LEXIS-NEXIS® Congressional Universe-Document

Search Terms: chlorine w/10 byproducts, House or Senate or Joint

Document 4 of 5.

View Related Topics

June 29, 2000, Thursday

SECTION: PREPARED TESTIMONY

LENGTH: 3374 words

HEADLINE: PREPARED TESTIMONY OF ERIK D. OLSON SENIOR ATTORNEY NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL

BEFORE THE SENATE ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS COMMITTEE SUBCOMMITTEE ON FISHERIES, WILDLIFE, AND DRINKING WATER

SUBJECT - PENDING ISSUES IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT

BODY:
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 at the turn of the 20th Century advanced public health protection enormously. Much of the nation's drinking water infrastructure, however, has aged, is outdated, and is simply inadequate. We must modernize our water systems to safeguard the nation's water supplies from new and emerging contaminants and the pressure of increased population. While EPA has estimated that the costs of modernization will exceed $138 billion dollars, many in state and local governments, in the water industry, and the 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 a water professional trade association called the Water Infrastructure Network (WIN) estimated that the cost of updating our water systems would significantly exceed previous estimates. Specifically, 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 capital, financing, operation and maintenance of the facilities over that period. Consequently, 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, however, 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 will all drive this investment. While most of these costs will be incurred with or without new EPA regulations, clearly many improvements will be necessary in water treatment and distribution systems in order to meet modem demands for safer tap water. Major new public investments will be needed to fund this important national priority and significant research initiatives are necessary to support and guide this modernization.

The United States and drinking water suppliers in other developed nations' have begun a "Third Revolution" in drinking water provision. The WIN report recognized this revolution as requiring greater financing. The "First Revolution" occurred when water was initially captured, stored, and channeled or piped for household drinking and other uses. This important advance began in pre-biblical times in Sumaria and other parts of the Middle East, and was expanded and refined by the Roman Empire. The "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 knowledge led to the development of treatment and disinfection techniques such as coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, and ultimately, chlorination. These processes were installed by many major water suppliers beginning in the 19th Century and leading to widespread adoption by the first World War. These technologies have resulted in enormous public health benefits, and have been hailed by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) as one of the greatest triumphs of public health protection in the 20th Century.4 The "Third Revolution" in drinking water provision has now been launched by utilities in the U.S. and Europe. This revolution is marked by 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 three-pronged approach to modem drinking water protection: (1) vigorous measures to prevent contamination of drinking water, through source water protection actions; (2) adoption of modem, 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; and, (3) the modernization of aging water distribution systems, sometimes over a century old, that often contain lead, frequently cause main breaks, harbor microbial growth, and, according to the CDC, are a significant cause of waterborne disease outbreaks.

Among the challenges now facing the water industry are:

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 tap water standard for arsenic, which was 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 thanthe risk EPA may permit in food under the Food Quality Protection Act of 1996, which Congress passed unanimously. The Academy also found that there was an insufficient basis to find a threshold for arsenic carcinogenesis, and that there was no credible evidence that arsenic was a necessary nutrient in 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, possible reproductive harms 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 for arsenic in tap water is needed to protect public health. For example, a recently published study showed increased cancer rates in Finland among persons who consumed low levels of arsenic (below 5 ppb). Most recently, three studies published in the July 2000 issue of the National Institutes of Health's journal, Environmental Health Perspectives, found that arsenic in drinking water is linked to skin problems and other adverse health effects even in wellnourished populations. Additionally, the studies link the presence of arsenic in tap water to certain reproductive problems in exposed women, and increased cancer risks.

Last week EPA 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, along with many public health professionals and organizations, believe that EPA should set the standard at 3 ppb, the level that EPA says is closest to the health goal (Maximum Contaminant Level Goal) and is practical, economically feasible and affordable.

2. Radon.

Currently, 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 should be pursued to deal with the radon problem. The Academy found that while radon can be present in tap water at levels posing substantial risks, generally the vast majority of risks from radon comes from radon seepage into homes from soils.

Congress enacted a provision in the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments that allows states or water systems to adopt Multimedia Mitigation M) programs for radon that focus on the highest indoor radon risks. States and public water systems with approved MMM programs do not need to assure compliance with the Maximum Contaminant Level for radon in tap water. Instead, they can meet a less stringent "Alternative Maximum Contaminant Level" (AMCL), because they will be providing greater public health benefits by reducing the overall indoor radon levels through the MMM program than through achieving the MCL for tap water. EPA's proposed rule for implementing this provision could prove to be an important step toward protecting public health from radon, if it can assure that the MMM programs actually will achieve the public health benefits billed.

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 made over 400,000 people ill and killed over 100 in Milwaukee in 1993, and has led to many smaller outbreaks since 1993).

The negotiations also have sought to improve protection from the class of contaminants known as disinfection byproducts, which are created when chemicals such as chlorine are used to disinfect water. The chemical reactions between the disinfectant and organic matter in the water create unwanted byproducts, which are a potentially toxic soup of chemicals that have been linked in both animal studies and human epidemiological studies to certain forms of cancer and reproductive problems such as miscarriages and birth defects.

We are now in the midst Of serious negotiations over the "Stage 2" disinfection byproduct rules, and the "Long Term 2" rule for surface water treatment. A proposed rule is anticipated in early or mid-2001.

4. Groundwater Rule.

In the 1996 amendments, Congress charged the EPA 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 has proposed a groundwater rule, which is now open for public comment. NRDC has begun to review the proposal and while we believe that the proposal includes several important measures that may improve public health protection, it also has several fundamental flaws that will need to be fixed to prevent the rule from becoming bogged down at the state level and not being implemented.

The 1996 SDWA Amendments encourage better health protection, and the EPA should be commended for the using a generally open public process to implement the majority of this law. Several other important challenges remain:.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 ensuring $10 million set-aside for health effects re earth, SDWA '1453(n). The appropriations committees, however, have included provisions purporting to negate-this setaside in the last several appropriations acts. Unfortunately, a court decision--reached with the support of the EPA-- effectively found that the appropriations language overrode the setaside 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 assurances of public comment and openness. This is a far more effective approach than the largely closed-door process EPA used in planning its arsenic research, for example. 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, even some in the industry), have come to the conclusion that Congress should enact a modest water fee to 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 needing further appropriations. This would prevent the research agenda from being 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. 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 serious need for a 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. Other Research Needs: Assuring More Effective Public Right-to-Know, Better Source Protection, More Affordable Advanced Treatment Technologies, Better Analytical Methods, and Improved Small System Management, Restructuring, and Treatment.

EPA needs to conduct further research about how to build public understanding of tap water challenges. The EPA right-to-know report rules issued in 1998 that required the first reports to be issued to consumers by October 1999, and subsequent annual reports every July, starting July 2000 (next month), 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 occurrences 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 21= 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 thestates need to upgrade their management systems and programs. Routine audits of federallyfunded 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 because it often falls to allocate resources to maximize health benefits. 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 several 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 the 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 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 while setting priorities and conducting research. This lack of coordination can result in serious lost opportunities and resources through potential duplication of efforts.

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. However, 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.

FOOTNOTES:

1 Water Infrastructure Network, Clean and Safe Water for the 21st Century: A Renewed National Commitment to Water and Wastewaler Infrasmcture (2000).

2 National Research Council, Arsenic in Drinking Water, p. 9 (1999)

END

LOAD-DATE: June 30, 2000

Document 4 of 5.


Search Terms: chlorine w/10 byproducts, House or Senate or Joint
To narrow your search, please enter a word or phrase: