U.S. Congress.
AwwaRF is 80 percent funded by local drinking water utilities
and research partnerships and 20 percent through the funding
assistance from Congress, and I want to express my strong
support for the $5 million AwwaRF funding request in the EPA
Science and Technology account of the fiscal year 2007 Interior
Appropriations bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd be happy to answer any
questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Murray follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.031
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.032
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Brunhart.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW D. BRUNHART
Mr. Brunhart. Thank you, sir. Chairman Davis and members of
the committee, thank you for inviting me to appear today as
well as we come together to discuss a shared problem worthy of
attention.
I am Andrew Brunhart, general manager of the Washington
Suburban Sanitary Commission. I am also honored today to
represent over 1,400 employees who are dedicated to provide
safe, clean water to our communities in an environmentally and
fiscally responsible manner. Now, this is just not a lofty
statement for us that we dole out at annual meetings; this is
our mission, and it drives the work we do day in and day out.
Departing from my script a little bit, in my discussion
with you today I think and I trust you will feel the passion
amongst the three general managers at the table today, and you
will find our remarks, independently prepared, remarkably
similar. I have submitted a longer statement and attachments
for the record, and I just want to sum up a few key points for
you today.
We are here today to talk about a very specific topic, ova
pollution in the Potomac, but I believe the topic is part of a
larger discussion that requires leadership at all levels of
government and industry to resolve. What is the value of water
in our society, and what legacy are we leaving our children in
our rivers, streams, bays, and oceans?
Being in the business of providing safe, clean water and
treating what our communities send down the drains, I think
about this question daily. I think about the existing science
and technology we currently use to provide a service. Many in
this country take that service for granted. The 20th century
innovators ensured that most Americans can turn on the tap and
receive clean water on demand. This is an achievement we should
be proud of, and at WSSC, we have been an integral part of that
legacy. Beginning with one of our founders, Abel Wolman, who is
widely known as the father of modern sanitary engineering, WSSC
employees have set standards that many around the world aspire
to. We are committed to providing the best possible product to
our 1.6 million citizens throughout Prince George's and
Montgomery County, MD. Throughout our history of over 80 years,
WSSC has never had a water quality violation. We consistently
meet and exceed all drinking water standards.
Yet we are not content with our past achievements. WSSC,
working with our peers around the Nation and the world, look
toward continuous improvements in science, technology,
investments, research, and business practices to get better at
what we do. As Mr. Murray mentioned, American Water Works
Research Association and Foundation is very important to us in
our industry, and WSSC is a founding member. We have
contributed over $1.5 million to AwwaRF since 1983.
In an ongoing effort to address this problem, the Chair of
WSSC and I met with Congressman Van Hollen, gosh, almost a year
ago, to discuss EDCs and the potential impact on human health.
I would like to take this opportunity on the record to thank
Congressman Van Hollen for his steadfast commitment to the
environment and to his constituents. Thank you, sir.
WSSC did not create this situation, but I assure you we are
as committed as this committee and every panelist here today to
work with all interested stakeholders to resolve it. Of course,
government has and continues to play a critical role in the
legacy we leave our children through a consistent commitment
through leadership, focus and funding. That is why we are here
today, to find solutions.
Congress should play an important role, in addressing the
required scientific research, but you should be wary of simply
creating additional regulations to patch a problem. I believe
the EPA possesses the necessary statutory authority and
regulations to address this problem. What the EPA has been
lacking is consistent funding from the Congress, and I'm
mindful of the honorable representative from the EPA's comments
earlier on funding. With this introduction and going quickly
now, I would like to offer two suggestions I believe to be
constructive, and urge the committee to consider them for
possible action.
First, a watershed restoration and congressional caucus
should be created at the inception of the 110th Congress to
serve as a real working group for all stakeholders. This group
should include Members of Congress from across the Nation,
water utilities and associations, environmental groups,
agricultural groups, corporations, developers, pharmaceuticals,
EPA, the Corps of Engineers, USGS, and the State governments.
Congressional leadership will provide the focus in briefings,
legislation development, funding considerations, and education.
The goal should be to push the science and research forward to
get us ahead of this curve rather than behind it.
Second, Congress should restore funding to both the EPA's
State and Tribal Assistance Grant Program [STAG] Program, and
previous AwwaRF appropriations. Restored funding is critical to
proactively address the science and research requirements to
protect our water supply.
While the EDC issue is a concern for water utilities, it is
a major environmental issue worthy of serious national
attention. We should ask ourselves the questions again. What is
the value of water in our society, and what legacy are we
leaving our children in our rivers, streams, bays, and oceans?
I am fully confident that with continuous funding commitments
from Congress and the EPA, along with investments made by
industry leaders such as WSSC, we can push the science to
understand this situation better. It is important that we
create a forum like a congressional caucus where Members of
Congress and their staffs and stakeholders can work through
this issue together as you consider various policy options that
have direct and indirect effects on EDCs in our waterways.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the committee, for the
opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Brunhart follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.033
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.034
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.035
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.036
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.037
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.038
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.039
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.040
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.041
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.042
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.043
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.044
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.045
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.046
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.047
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.048
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.049
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.050
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.051
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.052
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.053
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Jacobus, thanks for being with us.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS JACOBUS
Mr. Jacobus. Chairman Davis and members of the committee,
thank you for the opportunity to be here today. I am Tom
Jacobus, general manager of the Washington Aqueduct.
The Washington Aqueduct operates two water treatment plants
and other facilities that provide water to its wholesale
customers. These customers are the District of Columbia,
Arlington County and the city of Falls Church. Falls Church
further serves an area of Fairfax County and the town of
Vienna. Washington Aqueduct is owned and operated by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers.
All of the water treated at the Dalecarlia and McMillan
plants is withdrawn from the Potomac River either at Great
Falls or at Little Falls. Washington Aqueduct's principal focus
is on producing safe drinking water. This means that we pay
very strict attention to meeting current regulatory standards,
and it also means that we are looking to the future to ensure
that treatment operations are always protective of the public
health.
A few examples of what we do are we participate in EPA's
ongoing evaluation of unregulated drinking water contaminants.
We are an active participant in both the regional and national
groups whose purpose is to advance the science of water. We
contribute to the work of the American Water Works Association
Research Foundation by direct funding and participating in
research projects. Our engineers and scientists prepare
technical papers and attend conferences to ensure we are
current with industry technology and regulatory developments.
Additionally, we have contractual relationships with nationally
renowned consultants in the field of water treatment. We use
those consultants to help us evaluate future treatment
operations.
We are certainly aware of the reports of the fishermen and
scientists in the Potomac River basin finding sexually
abnormal, male smallmouth bass, and this phenomenon is not
limited to the Potomac River Basin. Our engineers and
scientists have been keeping abreast of the research into
endocrine-disrupting chemicals. We believe that our
participation with research, the research and water industry
groups and our collaboration with EPA in support of their
contaminant candidate listing are very effective ways to be
involved in this issue. We will continue our involvement in the
research of emerging contaminants, and will be prepared to take
necessary steps to modify the treatment process to comply with
any regulations that come from the results of the ongoing
scientific investigations.
I'll close these remarks by saying that Washington Aqueduct
is also one of the members of the Potomac River Basin Drinking
Water Source Protection Partnership. Two of the goals of the
Partnership are, first, to maintain a coordinated dialog
between water suppliers and government agencies and
nongovernment agencies, people like represented here at the
table here today and like the panel before us, people who are
involved with source water protection, and second, we
coordinate approaches to water supply protection measures in
the Potomac River Basin. I think that these are both very
important aspects of a partnership that has been developed by
people locally and regionally here who are aware of the
endocrine disruptor issue and other issues that face the--that
give us challenges in the water treatment business.
So I thank you for the opportunity to be here today, and
I'm looking forward to answering any questions the committee
may have.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Jacobus follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.054
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.055
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.056
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.057
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Hoffman.
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH HOFFMAN
Mr. Hoffman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
committee. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to be with you
today to testify before this committee on this issue.
I'll try to focus my summary comments of my written
presentation on four areas: The roles of the Interstate
Commission on the Potomac River Basin [ICPRB]; the Potomac
Drinking Water Source Protection Partnership, which we've heard
about, a role that ICPRB takes as coordinator to address legacy
pollution caused by polychlorinated biphenyls [PCBs], that are
showing up in the Potomac River. I'll use that as an example of
one way that ICPRB helps in this issue, and then I'll try to
give you a brief synopsis of some of the issues surrounding
emerging contaminants.
ICPRB, I'm the executive director. My name is Joseph
Hoffman. It was created in 1940 by an interstate compact that
Congress ratified. We have five signatories, the States of
Virginia, Maryland, West Virginia, Pennsylvania, as well as the
District of Columbia. Federal participation on the Commission
is through three individuals appointed by the President as
Federal commissioners. The Commission is non-regulatory. We
address water quality and quantity issues from a watershed
perspective. Our major functions are to provide sound science
needed by our member jurisdictions for water resource
decisionmaking. We want to provide leadership for cooperative
efforts that our member jurisdictions have related to water
resources. We want to facilitate opportunities and forums to
address significant water issues.
Let me first take a brief time to discuss the Potomac
Drinking Water Source Protection Partnership, which was begun
in 2004 as a voluntary organization. It involves us with the
three water utilities present at the table today as well as a
number of other government agencies, including our State
members and several counties. Trying to work to safeguard both
public health and the environment, to date 19 organizations/
agencies of the utilities and the States have joined this
partnership.
The Potomac Basin is home to 5.8 million people who rely on
the rivers and the groundwater for our drinking water supplies.
Activities upstream of water supply sources--intakes,
groundwater recharge areas--can and do introduce a variety of
contaminants into the water sources by relying not just on the
treatment plants that are out there but on multiple barriers to
contamination created by a variety of watershed protection
activities and efforts the Partnership seeks to enhance
drinking water quality and minimize risk to public health.
We've got a number of work groups in this group. The first
that was created, and the one that's really been active is the
Emerging Contaminants Work Group, that tracks and reports on
newly identified threats posed to the river. This partnership
and this work group conducted a workshop in September 2005. It
focused on emerging contaminants. We also have a pathogens work
group, an early warning work group. I'm trying to illustrate to
you today the value of these coordinated efforts on taking care
of our water supply.
Funding for the Partnership has been varied. We've gotten
some support out of EPA. We've gotten some support from the
utilities and the States, but it takes a variety of funding
arrangements to make this thing happen.
I mentioned about PCBs. The ICPRB is serving as the
technical and coordinating resource for the District of
Columbia, Maryland and Virginia as well as for the EPA on
trying to come up with some answers on PCBs in the Potomac.
We're serving to ensure that we get one TMDL created for this
interstate body of water we have called the ``Potomac.''
Emerging contaminants are of concern for us. They're a
concern for our drinking water. These contaminants are not
regulated. They are not established yet as we've heard earlier.
Groundwater sources need to be a concern and need to be
considered as we go into expanded monitoring, which is
essential to be able to tie down these emerging contaminants.
The States are doing things. For example, the Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries and the Department of
the Environment and West Virginia's Division of Natural
Resources and the Department of Environmental Protection are
addressing some of the concerns upstream in the basin. We don't
have answers yet. We had a question earlier. Advisories do not
exist for these emerging contaminants in the waterways nor in
the fish consumption. They do exist for mercury and PCBs.
ICPRB can play a role. We've been around for 66 years as a
body that has been pulled together by our States and the
Federal Government to work on some of these issues.
I'll close there. My full statement is in the record. I'll
certainly look forward to questions at a later point in the
panel. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Hoffman follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.058
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.059
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.060
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.061
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.062
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.063
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.064
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.065
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.066
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Merrifield.
STATEMENT OF ED MERRIFIELD
Mr. Merrifield. Mr. Chairman and members of the committee,
on behalf of Potomac Riverkeeper, thank you for the opportunity
to present this statement to the committee. My name is Ed
Merrifield, and I'm executive director and riverkeeper.
Potomac Riverkeeper's mission is to protect and restore
water quality on the Potomac River and its tributaries through
citizen action, education and enforcement. We have been
actively following the problem of fish intersex since it was
first uncovered in our watershed by the U.S. Geological Survey
in 2003. At that time, scientists were trying to determine the
cause of fish kills 230 miles upstream from Washington, DC,
when they discovered ovaries in male fish testes. The Potomac
Riverkeeper played a role in educating the public about the
problem by providing information to the Washington Post's
front-page story on intersex fish in October 2004. Other
stories followed, but because the problem was distant from the
Washington, DC, area and because the focus was on fish health
and not human health, public interest in EPA action lagged. Two
years later, the intersex issue is front-page news again, more
so than when scientists first learned of the condition.
The intersex fish are now turning up in the Potomac waters
of our metropolitan area, renewing the conversation about what
is causing such mutations and giving rise to a new question:
``how does this affect the millions of people living in the
watershed?'' Although water treatment facilities do a good job
filtering the metropolitan area's tap water according to the
EPA's standards, as we've heard, pollutants not tested for by
water treatment plants do exist in the river. We know that low
levels of caffeine and insecticides, such as DEET, and a
chemical produced when the body breaks down nicotine have been
found, and they are not regularly tested for by water treatment
plants.
While most scientists today are not ready to say which
endocrine disruptors are responsible for intersex fish, the
need to identify them is not new. The National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration concluded in a June 2002 report that
overt reproductive endocrine disruption in fish does not appear
to be a ubiquitous environmental phenomenon. Rather, it appears
to be associated with higher levels of contamination near
pollution sources such as sewage treatment plants and
industrial plants.
In 1996, Congress created an EPA Office dedicated to
researching endocrine disruptors. Ten years after its creation,
the Office has yet to release significant information about
which endocrine disruptors are responsible for intersex or what
their risk is to metropolitan drinking water.
A variety of sources emit potential endocrine disruptors
into the river. Antibiotics that are excreted or otherwise
flushed down toilets do not always get filtered before leaving
treatment centers. Hormones from chicken waste make their way
into water at poultry farms in Virginia and West Virginia.
Stormwater runoff, which contains everything from pesticides
and fertilizers to pharmaceuticals and personal care products,
enter the water completely untreated as does raw sewage from
combined sewer overflows.
The issue at stake is the disposal of hazardous material
and potentially hazardous material in a responsible fashion. We
need to actualize the goals of the Clean Water Act and stop
dumping waste, medications and chemical runoff into the river.
We are already over 20 years behind the Clean Water Act's
stated goal.
Regarding human health, if scientists have not yet
determined what pollutant is causing a reproductive health
problem in fish in the Potomac, how can anyone say it is not in
our drinking water? How can anyone say humans will not face a
similar health problem? At best, as we've heard, all anyone can
say is that they do not know if the endocrine disruptor effect
on fish would affect humans. One cannot deny that there is
potential threat to the millions of people who recreate, fish
and draw their tap water from the Potomac River. We know there
are reproductive problems happening to the fish and, as
Congressman Van Hollen said, these affected fish are analogous
to the canary in the coal mine. The fish are our warning.
Potomac Riverkeeper, Inc., on behalf of all citizens living
in the watershed, is here today to ask Congress, in cooperation
with organizations like mine and the entire scientific
community, to proactively work to save our Nation's river. With
over 5 million people in the Potomac watershed, with
Washington, DC, being a destination for millions of tourists,
with minimal heavy industry in the watershed and with Members
of Congress and their families living here much of the year, it
makes sense to focus on the health of this river.
To believe we cannot stop these pollutants from entering
our water is to sound the death knell of the goal of the Clean
Water Act. By working together, we can make the Potomac a model
river, paving the way for cities and States around the Nation
to clean up their water supply. With the full support and
cooperation of the U.S. Government and its agencies, we can
have a fishable, swimmable Potomac with plenty of clean, safe
drinking water for all.
Thank you again for hearing my testimony today, and I'll
look forward to working with the committee in the future.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Merrifield follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.067
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.068
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.069
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.070
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much.
Mr. Olson, thanks for being with us again.
STATEMENT OF ERIK OLSON
Mr. Olson. Thank you. Last and hopefully not least, I
wanted to just summarize the testimony, but I'll just note I
believe it was Congressman Moran who mentioned the Theo Coburn
and Pete Meyers book that was excellent that predicted a lot of
things that now seem to be coming true. I think most of what
that book suggested is ending up to be a true concern more than
10 years later.
Now, these endocrine disruptors are chemicals that
basically can mimic or interfere with Mother Nature's system,
our hormone system, and we consider--these systems are
extremely delicate, and it's sort of like a bull in a China
shop. The chemicals are like a bull in a body's China shop. If
you consider the fact that all of these--all of the body
functions for behavior and sexual differentiation when an
embryo is being created and sexual maturation during puberty
and reproduction during adulthood, all of those are controlled
during--with these hormones at extremely low levels--we're
talking parts per trillion/parts per billion--that the body
naturally controls these when we start introducing these
chemicals. As I say, they're like a bull in a China shop. They
can really wreak havoc.
Why would a male fish have eggs in its testes? Why would
some of these effects occur? Well, this is a very sure sign of
exposure to some of these endocrine disruptors. In fact, the
EPA has a proposed screening test, which isn't yet required
which I'll get to, that actually uses this very kind of effect
in order to evaluate whether something is an endocrine
disruptor. So, clearly, we've got a problem here.
What in the Potomac is causing this? I don't think anyone
can say for sure. Certainly, we're finding, as was mentioned
earlier, the pesticide atrazine, the pesticide simazine and
some other industrial chemicals in the water in the Potomac.
We're not sure exactly which ones might be causing this effect,
but certainly we've got an enormous amount of pesticide runoff.
We have detergents and cosmetics coming out through sewage. We
have concentrated animal feeding operations upstream, way
upstream very often, and we have other polluters. Luckily, we
don't have heavy industry like they do in many other parts of
the country, but we do have endocrine disruptors in the Potomac
water and in the river system.
Now, if we don't have measurable levels, if we're not sure
what the chemicals are, does that mean there's not a problem?
It does not. First of all, some of these effects occurred at
extremely low levels, some of which can't even be detected in
the water. Second, we don't really have a system to detect and
analyze endocrine disruptors in our water supplies.
There's something I wanted to highlight also about
endocrine disruptors that's extremely unusual. Many of us
learned back in college that the dose makes the poison for a
toxic chemical. We learned you have to have a very high dose to
get an effect. Endocrine disruptors are turning a lot of that
on its head. What's important is the timing. What I mentioned
in the testimony is some of our scientists think that a lot of
our thinking about toxins is going to change as a result of
these new data. Some studies just published within the last
year show that exposure on a single day to a toxic chemical, to
one of these endocrine disruptors, can cause these adverse
effects such as small testes, female nipples in a rat, a birth
defect in the penis called ``hypospadias.'' Again, the bull in
the China shop is operating. A single day of exposure can cause
these kinds of effects at very low doses, so we don't really
fully understand all of these effects, but we know that they're
issues.
What are the public heath impacts of drinking this water or
of eating the fish? Mr. Cummings asked that. Several others
have asked these questions. I don't think anyone can answer
absolutely for sure, but first of all, we do know several
things. One is that chemicals that are estrogenic or endocrine
disruptors in fish are extremely likely to be estrogenic or
endocrine disruptors in humans just as they are in polar bears,
just as they are in panthers, just as they are in alligators,
in mink, in birds. We're seeing similar effects, and the reason
for that is simple, that Mother Nature, as she finds a way that
a hormone works well in a lower form of life, has conserved
that. So the same types of hormones are very conserved, the
biologists would say, from lower forms of life all the way up
to man.
Second, a lot of these chemicals that can feminize male
fish are likely to feminize mammals as well as other species,
and obviously, we're mammals, so we are concerned about that.
And third, something that's clearly estrogenic is in the
Potomac. We don't know if it's in the drinking water. We don't
know if it's in the sediments, if it's in the fish, in the food
chain, but it's somewhere in there and we sure as heck ought to
get some kind of an idea about that.
I notice that there's bottled water on the table in this
committee room. It used to be, I remember in testifying in past
years, that there was tap water, and I just wonder if there's
anything going on here? Clearly, a lot of people are worried
about their water supply. A lot of people--I see Mr. Moran is
drinking a soda, but I think that a lot of us are worried about
water supplies. A lot of us are worried about what this means,
and we just aren't absolutely sure, but we do know that there's
something going on. Something has to be done about it.
Some of these--the fact that fish live in the water and,
therefore, expose their entire lives, again, doesn't
necessarily mean that we're safe because we only drink water a
few times a day or because we only eat fish once in a while.
The people we're most worried about--and our scientists have
looked at this for more than a decade--are pregnant women and
their fetuses. These are the folks that are at greatest risk.
So I might be perfectly happy to drink the water or to eat a
fish or something along those lines, but I will tell you that I
would certainly have concerns, if my wife were pregnant or if a
family member were pregnant, about eating a fish that is coming
from an area that has been feminized, where the fish are being
feminized or drinking water that is coming from an area that
may have these contaminants in it that we haven't yet
identified. So there clearly are health concerns.
And the last point I want to make is what is EPA doing
about this, and unfortunately, they're not doing very much.
Congress was very clear 10 years ago in the Food Quality
Protection Act--and I hope we get a chance to pursue this--to
require EPA within 3 years to develop this program. As has been
brought out, not a single chemical has been tested under this
program. Mr. Grumbles said earlier that there have been efforts
to test under other programs. There have been a few efforts to
test a few chemicals, but there is no systematic program to
test for endocrine-disrupting effects, and I will say that just
in August of this year, a month and a half ago, the EPA says
they completed the entire Pesticide Safety Review Program under
the Food Quality Protection Act. They say they reviewed the
safety of every pesticide tolerance, and they did not include
any Endocrine Disruption Screening Program testing for any of
those chemicals. So we went through a 10-year process to review
the safety of pesticides. For not a single one of them were
there any EDSP, or Endocrine Disruption Screening Program,
tests done. That's of grave concern.
What's the EPA going to do now? They say they're going to
go back over the next 15 years and review the safety of all the
pesticides that we're using in our food, in our water and so
on. This is a serious problem and is something that needs to be
done. Our testimony goes into some post solutions.
I see my time is up, and I hope we get a chance to discuss
some of those.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.071
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.072
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.073
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.075
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.076
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.077
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you very much. Let me start the
questioning.
Mr. Murray, I understand--you mentioned--well, I understand
that all drinking water utilities are regulated by the EPA with
EPA standards. Can you tell us a little bit more about these
standards? Are these standards limited to maximum contaminant
levels or they also prescribed testing and filtration methods?
Could you give us a sense to the length of time between
promulgation by the EPA of new standards for the production of
clean drinking water and the steps in between?
Mr. Murray. Let's start with the maximum contaminant. Let's
see, the first part of the question was the drinking water
standards and are they just maximum----
Chairman Tom Davis. Are they just limited to maximum
contaminant levels or are they prescribed testing and
filtration methods?
Mr. Murray. Yes. We have both standards for the treatment
that we require to meet and maximum contaminant levels in the
finished water; and, as Mr. Brunhart said, there are a number
of contaminants that we monitor for that are not yet regulated
but we monitor to provide information to the agency so as to
develop those regulations.
Chairman Tom Davis. So, you are way over and above your
standards. You have your own standards even above the Federal
standards.
Mr. Murray. Yes. There are compounds that we are monitoring
for that there are not MCLs established yet, but we are doing
it as part of the unregulated contaminant monitoring rule which
allows EPA to develop additional MCLs and standards.
Chairman Tom Davis. What do you think? You have heard the
testimony today about these, the mutant fish and everything
else. Obviously, it gives you some concern and some hesitancy
as you look through it. What is your take on it? I mean, does
EPA appropriately describe and identify this, or are they
behind the curve?
Mr. Murray. I sympathize with the complexity of the problem
and the difficulty of establishing standards. We have been
working with EPA and USGS to try to test some of these
screening methodologies that they have been talking about. Mr.
Olson referred to one of them. It is an estrodial equivalence,
and we have been working with them on attempting to see if that
is a good measure of endocrine disruptors.
It is a complex issue. All of the information we have from
the research to date would state that it is highly unlikely
that it is a human health issue in drinking water, but we
certainly, like the committee and everyone else, are very
anxious for more information and more research and we want to
do the right thing.
Chairman Tom Davis. OK. Mr. Olson, let me just ask, if I
understand you correctly, you are saying we are currently not
testing for chemicals causing endocrine disruption, but at the
same time we haven't figured out what they are. How do we get
from A to B? What do we need to be doing?
Mr. Olson. Well, there are some tests that are used to
determine whether something is an endocrine disruptor, and
those are not routinely required for pesticides or for any
other chemical. Where EPA has fallen down, in our view, is that
they haven't routinely required them. They haven't issued this
endocrine disruptor screening program requirement. So it is
sort of hit or miss what is tested.
We have 80,000-plus chemicals. The vast majority of them--
I'll just hazard a guess--99 percent plus, have never been
tested for these effects. So when we hear about meeting EPA
standards--I used to work at EPA. Love the agency. It is a
great place. But the EPA standards are kind of out of date, and
they don't really deal with a lot of the problems.
And let me just give one example: EPA, to my knowledge, has
not adopted a single new drinking water standard that wasn't
ordered by Congress since 1979. Now that is a serious problem.
What we have is Congress having to step in and tell EPA what to
do.
Chairman Tom Davis. When Congress sets a standard, that is
scary, right?
Mr. Olson. Congress doesn't really set the standard. They
just say, guys, it's been an awfully long time. Set a standard,
for God's sake, for these chemicals; and that is what's been
happening. Congress has to step in and say, set some standards.
We heard about the contaminant candidate lists and all of these
other proposals to move forward, but it's been 10 years and EPA
still hasn't picked a new contaminant to regulate based on
that.
Chairman Tom Davis. And the key for us, of course, is we
know there are contaminants in the river. The question is, do
we get them all out in the purification process? And I think,
Mr. Murray, you are confident that you are doing that, but you
continue to look at this and Mr. Brunhart; is that correct?
Mr. Brunhart. Let me add to that. In addition to what is
required to be regulated, and we're doing testing for chemicals
for EPA, we both run state-of-the-art laboratories and invite
any Member to come and take a tour to see exactly how robust
our laboratories are at testing and providing the data to EPA.
I would add that we are, from WSSC's perspective,
concerned, because environmental stewardship is one of our core
values of what's going on with the wildlife. We are not alarmed
for impact on human beings at this juncture, but there is a lot
we don't know that essentially everybody before you today has
reemphasized because we don't know the research or, over the
course of time, the science on what could be 87,000 chemicals
untested, as Congressman Van Hollen mentioned.
If we knew if it was one or two chemicals--this is our
passion. This is our business. We don't make a lot of money on
what we do. We do it because we serve citizens. If we knew it
was those chemicals, we would work in our industry to get them
out of the source.
One final comment because I know you have other questions.
The reason I urge this to be considered at a national level is
what is the engine to discuss the sources. The engine in water
utility is AwwaRF, and we banded together to do some really
interesting--nationally some miniscule studies that are
bringing us forward as a utility and water industry. But
there's many other industries that, in my view, should be
banded together. There's EDCs in food, for example. And I could
go on and on.
But who's going to be that engine? In my view, Congress
could show us some leadership in a caucus to bring us all
together to really address this.
Chairman Tom Davis. I think we will get some activity
there.
Mr. Murray, a lot of Fairfax water comes from the aqueduct.
It doesn't come directly from the river. We have had no
problems there, is that right, with the mutant fish?
Mr. Murray. We have no evidence of a problem there, but,
again, we are trying to advance the science that we know we are
measuring for the right things. The limited testing that has
been done on both the Potomac and the Occoquan at our treatment
plants suggest that there isn't a significant concentration in
the incoming water, and what we are measuring we are doing a
good job of removing. So we are waiting for the science to
catch up and allow us to refine that methodology and to give us
more definitive answers on the health significance and
concentration issues.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Mr. Moran.
Mr. Moran. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
This is fascinating but also a very scary subject.
First of all, I did want one point of clarification. We
have talked only about the feminization of male fish. Isn't
there a masculinization of female fish? Doesn't that also
occur? I don't know who wants to--somebody can confirm that.
Isn't it just as prevalent?
Mr. Merrifield. On the Ohio River, some fish were getting
masculine characteristics. Female fish were getting masculine
characteristics because of dairy farm chemicals that were going
to the dairy farm. They had it very specifically. So it
happens.
Mr. Moran. So it happens to all of the sexes. This happens
to be a situation that we are finding male fish with eggs in
their testes.
The one that troubled me particularly, and I was surprised
that the woman from the U.S. Geological Survey didn't seem to
be particularly familiar with, but when they did this test in
the Potomac, apparently in the area that comes right out from
the sewage treatment area that 70 percent--they weren't finding
smallmouth bass but they found largemouth bass and 70 percent
of them, the males, had eggs in their testes. So this was very
widespread problem.
What troubles me is the reason--I don't really have a lot
of questions for this panel. You are doing your job. But you
attempt to purify our water to the best you can, identify
harmful chemicals and materials that could be harmful out of--
take those out of the water. But none of you are responsible
for the research to determine which of those chemicals are
harmful or particularly what compound of chemicals can be
harmful, and very little research has been done, if any, on the
compound of chemicals. So we may find individual chemicals are
OK, but when they are thrown in the water with other chemicals,
they create a much more toxic effect.
I am very much concerned with regard to the
intergenerational effect as well of some of these chemicals. I
am recalling some of the things I read in the book by Theo
Colburn in which it seemed to be--I pursued it and found that
it was verifiable.
One was the rats apparently have--it is a triangle, and
they have six eggs, a female rat. And they were showing how
thin the membrane between the various eggs is that they did the
experiments. And it is not dissimilar from the human membrane
when the fetus starts--begins development. They put--I remember
one case they put in a male fetus, I guess, between two female,
and the membrane was so porous in every case the male turned
out to be gay, to have feminine characteristics. And then they
did a disrupter test and they found to almost a hundred
percent--I am digressing here a little bit, but that research
seems to be done by private groups, not by governmental groups;
and when it is done by private groups, it seems like there are
always critics, particularly in the Federal Government. It
says, well, this hasn't been confirmed, and so we really don't
need to look at it, and we're doing--you know, we are studying
it, and we have a process going. It is particularly irritating
for EPA that for 10 years they have had a process going and
have yet to actually test one single chemical under this
endocrine disruption category.
If you had your--this is a whole lot of introduction by way
of asking my question--if you had your druthers, what would we
be doing to make you more confident that you are able to do the
job, you are responsible for carrying it out?
Mr. Merrifield seems to----
Mr. Merrifield. Yes. The thousands and thousands of
chemicals we have that are in the environment, if Congress
doesn't come up with a way of stopping them from going into the
water, we will never be sure if our water, what is coming out
of our taps, is completely safe, because there will always be
more chemicals to be checked and more fascinating stories that
you have been telling about what can happen. Somehow we have to
get back to the basic, the Clean Water Act, to stop all of this
pollution getting back into the water.
Mr. Moran. The two things that I came away with from
reviewing that literature--and, granted, it was 10 or 12 years
ago--was the effect of the compounded chemicals which we know
virtually nothing about, and then the vulnerability of the egg,
the fetus, within a woman's womb. Once it gets in there, it can
cause an intergenerational effect that we--I mean, it is almost
impossible to find the causal factor two or three generations
subsequently. And no research was--or no public research has
been done on it, and that is what is so scary.
I just don't feel as though this panel is being given the
tools that you need to be able to carry out your job, which is
really intensive research on these potential endocrine
disruptors and related chemicals in terms of the public health.
So I thank you for the panel. I don't know that you are the
ones who should be answering these questions. I think that we
are ill preparing you to fully carry out your job, but you all
do a good job, in particular as private commentators as well.
Thank you for all your volunteer work and oversight that you
provided. Thanks.
Chairman Tom Davis. Mr. Van Hollen.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me thank all of the witnesses for their testimony.
Mr. Brunhart, thank you for your leadership at WSSC, where
I get my water; and thanks for your kind remarks and the
recommendations that you made and others have made of how we
can move forward here.
If I can just ask the representatives who are tasked with
the--responsible for providing the people in this region for
safe drinking water, Mr. Murray, Mr. Brunhart and Mr. Jacobus,
whether you are satisfied--this goes a little bit to Mr.
Moran's question--whether you are satisfied that the EPA is
moving as swiftly as it can and should with respect to doing
the research in this area.
Mr. Brunhart. Well, I will make two comments. As I think we
are today just by talking about a very important issue, I have
learned a lot. I think the pace, in my view, is too slow. I
think that EPA has--does not have as much funding as they would
need to step up to the large challenge.
However, my personal concern is that when you have a large
challenge, you incrementally address it and you try to
prioritize and incrementally address the highest priorities,
and I don't see that happening in the pace. That is my personal
view.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you.
Any other comments from the others?
Mr. Jacobus. I would say that I believe--I have confidence
that EPA has the direction and the will and the understanding.
As far as the pace, what Washington Aqueduct could do is we
cooperate with programs to work on the contaminants list, to
work on the unregulated studies. So we can provide it and work
tirelessly to make sure the water we produce meets the
regulations.
We have confidence in the regulations. We understand there
are emerging contaminants; and we, as a water utility, have a
responsibility to work with science and regulations and think
we are doing a good job of that in trying to help EPA get to
where they want to be and where we all need to be to have a
high degree of confidence that the new substances that could be
coming into the water can be removed.
But I would just say, in agreeing with Mr. Merrifield that
it is very easy to--the treatment process for something that is
not there is very simple. So if you can keep these contaminants
out of the source water--in our case, the falling of the
Potomac--that emphasis there is much easier to keep them out of
the water than it is to devise treatment processes once they
are in the water. So that is why all of us in the three
utilities, together with our State and Federal and local
partners, felt that this partnership locally would be a good
idea and it has gotten started. It's been there for a couple of
years, and we certainly have a commitment of energy and local
resources.
So I am encouraged--and there is a lot to be done, but I am
encouraged and we are cautioned by the results of the science
that we see and we want to do more.
Mr. Murray. I want to answer two ways.
First of all, I think EPA, as an agency, does a pretty darn
good job of establishing MCLs, the process of establishing
standards. I think that Mr. Moran captured it when he talked
about the need for research. I spoke at some length about
AwwaRF, a research foundation started by the water utilities.
It was started years and years ago because there was an unmet
need for research, and I think that says it all.
Mr. Van Hollen. Thank you.
My understanding is the research budgets in some of these
areas are being cut back and the EPA is saying that, instead,
the industry should be doing the research, which seems to me to
get it entirely backward. This is a public health issue. This
is research that should be done on behalf of the citizens.
I think the partnership is a great vehicle, I think, for
coming together and putting, you know, pressure and making
recommendations on the EPA. So I encourage all of you--Mr.
Hoffman, your organization is the chair of that, as I
understand it, is that correct?
Mr. Hoffman. We don't chair it. Basically, the
administrator and coordinator try to pull together.
We will note for you for the record that we have our annual
meeting of the partnership coming up October 25th. We suggested
in our testimony--the full testimony for this committee today
the idea that we can play a much larger role in trying to pull
together this issue for the Potomac River Basin. I think, at
the same time set a pretty good model in place for the entire
country to follow as additional areas start to be concerned
about this or other water related issues. We certainly are
available to do that.
Unfortunately, we have only been able to devote a small
portion of our budget to the endocrine disruptors and the
emergent contaminants. However, it is one that we need to find
a way to do some more things on.
Mr. Van Hollen. I am pleased to hear that. Because, as Mr.
Olson said and Mr. Brunhart said in their testimony, these
chemicals tend to exhibit two chemicals: One is, they both said
they don't exhibit conventional toxicological dose response
characteristics in contrast to conventional contaminants. They
may cause significant problems at very low levels. And the
other issue is that they may have very powerful effects during
the early stages of life, but the impact may be long term, and
you may not be able to see them until quite farther down the
road.
Let me, if I can, finish with a question. Obviously, we
want to deal with this at the source level, No. 1, but there is
also, of course, the treatment level, and I guess my question
is--I don't know if this is a class of chemicals or agents that
would lend itself to a particular kind of treatment, that even
before you do all of the studies on whether it is going to have
negative impacts, whether there is some kind of treatment that
can be used, assuming there would be a negative impact, that
would not have a downside that would be able to address these
issues.
I have been told there is something called the ozone
treatment, is one kind of treatment. Very expensive, but a
treatment. There is another one, is granual activated carbon
treatment. Are those things we should look at without reducing
our efforts on the source side? Are those things that should be
looked at on the treatment side? And what are the pluses and
minuses of doing that?
Mr. Brunhart. There is some evolving evidence on a study or
two that activated carbon in combination with ozone can be
somewhat effective. Fairfax is leading the way on that.
And there is also evidence that ultraviolet light
treatment, ultraviolet light, UV, coupled with hydrogen
peroxide dosage can be as effective as activated carbon as
well. WSSC is going to--the UV treatment in Fairfax has gone to
activated carbon. In other words, we are both on the cutting
edge in those regards, but we need much more science to tell us
what should be the effluent and for what chemicals.
Mr. Van Hollen. Would those techniques be effective?
Mr. Murray. Yes, sir, it is. We did a survey, and 90
percent of the big-city utilities do not use these more
advanced treatments. That is obviously going to have to be the
long-term direction that they go. We are not arguing for one
specific treatment, but there are treatments now, advanced
treatments, including the Fairfax County Water Authority
treatment, that can be very effective at removing a wide class
or wide array of contaminants. That plus pollution prevention
has to be where we go.
Chairman Tom Davis. Thank you.
Let me thank this panel. I mean, we are just so pleased our
local utilities are here today. They are willing to answer our
questions so openly. We look forward to continuing to work with
you, and we appreciate all of the work you and the other panels
are doing to keep our water safe for human consumption and for
wildlife. We will continue to pursue this matter.
This hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 3:30 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]
[Additional information submitted for the hearing record
follows:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.078
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.079
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.080
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.081
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.082
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.083
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.084
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.085
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.086
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.087
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.088
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.089
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.090
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.091
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.092
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.093
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.094
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0340.095
<all>