Hardly Rocket Science: The Case for Regulating

• Author: Thomas E. Cluderay
• Position: Assistant General Counsel of the Environmental Working Group in Washington, D.C.
• Pages: 49-49

NOVEMBER/DECEMBER 2011 ❧ Page 49

Copyright © 2011, Environmental Law Institute®, Washington, D.C. www.eli.org.

Reprinted by permission from The Environmental Forum®, Nov./Dec. 2011

Th e F o r u m

Hardly Rocket

Science: e Case

for Regulating

T E. C

The Environmental Protec-

tion Agency has spent

more than a decade

reviewing the safety of

perchlorate, a common

ingredient in rocket fuel and persis-

tent drinking water contaminant.

By now, the record oers compelling

evidence that perchlorate is a thy-

roid toxin linked to a host of poten-

tial adverse health eects.

On the question of whether that

makes perchlorate “worthy of fur-

ther regulation,” the answer must

be a resounding yes. e EPA has

decided to revisit a 2008 decision

under the Bush administration not

to regulate this contaminant, and

should now act expeditiously to

develop a national drinking water

standard for perchlorate. Doing so

will go a long way toward protecting

public health, particularly of vulner-

able populations.

We understand perchlorate’s

health eects far better today than in

the late 1990s, when EPA began re-

viewing the chemical under the Safe

Drinking Water Act. Perchlorate can

alter levels of thyroid hormones that

are essential to proper development

of fetuses and infants and to good

health in adults. A groundbreaking

study by the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention showed

that even low doses of perchlorate

— 3 parts per billion in drinking

water — may interfere with normal

thyroid functioning. Other studies

show that fetuses and young chil-

dren are particularly susceptible to

the chemical and that thyroid hor-

mone disruption can lower IQ levels

and impede motor skills. In view of

this, only a cynic would deny per-

chlorate’s potential to harm public

health.

We are exposed to perchlorate

through food — certainly a source

of concern — and also through

drinking water, a signicant source

of exposure. Recent tests indicate

that between 5 million and 17 mil-

lion people in the United States

are served by public water systems

with perchlorate contamination.

Several states have taken important

steps toward addressing this prob-

lem. In 2006, Massachusetts set a

robust drinking water standard for

perchlorate of 2 ppb. And just this

year, California proposed to lower

its public health goal for perchlorate

from 6 ppb to 1 ppb to account for

new data showing increased risk.

However, the chemical’s widespread

presence in drinking water means

that only a national standard will

ensure that all segments of the pop-

ulation are protected.

Fortunately, the Safe Water

Drinking Act provides a vehicle for

closing those gaps. For more than

30 years, the act has given EPA the

authority to safeguard U.S. drink-

ing water — something Congress

has long deemed “essential to the

protection of public health.” So

far, the agency has used the law to

promulgate standards for more than

90 contaminants. Perchlorate must

be next. Like the pollutants already

subject to national standards, per-

chlorate poses signicant health risks

and is common in drinking water at

levels of concern. at is why I was

delighted to hear EPA Administra-

tor Lisa Jackson voice her commit-

ment to reevaluating perchlorate in

early February. As the agency pushes

ahead, I urge it to follow California’s

lead and set a standard that is fea-

sible and provides adequate health

protection — such as 1 part per bil-

lion.

Some of those who favor perchlo-

rate regulation have proposed that

policymakers focus on exposures

through food before tackling the

issue of drinking water. I recognize

that policy solutions often have to

address multiple fronts to gener-

ate meaningful results. In my view,

however, setting a drinking water

standard is the most feasible rst

step in regulating perchlorate to pro-

tect public health.

e Safe Water Drinking Act cre-

ated a national framework that has

been tested over time to deal with

contaminants of rising concern.

Public water systems already must

follow federal standards for dozens

of other contaminants, and they

are in the best position to reduce

perchlorate exposures in an eec-

tive, uniform manner. In contrast,

addressing perchlorate exposure via

food would necessarily involve a

number of additional, much more

complicated considerations, includ-

ing how to treat soil contamination,

irrigation water, and fertilizer, which

all contribute perchlorate to our

food diet.

When it comes to perchlorate,

we are no longer at the frontiers of

regulatory science. at is why I

join my colleagues at Environmen-

tal Working Group in applauding

Administrator Jackson for assess-

ing again whether to set a national

drinking water standard for perchlo-

rate. Establishing such a standard

would result in meaningful health

protection and would hardly require

the resources it took to send rockets

to the moon.

Thomas E. Cluderay is Assistant General

Counsel of the Environmental Working Group

in Washington, D.C.