Copyright 2000 eMediaMillWorks, Inc.
(f/k/a Federal
Document Clearing House, Inc.)
Federal Document Clearing House
Congressional Testimony
September 19, 2000, Tuesday
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 7974 words
COMMITTEE:
HOUSE COMMERCE
SUBCOMMITTEE: HEALTH
AND ENVIRONMENT
HEADLINE: TESTIMONY DRINKING WATER
SAFETY
TESTIMONY-BY: MR. ERIK D. OLSON , SENIOR
ATTORNEY
AFFILIATION: NATURAL RESOURCE DEFENSE COUNCIL
BODY:
September 19, 2000 Prepared Statement of Mr.
Erik D. Olson Senior Attorney Natural Resource Defense Council Oversight Hearing
Implementation of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments and Funding of
State Drinking Water Programs Subcommittee on Health & Environment Panel 2,
Witness 4 SUMMARY Much of the nation's drinking water infrastructure now is
aging and outdated. We must modernize our water systems and safeguard the
nation's water supplies from old, and new and emerging contaminants. EPA says
the modernization will cost $138 billion dollars, but a recent report by the
Water Infrastructure Network (WIN) found that capital costs alone will exceed
$480 billion over the next 20 years. About $1 trillion is needed for drinking
water capital, financing, and operation and maintenance over that period. WIN
says there is a funding gap of about $15 billion/year. Most of these expenses
will be necessary irrespective of SDWA regulations. Major public investments
will be needed to fund this important national priority. A "Third Revolution" in
drinking water provision has begun. The "First Revolution," occurred when water
was captured, stored, and piped for household use. The "Second Revolution," took
place when solids removal and chlorine were installed in the early 20th Century,
with enormous public health benefits. The "Third Revolution" includes: (1)
measures to prevent contamination; (2) modern broad-spectrum water treatment;
(3) modernization of water distribution systems; (4) an efficient, open
information & public involvement system. Among the larger challenges now
facing the water industry include: (1) Arsenic. The National Academy of Sciences
in 1999 recognized that arsenic in tap water poses a significant health risk,
and that EPA's arsenic in tap water standard set in 1942 "does not achieve EPA's
goal for public health protection and, therefore, requires downward revision as
promptly as possible." The Academy found that drinking water containing arsenic
at the 50 ppb level allowed by the current standard "could easily" pose a total
cancer risk of 1 in 100--100 times higher than EPA allows for tap water. EPA has
proposed to reduce arsenic levels from 50 ppb down to 5 ppb--a level still
presenting a cancer risk far higher than EPA traditionally allows. NRDC and
public health organizations find the standard should be 3 ppb, a level that is
feasible and affordable. Proposed appropriations riders to delay or undercut
this rule are unwise and would undermine public health protection for millions
of Americans. (2) Radon. Radon in tap water poses significant cancer risks to
over 40 million Americans. A 1999 NAS report says radon causes cancer, and that
a multimedia mitigation strategy is needed. Congress enacted a provision in 1996
that provides for Multimedia Mitigation (MMM) programs for radon that focus on
the highest indoor radon risks. States and public water systems with approved
MMM programs need not assure compliance with the Maximum Contaminant Level for
radon in tap water, and can instead meet a less stringent "Alternative Maximum
Contaminant Level" (AMCL). EPA's proposed radon rule, while not sufficiently
assuring MMM programs will achieve the public health benefits billed, could
improve health protection. An appropriations rider that would delay and weaken
this rule is an unwarranted attack on public health. (3) Cryptosporidium, Other
Microbial Risks, and Disinfection Byproducts. After years of serious
negotiations over the "Stage 2" disinfection byproduct rules, and the "Long Term
2" rule for surface water treatment, early in September 2000 we finally achieved
a breakthrough in the negotiations, and an agreement has been reached. We are
optimistic it will be ratified, and a proposed rule is anticipated in early or
mid-2001. (4) Groundwater Rule. EPA was charged in 1996 with issuing rule
requiring groundwater-supplied systems to disinfect, unless such disinfection is
found to be unnecessary. EPA recently proposed a groundwater rule that includes
several important measures that may improve public health protection, but also
has flaws that will need to be fixed if the rule is to be effective. Among the
major future issues for the drinking water program are: - A National Dialogue on
How to Fund the Massive Funding Gap for Drinking Water Infrastructure
Improvement and Modernization Should Begin. - An Assured Funding Mechanism is
Needed, Such as a Modest, Dedicated Water Fee, to Support Drinking Water
Research and to Address Priority Health Risks for Small Systems. - A "Polluter
Pays" Mechanism is Needed to assure that consumers do not end up footing the
bill for expensive monitoring and treatment when polluters contaminate source
water. - Appropriations Acts and a Court Decision Have Effectively Eliminated
the Drinking Water State Revolving Funding for Health Effects Research,
Undercutting Funding Assurances. - A Forum for Open Public Research Planning and
Priority Setting is Necessary. - More Effective Public Right-to-Know, Better
Source Protection, More Affordable Advanced Treatment Technologies, and Better
Analytical Methods are Needed. - Research is Needed to Support Treatment,
Occurrence, and Related Issues for Microbes, Disinfection Byproducts,
Groundwater, and Distribution System Risks. - Compliance Problems that Continue
to Plague the Program Must be Addressed. - Improved Data Management, Reporting,
and a National Contaminant Occurrence Database are Necessary. - Better
Integration of Clean Water Act and SDWA Programs Is Needed. - Meaningful Source
Water Protection Authority is Absolutely Essential. - Better Leveraging of Other
Federal Agency Resources Should Occur. - Programs are Needed to Better Protect
Consumers of Small Systems and Private Wells. INTRODUCTION Good morning, I am
Erik D. Olson, a Senior Attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council
(NRDC), a national non-profit public interest organization dedicated to
protecting public health and the environment. We have over 400,000 members
nationwide. We appreciate the opportunity to testify today on the implementation
of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Drinking water treatment improvements begun at
the turn of the 20th Century have advanced public health protection enormously,
but much of the nation's drinking water infrastructure now is aging and
outdated. We must modernize our water systems and safeguard the nation's water
supplies from new and emerging contaminants. While EPA has estimated based on
state figures that the costs of modernization will exceed $138 billion dollars,
many in state and local government, in the water industry, and public health and
environmental communities believe the true costs of this needed massive upgrade
will be many times higher. For example, a report published in March 2000 by a
coalition of state and local governments, the water industry, and water
professional trade associations called the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN)
estimated that building these costs would be far greater than previous
estimates. The WIN report found that building new and replacing old drinking
water facilities will cost $480 billion dollars (including finance costs) over
the next 20 years, and that about $1 trillion dollars is needed for drinking
water capital, financing, and operation and maintenance over that period. The
WIN investigators concluded that there is a funding gap of about $15 billion per
year for drinking water infrastructure, operation, and maintenance.(1) Most of
these expenses are expected to be necessary irrespective of Safe Drinking Water
Act regulatory requirements. Aging pipes in distribution systems, antiquated
water treatment plants, water professionals' recognition of the need for
infrastructure improvements, public demands for improved water quality, taste,
odor, and reliability, growth, and other factors, all will drive this
investment. While most of these costs will be incurred with or without new EPA
regulations, it is clear that many improvements will be necessary in water
treatment and distribution systems in order to meet modern demands for safer tap
water. Major new public investments will be needed to fund this important
national priority, and to significant research initiatives are necessary to
support and guide this modernization. It recently has been recognized that the
United States and other developed nations' drinking water suppliers have begun a
"Third Revolution" in drinking water provision. It is this revolution that the
WIN report has recognized will require greater financing. These revolutions can
be summarized as follows: - The "First Revolution," occurred when water was
captured, stored, and channeled or piped for household drinking and other uses.
This important advance began in pre-biblical times in the Middle East and was
expanded and refined by the Roman Empire. - The "Second Revolution," took place
when coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, and ultimately chlorination were
installed by many major water suppliers, beginning in the 19th Century and with
widespread adoption by the first World War. This Second Revolution was triggered
by the steady march forward of medical science, the acceptance of the "germ
theory" of disease, and the leadership of public health proponents such as John
Snow who in 1849 linked the London cholera outbreaks to water supplies. This
resulted in enormous public health benefits, and has hailed by the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as one of the ten greatest triumphs of
public health protection of the 20th Century. - The "Third Revolution" in
drinking water provision now has been launched by utilities in the U.S. and
Europe. This revolution is the culmination and synthesis of the "multiple
barriers" approach to preventing disease from drinking water that had long been
advocated by Abel Wolman and other 20th Century water industry leaders. In
essence, the Third Revolution consists of a four- pronged approach to modern
drinking water protection: (1) vigorous measures to prevent contamination of
drinking water, through source water protection; (2) adoption of modern, highly
effective, and broad-spectrum water treatment technologies that can remove a
wide array of emerging contaminants simultaneously, such as membranes,
ultraviolet radiation disinfection, and granular activated carbon with ozone
disinfection; (3) the modernization of aging, sometimes century- or more-old
water distribution systems that often contain lead, are a frequent cause of main
breaks, can harbor microbial growth, and, according to CDC, are a significant
cause of waterborne disease outbreaks; and, (4) The establishment and use of an
efficient and open information infrastructure and public involvement approach in
which utilities and their government regulators use advanced methods to monitor,
assess, communicate, and engage in a dialogue with consumers regarding drinking
water source water threats, and tap water conditions, contaminants, and quality.
Among the larger challenges now facing the water industry include: 1. Arsenic.
The National Academy of Sciences, in a report issued in 1999, recognized that
arsenic in tap water poses a significant public health risk in the United
States, and that EPA's outdated arsenic in tap water standard set in 1942 "does
not achieve EPA's goal for public health protection and, therefore, requires
downward revision as promptly as possible."(2) The Academy concluded that
drinking water containing arsenic at the 50 parts per billion (ppb) level
allowed by the outdated current standard "could easily" pose a total cancer risk
of 1 in 100--about 100 times higher than EPA would ever allow for tap water
under other rules. For the sake of comparison, the cancer risk allowed by this
arsenic standard is about 10,000 times higher than EPA may permit in food under
the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, which Congress passed unanimously. It
also is a cancer risk 100 times greater than EPA policy has allowed for drinking
water contaminants for over two decades. The Academy also found that there was
insufficient basis to find a threshold for arsenic carcinogenesis, and that
there was no credible evidence that arsenic was a necessary nutrient for humans
Moreover, the Academy discussed a litany of other adverse non- cancer health
effects from arsenic in tap water, including cardiovascular effects, nervous
system problems, skin lesions, and possible reproductive and other effects.
Several peer- reviewed, published studies completed in the year since the
Academy's report have reinforced the conclusion that a much lower standard is
needed for arsenic in tap water. For example, a recently published study showed
increased cancer rates among Finns who consumed low levels of arsenic (below 5
ppb). Even more recently, three studies in the July 2000 issue of that National
Institutes of Health's journal Environmental Health Perspectives that found that
arsenic is linked to skin and other health effects even in populations that are
well nourished, that arsenic is linked to certain reproductive problems in
exposed women, and that cancer risks are increased among many people consuming
tap water containing arsenic. EPA in June 2000 published a proposal to reduce
allowable arsenic levels from 50 ppb down to 5 ppb--a level that still presents
a cancer risk higher than the 1 in 10,000 cancer risk that EPA traditionally
allows in tap water. NRDC and many public health professionals and organizations
believe that EPA should set the standard at 3 ppb, the level that EPA says is as
close to the health goal (Maximum Contaminant Level Goal) as is feasible,
considering costs, and is affordable.(3) 2. Radon Radon in tap water poses
significant cancer risks to over 40 million Americans. Another National Academy
of Sciences report, issued last year, found that radon is known to cause cancer,
and concluded that a multimedia mitigation strategy made the most sense in
dealing with the radon problem. The Academy found that while radon can be
present in tap water at levels posing substantial risks, on average nationally
the vast majority of radon risk comes from radon seepage into homes from soils.
Congress enacted a provision in the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments that
provides that states or water systems may adopt Multimedia Mitigation (MMM)
programs for radon that focus on the highest indoor radon risks. States and
public water systems with approved MMM programs need not assure compliance with
the Maximum Contaminant Level for radon in tap water, and can instead meet a
less stringent "Alternative Maximum Contaminant Level" (AMCL). The theory is
that states will provide greater public health benefits by reducing overall
indoor radon levels through a MMM program than would be achievable using only
the MCL for tap water. EPA's proposed rule for implementing this provision,
while in NRDC's view suffering from certain problems of lack of clarity to
assure that the MMM programs actually will achieve the public health benefits
billed, if improved could prove an important step toward protecting public
health from radon. 3. Cryptosporidium, Other Microbial Risks, and Disinfection
Byproducts EPA has engaged in a lengthy, multi-stage process of negotiations
over the past eight years with the water industry, states, local government,
water treatment trade associations, public health groups, and environmental
organizations in an effort to tackle the complex issue of microbial contaminants
and disinfection byproducts. These negotiations have wrestled with how to
control the parasite Cryptosporidium (which sickened over 400,000 people and
killed over 100 in Milwaukee in 1993, and has lead to many smaller outbreaks
since then). In addition, the issue of how to deal with risks introduced or
exacerbated in the water distribution system was debated. These negotiations
have sought to produce an agreement that would improve protection from the class
of contaminants known as disinfection byproducts, which are
created when chemicals such as chlorine are used to disinfect
water, but create unwanted byproducts as a result of chemical
reactions between the disinfectant and organic matter in the water, creating a
potentially toxic soup of chemicals that have been linked in both animal studies
and epidemiological studies of people to certain forms of cancer and to
reproductive problems such as miscarriages and certain birth defects. It appears
that after years of serious negotiations over the "Stage 2" disinfection
byproduct rules, and the "Long Term 2" rule for surface water treatment, early
in September 2000 we finally achieved a breakthrough in the negotiations, and an
agreement has been reached. Senior leadership of all parties must approve the
agreement in the coming week or so, but we are optimistic that the agreement
will be ratified. A proposed rule is anticipated in early or mid-2001. 4.
Groundwater Rule. EPA also was charged by Congress in the 1996 amendments with
issuing a rule requiring that groundwater supplied public water systems
disinfect their drinking water, unless such disinfection were to be found
unnecessary. EPA recently proposed a groundwater rule, upon which the public
comment period recently closed. NRDC believes that the proposal includes several
important measures that may improve public health protection, but also has
several fundamental flaws that will need to be fixed if the rule is not to
become bogged down at the state level.(4) The 1996 SDWA Amendments should help
to encourage better health protection, and EPA should be commended for the
generally open public process used to date in implementing most of this law.
There are several other important challenges: - The Need for a National Dialogue
on How to Fund the Massive Funding Gap for Drinking Water Infrastructure
Improvement and Modernization. The massive shortfall in resources available for
water systems to upgrade, replace, and expand their infrastructure is a problem
that must be addressed. NRDC believes there is a need for a serious national
dialogue on how this funding gap will be addressed. While certainly federal
funding will not itself plug this massive hole, the time has come for a serious
discussion of what the respective federal, state, and local governmental roles
are, and what role private industry might play in this overhaul. We believe that
there is a need for federal leadership on this issue, and for significantly
increased federal resources to be dedicated to this crucially important national
need. - An Assured Funding Mechanism, Such as a Modest, Dedicated Water Fee,
Allocated to a Trust Fund Without Further Appropriation, is Needed to Support
Long-Term Drinking Water Research and to Address High Priority Health Risks for
Small Systems. As part of a series of discussions with the water industry and
others, NRDC and many in the public interest community (and frankly, some in the
industry) have come to the conclusion that Congress should enact a modest water
fee that would support a long-term guarantee of adequate research funding for
drinking water. The funds raised should be set aside in a trust fund that is
available without need for further appropriations, so that the research agenda
is not buffeted by the ever-changing winds of the annual appropriations process.
In addition, we believe that those funds should be made available for direct
funding of the most substantial public health threats posed by drinking water
systems, such as grants for emergency repairs, treatment, or consolidation of
small systems with serious health standard violations. - A "Polluter Pays"
Mechanism is Needed to assure that consumers do not end up footing the bill for
expensive monitoring and treatment when polluters contaminate source water. We
recommend that the SDWA be amended (or that separate legislation be enacted) to
enable public water systems or consumers to recover the full costs that source
water pollution imposes on them in the form of increased monitoring, treatment,
and other costs. - Appropriations Acts and a Court Decision Have Effectively
Eliminated the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) Set- Aside for Health
Effects Research, Undercutting Funding Assurances. This Committee and the 1996
SDWA Amendments adopted a provision in the DWSRF assuring a $10 million
set-aside for health effects research, SDWA s1453(n). The appropriations
committees, however, have included provisions purporting to negate this
set-aside in the last several appropriations acts. Unfortunately, a court
decision--reached with the support of EPA- -effectively found that the
appropriations language overrode the set-aside in the Act. Thus, this
Committee's effort to assure long-term funding of this research has been
nullified by subsequent Congressional action. This Committee should fight for
the full set-aside for this research. - A Forum for Open Public Research
Planning and Priority Setting is Necessary. EPA should formalize an open public
process for developing its drinking water research plans, similar to the highly
successful Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts Council, but with additional
public comment and openness assured. This is a far more effective approach than
the largely closed-door process EPA used in planning its arsenic research, for
example. - Assuring More Effective Public Right-to-Know, Better Source
Protection, More Affordable Advanced Treatment Technologies, Better Analytical
Methods. EPA needs to conduct further research and funding, and to take
regulatory and other steps to build better public understanding of tap water
challenges. The EPA right-to-know report rules issued in 1998 that required the
annual reports to be issued beginning in 1999, are a major step forward. It is
critical, however, that methods be developed to improve public understanding of
these complex issues. Other important areas of research include: investigations
into ways in which source water protection can be made a more effective tool for
drinking water protection; research on how modern treatment methods can be
improved and costs decreased; development of better, cheaper, and easier
analytical methods; and improved approaches to assuring small system compliance
through restructuring or treatment upgrades. - Research to Support Treatment,
Occurrence, and Related Issues for Microbes, Disinfection Byproducts,
Groundwater, and Distribution System Risks. New standards will be issued over
the next several years for many contaminants, yet EPA resources for research on
the availability of treatment and on occurrence are inadequate. These rules will
be determinative as to whether the "Third Revolution" in drinking water
protection--involving true multiple barriers to contamination in the form of
source water protection, advanced "leap frog" treatment technologies, and modern
distribution system management--will occur in the early 21st Century, or whether
the nation's aging and often outdated water supplies will continue to
inadequately address these emerging problems and to deteriorate. A stronger
research commitment is needed. - Compliance Problems that Continue to Plague the
Drinking Water Program. Widespread violations of the SDWA, and inadequate state
and EPA enforcement against even the most recalcitrant violators continue to be
a major problem. Improved data collection and management, and a stronger
commitment to enforcement, are crucial to assist EPA, states, and the public to
address these issues. Compliance problems and data collection and management
failures have been catalogued in a USA Today series published in October, 1998,
in a recent EPA audit discussed in a front page USA Today article in late 1999,
and in EPA's own 1998 and 1999 Annual Compliance Reports. The EPA drinking water
program and states need to upgrade their management systems and programs.
Routine audits of federally-funded state programs are a crucial part of this
effort. The new SDWA small system viability provisions could begin to reduce
these problems, but substantial additional resources and research are needed to
assure that these programs bear fruit. Additionally, small system technical
assistance should be granted on a competitive basis, based upon the best
available research, so that these assistance providers demonstrate that they can
deliver accurate technical assistance to small systems in a cost-efficient
manner. We oppose "earmarked" assistance funding that is non-competitive, as it
often fails to allocate resources so as to maximize health benefits. - Improved
Data Management, Reporting, and A Comprehensive National Contaminant Occurrence
Database. EPA must work with states and the public to develop a fully integrated
and fully automated joint data management system for the drinking water program.
Included in this system should be accurate, reliable and real-time compliance,
water quality, enforcement, and other key information. In addition, an effective
National Contaminant Occurrence Database (NCOD) is needed that will require
compatible data systems across states, electronic data reporting to EPA by
states and testing labs, and sufficient will to ensure that national contaminant
reporting is complete and timely. A well- organized NCOD will provide an
essential national right-to-know counterpart to the consumer confidence or
"right to know" reports that water utilities provide directly to their
customers. - Better Integration of Clean Water Act and SDWA Programs. While
modest progress and much discussion have occurred in the effort to better
integrate the Clean Water Act and SDWA programs, in fact we have a long way to
go at the state and federal levels. It is an unfortunate historical and
jurisdictional byproduct that hampers full integration of these programs and
impedes progress. For example, EPA's source water assessments and protection
programs, filtration avoidance programs, the groundwater rule, wellhead
protection programs, sole source aquifer programs, and UIC programs under the
SDWA, need to be better integrated with the CWA ss319, 305(b), and Total Maximum
Daily Load programs have developed largely independent of each other. The
Unified Watershed Assessment effort is beginning to make some headway in
integrating these diverse programs, but a more aggressive effort would be
helpful. - Meaningful Source Water Protection Authority. Public water systems,
states, EPA, and the public need to have the ability to protect, through
regulatory mechanisms or other mechanisms as necessary, source waters. The 1996
SDWA Amendments largely punted on this issue, but creeping development and
pollution are contaminating many source waters; strong legal authorities to
prevent such contamination are needed. - Better Leveraging of Other Federal
Agency Resources. The federal government has a wealth of expertise and resources
directly relevant to EPA's drinking water program that should be better
integrated into EPA's efforts. For example, the Centers for Disease Control,
Agency for Toxic Substances Disease Registry, and many of the institutes at the
National Institutes of Health, including the National Cancer Institute, the
National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the National Institute of
Allergy and Infectious Disease, National Institute of Child Health and Human
Development, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, National Institute of
Neurological Disorders and Stroke, and many other institutes and agencies
conduct research of which EPA often is unaware. A better program is urgently
needed to assure more information sharing and collaboration among the federal
agencies. Some successful examples of such collaboration can be noted--such as
the waterborne disease estimation research being jointly spearheaded by EPA and
CDC, and the joint work on disinfection byproducts by EPA, ATSDR, and NTP.
Perhaps more often, however, there is little or no collaboration among many of
the agencies in priority setting and in conducting research. The lack of
coordination can result in serious lost opportunities, and potentially in
duplication of effort. - Programs to Protect Consumers of Small Systems and
Private Wells. The United States may be moving towards a two-tiered water
supply: higher quality water for consumers in larger cities, and lower quality
water in small town and rural America. America's small water systems are often
having significant difficulty complying with EPA's basic health standards, and
as additional rules (such as arsenic and the groundwater rules) are issued,
these difficulties will only increase. There is a need to develop a stronger
program to assist and fund the restructuring, technical assistance,
regionalization, consolidation, package treatment technology, and other
approaches that will have to be adopted to assure that small water system
customers receive safe and affordable drinking water. There also are 30 to 40
million Americans who get their water primarily from private wells not covered
by the SDWA at all. Monitoring and protection of the quality of water in these
wells is often spotty to nonexistent. A national dialogue is needed to discuss
how these tens of millions of Americans' health can be better protected from
contamination of these often highly vulnerable supplies. CONCLUSION In
conclusion, NRDC strongly believes that EPA's implementation of the 1996
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act is beginning to show signs of
achieving substantial public health gains. Some of the most knotty, difficult
issues that have faced EPA and the nation's drinking water supplies for the past
quarter century since the original 1974 SDWA was passed, and in many cases for
even longer than that, are now being squarely addressed. This process will not
be simple, nor will it be cheap. But this effort is necessary to protect public
health and to achieve public demands for a reliable supply of safe, good-
tasting tap water for all Americans. A vigorous and well-funded EPA research and
regulatory effort is crucial to the long-term success of the drinking water
program and the nation's tap water safety. Only a long-term stable source of
adequate funding will assure that this is achieved.
LOAD-DATE: September 20, 2000, Wednesday
