[Pharmwaste] House Leaves Major EPA Pharmaceutical Study For Next Congress

DeBiasi,Deborah dldebiasi at deq.virginia.gov
Tue Oct 7 09:35:00 EDT 2008


Daily News from InsideEPA.com - Monday, October 06, 2008

House Leaves Major EPA Pharmaceutical Study For Next Congress

House efforts to require EPA to study the health effects and treatment
options for pharmaceuticals and personal care products (PPCPs) in water
will likely have to wait for consideration in the next Congress after
lawmakers all but decided they will not return for a lame-duck session
this year. 

The bill, H.R. 6820, introduced by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-NY), sets
deadlines for EPA to issue a series of reports identifying what PPCPs --
including human and livestock products -- are in the nation's waters,
their health effects and how to address them. McCarthy and other
supporters say the studies are necessary to determine whether the Clean
Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act are adequate to protect waters
from the emerging contaminants. 

Under the legislation, EPA is required to craft an initial report,
required one year after enactment, identifying PPCPs found in waters,
their sources, and the methods for monitoring them. An interim report --
required three years after enactment -- requires EPA to identify health
and environmental effects of PPCPs, methods and techniques for safe
disposal of unused PPCPs, and methods to remove PPCPs from waters and
improve treatment of water discharges. 

A final report, required five years after enactment, requires EPA to
identify a wide range of effects from long-term exposure to PPCPs. 

However, the bill is drawing opposition from EPA water chief Ben
Grumbles, who says the agency is already taking numerous steps to
address the issue. "EPA will continue in evaluating effects, occurrence,
and risk reduction strategies so we can make sound decisions to protect
public health and aquatic life. By engaging the full range of public and
private partners and by using appropriate regulatory and incentive-based
tools, we will ensure continued progress in meeting the goals of the
Clean Water Act," he said in his written testimony. 

Industry critics are also arguing that concern about exposure to the
contaminants is overblown and some lawmakers say they oppose new budget
mandates when the government is so far in debt. 

McCarthy sought to attach a similar version of the legislation as an
amendment to the Beach Protection Act, which the House passed earlier
this year, but withdrew the amendment. McCarthy's withdrawn amendment
would have required EPA to conduct a two-year study, rather than the
current five years. 

Key leaders of the House Transportation & Infrastructure Committee held
a hearing on the bill Sept. 18, indicating they plan to continue to
focus on the issue in the months ahead. "I look forward to a continuing
dialogue on whether a 'next generation' of the Clean Water Act is
necessary to meet the water quality challenges of the upcoming century,"
committee Chairman James Oberstar (D-MN) said in a statement. 

And McCarthy said she also plans to work to win broader agreement on the
measure, including agreement among EPA, water treatment companies, drug
companies, agricultural interests and others. 

Proponents were considering efforts to pass the bill during a lame-duck
session after the November election, but said that if they could not,
they would make a concerted effort at passage next Congress. One
environmentalist says the bill could pass "by veto-proof majorities"
given concerns about the safety of drinking water supplies coming from
big city mayors and governors. 

However, critics of the measure raised major concerns. One industry
source says the bill assumes significantly greater risks from the
chemicals than the sponsors believe. "You would have to drink two
olympic swimming pools of water daily to ingest a single therapeutic
dose of [the pharmecuticals in the water]," one industry source says. 

The industry source also rejected a proposal floated by Dr. Peter deFur,
a professor at the Center for Environmental Studies at Virginia
Commonwealth University, to require annual monitoring of all chemicals
discharged from wastewater treatment plants. Doing so would be
"prohibitively, ridiculously expensive," the source says. 

Rep. Gene Taylor (D-MS) also raised concerns about the cost of any new
study requirements. "As a representative of 700,000 people, I've got to
explain to my consitutents why the federal government is $10 trillion in
debt. Perhaps you can point out a specific problem [the bill is intended
to address] and what the specific solution is," he told the bill's
supporters. 

One scientist involved in the issue also questioned whether it's
feasible for EPA to complete the studies within five years, but notes
that, "as a legislator, if you don't stress the system, nothing will get
done." 

Another scientist, though, says the timeline is feasible, but not given
the resources EPA has currently directed to studying PPCPs. 

10 6 2008_pharmaceutical 

 




Deborah L. DeBiasi
Email:   dldebiasi at deq.virginia.gov
WEB site address:  www.deq.virginia.gov
Virginia Department of Environmental Quality
Office of Water Permit Programs
Industrial Pretreatment/Toxics Management Program
PPCPs, EDCs, and Microconstituents
Mail:          P.O. Box 1105, Richmond, VA  23218 (NEW!)
Location:  629 E. Main Street, Richmond, VA  23219
PH:         804-698-4028
FAX:      804-698-4032



More information about the Pharmwaste mailing list