U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

60–360CC WASHINGTON : 1999

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1996 SAFE DRINKING

WATER AMENDMENTS AND SAFE DRINKING

WATER RESEARCH PROGRAMS

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

FIRST SESSION

OCTOBER 20, 1999

Serial No. 106–80

Printed for the use of the Committee on Commerce

(

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

TOM BLILEY, Virginia, Chairman

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana

MICHAEL G. OXLEY, Ohio

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida

JOE BARTON, Texas

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

Vice Chairman

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

CHRISTOPHER COX, California

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

STEVE LARGENT, Oklahoma

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

GREG GANSKE, Iowa

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma

RICK LAZIO, New York

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JAMES E. ROGAN, California

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

VITO FOSSELLA, New York

ROY BLUNT, Missouri

ED BRYANT, Tennessee

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

BART GORDON, Tennessee

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

RON KLINK, Pennsylvania

BART STUPAK, Michigan

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York

THOMAS C. SAWYER, Ohio

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland

GENE GREEN, Texas

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota

LOIS CAPPS, California

JAMES E. DERDERIAN, Chief of Staff

JAMES D. BARNETTE, General Counsel

REID P.F. STUNTZ, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida, Chairman

FRED UPTON, Michigan

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky

GREG GANSKE, Iowa

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia

TOM A. COBURN, Oklahoma

Vice Chairman

RICK LAZIO, New York

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona

CHARLES W. ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING,

Mississippi

ED BRYANT, Tennessee

TOM BLILEY, Virginia,

(Ex Officio)

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida

BART STUPAK, Michigan

GENE GREEN, Texas

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin

LOIS CAPPS, California

RALPH M. HALL, Texas

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

ANNA G. ESHOO, California

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,

(Ex Officio)

(II)

2

C O N T E N T S

Page

Testimony of:

Guerrero, Peter F., Director, Environmental Protection Issues, General

Accounting Office, accompanied by Ellen Crocker ..................................... 16

Hall, Stephen K., Executive Director, Association of California Water

Agencies ......................................................................................................... 53

Noonan, Hon. Norine E., Assistant Administrator for Research and Development, accompanied by Cynthia C. Dougherty, Director, Office of

Groundwater and Drinking Water, Environmental Protection Agency ... 26

Olson, Erik D., Senior Attorney, Natural Resource Defense Council .......... 58

Sullivan, John H., Deputy Executive Director, American Water Works

Association on behalf of Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

and the National Association of Water Companies .................................... 49

Material submitted for the record by:

Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, American Water Works Association, letter dated October 8, 1999 to Hon. John D. Dingell .............. 83

Campaign for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water, letter dated November 1, 1999 ..................................................................................................... 87

(III)

(1)

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1996 SAFE DRINKING WATER AMENDMENTS AND SAFE

DRINKING WATER RESEARCH PROGRAMS

WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 1999

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT,

Washington, DC.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:08 a.m., in room

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Michael Bilirakis

(chairman) presiding.

Members present: Representatives Bilirakis, Deal, Bilbray,

Ganske, Lazio, Pickering, Bryant, Brown, Pallone, and Barrett.

Also present: Representative Engel.

Staff present: Bob Meyers, majority counsel; Clay Alspach, legislative clerk; Richard A. Frandsen, minority counsel; and Brendan

Kelsay, minority investigator.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The hearing will come to order. Good morning.

Over 3 years ago, this subcommittee approved a 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments. In doing so, the subcommittee attempted to chart a new course for the protection of the public

health. We abandoned an unworkable law which placed the EPA

on a regulatory treadmill and replaced it with a law which required

the Agency to focus on contaminants which pose the greatest risk

to public health.

Under the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendment, we required EPA to examine adverse health effects of drinking water

contaminants, the occurrence of contaminants in drinking water

supplies, and whether regulation of a contaminant presented a

meaningful opportunity for health risk reduction.

All of these provisions require, at their core, numerous health

studies and an evaluation of the human health risks. They require

scientific investigation and assembling a body of cohesive knowledge which can be subject to public critique. They require a multiyear planning process and assessment of where to allocate limited

resources.

The 1996 amendments, in effect, required EPA to undertake a

new model of environmental regulation, one which focuses not on

the most recent anecdotal study or which is driven by arbitrary criteria but one which pursues a long-term research agenda. The 1996

amendments required EPA to evaluate what we do know about

drinking water contaminants and to actively pursue reliable and

verifiable knowledge about what we don’t know.

2

I believe the jury is still out on whether EPA is doing the job it

was supposed to do under the 1996 amendments. But time is running out on their deliberations, and initial reports from jury room

are not promising.

In specific, today we will receive a report from GAO which indicates that EPA does not have any overall estimate of the resources

it needs for drinking water research. We will hear that the Agency

has requested a larger percentage of funds for regulatory development rather than basic research on drinking water contaminants.

We will learn that EPA has not completed research plans for significant portions of its regulatory workload although many statutory deadlines are looming over the next 2 years. And we will hear

that EPA does not have an effective tracking system to understand

the progress of the research it actually is conducting.

While I eagerly await the explanation of the Agency on these

matters these are not trivial failings by EPA. Instead, they go to

the heart of the regulatory program established by the 1996

amendments. They go to the heart of whether we will be successful

in accurately assessing threats to the public health and addressing

them through new drinking water standards. While I am open to

explanation, I am very concerned that if deficiencies are not corrected, the success of the 1996 amendments will be seriously jeopardized.

I want to take this opportunity to thank Chairman Bliley and

Congressmen Bilbray and Lazio for requesting along with myself

the GAO report we will review this morning. This report constitutes the first phase of the subcommittee’s request to GAO. We

will also pursue additional questions concerning the adequacy of

funding for drinking water infrastructure.

Otherwise, I want to extend my gratitude for the testimony presented by our second panel. Although small in size, I believe this

panel will be able to present important perspectives on safe drinking water research for the subcommittee to evaluate. As I have indicated in previous hearings, I would also request that our witnesses from EPA either remain in the hearing room and that can

only be a request on our part; but we would really very much appreciate it, either remain in the hearing room for the testimony of

the second panel so that they can also learn from their testimony,

or make arrangements to be thoroughly briefed on the testimony

and material received into the record.

Finally I would note that we have requested the GAO to testify

on the same panel as witnesses from EPA and for EPA to testify

on the same panel as non-executive branch witnesses. I appreciate

the cooperation of both GAO and EPA in this regard and would

note that this accommodation was made in the from of expediting

this hearing only and not necessarily to establish a precedent for

future hearings. Although, frankly, I kind of like the idea of they

being able to maybe go back and forth at each other.

[Material submitted by Hon. Michael Bilirakis follows:

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Having said all that I would now yield in the gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, thank you. I welcome this hearing

today to examine the EPA’s research program in conjunction with

regulatory requirements established by the 1996 Safe Drinking

Water Act. As we review EPA’s budget request, we should also look

at whether Congress, which has made the independent—which has

the independent authority to actually appropriate funds, has made

wise decisions on the appropriations process with respect to research funding. Have congressional earmarks within the Agency’s

overall budget drained away available funds? What will 1 or 2 percent across the board budget cuts, as my Republican colleagues are

currently discussing, mean for these research programs?

The focus today, however, on the drinking water research program, while important, cannot mask what this committee did last

week—what the full committee did last week to dramatically weaken the protection of our groundwater supplies in the United States.

Nearly 120 million Americans, half the country, rely on groundwater as the primary source of drinking water. Unfortunately, in

reporting H.R. 2580, the Superfund reauthorization bill a week

ago, my Republican colleagues voted: 1. To eliminate from current

law the authority for Federal and State governments to rely on

quote unquote ‘‘relevant and appropriate’’ State and Federal environmental requirements. This was done over the opposition of the

American Water Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies who have informed the committee that relevant and appropriate requirements are quote ‘‘a key tool in protecting human health and insuring that consumers are not forced

to pay for treatment of water contaminated by hazardous waste.’’

My Republican colleagues voted also to weaken the cleanup

standards for three significant and widespread contaminants found

at Superfund sites: tetrachloroethylene, carbon tetrachloride, and

trichchloroethylene. In the case of tetrachloroethylene, which is a

solvent widely used by the dry cleaning industry, H.R. 2580’s cleanup standard according to State and Federal officials is more than

2,000 times less stringent than the maximum contaminant level established by the Safe Drinking Water Act.

3. My colleagues voted against an amendment that would direct

EPA, in conducting cleanup actions, to protect uncontaminated

groundwater. The Metropolitan Water Association and the Water

Works Association again urged, ‘‘the committee to include language

directing, at a minimum, that uncontaminated groundwater be protected.’’

My Republican colleagues voted in the last week in the Superfund bill to weaken the preferences for treatment and permanent

remedies found in current law once again voting against the position taken by State and Federal officials and our drinking water

suppliers. These and other provisions in 2580 weaken current law

and could result in Superfund cleanups that would not adequately

protect human health or the environment.

Mr. Chairman, it is wrong to weaken current law and benefit

those who pollute our Nation’s groundwater at the expense of our

drinking water suppliers against the recommendations of State and

local governments and at the expense of our citizens who rely on

10

clean groundwater for their health and the economic growth of

their communities. I hope this committee will come to its senses before it is too late.

Mr. Chairman, I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank the gentleman. Mr. Bilbray.

Mr. BILBRAY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would like to echo my

colleagues appreciation for your holding this hearing. And let me

just say that I think too often we take for granted that the water

we have access to through the tap is clean and safe. I for one have

got to tell you it is sort of interesting to note for somebody who

lives half the time in San Diego and half the time in Washington,

DC. That I don’t take it for granted here in Washington, DC. It is

a concern. Every time I turn on the tap I always wonder about the

quality of it.

Now, I am lucky enough to be able to go home to my hometown

in San Diego and fortunate enough to have an extremely clean

drinking water source. In fact, one that has not had a violation in

over a decade. But we also import our water 500 miles from northern California or import it from Colorado. And our source of water

is quite different. I think that all of us though have a responsibility

to try to make sure that all the water in this country is safe working with local officials to make sure that the safeguards we develop

are actually safeguards.

Now, I think that the issue of protecting at-risk individuals, children, women, people with compromised immune systems are something that we need to focus on, and I think that is the new level

of sensitivity that we are shooting at. And I just want to make sure

what when we do this, that we focus on real life situations. And

I would ask my colleagues who are always talking about the concern about public health, please remember, and I know you don’t

like the preaching from somebody from California on this, please

remember that any time we spend a dollar on something that is

not a real-life situation that is a dollar that could be spent on those

critical services.

That is why from time to time again this member has tried to

point out there are times that a strategy that may work great in

Michigan is an absolute waste of resources when you try to apply

it in Arizona. And we not only have a right to make sure those,

you know, inconsistencies are addressed we have a responsibility to

it not just in good governance but as people who are actually claiming and have the responsibility of protecting the public health.

I hope at this hearing we are able to make sure that as we focus

our resources, we focus them on real-world situations that will help

our children, help those who are most at risk. Because I think that

both, Republicans, Democrats, that is what we are here for. It is

what we are about. We are not here to put regulations out for regulation’s sake, to spend money. An act that will show a degree of

compassion and caring is obviously based on how much mandates

I put on or how much money I spend, I think the real proof of the

pudding is will we have a safe drinking water system.

I would love to participate with this committee, Democrats and

Republicans, to make sure that the water in DC, and in the rest

of the country is as safe, as accessible as the water in my homeVerDate 20-MAR-2000 15:46 Mar 21, 2000 Jkt 060360 PO 00000 Frm 00013 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60360.TXT pfrm07 PsN: 60360
11

town. And I hope that we can work together to make that our goal

and our achievement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.

[The prepared statement of Hon. Brian P. Bilbray follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. BRIAN P. BILBRAY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing today, on a matter of great importance to every single one of our constituents—the safety of their drinking water.

We tend to take a great many things for granted sometimes, but clean and safe

drinking water is one thing we must never assume to be a ‘‘given’’. My hometown

of San Diego is fortunate to have an extremely clean supply of drinking water, and

a state of the art delivery system for it; however, not all communities are at this

level. We have a responsibility to all those we represent to make sure that their

drinking water supply is protected, and to take special care to ensure that the

health of our most vulnerable Americans—children, pregnant women, the elderly,

and those with compromised immune systems—is provided with extra safeguards.

I was proud to play an active role in crafting the landmark 1996 Amendments

to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which made critical improvements to the way in

which we protect and provide drinking water to the American people. In this broadly bipartisan legislation, which President Clinton signed into law, we required the

EPA to consider several specific factors in setting drinking water standards. These

included:

• assessing whether a contaminant will have an adverse effect on health; • whether a contaminant is known to occur or has a likelihood of occurring in water

supplies; • whether a contaminant poses a ‘‘meaningful opportunity for risk reduction’’.

In addition, EPA is now required to use the ‘‘best available, peer-reviewed science

and supporting studies conducted in accordance with sound and objective scientific

practices’’. All these provisions were intended to require an extensive effort to evaluate contaminants that pose a serious threat to human health, their occurrence in

drinking water supplies, and the severity of health threats among the general population and specific sensitive subpopulations. This research and subsequent evaluations were intended to occur well in advance of any regulatory deadlines, in order

to adequately inform the public.

On March 29 of this year, I joined with my colleagues Rick Lazio, Chairman Tom

Bliley, Health and Environment Subcommittee Chairman Michael Bilirakis in requesting the GAO to review several aspects of the implementation of the 1996

Amendments, examine EPA’s existing research program, and provide an assessment

of EPA’s ability to complete the research needed over the next ten years to support

sound regulatory decisions required by the SDWA.

The purpose of this hearing is to review the findings of the report, and hear testimony on its conclusions from the EPA and other stakeholders in the drinking water

community. I hope that the perspective and expertise of these witnesses will provide

us with a better understanding of the situation, and address some of the frankly

troubling concerns which the report has raised.

Having read the report, I have several concerns which I hope will be thoroughly

addressed by our witnesses, so that an appropriate course of action can be followed

to remedy the situation. I am particularly concerned about the following findings in

the report:

• concern by some stakeholders that there may be inadequate health effects research available to support impending regulations on arsenic, microbial pathogens, disinfectants, and disinfectant byproducts—specifically including epidemiological studies and research on sensitive subpopulations, such as children

and pregnant women;

• concern that EPA may be in a ‘‘cycle’’ in which its research lags behind regulatory

needs, and it lacks the appropriate science to support its decisions; and

• that EPA lacks an effective system for tracking the progress and funding of ongoing research, in relation to its master longterm plan.

I want to point out that this should not be an accusatory or combative process;

we were able to enact the 1996 SDWA Amendments with an unprecedented level

of bipartisan cooperation, and we need to maintain this cooperation as we work together to implement the Act. Thirsty children and their parents don’t care who may

be at fault, they only care that any problem regarding their drinking water gets

fixed. EPA was provided with an opportunity to comment on a draft of this report,

and stated that it ‘‘agrees with the importance of the central issues examined in the

report’’. We will hear more from the EPA and other witnesses shortly, and it is my

12

hope that together we can identify whatever shortcomings that now exist, and ensure that our drinking water program, properly supported by sound research, will

function as we intended it to. Thank you again for highlighting this important issue,

Mr. Chairman, and I look forward to the testimony of our witnesses.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Pallone for an opening statement.

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I must point out that

I find it somewhat hypocritical for the majority to hold this hearing

today when they voted just last week to roll back one Superfund

protection after another including the water supply protections.

Last week’s markup resulted in the failure due to party line votes

of my amendment that would have protected uncontaminated

groundwater among other critical measures.

I know Mr. Brown mentioned some of these other measures as

well, but I did want to reiterate again the majority is rejecting the

amendment to restore Federal and State authority to use relevant

and appropriate requirements the ARARs, I guess it is pronounced,

for cleanup efforts. The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies

has informed us that they rely on these requirements for cleanup

efforts to protect human health and ensure that consumers are not

forced to pay for treatment of water contaminated by hazardous

waste. The water companies rely on the ARARs because the Safe

Drinking Water Act may not provide sufficient guidance to govern

the cleanup of unregulated contaminants.

Mr. Chairman, I know we are here today to examine EPA’s research program to determine whether it will be able to fulfill its

obligations to select heretofore unregulated contaminants that

present the greatest public health concerns. I regret that the majority passed up an opportunity to provide similar protections and

risk assessments in the Superfund program and failed to act responsibly to protect the citizens of our country and our natural resources.

I just want to point out that I have a bill that would rectify some

of the concerns being raised today and address deficiencies in the

Safe Drinking Water Act. I would ask the chairman if we could

have a hearing on this bill and eventually pass the bill. This is the

drinking water right to know act of 1999, H.R. 2108. It enjoys bipartisan support. It has been cosponsored by other members of this

subcommittee. The bill also was introduced in the Senate by Senator Frank Lautenberg. And the NRDC, which is testifying here

today, has been supportive of the legislation.

People in New Jersey frequently experience cases of water supply

contamination from Superfund sites, of which we have more than

any other State, and accidental releases among other sources. We

must act to prevent such contamination. Earlier this year because

I know Mr. Bilbray said use real examples, well earlier this year

an oil spill from an apartment complex in my district leaked into

a canal, in the Raritan canal. The leak was contained. However, it

posed a potential threat to the drinking water supply for a great

many of my constituents because the canal flows into the Raritan

River which supplies drinking water for nearly three-fourths of

Middlesex County, which has about 600,000 people.

The drinking water right to know act of 1999 would address current deficiencies by amending the Safe Drinking Water Act to imVerDate 20-MAR-2000 15:46 Mar 21, 2000 Jkt 060360 PO 00000 Frm 00015 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60360.TXT pfrm07 PsN: 60360
13

prove source water assessments and consumer confidence reports.

In performing source water assessments under my bill, the States

would assess the threat posed not just by regulated contaminants

but by certain unregulated contaminants believed by the U.S. EPA

and the U.S. Geological Survey to cause health problems and by

contaminants known to be released from local pollutionsites such

as Superfund, other waste sites, and factories.

The bill also would require States to identify potential contamination of groundwater even outside the immediate area of the well

and perform assessments with full involvement from the public. In

addition, my bill would inform the public about contaminants in

drinking water that currently are unregulated but still may

present a threat to people’s health.

Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to say we had an opportunity last

week to protect water supplies; but those amendments were voted

down. We also could have passed Narrow Brownfields legislation

that enjoys consensus support, but that didn’t happen. Of course,

I would like to have my Republican colleagues cosponsor my bill,

my amendments, to the Safe Drinking Water Act and pass my legislation; but I know that is not going to happen.

And instead, we are just holding another hearing under the guise

of improving the Safe Drinking Water Act. Again I think we need

to focus more on things that we can accomplish legislatively and

not just have hearings, you know, for the sake of, you know, just

being critical. You know I know you are well-intentioned, Mr.

Chairman; and you know I probably sound too critical in your opinion. But I am just getting a little frustrated with what is happening with the committee. Thank you.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Dr. Ganske, for an opening statement.

Mr. GANSKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This is an important

hearing. In 1996, we passed amendments to the Safe Drinking

Water Act that required the EPA to make regulatory decisions on

certain water contaminants based on sound science. As we approach the first deadline for an administrative decision, it is vital

that we, as an authorizing committee, review the status of this program and ensure that EPA is following the requirements of the act.

The GAO report before us today and testimony from our second

panel indicates that in certain areas of implementation the Agency

is behind the curve. And I am pretty concerned about this.

Specifically, I am concerned about the role science will play in

the Agency’s decisionmaking process. The act says the EPA must

use the quote ‘‘best available peer reviewed science and supporting

studies conducted in accordance with sound and objective scientific

practices.’’ Yet we will hear today that much of this science will not

be available by the time EPA starts making regulatory decisions.

According to GAO’s testimony, EPA has admitted that some high

priority research projects will not be completed in time for upcoming regulations. The Agency told GAO, however, that they will

issue the regulations using the best available science at the time.

Then they may modify regulations if further information indicates

they should do so.

Mr. Chairman, is this the way we want the Agency to implement

our laws? The Agency will say, we will tell you that you must do

this now although we don’t have all the information but when we

14

do have all the necessary scientific information, we will change the

regulations and tell you what to do next. Like changing horses in

midstream that is not a good idea for cowboys, and it is not a good

idea for local water systems.

I am getting very uneasy about the implementation of this program. I am beginning to see the seeds of controversy that surround

the implementation of the Food Quality Protection Act. In that program, the agency is making decisions before it has completed the

science in direct contradiction to the letter of the law. That is not

good governing. GAO’s report says the EPA does not even have a

comprehensive research plan of safe drinking water research yet.

Nor has it determined what resources will be needed to complete

the necessary research to ensure sound science is used in making

regulatory decisions.

Mr. Chairman, this law has been on the books for 3 years. What

is the hold up? I am very interested to hear what the EPA has to

say in response to these GAO allegations, specifically, why is the

EPA planning on issuing regulations before the science is ready?

Where is the science? And why, after 3 years, is there no comprehensive research plan for safe drinking water? I hope the answers we hear will give us some confidence in the future implementation of this program. And with that I yield back.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Okay. I thank the gentleman. I think that completes the opening statements. Obviously, the written opening

statements of all members of the subcommittee are, without objection, made a part of the record.

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. RICK LAZIO, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, I applaud your efforts to hold these hearings on the implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. I cannot think of a better

way to emphasize the significance of this issue than to point to the pitchers of water

sitting in front of us right now. We, just like our fellow citizens, rely upon this Act

to ensure that the water in these pitchers is healthy and safe.

Earlier this spring, I joined with you, Mr. Bliley, and Mr. Bilbray in asking the

GAO to look into EPA’s implementation of the 1996 amendments. I took this action

because ensuring the quality of our drinking water is a critical responsibility for all

of us.

In 1996, Congress made major reforms in the way the safety of our drinking

water would be ensured. The Congress recognized that many of the old legislative

mandates on EPA just were not working. In response, Congress required regulatory

efforts to be refocused on contaminants posing the greatest health risks. It also

added programs designed to strengthen the science underlying drinking water regulations.

A reliance on the best available scientific research for setting new drinking water

standards underlies the regulatory mandates of the 1996 amendments. However,

last year, this subcommittee heard testimony that indicated that EPA was devoting

insufficient resources for this research. We heard that this shortfall could reach $20

million per year through fiscal year 2003, with arsenic and disinfection by-product

research plans alone requiring $150 million. Because of this testimony, I joined with

my colleagues to request that the GAO perform an assessment of EPA’s research

efforts.

I am concerned with some of GAO’s findings on this issue. First, I am concerned

to hear that the budget requests are not linked to multiyear resource estimates. I

understand the need to balance competing resource needs, but I cannot see how this

can be done without an understanding of the total project.

The report states that EPA acknowledges that some high-priority research

projects will not be completed in time for the required regulatory efforts. I hope that

today’s witnesses will assure us that there will be sufficient research to ensure that

15

these regulations will be protective of our public’s health. I cannot think of a higher

priority for our environmental research funding than ensuring the safety of our

drinking water.

Mr. Chairman, my biggest concern with what the GAO reports is that some stakeholders are worried that we may not have adequate research to protect public

health, particularly for pregnant women, children, the elderly and other sensitive

members of the public. EPA officials also acknowledged that the study of human reproductive and developmental effects, in particular, is an area where more research

is needed. In the 1996 amendments, the Congress specifically directed that EPA

consider these sensitive subpopulations in developing regulations. I realize that

these types of studies require several years to complete. However, it concerns me

to learn that EPA did not start these studies until studies commissioned by some

of the states identified potential concerns. Mr. Chairman, how is it that the Congress in 1996 realized the need for this research, but it took several more years before EPA identified it as a research priority?

The issues addressed in this hearing are complicated and one full of very technical, state-of-the-art science. I appreciate the time and technical expertise our witnesses will be providing us. Frankly, I hope that after hearing our witnesses, I will

feel more confident when I pour my next glass of water than I was after reading

the GAO report.

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. TOM BLILEY, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON COMMERCE

I want to thank all of our witnesses for their attendance and testimony here

today.

In March of this year, I sent a letter to the General Accounting Office requesting

that they review safe drinking water research programs as well as other matters

concerning the implementation of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments.

Subcommittee Chairman Michael Bilirakis and Representatives Brian Bilbray and

Rick Lazio joined me in this request.

Today, this subcommittee will receive testimony concerning the results of this

months-long review. But from my reading of the report, the results are not good.

GAO has determined that the Environmental Protection Agency has requested a

much lower percentage of its authorized funding for drinking water research than

it did for regulatory development. In the past four budgets submitted by the Administration to Congress, the Office of Research and Development requested over $78

million dollars less than authorized for such research, requesting between 24% and

57% less each year.

I am all for saving taxpayer dollars. I think there are few instances in my service

in Congress where I have argued for giving the Executive Branch more money than

they requested. But with safe drinking water, any underfunding of basic research

comes at a significant price. The public health is at stake. We learned this in 1993

when a waterborne organism in Milwaukee’s drinking water supply killed 100 people and sickened 400,000 more.

The GAO report is also alarming in the deficiencies they found in EPA’s internal

management. GAO determined that EPA had no overall estimate of the resources

it needed to conduct drinking water research and that EPA had not completed research plans for significant portions of its regulatory workload. EPA also does not

have an effective system to track ongoing drinking water research and, at one point,

even resorted to paying an outside contractor $148,000 to let the Office of Water

know what the Office of Research and Development was doing with respect to individual research projects.

I am willing to listen to EPA’s testimony today and receive their explanations into

the record. My mind is not made up as to whether we have an instance of mismanagement or not. But I am concerned and troubled by what we have initially

learned. 92% of the American public relies on community water systems that are

subject to safe drinking water regulations. In order for these regulations to be effective, they must be based on the best available scientific information. Yet EPA’s Office of Research and Development spends merely 6.5% of it’s total budget on drinking water research.

Adequate research is surely not a question of the dollars spent. But when I

learned that EPA doesn’t have a comprehensive research plan to direct its operations—and won’t have one in place until at least December, 2000—I have to question any assertion that the Agency knows what it is doing and that research will

be available when it is needed in the years to come.

16

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Thank you Mr. Chairman for holding this hearing today on an issue important

to all of us on the Committee, the protection of our nation’s drinking water supply.

Ensuring the safety of our drinking water supply is a fundamental function of our

government’s responsibility to protecting public health. We cannot have healthy

communities without safe drinking water. Our children, in particular, are the most

vulnerable, if our drinking water is not safe.

I am pleased that we are examining the research program in connection with the

regulatory requirements put in place under the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today.

However, if the Committee is truly committed to protect our nation’s drinking

water, we must not only focus on EPA’s research efforts, but also on the standards

we set to protect our water supply. Sadly, this was not reflected in last week’s votes

during the Superfund markup of H.R. 2580.

During Superfund markup, I, along with my colleagues Ms. DeGette, Mr. Pallone,

and Mr. Stupak, offered amendments to protect our nation’s groundwater. Unfortunately, all amendments were rejected on party lines.

I offered an amendment to H.R. 2580 to protect those most susceptible to the toxic

effects of exposure to Superfund sites, such as pregnant women and children. The

language I offered in this amendment was similar to language passed by this body

in the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act. Section 1412 (V) of the Safe Drinking Water

Act requires the EPA to consider ‘‘The effects of the contaminant on the general

population and on groups within the general population such as infants, children,

pregnant women, the elderly, individuals with a history of serious illness, or other

subpopulations that are identified as likely to be at greater risk of adverse health

effects due to the exposure to contaminants in drinking water than the general population.’’ Yet, my amendment offered was rejected along party lines.

In our effort to protect our nation’s drinking water supply, I urge my colleagues

on the Committee to not merely focus on research conducted by the agency responsible for implementing the Safe Drinking Water program, but also on the standards

we in Congress set affecting our nation’s drinking water supply.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. We will move right into our first panel now consisting of, Mr. Peter F. Guerrero, Director, Environmental Protection Issues at the General Accounting Office; the Honorable Norine

E. Noonan. Dr. Noonan is Assistant Administrator for Research

and Development, Environmental Protection Agency. She is joined

by Ms. Cynthia C. Dougherty, Director of the Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water with EPA. Mr. Guerrero, I didn’t know

whether you wanted to introduce the lady to your right. You are

more than welcome to do so at this point. We will start off with

you then please feel free to introduce her.

I will set the clock—I am going to set the clock at 10 minutes.

If you would like to finish before then or even shortly afterwards,

it would be a good idea and possibly we can really get to the gist

of it all during the hearing. Mr. Guerrero, why don’t you kick it off,

sir. Your written testimony is obviously a part of the record.

STATEMENTS OF PETER F. GUERRERO, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ISSUES, GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE, ACCOMPANIED BY ELLEN CROCKER; AND HON.

NORINE E. NOONAN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, ACCOMPANIED BY CYNTHIA C.

DOUGHERTY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF GROUNDWATER AND

DRINKING WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Mr. GUERRERO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With me today is

Ellen Crocker who managed the work that we will be testifying on

today. We are pleased to be here today to discuss our report on the

Environmental Protection Agency’s drinking water research program. My remarks summarize and highlight what is contained in

17

the written statement that you indicated has been submitted for

the record.

As you know and has been said this morning, the Safe Drinking

Water Amendments of 1996 made significant changes to the way

that EPA is required to set drinking water quality standards.

Among other things, the standards must be based on the best

available peer-reviewed science. The statute also authorized increased funding for drinking water research. EPA’s Office of Research and Development is primarily responsible for conducting or

sponsoring this research, and the Office of Water establishes the

standards and promulgates the regulations based on the research.

In response to your request, we did three things:

First we compared EPA’s budget request for drinking water research with the amounts authorized under the law.

Second, we obtained the views of stakeholders, those involved

with supplying and insuring the safety of drinking water, regarding the likelihood that EPA will be able to complete the research

necessary to support its regulatory decisions over the next decade.

And finally, we assessed EPA’s available drinking water research

plans which were developed to support future regulatory decisions.

In summary, Mr. Chairman we found the following: Over the

past several years, EPA annually requested millions of dollars less

than what Congress had authorized for drinking water research in

the 1996 amendments. For example, EPA requested $41.5 million

for fiscal year 2000 or nearly 24 percent less than the $54.6 million

that was authorized.

While EPA officials represent that this amount is sufficient to fill

EPA’s mission and program responsibilities, it is impossible to determine whether this is the case. This is because EPA has not developed an overall estimate of the resources needed for drinking

water research, making it impossible to determine how any 1 year’s

budget will address and contribute toward meeting the overall research needs. In effect, what EPA is doing is identifying what research can be accomplished within the targets provided by OMB in

a given year. The process does not fully disclose what research is

not being funded.

Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, EPA maintains that its annual

budget requests for drinking water research are sufficient. However, I would add that in fiscal year 1998, EPA did attempt to do

an unconstrained needs assessment of what resources would be

needed to implement the 1996 amendments. In that unconstrained

needs assessment, EPA concluded that the shortfall in research

and data collection funding was in the range of 10 to $20 million

annually for fiscal years 1999 through the year 2005. EPA officials

subsequently explained that the intent of the needs assessment

was not to calculate exact budget requirements but to develop a

ballpark estimate of needs.

In March 1999 and again today, I believe you will hear EPA officials testify that the level of funding requested will be or is sufficient to provide the resources needed to meet all near-term, and I

emphasize near-term, requirements of the act, raising the question

of whether the longer-term requirements can also be met at the existing rate of funding. In fact, officials from the Office of Research

and Development acknowledge what while the drinking water reVerDate 20-MAR-2000 15:46 Mar 21, 2000 Jkt 060360 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60360.TXT pfrm07 PsN: 60360
18

search budget has doubled in the last 5 years, it is beyond EPA’s

capacity to address all drinking water research needs. By the way,

doubling is going from 3.3 percent of ORD’s budget to 7.8 percent.

The stakeholders have expressed concerns about the adequacy of

the research for upcoming regulations on arsenic and microbial

pathogens, disinfectants, and disinfection by-products. While EPA

officials acknowledge that some high priority research projects will

not be completed in time for these regulations, they believe that

the available research will be sufficient to support the regulations

with sound science. They told us that they will issue regulations

using the best available science and, when additional research results become available, they can modify the regulations as appropriate.

Looking ahead, the availability of research for contaminants on

the contaminant candidate list may be the most serious concern because relatively little research has been initiated so far. Because

some of this research can take years to complete, the consensus

among stakeholders and the Office of Water is that EPA should be

conducting research on these contaminants now so that the regulatory determinations and rulemakings associated with these contaminants will be supported by sound science.

There are serious consequences to not having adequate research

to support upcoming regulations. If EPA issues regulations that are

more stringent, water utilities and customers can face unnecessarily high treatment costs. As illustrated in the chart to my right,

treatment costs can vary significantly depending upon where the

standard is set. As you can see, at an arsenic level of 20 parts per

billion, EPA’s estimate of the compliance cost is $74 million. The

cost goes quite significantly over the $2 billion mark at 2 parts per

billion.

On the other hand, if EPA decides to set a less stringent standard because some scientific data are not available, the public could

be exposed to harmful contaminants longer than necessary.

Mr. Chairman, having detailed research plans is the key to answering the questions regarding the adequacy of EPA’s drinking

water research efforts. EPA has prepared detailed research plans

that identify the specific tasks it needs to complete in order to support the immediate upcoming regulations on arsenic and microbial

pathogens, disinfectants, and disinfection by-products. However,

while these plans specify research tasks, projected accomplishments, and expected completion dates, EPA has not identified the

resources that are required to implement the plans. More important, EPA has not completed research plans for other significant

portions of its regulatory workload including determinations on

contaminants that are candidates for future regulation and the review and revision of existing drinking water standards, of which

there are over 80.

As you can see from the time line to my left, EPA is required to

promulgate a number of important regulations over the next few

years and, at the same, must begin the research necessary to support a number of future regulatory determinations.

It is these future requirements that cause a number of stakeholders to be concerned about EPA’s lack of a comprehensive research plan that integrates both near-term and long-term research

19

1Drinking Water Research: Better Planning Needed to Link Needs and Resources (GAO/RCED99-273, Sept. 24, 1999). 2P.L. 104-182, 110 Stat. 1613 (1996).

3To obtain stakeholders’ views, we interviewed officials with the American Water Works Association, American Water Works Association Research Foundation, Association of Metropolitan

Water Agencies, Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, National Association of

Continued

needs. Stakeholders believe that developing a comprehensive plan

would require EPA to lay out an integrated approach for supporting ongoing and future regulatory efforts and help ensure that

the agency addresses those drinking water contaminants that pose

the most important threats to public health. In effect, an integrated

long-term plan would allow the agency to be more anticipatory and

less reactive; and EPA would be able to break the cycle in which

research lags behind regulatory needs.

By the way, Mr. Chairman, as was mentioned, this is characteristic of an earlier approach, which Congress sought to change

by providing the framework we are now working under in the 1996

amendments.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we recommend that EPA take

steps to improve the link between drinking water needs and available resources. Specifically, we recommended that EPA first identify both the short-term and long-term research that must be done

to support this important program.

Second, establish timeframes that indicate when the research

must be available. Third, estimate the resources that will be required to support the needed research; and, finally, use the data

to develop budget requests and inform stakeholders of what research will be funded. In our report, we also recommend that EPA

improve the tracking of ongoing research in relation to its existing

research plans.

Mr. Chairman, that concludes my remarks. Ms. Crocker and I

will be pleased to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of Peter F. Guerrero follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PETER F. GUERRERO, DIRECTOR, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ISSUES, RESOURCES, COMMUNITY, AND ECONOMIG DEVELOPMENT DIVISION,

GAO

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: We are here today to discuss

our report, which is being released today, on the Environmental Protection Agency’s

(EPA) drinking water research program.1 In the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996,2 the Congress made significant changes to the way that EPA is required to set drinking water quality standards in its regulations governing public

water systems. Among other things, the regulations must be based on the best

available peer-reviewed science and must consider health risks, risk reduction, and

implementation costs. The statute also authorized increased funding for the scientific research needed to support the regulations.

Concerned about whether EPA’s drinking water research will be sufficient to support the agency’s forthcoming regulations, the Committee asked us to

• compare EPA’s budget requests for drinking water research during fiscal years

1997 through 2000 with (1) the amounts authorized for such purposes by the

Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 and (2) the amounts estimated

by EPA to be needed to support the regulations and regulatory determinations

required under the amendments;

• obtain the views of stakeholders—those involved with supplying and ensuring the

safety of drinking water—regarding the likelihood that EPA will be able to complete the research necessary to support new regulations and regulatory decisions over the next 10 years and the potential consequences if the research is

not completed; 3 and

20

Water Companies, National Drinking Water Advisory Council, and Natural Resources Defense

Council. We also contacted officials associated with the National Research Council and the

Science Advisory Board. 4 A risk assessment typically involves an evaluation of (1) the likelihood that a contaminant

will cause an adverse health effect, (2) the extent to which the population is exposed to the contaminant through drinking water and other sources, and (3) the relationship between the level

of exposure and the adverse health effect.

• assess EPA’s drinking water research plans, including the tasks, projected funding, and anticipated accomplishments, to support the development of new regulations and regulatory decisions over the next 10 years.

In summary, Mr. Chairman, we found the following:

• For fiscal years 1997 through 2000, EPA annually requested millions of dollars

less than the Congress authorized for drinking water research and regulatory

development in the 1996 amendments; however, the gap has narrowed recently.

According to EPA officials, the agency’s annual budget requests reflect the level

of resources that agency officials believe is needed to fulfill EPA’s mission and

program responsibilities, within the planning ceilings and policy directives provided by the Office of Management and Budget. But there is no overall estimate

of resource needs for drinking water with which to compare EPA’s annual budget requests because the agency does not generally prepare estimates of the total

resources needed to carry out multiyear research programs.

• Stakeholders expressed concerns about the adequacy of the research for the upcoming regulations on (1) arsenic and (2) microbial pathogens, disinfectants

(used to treat drinking water), and disinfection by-products, particularly the

adequacy of research regarding health effects and the analytical methods used

to detect contaminants. While EPA officials acknowledge that some high-priority research projects will not be completed in time for these regulations, they

believe that the available research will be sufficient to support the regulations

with sound science. According to the stakeholders, the potential consequences

of not having adequate research to support upcoming regulations could be significant. For example, if EPA issues regulations that are more stringent than

can be justified by the available science, water utilities could bear unnecessarily

high treatment costs. On the other hand, if EPA decides to set a less stringent

standard because some scientific data are not available, consumers could be exposed to harmful contaminants longer than necessary.

• EPA has prepared detailed research plans that identify the specific tasks it needs

to complete in order to support upcoming regulations on arsenic and microbial

pathogens, disinfectants, and disinfection by-products. However, EPA has not

completed research plans for other significant portions of its regulatory workload, including determinations on contaminants that are candidates for regulation and the review and revision of existing drinking water standards. Moreover, while the plans it has prepared specify research tasks, projected accomplishments, and expected completion dates, EPA has not identified the resources that are required to implement the plans and does not have an effective

system for tracking the progress of ongoing research in relation to the plans.

As a result, it is difficult to ascertain whether the research has been adequately

funded or will be available in time to support the development of new regulations and regulatory determinations.

On the basis of these findings, we recommended that EPA take steps to improve

the link between research needs and resources and to better ensure that limited research funds within EPA and other organizations are most efficiently targeted. We

also recommended that EPA improve the tracking of ongoing research in relation

to existing research plans and communicate the agency’s progress so that the Office

of Research and Development’s key customers can obtain timely and accurate reports on the status, timing, and funding of individual research projects.

Background

EPA’s responsibility for conducting drinking water research and developing the

applicable regulations is split between its Office of Research and Development and

Office of Water. The Office of Research and Development’s five laboratories and centers are responsible for conducting research on health effects, exposure, treatment

technologies, and analytical methods. In addition, its National Center for Environmental Assessment develops risk assessments for some contaminants.4 Within the

Office of Water, the Office of Science and Technology also does some risk assessments, and the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water collects data on the occurrence of contaminants in drinking water; prepares the economic assessments, inVerDate 20-MAR-2000 15:46 Mar 21, 2000 Jkt 060360 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\60360.TXT pfrm07 PsN: 60360
21

5These ‘‘sensitive subpopulations’’ may include infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly,

individuals with a history of serious illness, or other groups.

cluding cost-benefit analyses, and makes the risk management decisions necessary

to support the regulatory decisions; and writes the regulations.

Among other things, the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act required EPA to finish developing most of the regulations that were in process at the

time of the act’s reauthorization, such as standards for arsenic; microbial pathogens,

such as cryptosporidium; disinfection by-products; and radon. The amendments also

created a new process for identifying contaminants that may warrant regulation on

the basis of their adverse health effects, their frequency of occurrence in public

water systems, and the projected risk reduction to be achieved by regulating them.

EPA was required to publish, by February 1998, a list of high-priority contaminants

not currently regulated. (This list is known as the Contaminant Candidate List.) Beginning in August 2001 (and in 5-year cycles thereafter), the amendments require

EPA to determine whether to regulate at least five of the contaminants on the list.

A determination to regulate them must be based on the best available public health

information and data concerning the occurrence of the contaminant. In addition to

regulating new contaminants, EPA must review and revise, as appropriate, existing

drinking water standards at least once every 6 years.

The 1996 amendments also modified EPA’s standard-setting authority so that

health risks, risk reduction, and costs must be considered when drinking water

quality standards are established. When proposing a regulation, EPA is required to

publish an analysis of, among other things, the effects of the contaminant on the

general population and on subpopulations that are identified as likely to be at greater risk of adverse health effects due to exposure to contaminants in drinking water

than the general population.5 In addition, EPA is required to publish a determination of whether the benefits do or do not justify the costs. To the degree that its

actions are based on science, EPA must use the best available peer-reviewed science

and supporting studies conducted in accordance with sound and objective scientific

practices.

EPA’s Annual Budget Requests for Drinking Water Research and Regulatory Development Are Less Than the Legislatively Authorized Amounts

For fiscal years 1997 through 2000, EPA annually requested millions of dollars

less than the amounts the Congress authorized for drinking water research and regulatory development in the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. Beginning with fiscal year 1998, the gap between the authorized funding levels and

annual budget requests was much larger for drinking water research than for regulatory development, but this gap has narrowed recently for both areas. For example,

in fiscal year 1999, EPA requested $35.5 million for drinking water research, or 35

percent less than the $54.6 million that was authorized for that year. In fiscal year

2000, when EPA requested $41.5 million of the $54.6 million authorized for drinking

water research, the difference between the authorized and requested funding was

24 percent. To support regulatory development activities, EPA requested $40.9 million in fiscal year 1999, or about 13 percent less than the $47 million that was authorized. This gap was reduced to about 3 percent in fiscal year 2000, when EPA

requested $45.5 million of the $47 million authorized for regulatory development

that year.

According to officials within both the Office of Water and the Office of Research

and Development, EPA does not prepare its annual budget requests on the basis

of the specific funding authorizations in environmental statutes. Instead, the budget

requests reflect (1) the level of resources that agency officials believe is needed to

fulfill EPA’s mission and program responsibilities and (2) the planning ceilings and

policy directives provided by the Office of Management and Budget. Officials from

the Office of Research and Development told us that the amount of funding to be

requested annually for research on drinking water and other areas is determined

through an extensive planning process in which research coordination teams—each

responsible for a broad area of research—determine the Office’s research priorities

for the upcoming budget year. The teams consider several factors, including the Office’s overall research strategy, the status of ongoing research, program offices’ priorities, and statutory and budgetary constraints. Next, the Office of Research and

Development’s top management and EPA’s Research Coordinating Council, comprising Deputy Assistant Administrators from across the agency, review the teams’

recommendations and modify them as appropriate to ensure that the Office’s annual

budget request focuses on the highest research priorities across the agency.

Using this process, EPA estimates only the resources needed for drinking water

(and other) research for a specific budget year, rather than the total resources needVerDate 20-MAR-2000 15:46 Mar 21, 2000 Jkt 060360 PO 00000 Frm 00024 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\60360.TXT pfrm07 PsN: 60360
22

6Safe Drinking Water Act: Progress and Future Challenges in Implementing the 1996 Amendments (GAO/RCED-99-31, Jan. 14, 1999). 7 Implementation of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments: Hearing Before Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Drinking Water of the Senate Committee on Environment

and Public Works, 106th Cong. 13-14 (1999) (Internet, GPO Access). 8 Conventional water treatment practices require the addition of disinfectant chemicals to the

water, that, while effective in controlling many harmful microorganisms, combine with organic

and inorganic compounds in the water and form potentially harmful disinfection by-products. 9 In general, environmental epidemiological studies are used to determine whether an association exists between an adverse health effect and the exposure of a population to a contaminant.

Further studies are often needed to confirm the epidemiological association and determine the

relationship between the level of exposure and the adverse health effect.

ed to carry out a multiyear research program for any given research area. In effect,

the agency determines—on an annual basis—what research can be accomplished

within the targets provided by the Office of Management and Budget. Therefore,

there is no overall estimate of resource needs for drinking water research with

which to compare the annual budget requests for drinking water research.

In fiscal year 1998, EPA did attempt to do an unconstrained needs assessment

that would identify the activities and resources necessary to meet the new statutory

mandates of the 1996 amendments, including requirements for drinking water research, and to achieve public health objectives. As we reported earlier this year,

EPA concluded that the shortfall in research and data collection funding was in the

range of $10 million to $20 million annually for fiscal years 1999 through 2005.6

The results of the assessment were presented to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council and other stakeholders in April 1998.

EPA officials subsequently explained that the intent of the needs assessment was

not to calculate exact budget requirements but to develop a ‘‘ballpark’’ estimate. In

March 1999, EPA officials testified that the level of funding received in fiscal year

1999 and requested for fiscal 2000 is sufficient to provide the resources needed to

(1) meet all near-term requirements of the act’s amendments in a timely manner

and (2) base regulatory decisions on sound science.7 Officials from the Office of

Water and Office of Research and Development are currently conducting a comprehensive evaluation of resource needs for the drinking water research program for

fiscal year 2001 and beyond.

Officials from the Office of Research and Development pointed out that drinking

water research as a percentage of the total research budget has more than doubled—from 3.3 percent in fiscal year 1995 to 7.8 percent in EPA’s fiscal 2000 budget

request. While the officials acknowledge that it is beyond EPA’s capacity to address

all drinking water research needs, they said that they have worked to establish

partnerships with federal and nonfederal research entities, such as the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American Water Works Association Research Foundation, to leverage additional resources.

Stakeholders Believe Some Research Will Not Be Available in Time to Support Upcoming Regulations

Several stakeholders were concerned about the adequacy of EPA’s budget requests

for drinking water research and the proportion of the Office of Research and Development’s research budget that is devoted to drinking water. They believe that funding for drinking water research should receive a higher priority within EPA, considering its potential impact on public health, and they cited specific areas, such as

certain health effects studies, in which they believe that funding constraints caused

the research to be started too late to be available when needed.

Beyond the questions surrounding the funding of drinking water research, stakeholders expressed concerns about the adequacy of the research that will be available

to support the regulations on arsenic and microbial pathogens, disinfectants, and

disinfection by-products.8 In the case of arsenic, for example, several stakeholders

told us that some of the epidemiological studies,9 which will provide information on

health effects, will not be completed in time, in part, because the research was started too late for the results to be available when needed. While some stakeholders,

such as the National Drinking Water Advisory Council and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, agree that there will be gaps in the health effects research, they believe that sufficient information exists to take some interim action

on arsenic. They expect EPA to lower the existing standard by the statutory deadline of January 2001, and, when the longer-term research is completed, to consider

revising the standard again.

Regarding the regulations on microbial pathogens, disinfectants, and disinfection

by-products, many stakeholders commented that some of the health effects reVerDate 20-MAR-2000 15:46 Mar 21, 2000 Jkt 060360 PO 00000 Frm 00025 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 E:\HEARINGS\60360.TXT pfrm07 PsN: 60360
23

search—including epidemiological studies and research on sensitive subpopulations,

such as children and pregnant women—will not be completed in time for the regulations. Both the Chairman of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council and the

Executive Director of the National Association of Water Companies, among others,

also expressed concern about whether researchers will be able to identify reliable

analytical methods for detecting microbial contaminants, such as cryptosporidium,

that will be included in the upcoming regulations.

EPA officials acknowledge that some high-priority research projects will not be

completed in time for the upcoming regulations on arsenic and microbial pathogens,

disinfectants, and disinfection by-products. For example, in the case of arsenic, EPA

has testified that a significant investment in health effects research must continue

for several years to address priority research needs. In the case of research on disinfection by-products, officials from the Office of Research and Development told us

that the importance of studying certain noncancer health effects has only recently

been recognized as EPA’s understanding of the science has evolved. Even so, EPA

officials believe that the available research will be sufficient to support the regulations with sound science. They told us that they will issue regulations using the best

available science and, when additional research results become available, will modify the regulations, if appropriate, as part of the review and revision of existing

standards that are required every 6 years.

Some stakeholders questioned EPA’s approach. For example, the Executive Director of the American Water Works Association Research Foundation sees EPA’s regulatory approach as a compromise that became necessary because some research was

started too late to be available when needed. In addition, using a two-stage approach to regulate contaminants could increase costs to utilities in some instances.

According to the Executive Director of the National Association of Water Companies,

it is often not cost-effective to make incremental changes in treatment technologies.

The consensus among stakeholders is that the availability of research for contaminants on the Contaminant Candidate List may be the most serious concern because

relatively little research has been initiated so far and EPA does not expect to have

a research plan until May 2000. According to a variety of stakeholders and officials

within the Office of Water, EPA should be conducting research on these contaminants now so that the regulatory determinations and rulemakings associated with

these contaminants will be supported by sound science. However, for the most part,

this research is just now beginning. In a March 1999 hearing before the House Committee on Science, the Assistant Administrator for the Office of Research and Development testified that in its fiscal year 2000 budget, EPA redirected approximately

$6 million from the funding that had been dedicated to research on microbial pathogens, disinfectants, and disinfection by-products to fill key data gaps and develop

analytical methods for chemicals and microbial pathogens on the Contaminant Candidate List. Although the Office of Research and Development has already initiated

research in the areas of health effects, exposure, and treatment for selected highpriority contaminants on the list, the fiscal year 2000 funding represents the first

major reallocation of resources within the drinking water research budget to address

these research needs.

Some stakeholders believe that EPA may have sufficient information for the first

set of regulatory determinations, which is due in August 2001. However, stakeholders point out that the contaminants selected for the first determinations may

simply represent those for which the most information is available—and not those

that pose the most significant health risks. Greater concerns were raised about

whether EPA will have sufficient information for the next round of determinations,

which must be made by August 2006. A number of stakeholders were particularly

concerned that little or no health effects research has been initiated for contaminants on the Contaminant Candidate List, and some noted that epidemiological

studies can take 4 or more years to plan and conduct. Consequently, they believe

it is important to begin the work now so the results will be available when needed.

According to stakeholders, the potential consequences of not having adequate

science to support the regulations could be significant. If EPA issues regulations

that are more stringent than what is justified by the available research, water utilities could bear unnecessarily high treatment costs. In the case of arsenic, for example, under both EPA’s and industry’s projections, annual compliance costs could increase dramatically, depending on how much the existing standard of 50 parts per

billion is lowered. Specifically, EPA has estimated that lowering the arsenic standard to 10 parts per billion would result in annual compliance costs of $270 million,

but found that these costs would be much higher—reaching an estimated $2.1 billion—if the standard were lowered to 2 parts per billion. Similarly, estimates by the

American Water Works Association range from $708 million, at a level of 10 parts

per billion, to $4.2 billion, at a level of 2 parts per billion.

24

10 Under section 102(a) of the 1996 amendments, the EPA Administrator has authority to take

action more quickly (i.e., promulgate an interim national primary drinking water regulation)

whenever contaminants are determined to pose urgent threats to public health. 11 EPA is required to develop a long-term research plan under section 202(a) of the 1996

amendments. The statute does not impose a deadline on the plan’s completion.

On the other hand, not having adequate research could have an impact on public

health. If EPA decides to set a less-stringent standard or defers regulation of a contaminant because some scientific data are not available, this could mean that consumers would be exposed to harmful contaminants for an additional 6 or more

years.10 The Natural Resources Defense Council and other organizations have expressed concern about the relatively limited research on the impact of drinking

water contaminants on sensitive subpopulations, such as pregnant women, children,

the elderly, and people with compromised immune systems. An official with the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water acknowledged that the study of human

reproductive and developmental effects, in particular, is an area in which more research is needed. He told us that some earlier studies indicated a possible association between exposure to drinking water treated with disinfectants and these effects

but that additional long-term studies are needed to determine if there is any basis

for concern.

EPA Has Not Completed Some Research Plans and Does Not Identify or Track the

Resources Needed to Implement Existing Plans

EPA has not yet completed research plans for its anticipated work on the Contaminant Candidate List and the review and revision of existing standards, and has

not developed a comprehensive research plan that integrates both near-term and

long-term research needs. EPA started work on a research strategy for the Contaminant Candidate List after the first list was published in 1998. Although EPA will

be required to make a regulatory determination on at least five contaminants from

the first list by August 2001, the agency does not expect to complete its strategy

until May 2000. Similarly, although EPA must complete the review and revision of

about 80 existing standards by August 2002, EPA only recently began the initial

work associated with identifying the research needs for this effort. EPA officials explained that at this point, they do not expect the review of existing standards to

require a significant research effort, and, consequently, this work will be incorporated into EPA’s comprehensive research plan, which is targeted for completion

by December 2000.11

A number of stakeholders were concerned that EPA does not yet have a comprehensive research plan. As illustrated in appendix I, EPA is required to promulgate a number of important regulations over the next few years and, at the same

time, must begin the research necessary to support future regulatory determinations

on the Contaminant Candidate lists. Stakeholders believe that developing a comprehensive plan would require EPA to lay out an integrated approach for supporting

ongoing regulatory efforts and identifying and conducting research on emerging concerns, such as the presence of pharmaceuticals in some sources of drinking water.

In addition, a long-term plan would allow the agency to be more anticipatory and

less reactive; EPA would thus be able to break the cycle in which the research lags

behind regulatory needs. Moreover, with a comprehensive plan, stakeholders can

avoid duplicating research that EPA already plans to fund and, instead, sponsor research that complements EPA’s efforts.

EPA has prepared detailed research plans in two significant areas—(1) arsenic

and (2) microbial pathogens, disinfectants, and disinfection by-products. Although

the plans identify the specific research tasks that will be performed and provide information on the anticipated accomplishments, they do not include estimates of the

resources needed to fund the planned research. As a result, it is not possible to

make a link between the estimated cost of the research laid out in the plans and

the funds requested for drinking water research in EPA’s budget—and, thus, determine whether the research is adequately funded.

Not only do existing research plans lack key information on resource requirements, but EPA also does not have an effective system for tracking the progress and

funding of ongoing research in relation to the plans. The Office of Research and Development makes efforts to communicate the status and results of its work to the

Office of Water (e.g., through regular staff-level contacts, special briefings, and status reports) and to interested groups outside the agency through stakeholder meetings and other means. However, officials from both the Office of Water and outside

stakeholder groups indicated that they would like to receive regular reports that

contain more detailed information on the status of projects in the research plans,

25

including the estimated and actual start and completion dates and the funding for

individual projects.

Because the program office needed better information to monitor the status of the

work laid out in the research plan and to track project-level resource expenditures,

the Office of Water developed its own tracking system for the research on microbial

pathogens, disinfectants, and disinfection by-products. Since 1997, the Office of

Water has paid a contractor over $148,000 to develop and maintain the tracking

system and input data on the status of individual projects.

Better planning and a more explicit link between research needs and resources

would improve the transparency of the budget development process. The Science Advisory Board, which annually reviews the Office of Research and Development’s

budget requests, has noted improvements in the Office’s efforts to link research priorities with specific environmental goals and in the coordination between the Office

and the needs of EPA’s program offices. However, in commenting on the Office’s fiscal year 2000 budget, the Board’s Research Strategies Advisory Committee indicated

that the lack of transparency in the process used to set research priorities made it

difficult for the Committee to evaluate the adequacy of the proposed budget. The

Committee recommended that EPA make available information on high-ranking

programs that it entertained during the budget-making process but could not fund

because of overall budget constraints and competition with other programs. In addition, the Committee found that the criteria that EPA used to emphasize or de-emphasize programs in the proposed budget were unclear and recommended that EPA

develop explicit criteria that can be used for setting research priorities during the

budget development process. The Committee concluded that such an exercise would

not only improve communication and understanding of the budget process for those

outside the agency, but would also assist EPA in making its internal decision process more efficient.

In closing, Mr. Chairman, key stakeholders in the drinking water community

have concerns about whether EPA’s research is on track to meet the demanding regulatory agenda mandated by the Congress in the 1996 amendments to the Safe

Drinking Water Act. We believe that more detailed and better-communicated information on planned and ongoing research would help EPA to deal with these concerns and that providing such information is warranted on the grounds of both accountability and efficiency. Identifying the nature, timing, and estimated cost of

needed research over the multiyear research plans—and linking these needs to the

annual budget request—will make the funding process more transparent.

In addition, providing information on which projects will be funded in a given

year will give stakeholders within and outside EPA a clear basis for assessing the

impact of the agency’s budget decisions. EPA’s reliance on outside research entities

to fill the gaps that are beyond the agency’s capacity to meet makes it all the more

important for EPA to identify high-priority projects that may be deferred or abandoned because of funding constraints. Similarly, having a more effective system for

tracking ongoing research will both enhance the budget development process and

allow stakeholders to make informed judgments about whether the research is adequately funded and will be available when needed.

Our report being released today recommends a number of actions to improve the

transparency of the budget development process and the effectiveness of the system

used to track the progress and funding of research projects. First, to improve the

link between research needs and resources and to better ensure that limited research funds within EPA and other organizations are most efficiently targeted, we

recommended that EPA (1) identify the specific research that must be accomplished,

(2) establish time frames showing when the results must be available, (3) estimate

the resources that will be required to support the needed research, and (4) use these

data to develop budget requests and inform stakeholders about what research will

be funded. Second, we recommended that EPA improve the tracking of ongoing research in relation to existing research plans and communicate the agency’s progress

so that the Office of Research and Development’s key customers, including the Office of Water and outside stakeholders, can obtain timely and accurate reports on

the status, timing, and funding of individual research projects.

EPA agreed that an adequate investment in drinking water research is critical

to provide a sound scientific basis for drinking water regulations. The agency also

noted the importance of linking multiyear research planning to the yearly budget

cycle and using effective tracking systems for monitoring and communicating the

status of research activities and resource requirements.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes our prepared statement. We would be pleased to answer any questions that you or Members of the Subcommittee may have.

26

Contact and Acknowledgments

For future contacts regarding this testimony, please contact Peter F. Guerrero at

(202) 512-6111. Individuals making key contributions to this testimony included

Ellen Crocker, Teresa Dee, and Les Mahagan.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Thank you very much.

Dr. Noonan, please proceed.

STATEMENT OF NORINE E. NOONAN

Ms. NOONAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendments of

1996 to the Safe Drinking Water Act identified a wide range of critical research requirements to improve the scientific foundation for

decisions to protect the health of both the general public and subgroups that may be at greater risk than the general population.

I want to tell you the EPA recognizes the critical importance of

drinking water research to ensure the sound scientific foundation

for decisionmaking under the 1996 amendments. We have established drinking water as one of EPA’s highest priority research programs. We have doubled the annual investment in drinking water

research. We have doubled it with an increase from $20 million to

over $40 million in the fiscal year 2000 President’s budget. And I

also have to add that this is at a time when the total research

budget for EPA is flat or, in fact, slightly declining.

We have delivered hundreds of peer-reviewed products that directly support the near-term regulatory priorities, that is disinfection by-products, surface water, and groundwater rules and arsenic. We have peer-reviewed research plans that guide our research. The MDBP and arsenic research plans are complete. As for

the CCL research plan, the draft was shared with stakeholders at

27

a workshop less than a month ago; and we anticipate that it will

be complete by middle of next year.

We are working on a comprehensive research strategy to be completed by the end of 2000. And in addition, we are working on a

long-term and integrated budget request that essentially will be a

multi-year budget plan. We have strengthened partnerships with

outside research entities. These partnerships represent investments of millions of dollars in additional funding. We are working

with the National Institutes for Environmental Health Sciences,

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the American

Water Works Research Foundation.

We have a strong Science to Achieve Results Grants Program

which has successfully expanded the participation and involvement

of universities and not-for profits in addressing our highest priority

drinking water research problems. We are making a significant effort to characterize the potential risks posed to subgroups of the

population that may be more susceptible than the general population to chemical and microbial contaminants in drinking water.

We have strong internal systems to assure accountability. We track

resources, and we track research.

The Office of Research and Development is committed to working

with the Office of Water to identify ways in which we can improve

our communication of our results to them. We have made extensive

efforts to share the status of research activities and plans with the

stakeholders, and we are initiating new activities to involve stakeholders in the planning process. We have adhered to a rigorous

process of peer review to ensure that the science is of the highest

quality and builds the strong foundation that we need for decisions.

And finally, we are committed to ensuring that our budget requests for fiscal year 2001 and beyond will enable us to meet the

highest priority needs of the 1996 amendments. The measures that

we have undertaken over the last several years have enabled us to

successfully meet the near-term needs and requirements of the

amendments and will position us to meet the challenges of providing a sound scientific foundation for future drinking water regulatory decisions.

I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. And

I assume that my testimony, in full, will be entered into the record.

[The prepared statement of Norine E. Noonan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF NORINE NOONAN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF

RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT AND CYNTHIA C. DOUGHERTY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF

GROUND WATER AND DRINKING WATER, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY

INTRODUCTION

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for providing this opportunity to address the Committee today concerning the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) drinking

water research program. We would like to update you on the status of our research

program to support the implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)

Amendments of 1996. We would also like to share with you the activities that have

been initiated in recent months to assess future drinking water research needs and

resource requirements, to improve internal tracking mechanisms, and to further

strengthen our interactions with stakeholders.

The Amendments of 1996 identified a wide range of critical research requirements

to improve the scientific foundation for decisions to protect the health of both the

general public and subgroups that may be at greater risk than the general population. EPA has responded to these needs by establishing drinking water as one of

28

our highest priority research programs. The annual investment in drinking water

research in the Office of Research and Development has essentially doubled from

a level of $20.8 M in 1995 to $41.5 M in the FY 2000 President’s Budget. Research

partnerships with outside research entities have been strengthened, and a strict adherence to the peer review process has been followed for all research plans and scientific products developed by the Office of Research and Development. These and

other measures discussed below have enabled the Agency to improve the science and

technologies needed to support priority rule makings and risk management decisions required by the 1996 SDWA Amendments.

RESEARCH TO SUPPORT PRIORITY REGULATORY ACTIVITIES

EPA has been highly successful in addressing the critical near-term research

needs and requirements of the 1996 Amendments. A targeted research program has

been implemented with an emphasis on health effects, analytical methods and exposure, risk assessment and risk management research. Research priorities have also

been addressed through the use of interagency agreements, cooperative agreements,

and grants with such federal and non-federal entities as the Centers for Disease

Control and Prevention, the National Institute for Environmental Health Sciences,

the U.S. Geological Survey, the American Water Works Association Research Foundation, and universities across the country.

Research on Microbial Pathogens and Disinfection By-Products

EPA’s research activities on microbial pathogens and disinfection by-products

(DBPs) in drinking water are consistent with the highest priorities identified in the

Research Plan for Microbial Pathogens and Disinfection By-Products in Drinking

Water. This research program represents hundreds of projects to support more informed risk management decisions for the Stage 1 and Stage 2 DBP rules and the

new microbial rules that apply to surface water and ground water.

Microbial Pathogens—EPA research on waterborne pathogens in recent years has

provided new information and methods to better characterize and control the risks

posed by microbial contaminants in drinking water. Studies to determine the infectious dose of two important waterborne pathogens, Cryptosporidium and Norwalk

virus, have demonstrated that exposure to low levels of these agents in drinking

water may cause infection in healthy humans. Less conventional treatment methods

such as membrane filtration and alternatives to chlorination have been evaluated

to determine their effectiveness in removing or inactivating waterborne pathogens.

New technologies have been developed for increasing the operational efficiency of

treatment processes to control microbial and chemical contaminants, and new methods for monitoring and predicting disinfectant concentrations in the distribution system have been developed to help ensure the safety of drinking water delivered at

the tap.

Current areas of emphasis include research to determine the nature and magnitude of waterborne disease in the U.S., and the development of simple inexpensive

and accurate detection methods for well-known waterborne pathogens such as

Cryptosporidium and for emerging pathogens such as microsporidia. EPA researchers are also evaluating the effectiveness of water treatment systems for small communities, and are conducting research to better understand how microbial intrusion

into the distribution system occurs and can be prevented.

Disinfection By-Products—EPA has been a leader in development of an expanding

scientific data base to assess DBP health effects. New and improved tools for conducting toxicology and epidemiology research on these substances are being applied

to better understand the mechanisms by which effects occur in laboratory animals

and humans, and to characterize the nature and magnitude of the problem in both

the general population and in subpopulations that may be more susceptible to harm.

In addition to the long-standing research program addressing the carcinogenic potential of DBPs, a major new investment has been made to better understand

whether adverse reproductive, immunological, or neurologic effects may also be of

concern.

As with microbial issues, DBP methods development is an essential focus both to

improve occurrence information, and to expand our knowledge about what DBPs are

formed from different treatment processes. To address these needs, EPA is developing analytical methods to support large-scale exposure surveys and facilitate regulatory compliance monitoring. Researchers are applying highly sensitive analytical

techniques to identify previously uncharacterized by-products that are formed with

the use of alternative disinfectants. EPA is also conducting a range of studies to determine the effectiveness of various treatment processes in minimizing and controlling the formation of DBPs, with a special focus on the needs of small systems.

29

Finally, I am pleased to report to you on the success of the largest data collection

effort in the history of the drinking water program, commonly referred to as ICR

(Information Collection Rule) data. Working closely with industry and other stakeholders, we have recently completed 18 months of data collection from 500 plants

across the country. These data provide essential new information on source water,

treatment train, and distribution system concentrations of DBPs and pathogens.

The data represent over a $130 million investment in good science by the drinking

water industry and will play a central role in the ongoing development of Stage 2

DBP and microbial public health measures.

Research on Arsenic

The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 mandate that EPA promulgate

a new regulation for arsenic by January 2001, and develop a plan for long-term research. The Agency’s peer reviewed Research Plan for Arsenic in Drinking Water,

which describes both short-term and long-term research activities to address key

areas of scientific uncertainty, has guided the planning and implementation of research conducted by EPA scientists as well as by outside investigators. Researchers

at EPA are conducting studies to better characterize the toxicity of arsenic and the

factors that influence human susceptibility. Improved analytical methods are being

developed to better distinguish toxic forms of arsenic in the diet and in biological

materials. Another important area of research is the evaluation of cost-effective

treatment technologies for small water systems.

We are pleased to report that EPA has completed or is on schedule to complete

all of the short-term research that we made a commitment to finish in the Research

Plan for Arsenic in Drinking Water. The EPA will consider the existing information

on health effects, exposure and risk management, along with new information that

is available, as we assess the risks and evaluate treatment options in support of a

new rule for arsenic by the statutory deadline in 2001. As a practical matter, research initiated in late FY 1999 and in FY 2000 by EPA and outside sources will

not be available in time to inform the final rule making in 2001. This is because

of the long-term nature of some of the more complex research issues, particularly

in the area of the health effects of arsenic at low doses. Many of the projects conducted or financed by EPA and outside organizations are long-term research activities that will support the required review and revision, as appropriate, of the arsenic standard subsequent to the establishment of a new rule in 2001.

Research on the Contaminant Candidate List

The Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) was established by EPA, with considerable involvement of outside technical groups and the stakeholder community, to aid

in priority setting for the Agency’s drinking water program. A number of contaminants on the CCL have already been identified as having sufficient data available,

or limited data needs that can be quickly addressed. Regulatory determinations for

the August 2001 statutory deadline will be made on contaminants selected from this

category. Many other chemicals and microbial pathogens on the list may require additional data on health effects, monitoring methods, treatment or occurrence before

a regulatory determination can be made.

The EPA has completed a draft CCL research plan that has been shared with

stakeholders in a collaborative effort to identify and prioritize research needs (see

additional discussion about stakeholder involvement below). Although the plan will

not be finalized until mid-2000, research on a number of critical contaminants on

the CCL (e.g., MTBE, perchlorate, and waterborne microbial pathogens such as Norwalk virus) is already being conducted by EPA or collaborating institutions, and

general solicitations have been made under the Agency’s external grants program.

In the FY 2000 drinking water research program, there is an increased emphasis

on addressing needs for CCL contaminants in the areas of health effects, analytical

methods, treatment and occurrence, following the priorities outlined in the CCL research plan that is currently under development.

Research on Subpopulations at Greater Risk

The 1996 SDWA Amendments emphasize the importance of research to identify

and characterize groups that may be at greater risk than the general population of

adverse health effects from exposure to contaminants in drinking water. EPA is addressing this issue by developing health effects data in laboratory animals and conducting assessments in target populations (e.g., pregnant women and infants) that

are exposed to chemical contaminants and waterborne pathogens. Studies are being

conducted to evaluate biological factors, such as differences in metabolism, that may

be responsible for greater susceptibility in selected subpopulations. Research is also

directed at improving estimates of exposure to the general public and special subpopulations, using a more comprehensive consideration of such factors as personal

30

activity factors and exposures through the diet. As required by the 1996 Amendments, these research activities will be summarized in a Report to Congress that

will be submitted by August, 2000.

RESEARCH PLANNING AND BUDGETING

EPA has an extensive, coordinated research planning process that involves a comprehensive consideration and prioritization of all of the Agency’s research needs, including those to support drinking water decision making. This process ensures that

the media-specific needs of one regulatory program are considered in the context of

the needs identified by other programs, and that the areas of greatest need, such

as drinking water, are given the highest priority. The Office of Research and Development works in close partnership with the Office of Water, as well as in consultation with scientific advisory groups and stakeholders, to evaluate and prioritize research needs. Planning activities are closely linked to the annual budget cycle. A

new multi-year planning effort for drinking water has been initiated to link strategic, long-term research priorities with annual planning and budgeting.

Peer reviewed research plans and strategies provide a basis for planning and

monitoring the progress of research on important programs such as drinking water.

As described above, research plans have been finalized for M/DBPs and arsenic, and

the CCL research plan will be finalized by mid-2000. A comprehensive research

strategy that describes near- and long-term research needs for M/DBPs, arsenic,

CCL contaminants, the review of existing standards, and other emerging issues will

be completed by the end of 2000. The strategy will be used to guide discussions

within the EPA and with stakeholders concerning research needs and resource requirements for the entire drinking water research program.

Yearly budget requests for drinking water reflect a careful analysis of the highest

priority research needs, considering EPA’s need for research across all environmental activities (e.g., Clean Air, Clean/Safe Water, Children’s Health) and keeping

balanced budget constraints in mind. EPA has determined that the level of funding

for drinking water research that was received in FY 1999 and requested for FY 2000

is sufficient to meet the near-term regulatory requirements. The Agency is committed to ensuring that the budget request for FY 2001, which is currently being

developed by the Administration, will also adequately address the highest priority

research needs.

RESEARCH TRACKING

The EPA uses a comprehensive system to ensure fiscal controls and to track resources at the research project level. The management information system developed by the Agency was designed to produce accurate and timely reports for use by

the Office of Research and Development’s laboratories and centers according to: (1)

fiscal year; (2) goal (e.g., air, water, waste); (3) program results code; (4) organization; (5) research area; and (6) task. The system was not designed to track resources

by individual regulation. Recognizing the importance of research to future drinking

water regulatory decisions, EPA is currently examining ways to provide information

that is more closely aligned with the rule making efforts so that we can better track

and communicate the status of our priority drinking water research activities that

will feed into the regulatory decision making process.

INVOLVEMENT OF STAKEHOLDERS

EPA places a high priority on sharing information with stakeholders regarding

the status and plans for research on drinking water contaminants. Representatives

from EPA participate regularly in numerous stakeholder meetings and other public

events to share information on research that is being planned or conducted in support of the Agency’s rule makings. In addition, EPA staff work closely with other

federal agencies and serve on numerous research coordination committees and advisory groups with stakeholder groups. These efforts offer opportunities for more coordinated utilization of resources and to ensure that research conducted or supported by these organizations is complementary, not duplicative.

EPA is taking steps to further strengthen these interactions to ensure that all

groups are fully informed and have an opportunity to provide input concerning research needs and activities. One recent example of a highly successful effort to involve stakeholders early in the research planning process was the Drinking Water

Research Needs Workshop, co-sponsored by EPA and the American Water Works

Association Research Foundation on September 27-29, 1999. The goals of this expert

workshop, which involved participants from the water industry, academia, various

government agencies and the private sector, were to: (1) identify and prioritize the

research needs related to unregulated drinking water contaminants; (2) describe the

31

proper sequencing for the studies; and (3) develop resource needs estimates. Contaminants on the CCL were the major focus of the workshop, and EPA’s draft CCL

research plan was used as a starting point of the discussions. The EPA considers

this workshop to be a excellent model for involving stakeholders early in the process

of identifying and prioritizing research needs relating to future drinking water

issues.

ENSURING SUCCESS IN MEETING THE RESEARCH CHALLENGE

EPA has made considerable progress in meeting the research challenges posed by

the 1996 Amendments. We have significantly increased the research budget for

drinking water over the past five years. We have developed peer reviewed research

plans to guide research supporting the current major rule makings, and we are developing new research plans to support future regulatory activities. EPA has initiated a new multi-year planning effort for drinking water research that will facilitate

the linkage of strategic, long-term research planning to the yearly budget cycle. We

have conducted and are now refining a comprehensive resource needs assessment

to address future requirements. A priority has been placed on strengthening partnerships with outside research entities and involving the academic community in

helping to address critical research needs. We have made extensive efforts to share

information with stakeholders about the status and plans for research to support

drinking water regulations, and we have initiated new activities to make further improvements in this area. Taken together, these measures have enabled us to successfully meet the near-term needs and requirements of the 1996 Amendments, and

will position us to meet the challenge of providing a sound scientific foundation for

future drinking water regulatory decisions.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Oh, yes by all means, of course, written testimony

is a part of the record. Thank you.

Well, let me turn this back to 5 minutes. One of the things that

GAO was directed to do was to address whether EPA’s plans and

projected funding were sufficient to support the development of

new regulations, regulatory decisions over the next 10 years. We

had the charts up here. The GAO report says, ‘‘it is difficult to ascertain whether the research has been adequately funded or will be

available in time.’’

Ms. Noonan’s statement says that EPA has an extensive coordinated research plan process that involves comprehensive consideration of prioritization of all the agency’s research needs including

those to support drinking water. Well, I guess we are at loggerheads here.

I guess I would ask Mr. Guerrero, can you explain your statement that it is difficult to ascertain why it is difficult to ascertain

and figure out whether EPA will get the job done on time, and then

I would ask Dr. Noonan to sort of respond to your statement.

Mr. GUERRERO. Yes, Mr. Chairman. In my opinion, the apparent

discrepancy is really not a discrepancy. What I hear EPA saying

is on an annual basis, when they establish their priorities for research, they go through what is indeed probably a fairly detailed

process internally as part of their internal budget deliberations.

What we are saying is there is insufficient transparency associated with how that process—what the outcome of that process is

and what the implications of it are for the future needs. In other

words, lacking the kinds of plans that we identified in our statement, and lacking resource estimates for what would be required

to do both short-term and long-term research, you can’t tell from

looking at the budget whether the budget amounts address a large

portion of those needs, a medium amount of those needs, or a small

portion of those needs.

32

Likewise, you can’t tell what priorities for drinking water research were not funded. And finally, that lack of transparency

makes it very hard for the stakeholders, and I think you will hear

from the stakeholders themselves later in panel two, to pick up

that slack and complement EPA’s research.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, Dr. Noonan, I guess what I hear GAO saying is that the problem isn’t necessarily that you haven’t met the

research schedule, if you will, the research schedule, but there is

an inadequate transparency there for them to really make a determination. Just go ahead and proceed on in your own words.

Ms. NOONAN. Mr. Chairman, let me back up for a moment and

take a couple of minutes if I could and briefly explain our annual

budget planning process. I think it would help perhaps to place this

in context.

ORD, the Office of Research and Development, plans our research budget on an annual basis in a highly collaborative mode

with our program office colleagues and with the regions. It is vital

for us to understand what the priorities of our colleagues are in

terms of the research that they will need to meet their regulatory

deadlines as well as keeping track and understanding that the

agency needs a long-term perspective on much of the fundamental

research that will underpin a wide variety of regulatory activities.

Because of this, we plan highly collaboratively with our drinking

water colleagues, our groundwater colleagues, air, pesticides, all of

the offices within EPA.

The research plans that are developed that inform this annual

planning process, plans, for example, for microbial/disinfection byproducts are developed in a highly collaborative mode with external

stakeholders. They know and have been involved in making those

plans. And those plans inform our budget planning process. We

don’t deviate from those plans in the annual budget planning process. We look at those plans and try to incorporate as much of them

on an annual basis into our budget as is feasible within the budget

constraints that we must live under.

With regard to transparency, I think inside the Agency I can

safely say that it is very difficult for me to conceive how we could

be more transparent inside the Agency. We have undertaken major

efforts to inform our stakeholders outside the Agency of what our

plans are, recognizing, of course, that the President’s budget, as it

is planned each year, is embargoed until it is actually released to

the Congress in January of each year. Perhaps we are talking past

each other here, but this issue of transparency is something that,

quite frankly, I don’t really understand the basis for.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well Dr. Noonan, my time is up. You know our

concern is that the 1996 amendments are law and that they be

abided by. And so we have asked GAO, which is nonpartisan, to

basically let us know what the situation is there. They have come

back and told us that there just is inadequate—it is difficult to ascertain, et cetera, et cetera. I mean there is a problem there, and

I should think that whether it is a factual problem or whether it

is a perception problem there is a problem there.

Well my time is up, and there is a vote on the floor. But I will

call up Mr. Brown now, Dr. Brown’s son.

33

Mr. BROWN. Dr. Noonan, during the fiscal years 1999 and 2000,

just tell us how many funding earmarks that the Appropriations

Committee put in EPA’s overall budget, which percentage did this

make up of the overall budget. And just describe, if you will, the

effect this has an ongoing way on EPA’s funding priorities with regard to research.

Ms. NOONAN. Mr. Brown, let me say I think that the administrator’s position on earmarks is well known. For fiscal year 2000 the

budget, I think the bill is awaiting signature at the White House.

The budget total for earmarks for EPA is about $474.3 million.

That represents 324 earmarked projects. In the S and T account

which is the account that funds most of the research in EPA, we

are dealing with almost $54 million worth of earmarks which is

over 10 percent of our budget total. And we are struggling right

now with trying to accommodate those earmarks, and we must, of

necessity, tradeoff some high priority activities that were planned

for months through the 2000 budget plan process. We must now

trade those off in order to fund these earmarks.

Mr. BROWN. What are some of the proposals that you can’t do?

What are some of the research goals that you can’t do as a result?

Ms. NOONAN. We haven’t come to a conclusion on that. We are

in the process of developing our operating plan for fiscal year 2000.

But I will tell you that there will be, in our operating plan reductions in a wide variety of high priority activities. We don’t plan our

budget in a vacuum. We can only fit in the highest priority things

that we need to do. And earmarks, while they are the complete prerogative of the Congress and we understand that, that does not

mean that they are not disruptive to a planning process that has

taken months to accomplish.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Guerrero, how do these earmarks affect the ability of the office to create a research budget?

Mr. GUERRERO. We didn’t look specifically at the impact of earmarks, but I have some information. And the information seems to

indicate that in the 1999 operating plan, earmarks accounted for

$7.6 million of a total $47.7 million in spending on drinking water.

So that puts it in perspective. But what the effect would be, we

didn’t look at that specific question.

Mr. BROWN. Ms. Dougherty, your office is represented on the

Endrocrin Disrupter Screening and Testing Advisory Committee

along with the Office of Research and Development in Pesticides

and Toxic Substances. Tell us what specific steps the Office of

Water is taking in response to the recommendations particularly

with respect to measurement of exposure to endocrine-disrupting

substances in groundwater and drinking water.

Ms. DOUGHERTY. The Office of Water did have someone on that

group. And we are following up now: looking at what we need to

do in the water program related to contaminants we are concerned

about in both water and drinking water both. But I don’t have that

specific information. I would have to get that for you.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. We have a very important vote. So maybe it

would be a good time to break at this point. I would hope that possibly after the other members of the panel might be here to raise

questions. Perhaps we could go vote 2 or 3 minutes, to whether you

34

all have anything specific you may want to inquire of each other

to help us sort of make a determination here.

Okay. We are going to recess for a few minutes until we cast the

vote and get right back.

[Brief recess.]

Mr. BILIRAKIS. We are back. Thank you for your patience. The

Chair will now yield to Mr. Bilbray to inquire.

Mr. BILBRAY. Yes. Let me—can you put up that arsenic display

again. Mr. Guerrero, the budget requests for this research, you

know, do we have the earmarks to make sure that we focus—and

maybe this ought to go to the doctor—do we have the earmarks to

focus on this type of research so we get this data in a timely manner; we get the information in the research in a timely manner?

Mr. GUERRERO. Let me answer generally, but then we will defer

to the EPA on the specifics of earmarks and whether they are earmarks related to arsenic research. What we say in our report on

arsenic is there are some studies, in particular health effects studies, which will not be completed in time because they were started

too late. And the—there are really two reasons why this research

is not going to be completed in time. One is that it is fundamentally the nature of research, and I think you will see in EPA’s

statement that research sometimes raises questions that need answers and you can’t anticipate where it will lead you.

Mr. BILBRAY. What basic research right now do we have online?

What are we doing specifically right now?

Mr. GUERRERO. Let me defer to Dr. Noonan on that.

Ms. NOONAN. We have research that is going on in a number of

areas with regard to arsenic. We have toxicology and epidemiology

studies to better evaluate cancer and noncancer effects associated

with exposure to arsenic.

Mr. BILBRAY. Are we doing one in Utah?

Ms. NOONAN. I am not certain of that. I can certainly check that

for you.

Mr. BILBRAY. I know eastern Kentucky and Tennessee has a

problem with the ambient arsenic.

Ms. NOONAN. We do have a study going on in Utah.

Mr. BILBRAY. But the Utah’s choice is then you don’t have other

life-style problems that may contribute to the problems so you have

more isolation. What level of parts per billion are we looking at as

being the natural background arsenic level in Utah that is where

your study is going on?

Ms. NOONAN. The exposure levels are between 25 and 50 parts

per billion. Micrograms per liter. I am sorry I don’t know what the

natural background of arsenic is.

Mr. BILBRAY. Are you predicting their exposure is an artificial

source of arsenic or is it a natural source of arsenic?

Ms. NOONAN. It is a natural source.

Mr. BILBRAY. So we have a natural source in Utah that is over

25 parts. Twenty-five to 50 was it?

Ms. NOONAN. Lower end of the exposed levels, yes.

Mr. BILBRAY. So I think that it is—you know we need to remind

people that we are talking about natural problems here that we

need to address. And now we are doing a study based on a popuVerDate 20-MAR-2000 15:46 Mar 21, 2000 Jkt 060360 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60360.TXT pfrm07 PsN: 60360
35

lation that is way over what we are talking or sitting around the

top field here.

And I just want to make sure that our science is going to give

us the answers we need to develop appropriate strategies to protect

the public health. What is your projection? Is this exposure so high

so that if we don’t not find chronic problems here that we may

want to change our strategy? You know I am open up to any member here.

Ms. DOUGHERTY. We still have some more work to do on the

Utah study. I am not the expert on it, but levels of 25 in the environment are really a significant concern at any of the potential regulatory levels. Because the law requires us to set the maximum

contaminant level goal at a level which there are no adverse effects

to people in terms of health with an adequate margin of safety.

This is not necessarily what the standard becomes but it is the

goal. So if we were finding levels at 25 in the environment—and

they had health effects at those levels, to get no adverse effect with

an adequate margin of safety you need to go far below that in

terms of the goal. Then the MCL is set at the level as close to that

health goal as is technically feasible, and that is where cost and

technology——

Mr. BILBRAY. The inverse of that, though it is a 25 plus, 25 to

50 we cannot detect any exposure—I mean any problems with the

at-risk populations, children, people with compromised immune

systems or something like that, then we may want to rethink the

strategy is that?

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I don’t think that study would lead you to that

conclusion.

Mr. BILBRAY. So we are assuming now that science is showing

there is going to be adverse impact to this population we are doing

a study at.

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I don’t think we have actually finished the——

Ms. NOONAN. We have not finished.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The time has expired, but without objection we

can maybe at least get a response to that.

Mr. BILBRAY. I want to make sure we are not making assumptions before we do the study but also look at the study that if the

study is aimed at the very upper scale, do we have another study

that we can compare to with the lower scale so we have some kind

of idea——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Dr. Noonan.

Ms. NOONAN. Let me explain. There is a large body of work that

already exists on arsenic. The largest compendium of this work, as

I am sure you know, was compiled for the recent National Research

Council report on arsenic. There is a very large body of epidemiologic work.

We are expanding that work in the U.S. to make sure that we

understand what the differences are between U.S. exposed populations and populations around the world that have been studied

for arsenic exposure. We are also conducting analytical methods research. The research priorities that we have for arsenic match almost exactly to research recommendations that the NRC made for

additional research in the areas of arsenic, and we are conducting

those studies as we speak.

36

Mr. BILBRAY. When do you think they will be done?

Ms. NOONAN. They will be done over the course of the next several years. The epidemiological studies take more time than perhaps some of the other work in toxicology or methods development,

et cetera. This is an ongoing set of activities.

Mr. BILBRAY. So I guess the answer is as Michelangelo said to

the Pope, it will be done when it is done.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. The gentleman’s time has expired. Dr. Ganske to

inquire.

Mr. GANSKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Guerrero, I understand EPA previously estimated that there was a drinking water

research shortfall of $10 million to $20 million over fiscal years

1999 to 2005. Now I understand that the agency considers this just

to be a ballpark figure and that adequate funding exists. Mr. Guerrero, do you think the agency has any basis in fact or documentary

evidence to say that adequate funds for research exist?

Mr. GUERRERO. We basically have not seen the plans and planning documents that would allow us to make that determination

ourselves.

Mr. GANSKE. Well, can you fill in the subcommittee about this

disappearing research gap of $10 to $20 million per year?

Mr. GUERRERO. What the Agency told us is initially they did an

unconstrained estimate of what the needs would be. It was not

meant to derive very specific budget figures. When the Agency now

says their research amounts are sufficient, they are saying that—

they are putting the important caveat of ‘‘short-term’’ ahead of the

word sufficient, leaving open the question, as I mentioned in my

statement, as to whether their longer term needs will be adequately addressed. And the bottom line here is it is impossible to

tell in the absence of plans with resource estimates and plans that

link clearly and transparently to the budget process.

Mr. GANSKE. But you would say that clearly it is the EPA’s job

to do this planning.

Mr. GUERRERO. Absolutely. In fact, the statute calls for the plans

we are talking about. And in our opinion, as was mentioned earlier,

the sooner these plans are available the better. As indicated on the

other chart that was up earlier, the EPA is faced with a number

of time-critical decisions over the next couple of years. And so to

promise these plans in the spring of next year and by the end of

next year—this comes at a fairly late stage in terms of providing

the assurance as to whether the resources and the funding will be

adequate to answer the kinds of questions that need to be answered to make the regulatory decisions when they need to be

made.

Mr. GANSKE. Was there anything in your report to indicate why

this planning wasn’t being done?

Mr. GUERRERO. I would suggest perhaps that EPA speak to that

point. We will note that they have completed two plans, a plan for

arsenic and a plan for microbials and disinfection by-products. Of

other plans, one is late. They had promised it earlier, and it is

going to be a little bit later than they had promised. I think they

will need to speak to some of the difficulties perhaps they faced in

not getting those plans out earlier than they had expected.

37

Mr. GANSKE. Your report breaks down the budget requests and

funding for the Office of Research and Development and the Office

of Water. Just so I can better understand those numbers, where is

most of the basic drinking water research now being conducted?

Mr. GUERRERO. The majority of it is in the Office of Research

and Development.

Mr. GANSKE. Did EPA officials tell you that safe drinking water

funding was adequate?

Mr. GUERRERO. EPA, as I said, testified that the short-term resources are adequate. They have told us that the agency cannot

possibly undertake all of the necessary research. And, in fact, you

heard from Dr. Noonan about the importance of their working

closely with key stakeholders in ensuring that complementary research is done outside of the Federal Government to complement

what EPA is doing inside.

Mr. GANSKE. All right. Ms. Noonan, you state that EPA has been

highly successful in addressing the critical near-term research

needs and requirements of the 1996 amendments. However, the

GAO report we have in front of us says you don’t have a research

plan for the contaminant candidate list, that you don’t have a comprehensive research plan to direct other research activities, and

that GAO can’t tell you if you are conducting adequate research or

not. Can you present any documentary evidence to this committee

which backs up your statement?

Ms. NOONAN. Mr. Ganske, let me first say that we have completed the two highest priority things that were specified in the

law, the arsenic plan and the microbial/disinfection by-products

plan.

We are currently developing the contaminant candidate list plan

and, in fact, a draft of that plan was shared with stakeholders at

a public meeting less than a month ago. It is in development, and

I hope you will hear from the stakeholders that they had an opportunity to participate meaningfully in the creation of the plan for

the contaminant candidate list.

In addition to that, we have two other activities that, I believe,

answer GAO’s criticism.

First, we are undertaking in several high priority areas the development of a multi-year budget planning effort that we anticipate

for drinking water will be completed in time to accompany the fiscal year 2001 budget request which will come up here in January.

Drinking water is on that list. We hope to be able to create a 5-

year budget and plan essentially for drinking water research.

In addition to that, we are creating a comprehensive drinking

water research strategy; the umbrella under which all of these

pieces will fit. The strategy will describe the research needs and

priorities associated with current and future drinking water regulatory issues and will include the research plans for arsenic,

MDBP’s, the contaminant candidate list, the revisions of the current MCL’s, and variety of other research topic such as disease occurrence, sensitive subpopulations, et cetera. That comprehensive

strategy which we agreed with our Science Advisory Board was

needed and which we have started work on will engage stakeholders. It will also be a guide for us for planning research inside

38

EPA and for our colleague agencies and the stakeholders to plan

research that they want to do.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Please finish up, will you, doctor I know you are

responding to the question.

Ms. NOONAN. One more thing. And it will assist in identifying

our out-year GPRA goals which is a key element for our planning

process to achieve our accountability goals under GPRA.

Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Chairman, can Mr. Guerrero respond to that?

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Without objection, an additional minute. Yes, go

ahead.

Mr. GUERRERO. I would want to say that in terms of what you

just heard, that the EPA is preparing this 5-year budget and plan

for drinking water as a complement to the drinking water research

strategy. I think those are clearly the steps in the right direction.

Those are the kinds of things that we identified as missing, and I

am pleased to hear that EPA is saying they are doing that.

What I would urge EPA to do is to consider our recommendation

as they develop that 5-year plan and a comprehensive strategy.

Specifically, that those strategies and plans be very specific as to

the research that must be accomplished, the timeframes in which

it must be done in, the resources that are needed to accomplish it,

and that they then use those plans and strategies to inform the annual budget deliberations and provide greater transparency in

terms of those budget deliberations so the public, you, the Congress, and stakeholders can know what is being funded and what

is not.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Is there any reason why—Dr. Noonan, why that

cannot be done?

Ms. NOONAN. Mr. Chairman, all I can say is we will share information with external stakeholders to the extent we are permitted

to do so under the constraints of our budget process.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. But it is your budget planning process. It is not

what Congress has imposed upon you. Isn’t that true?

Ms. NOONAN. Well the President’s budget, as you know, is not to

be shared externally until it is ready to go to the Congress. I can’t

say any more than that.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Well, all right. So I guess we are not getting an

answer to our question. Mr. Deal to inquire.

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As I understand it, Ms.

Dougherty, the contaminant candidate list has been prepared

based on what is referred to as sufficient data under the testimony.

And there appears to be a determination that the regulations of

2001 are going to be made on the basis of those contaminants on

the list based on sufficient data versus the language that was in

the 1996 amendment of those that present the greatest public

health concerns. Is my understanding of that correct? If so, how do

you reconcile that with the mandate in the 1996 act?

Ms. DOUGHERTY. The way we developed the candidate contaminant list was to divide it into two pieces. We have about 60 contaminants on that list. For 20 contaminants, we believe we have

sufficient scientific information from all the sources that we could

find, and sufficient occurrence data, for us to make the regulatory

determinations in 2001. For 40 contaminants, we believe we needed to get more current information or more scientific information

39

in terms of research either on health effects or analytic methods

before we could proceed to make a determination.

We expect that when we make our determinations in 2001, it will

be from the list of 20. We are required to make determinations on

at least five contaminants. So we will be making judgments on

which contaminants present the highest human health risk for us

to be deciding whether to regulate or not, based on the information

that we have about all those contaminants. We may decide that in

between now and 2001 we have enough information on some of the

contaminants that are in that group of 40 to move those up because of the potential health risk.

Mr. DEAL. So when section 3 of the 1996 amendment said that

the existing process for assessment and selection of additional

drinking water contaminants needs to be revised and improved to

assure that there is sound scientific basis for setting priorities, are

you saying that you have done that, or did you simply take a list

based on existing data or have you reviewed it in light of the 1996

language?

Ms. DOUGHERTY. We reviewed it in light of the 1996 language.

And the list that we came up with was a list based on looking at

the criteria from the 1996 amendments.

Mr. DEAL. So when you say you made it based on sufficient data,

you are saying that has been done based on the standard of the

greatest public health concern then?

Ms. DOUGHERTY. The contaminants that we have on the list are

those that we and the stakeholders that were involved in our process of developing that list believed were of greatest public health

concern. We are less certain of some in the group of 40, but we decided to put them on the list because we thought they were worth

looking at further.

Mr. DEAL. Will the regulations apply to them as well even

though that has not been complete?

Ms. DOUGHERTY. We are only required to make regulatory determinations on at least five. So we will be making our regulatory determinations in 2001 on some subset of those 60.

Mr. DEAL. All right. Dr. Noonan, as I understand it, research on

drinking water constitutes about 6.5 percent of your budget. Could

you give me an idea of some other categories that have a higher

priority in your budget than safe drinking water issues?

Ms. NOONAN. Actually, Mr. Deal, in fiscal year 2000 drinking

water constitutes 7.8 percent of our budget. I can certainly supply

a complete breakdown of our budget by percentage and goal.

Mr. DEAL. Just give me a few examples of some that have higher

priority.

Ms. NOONAN. I think one example would be air—air contaminants, air pollutants. Particulate matter research has a higher priority. Let me put it this way: It has a higher percentage of our

budget at present but it is also one of our highest priority areas.

Mr. DEAL. So air is one area. Then what other—you are talking

about less than 10 percent of your budget on water. Surely there

are other bigger categories other than just air.

Ms. NOONAN. We also do a large amount of basic research in ecosystem and human health protection that is not associated with

any particular set of regulatory determinations. This is work in unVerDate 20-MAR-2000 15:46 Mar 21, 2000 Jkt 060360 PO 00000 Frm 00042 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60360.TXT pfrm07 PsN: 60360
40

derstanding the fundamental processes that drive ecosystems and

drive human health and the kinds of exposure and assessment

tools that we need in order to position the Agency for future determinations or to improve the risk assessments and risk management tools that we currently have. That is about 30 percent of our

budget.

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Pickering to inquire.

Mr. PICKERING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Noonan, if I could, as you know in section 102 of the 1996

amendments, you were required to list the contaminants representing the greatest public health concern is the language, the

specific language. Yet it seems to me that you are making it based

on sufficient data. Are you in violation of the intent of that? Are

you making it based on the greatest public health concern? How

would you respond to the possibility that you are—you could be in

violation of section 102 of the 1996 amendments?

Ms. NOONAN. Mr. Pickering, no, we are not in violation of the

1996 amendments. We have considered the public health concerns.

And I will defer to my colleague in a moment if she wants to add

something. But the contaminant candidate list was developed in

close collaboration with stakeholders whose considerations were as

specified in the act. We use the criteria that were set forth in the

act to develop the list from which we will choose five contaminants.

That is correct.

Ms. DOUGHERTY. At least——

Ms. NOONAN. At least five to actually regulate in fiscal year

2001. Cynthia, would you like to——

Ms. DOUGHERTY. We went through a fairly elaborate process for

the first contaminant candidate list. We consulted stakeholders and

outside experts to help us figure out how we would carry out the

intent of Congress related to that section, and we believe that we

have done that given the tools that we have available now.

We have also gone to the National Academy of Sciences and

asked them for their views in terms of how we should do the lists

in the future to make sure that we use the best scientific basis for

the decisions that we are making and are making the right decisions in terms of public health risks. So I think that we have met

the requirements of that part of the law quite well.

Mr. PICKERING. If I could, GAO if you would respond. Mr. Guerrero, do you feel the same as EPA that they are making these decisions and based on the greatest personal concern, do they have sufficient data to make those determinations?

Mr. GUERRERO. I wouldn’t disagree with EPA’s characterization

that they came up with the CCL by following the criteria in the

act and after consultation with stakeholders. But what they have

also said in their statement, I think, is that they have now narrowed that list down based on information available which is precisely our earlier point, that if you lack a plan, a long-term and

short-term research plan, the EPA is going to fall back into the situation it was in prior to 1996 amendments where it is regulating

based on what it knows but not on what it doesn’t know and perhaps should know in terms of dealing with perhaps higher risks or

more serious problems to public health.

41

So there is always the risk that if you whittle down a list as EPA

is now doing based on information you do know, that you run the

risk of ignoring problems that really you should not be ignoring.

Mr. PICKERING. Would you like to respond to that.

Ms. NOONAN. I would actually. Thank you. We have not stood

still, as the contaminant candidate list research plan has been determined. We have initiated a lot of work on a variety of items on

that list. We have initiated research on high priority contaminants

like: MTBE; emerging pathogens such as the Norwalk virus; and

the key uncertainties in the areas of health effects, analytical

methods development and treatment. We have shifted intramural

resources in 1998 and 1999 with a significant increase in 2000 to

address CCL research issues.

We have used our Science to Achieve Results Grant Program to

get the best minds in the country in the academic community

thinking about the key scientific uncertainties in this program. In

fact, in the Star program for 1999, we specifically went out with

the solicitation for microorganisms in drinking water. These are

key elements on the contaminant candidate list, and a request for

new methods to identify and enumerate many of those pathogens

for which methods to enumerate them currently don’t exist. We are

about to award those grants.

So we have not been sitting idly by and doing nothing as the

plan has been in development. We know what the highest priority

things are. We know where a lot of the uncertainty is. We have already put dollars behind those uncertainties to try to resolve them

in as timely a way as possible.

Mr. PICKERING. I know my time is up Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Without objection, Mr. Guerrero, can respond.

Mr. GUERRERO. We agree the EPA has research under way. Two

points I would make in that regard. First, stakeholders were concerned that the research that needs to be done to support the important CCL determinations was not getting underway as quickly

as it should. And the second is that I will point out that the redirection of funds to do some of this research only occurred in this

fiscal year, fiscal year 2000. So here you have important decisions

that need to be made very shortly, and, yes there is indeed research underway but that research is only coming very close to

those decisions.

Mr. PICKERING. Would you say that because of the lack of sufficient data, that decisions are being made that could be described

as arbitrary?

Mr. GUERRERO. I don’t believe I could characterize them as arbitrary. What I would say is that EPA is falling back on making decisions based on the information they have.

Mr. PICKERING. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. I thank the gentleman. Mr. Lazio to inquire.

Mr. LAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I would like to make a unanimous

consent request to include my opening statement in the record. I

am afraid I was unavoidably detained and wasn’t able to be here

so I would ask that statement be included for the record.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Without objection.

Mr. BROWN. And all other opening statements too.

42

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Without objection. I made that comment at the

beginning.

Mr. LAZIO. Also I want to thank you personally for scheduling

this hearing. It is a matter of concern to a number of us and certainly of great concern to the American people. There is, with all

the political contest on environmental rules and regulations and

law, absolute consensus throughout the country to have clean air

and clean water. And over the next 7 years, we are going to have

many, many of these rules that will need to be reviewed for adequacy.

If I can, I would like to ask the panel; I understand from the

GAO report that the GAO, in speaking to some water experts, have

concluded that the research on the effects of certain pathogens, disinfectant agents, and disinfection by-products on children and pregnant women will not be completed in time for the new rules. I am

wondering if I can ask for confirmation if that is the case. Maybe,

Mr. Guerrero, you can begin by commenting on that; and then we

can ask EPA to comment on, if that is the case, when this research

will be completed.

Mr. GUERRERO. We did point out in our report that regarding the

regulations of microbial pathogen disinfectant and disinfection byproducts many stakeholders commented that some of the health effects research and research on sensitive subpopulations such as

children and pregnant women will not be completed in time for the

rule.

Mr. LAZIO. Any sense from your base of knowledge of what the

time line looks like?

Ms. CROCKER. No, we do know that, in some instances, the need

for this research only recently became known. And that is one of

the reasons that the research won’t be available for the upcoming

regulatory decision.

Mr. LAZIO. So you have no sense of time line?

Mr. GUERRERO. No. Perhaps Dr. Noonan can respond to that.

Ms. NOONAN. Mr. Lazio, we have had a major focus on microbial

and disinfection by-products research and its impacts on sensitive

subpopulations. We have been collaborating not only with the National Institutes for Environmental Health Sciences but also with

the private sector group, the Microbial/Disinfection By-products Research Council.

We have been carrying out a number of studies. The ones that

are being spoken of as not being completed tend to be the epidemiology studies which, of necessity, take time. But we have a large

body of work already on microbial and disinfection by-products that

is already known and already is completed. And we can, of course,

supply you with a comprehensive list of all of those studies as well

as the studies that we are currently undertaking to address the

issue of sensitive subpopulations.

[The following was received for the record:]

Research on sensitive subpopulations has been and continues to be an important

part of the EPA drinking water research program. This research includes a wide

range of studies to characterize whether and to what degree subpopulations such

as infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly or individuals with a history of

serious illness may be likely to experience elevated health risks from exposure to

priority drinking water contaminants such as disinfection by-products and microbial

pathogens. As shown in the lists below, many projects to evaluate the effects of

43

these contaminants on children and pregnant women, including some important epidemiology studies and a large number of toxicology studies, have been completed.

These studies provide important new data to support more scientifically sound regulatory decisions for the new drinking water rules that are under development.

The results of some new research (e.g., the replication of a ‘‘California-type’’ spontaneous abortion study in another part of the country) will not be completed until

after the near-term regulatory deadlines for the Microbial and Disinfection By-Product Rules. This is due to the long timeframe that is required to conduct large scale

studies in human populations, and the fact that this research, like other areas of

scientific discovery, is interative in nature. The completed studies have raised new

questions that have served as the impetus for the studies that are currently underway. As our understanding of these public health risks is being refined, it is likely

that additional research will be needed to address new questions that arise.

We are in the process of compiling a comprehensive inventory of EPA research

activities on sensitive subpopulations and drinking water risks in preparation for

a Report to Congress that will be completed by August, 2000, as required by the

1996 Amendments. The following projects represent a significant portion of the research that will ultimately be described in this Report.

COMPLETED AND ONGOING STUDIES OF DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS (DBPS)AND

RISKS TO PREGNANT WOMEN

Epidemiology and toxicology research to evaluate this potential threat to pregnant

women has become a major focus of the EPA’s drinking water health effects research program in recent years. EPA convened two expert panels of epidemiologists,

toxicologists and exposure assessors in 1993 and 1997 to review the existing epidemiology and toxicology literature. The panel’s research recommendations have been

used to guide EPA’s research program in these areas, with a specific objective of

providing the types of data that will support more scientifically sound regulatory decisions to protect sensitive subpopulations. Completed and ongoing studies conducted by EPA investigators or by outside scientists with EPA support are listed

below:

• 1998 Epidemiology study in California of spontaneous abortions and exposure to

trihalomethanes (Status: Completed) • Reanalysis of the same California study populations using improved estimates of

exposure (Status: To be completed in early 2000). • Replication of a ‘‘California-type’’ epidemiology study of drinking water and spontaneous abortions elsewhere in the U.S. This large study is being co-funded by

EPA and the American Water Works Association Research Foundation

(AWWARF), through the Microbial/Disinfection By-Products Research Council.

(Status: To be completed >2002) • Epidemiology study of DBP exposures and birth weigh changes in Colorado. (Status: Completed). • Identification of geographic areas for additional reproductive epidemiology studies.

(Status: Completed). • Development of methods for conducting population-based male reproductive epidemiology studies. (Status: Several reports have been published, research continuing). • Epidemiology studies of DBP exposures and birth defects, conducted in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (Status: Some methods development and pilot-scale studies will be completed in 2000, research continuing) • EPA has established a comprehensive in-house research program to develop data

for assessing the potential reproductive risks associated with exposure to DBPs

in drinking water. Screening-level toxicity studies are conducted in collaboration

with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to identify DBPs of potential concern. EPA scientists conduct more detailed studies to

further characterize the toxicity of priority DBPs. Some of the research that is

currently underway includes studies to evaluate the male reproductive effects

of the haloacetic acids, outcomes associated with multi-generational exposures

to DBPs, effects in non-pregnant females, and the effects of mixtures of selected

DBPs. A representative listing of completed studies is found below:

Cummings, A. M. and J.M. Hedge (1998). Dibromoacetic acid does not adversely affect early

pregnancy in rats. Repro. Toxicol., 12(4): 445-448.

Hunter, E.S., E.H. Rogers, J.E. Schmid, and A. Richard (1996). Comparative effects of

haloacetic acids in whole embryo culture. Teratology, 54:57-64.

Klinefelter, G.R., J.W. Laskey, J. Farrell, J.D. Suarez, and N.L. Roberts (1997). Discriminant

analysis indicates a single sperm protein (SP22) is predictive of fertility following exposure to

epididymal toxicants. J. Androl., 18(2):139-150.

44

Klinefelter, G.R., J.D. Suarez, N.L. Roberts, and A.B. DeAngelo (1995). Preliminary screening

for the potential of drinking water disinfection by-products to alter male reproduction. Repro.

Toxicol., 9:571-578.

Linder, R.E., G.R. Klinefelter, L.F. Steader, J.D. Suarez, N.L. Roberts, and C.J. Dyer (1994).

Spermatotoxicity of dibromoacetic acid in rats after 14 daily exposures. Repro. Toxicol., 8:251-

259.

Linder, R.E., G.R. Klinefelter, L.F. Strader, J.D. Suarez, N.L. Roberts, and C.J. Dyer (1994).

Acute spermatogenic effects of bromoacetic acids. Fund. Appl. Toxicol., 22:422-430.

Linder, R.E., G.R. Klinefelter, L.F. Strader, M.G. Narotsky, J.D. Suarez, N.L. Roberts, and

S.D. Perreault (1995). Dibromoacetic acid affects reproductive competence and sperm quality in

the male rat. Fund. Appl. Toxicol. 28:9-17.

Linder, R.E., G.R. Klinefelter, L.F. Strader, J.D. Suarez, and N.L. Roberts (1997).

Spermatotoxicity of dichloroacetic acid. Repro. Toxicol., 11:681-688.

Linder, R.E., G.R. Klinefelter, L.F. Strader, D.N. Rao Veeramachaneni, N.L. Roberts, and J.D.

Suarez (1997). Histopathological changes in the testis of rats exposed to dibromoacetic acid.

Repro. Toxicol., 11:47-56.

Narotsky, M.G., R.A. Pegram and R.J. Kavlock (1997). Effect of dosing vehicle on the developmental toxicity of bromodichloromethane and carbon tetrachloride in rats. Fund. Appl. Toxicol.,

40:30-36.

National Toxicology Program (1998,1999). Results of the NTP short-term reproductive and developmental toxicity screens for bromochloroacetic acid, tribromoacetic acid,

chlorodibromomethane, bromidichloromethane, bromoacetonitrile, dibromoacetonitrile, and sodium bromate.

Richard, A.M. and E.S. Hunter (1996). Quantitative structure-activity relationships for the developmental toxicity of haloacetic acids in mammalian whole embryo culture. Teratology,

53:352360.

Welsh, J.E., R.R. Barbee, N.L. Roberts, J.D. Suarez, and G.R. Klinefelter (1998). SP22: A

novel fertility protein from a highly conserved gene family. J. Androl., 19:385393.

CURRENT RESEARCH AND ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES ON SENSITIVE SUBPOPULATION

ISSUES

A number of special analyses are being conducted to provide baseline data for

identifying vulnerable subpopulations and health risks. These assessments have either been completed or will be completed in 2000, and will be summarized in the

Report to Congress. Studies include: a) evaluation of the demographics of sensitive

subpopulations; b) evaluation of age-related illness and death caused by microbial

diseases; c) characterization of the chronic effects of microbial illnesses; d) evaluation of the potential immunotoxic effects of chemical contaminants in drinking

water; and e) assessment of water consumption rates based on sex, age, racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and geographic distributions.

Laboratory, field, and assessment research on sensitive subpopulations is also

being conducted on a number of drinking water contaminants, as described below.

The results of these studies will be available in 2000 and beyond.

Research on microbial pathogens

• Cryptosporidium virulence factors and infective dose in humans

• Infective dose of Cryptosporidium in immunocompromised hosts

• Serological tools for Cryptosporidium and emerging pathogens

• Understanding risk factors for Cryptosporidium: Studies in gnotobiotic pigs

• Studies of the infectivity of Norwalk and Norwalk-like viruses in humans

• Molecular probes for studying mycobacteria in biofilms

• Community enteric disease studies

• Waterbome disease occurrence studies in the U.S.

Research on disinfection by-products and halocarbons

• Evaluation of DBPs in a rat model of hereditary renal cancer

• Effect of glutathione s-transferase genotype on sensitivity to trihalomethanes

• Comparison of traditional scaling methods and physiological measurements (life

stage effects, metabolism)

• Multi-route exposure model using water-related activity patterns

• Dietary exposure potential model (also useful for other contaminants, e.g., arsenic)

• Using biomarkers of exposure and neurobehavioral test batteries to assess children’s neurological vulnerability to residential exposure to tetrachloroethyene

• Increased vulnerability of neonates to naphthalene and its derivatives

• The elderly as a sensitive subpopulation for halocarbon hepatotoxicity

• Differences in chemical metabolism as a mediator of human interindividual susceptibility

• Immunotoxicity of selected DBPs

Research on arsenic

• Arsenic metabolic profiles in various age groups

45

• Strain-dependent disposition of inorganic arsenicElevated levels of heat-shock proteins: Protection of MCF-7 cells from arsenite toxicity

• Chronic arsenic exposure in drinking water and reproductive effects

• Effect of dietary folate deficiency on arsenic genotoxicity in mice

• Effect of nutritional status: selenium deficiency and excess

Research on pesticides (selected examples of relevant research not supported by drinking water resources)

• Exposure of children to pesticide residues

• Assessment of interactions and mechanisms of action of mixtures and age-related

risks

• Childhood Exposure Factor Handbook

• Effect of atrazine on puberty in male and female rats

• Measuring and apportioning children’s exposure to pesticides in urban, suburban

and rural communities

Mr. LAZIO. So is it not accurate in testimony that we have just

heard that you were not aware of the nexus between pathogens

and disinfection by-products until recently?

Ms. NOONAN. No. The need for the epidemiological research and

some of the longer term studies was not recognized until recently.

Miscarriages, this was a result of a study that was carried out in

California on spontaneous abortion. We are currently in the process

of replicating that study in other parts of the U.S. as well as reanalyzing the data from that original study to see whether or not it

holds up under analysis.

Mr. LAZIO. It appears to me that the fact that the act gave you

specific direction in terms of pathogens and disinfection byproducts——

Ms. DOUGHERTY. We have been working on rules related to

pathogens and disinfection by-products for a number of years. The

changes in the Safe Drinking Water Act recognize the work that

has been ongoing and pushed us to continue to deal with those

issues in the stakeholder forum that we have had for several years,

and also asked us to make sure that we were dealing with the research that we laid out in the research plan that we have done

some time ago. We have been continuing all that work. The research related to miscarriages and possible reproductive effects are

new results, and we are trying to follow up on that, as Dr. Noonan

said as well.

Mr. LAZIO. So you were not particularly focusing on sensitive

subpopulations?

Ms. NOONAN. We were focused on sensitive subpopulations in

general. But I think results from the recent California study have

increased our focus on this particular aspect.

Mr. LAZIO. Let me just——

Mr. BILIRAKIS. Very quickly now.

Mr. LAZIO. Last question because this has not been answered,

but thank you, Mr. Chairman, for your indulgence. Can you give

us a sense of a time line, can you give us a sense when, or at what

threshold that we might pass, where the committee would be frustrated with your lack of progress to a point where we would ask

the chairman to reconvene again for the purposes of answering as

to the status?

Ms. NOONAN. I am sorry, I am——

Mr. LAZIO. When can you have it done?

Ms. NOONAN. The abortion study? The research?

46

Mr. LAZIO. The epidemiological research, that the research has to

be completed for purposes of assessing the effects of pathogen and

disinfectants on pregnant women.

Ms. NOONAN. Some of the small studies will be completed in the

next couple of years. The larger epidemiologic study is on a time

line to be completed within the next 3 to 4 years.

Mr. LAZIO. I hope we can do better than that, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. BILIRAKIS. We recognize that we are an ivory tower quite

often as we are not as realistic or as practical as we maybe could

be. But, you know, it seems like it should be shared with us somewhere along the line that possibly the demands of the 1996 act

may be—might be unrealistic.

The gentleman, Mr. Engel, is not a member of this subcommittee, but he has requested to inquire. And the Chair now recognizes him.

Mr. ENGEL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you and the

ranking member. And as a member of the Commerce Committee,

I am obviously very concerned about these amendments; and even

though I am not a member of this subcommittee, we have been

having a long-standing fight in my district against water filtration.

And the whole hearing on implementation of the safe drinking

water amendments, Chairman Bliley requested that GAO responds

to how EPA is utilizing the newly authorized funding availability

as a result of a number of these amendments. And the GAO report

indicates that the EPA is not fully utilizing available resources to

research and development of filtration alternatives.

We are very concerned about alternatives to filtration because we

believe that where filtration is mandated—particularly the ongoing

fight in my district in New York and in the Bronx, we believe that

that there be can filtration avoidance.

So I would like to ask Dr. Noonan and/or Ms. Dougherty why

isn’t the money authorized in the 1996 reauthorization of the Safe

Drinking Water Act for the New York City watershed protection

program being utilized since I believe it could lead to findings that

could provide, alternatives to filtration?

The language, on its face, provides $15 million a year for projects

throughout New York State including the Croton Watershed. And

EPA has not requested any money or the program and Congress

has only appropriated a few million dollars for it. So why hasn’t

EPA requested it? Why isn’t the money being utilized for alternative to filtration?

Ms. DOUGHERTY. Those funds were included in the authorizations under the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments to provide

funding for demonstration projects that were implemented as part

of the watershed program for protection and enhancement of the

quality of source waters for New York City. Specifically related to

New York City’s compliance with the filtration avoidance that they

have for the Catskill-Delaware watershed. And EPA has not requested funding in its budget for that authorization along with a

number of other authorizations in the safe drinking water amendments because we have had to make decisions within the budget

in terms of what are the highest priorities for funding that we

needed to request.

47

And our focus has been on dealing with the regulatory efforts

both in terms of research and developing regulations and with the

funding for the States for the State revolving loan fund as well as

with making sure States get their full public water systems provision grants.

Mr. ENGEL. The fact of the matter is that $15 million is there,

and I understand if there are priorities—if all $15 million are requested, but when only $1 million of the $15 million is requested,

it would seem to me there is plenty of room to look at the Croton

Watershed System besides Delaware Catskill. As you know there

was an agreement worked out for filtration avoidance for the Delaware-Catskill system. And we believe the request can be worked

out for the Croton as well. So I believe that the EPA has been really remiss in not looking for the possibility of alternatives to filtration, and I don’t feel that EPA is conducting adequate research and

development in the area of filtration avoidance. So I would like to

know, do you feel you are? And if not, why not?

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I believe we may be doing some work in terms

of source water protection but nothing specifically related to filtration avoidance. And the authorization for the $15 million is specifically related for monitoring work to demonstrate that the filtration

avoidance plan, the watershed plan program that the city is carrying out, in fact, is sufficient to support the filtration avoidance

that the city has for the Catskill-Delaware watershed and not to

demonstrate that there are ways to get further filtration avoidance.

Mr. ENGEL. Let me just say because I see the light is on, I really

think that EPA ought to be doing what I have suggested. And I

want to just also say that I have legislation which would allow for

the waiver of 1991 requiring filtration to be preempted. I think

with all the research and new developments, it is ludicrous to be

locked out of any kind of filtration avoidance if it can be proven

that filtration is not needed. No one is suggesting that if filtration

is needed it shouldn’t be done, but I have very serious doubts as

to whether it is needed. And I just don’t think that the EPA ought

to continue to sit tight. And certainly when there are $14 million of money that can be requested, perhaps $1 or $2 million could provide us with a solution to this. I just think EPA is hiding behind language and hiding

behind laws, and I don’t think that is very admirable. And I wish

you would take this back to Carol Brown. She knows of my annoyance with it, but I really think that something needs to be done because it is an untenable situation.

I thank the chairman for his indulgence. I ask that my opening

statement be allowed to go into the record.

Mr. DEAL [presiding]. Without objection.

[The prepared statement of Eliot Engel follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ELIOT L. ENGEL, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, I would like to express my strong support and appreciation for this

hearing today. On numerous occasions I have spoken out about the need for increased research and development of filtration alternatives. It appears as I review

the GAO report before us today that those appeals may have fallen on deaf ears.

I am extremely disturbed by the fact that residents of my district may be forced

to live with an extremely obtrusive and environmentally destructive filtration plant

48

because proper research and development on filtration alternatives has not been

conducted.

As you may know, the EPA determined that the Croton Watershed, in New York

State, was not in compliance with federal water standards. In order to avoid building the filtration plant New York City had to apply for a waiver prior to the 1991

deadline. Unfortunately, they did not. Therefore, EPA has stipulated that New York

City must build a $1 billion filtration plant for the Croton system.

Mr. Chairman I am deeply concerned about the impact of this plant on the residents of my district. I am further troubled by the findings before us today in the

GAO report which suggest that EPA is not fully utilizing the resources available to

conduct research and development that could lead to filtration alternatives. I have

repeatedly raised this issue because I feel it is a travesty to impose such an environmentally destructive facility to an urban community with such little recreational

space, while alternative methods might be available.

Although not meeting the 1991 deadline, New York City could have demonstrated

that the Croton System had exceptional water quality and that quality could be protected without filtration by implementing strict watershed protection measures.

Given the research that EPA has done since 1991 and the potential to conduct more

extensive research and development with funding in the reauthorization of the Safe

Drinking Water Act in 1996, I remain optimistic that an alternative can be found.

Mr. Chairman, I don’t believe anyone wants to impose a water filtration plant on

any community if it is not necessary. There are serious health concerns to take into

consideration. For instance, the Bronx has an extremely high rate of asthma, in

some part due to the congestion that residents must endure daily. Construction and

implementation of the plant will only increase congestion and pollution adding to

this problem.

I am aware that there are several alternatives to filtration that will ensure water

quality meets EPA standards. A number of outside organizations have indicated

that alternatives would be more reliable, cheaper and less destructive to the surrounding community. Mr. Chairman, fellow colleagues, I am committed to ensuring

safe drinking water standards are upheld. However, if alternatives can achieve the

same goal with little or no damage to the surrounding community, the alternative

should be used.

To that end, I have introduced legislation that would enable localities to apply to

the state for filtration avoidance based on information, technology, or evidence not

available prior to implementation of EPA’s filtration standards. Therefore, filtration

avoidance measures could be implemented rather than the construction of an unnecessary filtration plant, if studies show EPA’s drinking water requirements were met.

I firmly believe that this matter must be reconsidered. Chairman Bliley has expressed a willingness to work with me on my legislation and I look forward to working within the Committee to find a viable solution. I also welcome any suggestions

or comments the EPA has to offer and will gladly meet to discuss this issue further.

Mr. DEAL. I would like to thank the panel for appearing before

the committee today especially on behalf of the chairman, we appreciate your appearance. I would remind you there may be questions submitted from the panel to you, and we would request and

appreciate your written response to those inquiries. Once again,

thanks to the members of the panel.

And we will now ask the second panel if they would assume their

positions at the table.

I would like to welcome our second panel today. First of all, Mr.

John H. Sullivan, the deputy executive director of the American

Water Works Association; and he is appearing on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies and the National Association of Water Companies. Mr. Eric D. Olson is the senior attorney

of the Natural Resource Defense Council here in Washington. I will

call on my colleague Mr. Bilbray to introduce our third panelist.

Mr. BILBRAY. Yes, Mr. Chairman. I would have the honor at this

time to introduce Mr. Hall as executive director of the Association

of California Water Agencies. He resides way up north, 600 miles

north of my little corner of the world in Sacramento. And I also

would ask Mr. Hall somewhere during the day—I have to apoloVerDate 20-MAR-2000 15:46 Mar 21, 2000 Jkt 060360 PO 00000 Frm 00051 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60360.TXT pfrm07 PsN: 60360
49

gize, Mr. Chairman, because I have got to be at another function—

but I would ask that somewhere in the testimony that Mr. Hall be

given time to articulate what California is doing specifically in

their very aggressive program to address the underground tank

issue and the program to abate drinking water contamination with

their program there in California.

I know that this committee has either directly or indirectly discussed this issue not just in California but nationally. I think Mr.

Hall may have some information that will help us in working out

our—as we address other issues directly related to protecting the

groundwater. And Mr. Hall will obviously be able to talk about the

other issues related to today’s testimony. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DEAL. Thank you. Gentlemen we are pleased to have you

with us today. Mr. Sullivan we will begin with your testimony.

STATEMENTS OF JOHN H. SULLIVAN, DEPUTY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION ON BEHALF OF ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN WATER AGENCIES, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WATER COMPANIES; STEPHEN K. HALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF

CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES; AND ERIK D. OLSON, SENIOR ATTORNEY, NATURAL RESOURCE DEFENSE COUNCIL

Mr. SULLIVAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. As you indicated, I am

Jack Sullivan. I am the deputy executive director the American

Water Works Association. I am here today representing the three

organizations that you mentioned.

Back in the early part of this decade, many of us worked very,

very hard on the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments to ensure that the basic principle, one of the founding principles of the

amendments would be sound science. In order to ensure that sound

science—and people have all sorts of different interpretations as to

what sound science is—but in order to ensure that sound science

is adequate, there needs to be some type of process.

First of all, you need a decisionmaking procedure where the information needs are enumerated along with the deadlines that you

want to meet as far as regulatory action is concerned. You should

then determine exactly what research is required to meet those information needs in the timeframe that is designated and at what

cost. Then you come to the execution phase of that plan, and you

have to, of course, resource it adequately. And if you don’t, then

you must slip the deadlines.

That sounds very simple. In the ideal world, that is the way it

would work. In the real world, I think you heard from the GAO

what some of the problems are, and I think their report appears

to be quite accurate. EPA is working hard on trying to get this

thing together. And they are doing that with the stakeholders. As

Dr. Noonan indicated, we have been intimately involved with EPA

on the candidate list, the contaminant candidate list, research

planning and with other efforts. But this needs to continue, there

needs to be an extensive total plan for research. And this is not a

new concept. This goes back decades.

If you go back and look at some of the testimony to this committee in the late 1980’s, you will find that the same research probVerDate 20-MAR-2000 15:46 Mar 21, 2000 Jkt 060360 PO 00000 Frm 00052 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HEARINGS\60360.TXT pfrm07 PsN: 60360
50

lems existed. It is a highly complex issue. There are a lot of people

trying to work this issue both in EPA and outside of EPA. But the

bottom line is we are still having to negotiate sound science. It is

not all there. And I think you will hear that from some of the other

members of the panel as well.

Yes, EPA is doing a laudable job. And you will read in our testimony, we commend them for it for their public involvement and for

meeting some of the deadlines. But you must remember that we

are dealing with public health. And it is not just a deadline of putting forth the regulation. It is compliance with the regulation that

is important.

And we are facing the horrendous problem of compliance with a

lot of regulations that are going to hit the street and affect those

tens of thousands of small communities, some of which you represent in the future. And that is the near-term future. In the years

2003 to 2005, you are going to see a lot of this. Arsenic was on this

side, the chart was that side from GAO.

We really won’t know what the fruit of our efforts are and what

the fruit of EPA’s efforts are until that timeframe and probably beyond. What we do now is we don’t have all the answers we need

for the discussions we are involved in, internal to EPA or even external. We need sound science because we can’t afford to be wrong.

What we are dealing with is drinking water quality and we must

pay for it and make sure that the public choices that are made are

the right choices.

I would like to thank the committee for the opportunity to be

here. And we certainly will be available to answer any questions.

[The prepared statement of John H. Sullivan follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN H. SULLIVAN ON BEHALF OF THE AMERICAN WATER

WORKS ASSOCIATION, THE ASSOCIATION OF METROPOLITAN WATER AGENCIES, AND

THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF WATER COMPANIES

INTRODUCTION

Good morning Mr. Chairman. I am John H. Sullivan, Deputy Executive Director

for Government Affairs of the American Water Works Association. I am here today

on behalf of the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the Association of

Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) and the National Association of Water Companies (NAWC). We appreciate the opportunity to present our views on the implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996. Moreover,

we sincerely appreciate the Chairman’s leadership on this very important issue.

Your involvement, Mr. Chairman has been essential to making drinking water research a high priority.

AWWA is the world’s largest and oldest scientific and educational association representing drinking water supply professionals. The association’s 56,000 members are

comprised of administrators, utility operators, professional engineers, contractors,

manufacturers, scientists, professors and health professionals. The association’s

membership includes over 4,000 utilities which provides over 80 percent of the nation’s drinking water. Since our founding in 1881, AWWA and its members have

been dedicated to providing safe drinking water.

AMWA is a non-profit organization composed of the nation’s largest, publicly

owned and municipal drinking water suppliers. Member agencies are represented by

the directors and managers and supply clean, safe drinking water to nearly 120 million Americans.

NAWC is the nonprofit trade association that exclusively represents the nation’s

private and investor-owned drinking water utility industry. Its membership of over

300 companies in 42 states provides drinking water to nearly 21 million Americans

every day. The NAWC serves as the ambassador for the $3 billion industry that employs 15,000 people.

51

AWWA, AMWA and NAWC utility members are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and other statutes. We believe few environmental activities

are more important to the health of this country than assuring the protection of

water supply sources, and the treatment and distribution of a safe and healthful

supply of drinking water. AWWA, AMWA and NAWC strongly believe that the successful implementation of the reforms in the SDWA Amendments of 1996 is essential to providing safe and affordable drinking water. Your continued leadership on

SDWA issues is a major factor in the implementation of the SDWA Amendments

of 1996.

EPA DRINKING WATER PROGRAM

The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water program took on

greatly increased responsibilities in the 1996 SDWA amendments. These responsibilities included developing a regulatory process requiring additional science and

risk analysis for regulations, creating a contaminant occurrence data base and

methodology to select contaminants for regulation, promulgating microbial and disinfectant/disinfection by-products regulations, and identifying new treatment technologies for small systems. In addition to these research related responsibilities,

EPA took on responsibilities for administering the newly created drinking water

state revolving fund and developing regulations and guidelines for consumer confidence reports, operator certification programs, source water assessment and monitoring relief.

In satisfying these requirements, EPA has involved the public in the regulatory

process to an extent not equalled by any other federal agency and stands as a model

for federal rule making. EPA has involved private citizens, scientists, drinking

water professionals, medical professionals, public health officials, economists, and

environmental and consumer advocacy representatives, as well as other experts, to

provide recommendations on how to carry out these new regulatory responsibilities.

AWWA, AMWA and NAWC believe that the EPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water has made a good faith effort to implement the spirit and intent of the

1996 SDWA Amendments. The EPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water is

to be commended for taking this exemplary approach for public involvement which

should result in better regulations that protect public health.

Many of the new regulations are either in their infancy or not yet promulgated,

so there is not yet much experience to determine whether a specific regulation will

work as intended in accordance with the 1996 SDWA reforms. However, we have

a major concern that there may not be enough research conducted in a timely manner to support new contaminant regulations. We believe EPA’s efforts to fulfill the

science and research mandate of the SDWA Amendments of 1996 are inadequate.

In this statement, we will focus on the drinking water research needs and highlight

some regulations of concern.

DRINKING WATER RESEARCH

The use of best-available, peer-reviewed good science as the foundation of the new

drinking water standard-setting process under the SDWA amendments of 1996 will

require extensive drinking water research—particularly health effects research.

Funding for drinking water research is becoming more of a critical issue. The 1996

SDWA Amendments require EPA to develop comprehensive research plans for Microbial/Disinfection By-Products (M/DBP) and arsenic. In addition, the SDWA

amendments require EPA to utilize health effects data to identify contaminants for

future regulation and for setting drinking water goals and standards. And for the

first time, the law gives EPA the discretion to consider risk trade-offs and to set

standards based on such data.

However, we are seriously concerned that without increased drinking water research funding over the next several years and a comprehensive drinking water research plan, statutory deadlines for regulating contaminants will force EPA to promulgate regulations that are not based good science. For instance, there is great

concern that research to support standards for arsenic and M/DBP regulations will

not be completed in time to be fully taken into account by the rulemaking process.

With regard to arsenic research in particular, responses to questions put to the EPA

by the Commerce Committee Chairman, have left us frustrated.

These general concerns are also shared by others. The National Drinking Water

Advisory Council (NDWAC) has concluded that:

‘‘[S]hortfalls in the [drinking water] program’s funding and research to support basic SDWA public health objectives... will substantially hinder attainment of the SDWA quality and sound science requirements or will result in

missing statutory deadlines for priority rulemakings.

52

‘‘A comprehensive, targeted and fully funded research program on drinking

water health effects, exposure, treatment and analytic methods is essential to

the success of the new statutory framework and to achieving the full potential

of the SDWA reform.’’

The vast majority of EPA’s ongoing drinking water research is related to the M/

DBP cluster of regulations and arsenic. EPA has established innovative research

partnerships with the AWWA Research Foundation (AWWARF) and the Association

of California Water Agencies (ACWA) on these two issues. Much of the increases

for drinking water research in recent years has been to fund new research for the

M/DBP cluster of regulations and arsenic. However, the research may be too little

too late to be of use prior to the statutory deadlines for these regulations. Furthermore, there is concern that research to support other priority regulations such as

radon, other radionuclides, filter backwash and future contaminants will not be

done in time.

Developing a comprehensive drinking water research plan (besides the M/DBP

and arsenic plans) that is linked to key regulatory decision-making information

needs and the Congressionally imposed deadlines is essential. In February 1998,

EPA finalized the first Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) which contained 61 contaminants that could be considered for future regulations. Of those 61 contaminants,

only 20 have adequate information to move forward in the standard setting process.

The balance of the contaminants (including such important contaminant as MTBE

and acetochlor) need additional health effects, treatment, analytical methods, and

occurrence research. A comprehensive research plan for this large number of contaminants needs to be completed, peer-reviewed, adequately resourced and then implemented.

In general, accurate estimates of funding needs for drinking water research have

been unavailable. Recognizing this, the drinking water community, through the

AWWA Research Foundation and EPA recently cosponsored the Drinking Water Research Needs Expert Workshop to identify drinking water research needs and establish priorities to scientifically address research gaps. The major focus of the workshop was on contaminants on the current CCL. The specific goals of the workshop

were (1) to identify and prioritize drinking water research needs related to unregulated drinking water contaminants; (2) describe the proper sequencing for the studies; and (3) develop budget estimates for the studies to the extent possible. The results of the workshop are being compiled and we look forward to sharing them with

you as soon as possible. The results, when they are available, should provide better

insight into the drinking water research funding shortfall. However, this funding

shortfall does not begin to address the research needs to develop the next CCL and

to get ahead of the curve on emerging contaminants. This workshop process needs

to be formalized and extended to identifying research needs for the next CCL as

quickly as possible.

Increased funding for drinking water research will be needed to implement a comprehensive research plan. An estimated total of $150 million is needed just for full

execution of the M/DBP and arsenic research plans. The total funding need for a

comprehensive research plan has not been fully developed at this time. The accuracy

of EPA estimates that we used in testimony before this subcommittee in October

1998 to identify a drinking water research funding shortfall have been questioned.

Regardless, there are indications that a funding shortfall for drinking water research to support all future projected regulations will certainly begin in FY 2001

unless EPA recognizes the increased need for additional research funds in its budget

request and increased funding is appropriated. If EPA’s budget requests for FY 2001

and beyond are similar to recent requests, EPA will not have the needed resources

to implement a comprehensive research plan and fulfill Congress’s 1996 mandate

for science-based decision-making. We note that Congress has appropriated $2 million above the EPA request for drinking water research in the FY 2000 appropriations.

Congress and EPA need to break the cycle of the necessary research being behind

the regulatory development process. An integrated, comprehensive drinking water

research program is needed. Research schedules that meet regulatory needs must

be developed. A realistic research tracking system needs to be developed so that accountability can be built into the process. Sufficient resources must be provided to

assure adequate research or statutory deadlines must be adjusted accordingly. Sufficient appropriations, Congressional oversight and realistic statutory deadlines will

better enable EPA, the drinking water community and consumers to work together

to ensure that sound science yields the most appropriate regulations and practices

possible for the provisions of safe drinking water for all the people in America.

With regard to the recent US General Accounting Office (GAO) report on Drinking

Water Research (GAO/RCED-99-273), we thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling on

53

GAO to conduct an impartial study of drinking water research. We have only briefly

reviewed the report but it appears to parallel the concerns that we have raised in

this statement and with EPA for several years. We will review the report more

closely and would be happy to comment on it.

AWWA, AMWA and NAWC commend the subcommittee for holding this oversight

hearing on the important issue of drinking water research. Let me conclude by reaffirming our support for Congress’s good science mandate and our commitment to

help EPA determine its research needs. But once these needs are identified, it will

be up to EPA to request from Congress the necessary increase in funding. We ask

Congress to continue to satisfy the EPA request for drinking water research funds.

We believe that continued Congressional oversight and appropriations and implementing the recommendations in the GAO report will lead to improvements in the

drinking water research program to better meet the requirements of the 1996

SDWA amendments and benefit the American people.

SUMMARY

In conclusion, I want to highlight the main points of the testimony:

—AWWA, AMWA and NAWC believe that the EPA Office of Groundwater and

Drinking Water has made a good faith effort to implement the spirit and intent

of the 1996 SDWA Amendments.

—AWWA, AMWA and NAWC have a major concern that the EPA drinking water

research program is not funded at a level adequate to provide the good science

necessary to support new contaminant regulations.

—AWWA, AMWA and NAWC recommend that (1) EPA develop an integrated, comprehensive drinking water research plan; (2) include funding for the plan in its

annual budget request; and (3) that Congress fund the plan through appropriations.

This concludes our statement on drinking water research to support the implementation of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments. I would be pleased

to answer any questions or provide additional material for the committee.

Mr. DEAL. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Hall.

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN K. HALL

Mr. HALL. Thank you. And I thank the committee for inviting us

to testify. I first want to associate myself with the comments of Mr.

Sullivan because I concur in his remarks.

We are here today representing the public water systems in California. And like many across the country, we hailed the amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act that were passed in 1996 because we believed that they would give us a flexible regulatory regime, based on sound science, that would result in cost-effective

protection of public health through drinking water supplies, and

that they would improve the outreach conducted by EPA to the

stakeholder groups in planning and implementing those rules.

It is a little too soon to pass judgment on how it all is working.

But the 1996 amendments clearly have helped. They have provided

greater assistance to small communities which badly need financial

and technical assistance and resulted in better trained treatment

plan operators. And EPA has done a better job to reaching out to

all of the stakeholder groups.

However, on the flip side of that, EPA is still not spending adequate time or resources to develop sound science to support drinking water rules. Sound science that is vital to ensure that scarce

public dollars are used to maximum benefit to ensure public health.

The best examples of this situation, in our view, are in radon and

arsenic. On radon, Congress recognized that the potential cost of

compliance with radon regulations could be extremely high. So they

54

directed EPA to exercise flexibility that the law provided to set a

standard that could be complied with feasibly.

EPA has just released its proposed radon rule. It is a very low

standard which we believe is not supported by sound science. EPA

did not consider cost benefit relationships in setting this rule, and

they appear to be trying to regulate airborne radon through drinking water regulations. We don’t believe this is appropriate and

what Congress intended with the 1996 amendments.

We have similar concerns on arsenic which I think have been

adequately documented here today. Clearly the existing standard

for arsenic needs to be lower. And we have partnered with EPA

and with the AWWA Research Foundation to conduct the research

necessary to develop the sound science to support a lower but

science-based arsenic rule. Unfortunately, much of that research

will not be done before the rule is proposed.

We want to go, as public water providers, where the science leads

us. If it leads us to an extremely low number, if that is what is

needed to protect public health, we will support that. But we have

to let the science do its job, and it has to have the time necessary

to do it.

On the flip side of this, EPA appears to be, in the case of MTBE,

attempting to clean up our air but not paying quite enough attention to what MTBE is doing to our drinking water. In California,

literally thousands of wells have been contaminated with the

MTBE. EPA, in our view, has to act quickly to give the States flexibility to meet clean air standards without constituents that foul our

drinking water. That is where we are supporting H.R. 11 by Congressman Bilbray and the companion measure by Senator Diane

Feinstein that would give us that flexibility.

The bottom line from our stand point is that too often the cumulative effect of rules that have not been adequately coordinated by

EPA has huge financial impacts on drinking water providers without receiving a commensurate benefit on behalf of public health.

We appreciate the work Congress did in the 1996 amendments

to provide more cost effective rules to better protect public health.

And we look forward to working with Congress and EPA to refining

the way the law is administered to assure that what Congress has

directed is properly carried out.

Now, if I may, let me just address the request of Congressman

Bilbray with regard to the program in California on underground

tanks. It is particularly relevant on the MTBE issue. For several

years—with the Chair’s indulgence I will continue. For several

years, California has had one of the strongest underground tank

leakage detection and prevention programs in the country. This

year, based on the legislation that my organization sponsored,

those very strict standards were upgraded even further in large

part because of the concern about the presence of MTBE in groundwater. We have done everything we know how to do to adequately

protect groundwater from leaking tanks. In fact, in the Santa Clara

Bay Area of California, they had a very large percentage of compliance of the rules; and yet they were still finding MTBE in their

groundwater despite having virtual state-of-the-art leak detection

monitoring and enforcement programs.

55

In our view, we have gone to extraordinary lengths to protect

against leaking tanks, despite that we are finding MTBE in a

growing number of wells throughout California which is why my

testimony reflected our support for bills to give us the flexibility to

meet clean air standards without including MTBE in our gasoline.

Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Stephen K. Hall follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF STEPHEN K. HALL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ASSOCIATION OF

CALIFORNIA WATER AGENCIES

Mr. Chairman, members of subcommittee, my name is Steve Hall and I am the

Executive Director of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA). I am

testifying today to share with you the California water community’s perspective on

and some of its concerns with the implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act

Amendments of 1996 and the research performed to support that implementation.

ACWA represents more than 440 urban and agricultural water utilities throughout

the State of California, which deliver more than 90 percent of the water either supplied or distributed in California.

The water community generally hailed the passage of the Safe Drinking Water

Act Amendments of 1996 as a major improvement in the foundation for regulating

the nation’s drinking water. Water suppliers, including most of our members, felt

that at last we would have reasonable, flexible regulations, based on sound science

that would protect drinking water in a cost-effective manner. We were further encouraged because the amendments directed that the regulators improve their public

outreach program and that stakeholder participation be a significant part of the

rulemaking process.

Admittedly, it is still a bit soon to make a final judgement on how it is working

out. But we believe it is a good time for a progress report, and we are pleased to

have this opportunity to tell you of some things that we think are going well and

some things that, from our perspective, are not going well.

The protection of drinking water is enhanced by the State Revolving Fund in the

1996 Amendments, and EPA and the state have acted effectively to move these

funds into communities that need the help in improving their systems. In addition,

the Amendments provide for an operator certification program that will result in

better trained operators to help ensure better quality water.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the most part has been heroic in its public outreach and stakeholder participation efforts. There have been

more public meetings and stakeholder workshops and more consultation with

groups such as ours than ever before. The rule managers developing the new regulation for radon have particularly stood out in this regard. They have been willing to

speak with and before water supply groups and other interested groups as often as

they are asked. They have participated in teleconferences and have made one-onone phone calls when they needed a specific piece of information or clarification of

some point or perspective.

But not all the examples are so shining. There is a concern within the California

water community that a lack of sufficient resources for necessary research may result in EPA making regulatory decisions before receiving the benefit of sound

science. This is especially important because sound science can indicate whether

more or less scarce public resources are needed to achieve public health protections.

Furthermore, California’s water community is also concerned by a lack of organization and communication between the individual EPA rulemakers. For example, our

members who have groundwater facilities and are especially interested in the proposed radon rule have been deeply concerned and alarmed when different rule managers, working on separate rules that impact groundwater, schedule West Coast

workshops on the same day and at the same time 500 miles apart. We think it a

case of good intent but poor implementation resulting from a lack of coordination

among the rule managers. Concurrent rulemakings need to be coordinated and

maybe even consolidated so that such conflicts can be avoided and, perhaps even

more important, cumulative impacts of such rules can be appropriately considered.

There are two on-going drinking water rulemaking processes that we particularly

want to call to the Subcommittee’s attention and where improvement is needed—

those for radon and arsenic. We have conducted studies on both contaminants that

indicate each has the potential of costing the people of our state billions of dollars.

We have closely followed the processes involving these substances for most of this

decade.

56

RADON

One of the hallmarks of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, we

felt, was the direction given by Congress for regulating drinking water in radon. The

radon regulation is just at the proposal stage, but it has been in the works for years

and, for all practical purposes, is the first rule under the requirements enacted in

1996. For that reason, I would like to dwell on it a bit longer than I will other topics.

In developing the 1996 Amendments, Congress recognized that the major health

threat from radon is from inhalation of radon in the air and that water is a very

minor contributor to radon in the air (only 2% of radon in indoor air). We believe

that EPA has recognized that too, but water is where they had authority to regulate

radon. The 1996 Amendments dealt with all these concerns by authorizing an alternative radon regulation if a particularly low maximum contaminant level is set for

radon in drinking water. That alternative regulation could allow for water suppliers

to meet a much higher contaminant level if their state or, if their state choose not

to, the water suppliers themselves implement a multi-media mitigation program.

The 1996 Amendments also direct EPA to develop drinking water regulations on

sound, peer reviewed science and cost-benefit analyses.

While we have commended the radon rule managers for their public and stakeholder outreach, we are deeply concerned about the actual rule being proposed, and

we think Congress should be concerned too. Following are some of the problems we

have identified:

• Despite the fact that Congress provided EPA the flexibility to set a higher standard, the rule managers have advised us that an extremely low maximum contaminant level will be set for radon. We don’t think that was what Congress

intended. • EPA has failed to follow the intent of Congress in its cost-benefit considerations

in developing the rule. EPA has seriously underestimated the costs of the proposed rule, leaving out components of the costs that water suppliers would incur

and by not fully understanding the nature of groundwater facilities in the western United States. Despite that, in all the scenarios considered by EPA, costs

exceeded benefits. While we don’t understand the conclusion, we have been told

by the rule managers that this is precisely the reason they do not have to pay

much attention to those comparisons. We don’t think that was what Congress

intended. • The rule managers are not taking into consideration the potential for cross-media

contamination—something that the MTBE issue should have taught us to avoid.

The most likely treatment technology for radon will be air stripping. There will

be situations where the air stripping towers will be discharging radioactive

radon into the air in residential neighborhoods, which, in some areas, can worsen air problems. And it is in the air that radon is the greatest threat to health.

We don’t think that was what Congress intended. • EPA should implement a program that seeks to deal with the radon in air problem through programs to reduce radon in indoor air or mitigate in areas where

it is high. However, EPA has been very clear in numerous meetings and discussions in telling us that they will set a very low standard for radon in drinking

water so that states will feel compelled to implement air mitigation programs.

In effect, they want to force state drinking water regulators into air management and regulation because they apparently do not have authority to deal with

the air problem directly. Because it is drinking water suppliers that they regulate, state regulators will be forced to do it through and/or with drinking water

suppliers. We don’t think that is what Congress intended. • Our state’s drinking water regulators feel that the rule EPA has told everyone

they are proposing expects state air-management programs to go beyond what

is feasible and reasonable. A major concern is that the requirements will attempt to force changes in building codes and to impact the sale of homes and

other buildings which could have devastating effects on the value of people’s

homes without materially benefiting public health. We don’t think that is what

Congress intended. These requirements are sure to bring the opposition of the

building and real estate industries.

We hope that you and your colleagues will take a close look at EPA’s radon regulation proposal and that you will work with EPA, the water industry and other interests to develop corrections for these problems.

ARSENIC

We are equally concerned about the regulation of low levels of arsenic in drinking

water. EPA’s rule proposal is scheduled to come out in January, but we already

57

have had indications from EPA that a very low standard will be proposed. Congress

apparently recognized, as we did, that the regulation of arsenic could potentially be

very costly. Our studies have shown it will result in billions of dollars of costs for

water suppliers in California. We were pleased when Congress recognized that this

rule must be based on sound, peer reviewed science and that there are significant

gaps in the science. The 1996 Amendments directed EPA to develop an arsenic research plan. Our Association concurred with that need and commenced a major fund

raising effort to help fund arsenic health effects research. We raised $500,000 a year

from the water industry for three years. The American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF) matched that each year with additional funds raised

from the water industry. In addition, Congress appropriated federal dollars to match

the money raised by ACWA and AWWARF—in some years two-to-one. ACWA,

AWWARF and EPA then formed what is a historic partnership to get the most serious gaps in the science on arsenic health effects filled. The Arsenic Research partnership has funded several significant studies that are now underway. RFPs are out

now for several additional studies. All together, 11 research projects will be funded.

The water industry has appreciated the cooperation and participation of EPA. However, there are two problems:

1. It takes time to complete and peer review scientific research. None of this arsenic

research funded by industry and federal money will be completed in time to impact the arsenic rulemaking if the current EPA schedule is maintained.

2. Less than a fourth of the needed research is being done.

Those two factors make a discouraging point—the rule will be proposed, considered, adopted and implemented even though the science on which to base a rule is

woefully inadequate. Two or three years is needed in the rulemaking process to permit the research now underway or about to be started to be available to help mitigate this deficiency. A little more time and we can have more confidence in the rule

ultimately implemented—that it will provide the level of health protection needed

and assurance that our limited financial resources are not being wasted.

We hope Congress will concur with us in this need to make sure this potentially

very expensive regulation is based on sound science and will provide EPA with direction to incorporate the important science already being funded and the authority

to slow the process for that purpose.

STAGE 2 DISINFECTION/DISINFECTION BY-PRODUCTS RULE (D/DBP)

EPA is moving forward very quickly to develop the Stage 2 Disinfection/ Disinfection By-products Rule (D/DBP). Our members and our state’s drinking water regulators express concern that it is moving too quickly. We do not yet have adequate

experience from the Stage 1 Disinfection/Disinfection By-product Rule. Such experience will provide EPA with better science and real time data on which to base regulatory decisions for Stage 2. We feel that the process needs to slow down.

MTBE AND PERCHLORATE

It is generally recognized that MTBE poses a threat to drinking water and most

of us believe that it does not make sense to deal with air issues by creating water

problems. We believe EPA should have acted promptly, as did California, to implement a plan to resolve this problem. If EPA indeed lacks the authority, as some believe, than we hope Congress will give EPA the ability to implement other methods

to meet clean air requirements as quickly as feasible so that we can get this problem behind us. That is why ACWA supports Representative Brian Bilbray’s legislation, H.R. 11. We believe that it is time to act before California loses more wells

and more sources of drinking water.

Perchlorate is another contaminant that is cropping up in California and other

locations. We need the help of EPA and other federal agencies to better understand

this contaminant and how to deal with it. It is imperative that we do not wait to

act until sources of drinking water are lost. We need federal agencies to take swift

action to control and eliminate sources of perchlorate contamination in order to protect drinking water, or require private responsible parties to do so. We appreciate

the fact that Congress has appropriated funding for perchlorate research. We also

want to take this opportunity to recognize our member, East Valley Water District

in San Bernardino, California, for its leadership role in advancing efforts to find solutions for the perchlorate problem, including the treatment research that will provide better information and help lead to solutions.

58

MULTI-MEDIA IMPACTS

Earlier I alluded to the problem of cumulative impacts of multiple rulemakings.

It is a problem that is not well understood and does not receive the attention it deserves from regulators. A good example is that EPA over the past year has been

developing three rules that each will significantly impact groundwater resources—

the arsenic, radon and groundwater rules. As near as we can tell, there is no coordination within EPA in the processes involved, and the rule managers apparently

have little communication with each other—as was plainly shown when a groundwater stakeholders meeting was held in Portland, Oregon, at the very same time

that an arsenic stakeholders meeting was being held in Monterey, California. There

has been no cumulative cost-benefit analysis. The cumulative cost impact is likely

to be huge, and the strain on California integrated water management plans could

be significant and result in increased reliance on limited surface water supplies. We

recognize that little guidance is provided to EPA in the Safe Drinking Water Act

on this point, and that may be something Congress could correct.

We have focused in these comments on a few areas that cause us significant concern. We don’t mean to imply that all is bad. On the contrary, the 1996 Amendments strengthened the Safe Drinking Water Act and provided a good framework

for regulating drinking water. It established that drinking water regulations should

(1) protect public health, (2) be cost effective (3) be based on sound, peer reviewed

science; and (4) involve stakeholders and the public in the rulemaking process. Our

intent is to show that there are some areas where the Act needs to be fine tuned

to provide additional guidance to EPA and the regulatory approach of the 1996

Amendments.

The Association of California Water Agencies appreciates the opportunity we have

had today to share our observations and concerns with the Subcommittee. We look

forward to working with the Subcommittee, EPA and others so that we can continue

to improve the regulation of drinking water in this country. I would be pleased to

answer any questions.

Mr. DEAL. I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Olson.

STATEMENT OF ERIK D. OLSON

Mr. OLSON. Thank you. My name is Erik Olson. I am a senior

attorney at the Natural Resources Defense Council, and we appreciate the opportunity to testify today. We believe that there have

been huge improvements in public health as a result of the improvements in drinking water treatment in the 20th century. And

under the 1974 act, we have seen major improvements. But, unfortunately, what we have now is aging and outdated infrastructure.

Much of that infrastructure is going to be needed to be modernized.

For the sake of comparison, about $138 billion according to EPA is

going to have to be spent to modernize the current infrastructure.

That is billion dollars, not million. If you compared that to traditional business practices of investing say 10 or 20 percent of your

expenses in research and development, we would be spending

somewhere in the neighborhood of $13 to $20, $25 billion a year—

billion dollars on research in order to support that kind of investment. Our concern is that there is inadequate investment in doing

the research that is necessary to support the modernization and to

guide modernization that is going to be necessary over the next 20

years.

Let’s look at the GAO report. GAO really was forced to compare

authorized levels to what is actually being requested by the administration and didn’t really look at what has been appropriated, but

it is clear there are short falls in the research effort. Clearly the

administration has to support the budget that they have put forward, and we are not going to hear them admitting that there are

major shortfalls, but we believe there are. Part of the real problem

59

here is earmarking, in part, we think. The more earmarking that

exists, the more difficult it is for the agency to dedicate its funding

to the highest possible priorities.

Health effects research—there are many areas that clearly are

suffering from a lack of adequate funding, and we think that those

problems will be exacerbated. As we see the contaminant candidate

list move forward, there is a need for more stable long-term funding in this area.

One issue that I wanted to raise to the committee’s attention is

this committee worked very hard in the 1996 amendments to put

a provision in the act that set aside a dedicated $10 million per

year coming out of the State revolving fund to support health effects research. As a result of actions by the Appropriations Committee basically reversing that a court decision was handed down

and that set-aside no longer exists is the essence. That was one

area that would have assured some stable funding for research.

Unfortunately, it no longer exists. We believe that it is absolutely

critical to have a stable long-term set of research dollars that are

available so that EPA can plan, over the long term, what research

is necessary.

We think two things are necessary to make that happen. First

of all, there needs to be an open public research planning approach

unlike what we have now. We have had it for the disinfection byproducts area which was very successful, we believe, in having public disclosure of what EPA’s research agenda was and public discussion of it. We would like to see that expanded to the entire program.

Second, we think there is a need for dedicated trust fund to be

paid for by a water fee that would pay for drinking water research

in high priority public health measures. This has been discussed

among many of the industry in States and in the public interest

community. I would say that there are many industries that are

supportive of it. They may not have the majority in industry on

board yet, but clearly it is an idea whose time has come, we believe, to make sure that we have stable funding that isn’t constantly being buffeted by the changing winds of annual appropriations bills.

We also believe that there is a clear need for research on some

areas that EPA often doesn’t consider to be part of its research

budget. For example, how are we going to make source water protection more effective? How are we going to upgrade our—the

public’s knowledge and make more effective public right to know so

that we can understand the multi-billion dollar task that is in front

of us to upgrade our treatment? How are we going to make sure

there small systems will come into compliance?

I wanted to mention—attached to our testimony is some recent

evidence of compliance problems across the country with drinking

water regulations. One question is why is that continuing to occur?

We believe that there needs to be better data tracking and more

investment in upgrading EPA and State data systems. In conclusion, we believe that overall, the agency is making some progress,

should be taking advantage of some of the other agencies that are

making strides in developing research agendas including NIH,

60

CDC, and other agencies to make sure that we have an integrated

Federal program to look at drinking water research. Thank you.

[The prepared statement of Erik D. Olson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ERIK D. OLSON, SENIOR ATTORNEY, NATURAL RESOURCES

DEFENSE COUNCIL

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 important

issue of drinking water research.

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. EPA estimates that the costs of modernization will exceed $138 billion dollars, while NRDC (and many in states and the water industry) believe the true costs

of this massive upgrade will be many times that estimate. Most of these costs will

be incurred with or without new EPA regulations. Major new research initiatives

are necessary, to support and guide this modernization.

The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (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

areas of concern, however, in the implementation of the research-related provisions

of the new Act:

• Inadequate EPA Resources for Drinking Water Research. The General Accounting Office has documented enormous shortfalls in EPA’s research budget.

We agree with GAO’s findings that EPA has failed to request, and Congress has

failed to appropriate, adequate funds for research. There was about a $25 million shortfall in FY 1998, and a $14 million shortfall in FY 2000, for example.

We are concerned that some standards may not be set as strictly as necessary

to protect the public, and that some dangerous contaminants may not be regulated, if the important research is not done.

• Health Effects Research Needed. EPA must immediately fund certain highpriority joint research with CDC and ATSDR on disinfection byproducts’ reproductive effects, though NRDC and many experts conclude that existing data on

these effects are sufficient to warrant expeditious public health prevention

measures. EPA also needs additional resources to address emerging chemical

and microbial contaminants on the contaminant candidate list, as noted by

GAO. In addition, the required vulnerable subpopulation research has seriously

lagged: EPA must open up the process for planning this work and make it a

priority.

• Health Effects Research: Guarantee of Long-Term Funding is Urgently

Needed. Resources for health effects research must be guaranteed over the long

haul. EPA and researchers need to be assured that funding will be available

for the multi-year research necessary, to fully evaluate the potential adverse effects of known and emerging tap water contaminants. Typically, toxicological or

epidemiological studies require a minimum of three to five years from inception

to completion. Assurance of funding for the full term of the research is needed

to enable EPA and researchers to set priorities, plan, and complete this research.

• 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 § 1453(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

61

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. • 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. • 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 require reports to be issued

to consumers by October 19, 1999 (yesterday) are a major step forward, but it

is critical 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.

• Research on How to Fix 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 are

crucial to assist EPA, states, and the public to address these issues. Compliance

problems and data collection and management failures have recently been

catalogued in the attached USA Today series published in October, 1998, in a

recent EPA audit discussed in the attached front page USA Today article, and

in EPA’s own 1998 Annual Compliance Report. 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.

• 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

62

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.

In conclusion, NRDC strongly believes that a vigorous and well-funded EPA research 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 research is done.

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

79

Mr. DEAL. Thank you, Mr. Olson.

We will now turn to the members for their questions and comments.

Mr. Bilbray.

I believe Mr. Ganske is next.

Mr. GANSKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Should the EPA ban

MTBE or make a recommendation that it not be allowed nationwide? Mr. Sullivan?

Mr. SULLIVAN. I believe our association and I will have to speak

only for the American Water Works Association on that, said that

MTBE should be phased out. We supported the recommendation

that was put forward by the group.

Mr. GANSKE. Over what period of time? Did you have a timeframe.

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, I did not.

Mr. GANSKE. Do you have any recommendations on that.

Mr. SULLIVAN. I think what we have to do is finalize the research

and find out exactly what are we going to use for a substitute.

Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Hall.

Mr. HALL. In California, the legislation that I referred to in the

Governor’s executive order calls for a phaseout of MTBE in California by 2002. That was based upon the ability of California to either develop clean burning fuels without oxygenate or replace

MTBE with another oxygenate in a way that would not drive up

the price of fuel to an unacceptable level.

Our organization would support a nationwide phaseout based—

and the same sort of criteria that be replaced as soon as possible

without putting consumers in a position of having to pay substantially more for their gasoline.

Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Olson.

Mr. OLSON. We had a scientist that sat on the blue ribbon panel

reviewing the MTBE situation. And we, I believe, supported the results of that blue ribbon recommendation. Obviously it is a very

touchy issue because it is a tradeoff between air pollution and

drinking water pollution, but we think there are opportunities to

gradually phaseout MTBE.

Mr. GANSKE. Maybe you gentlemen who are experts on MTBE

can help educate us. I mean, I think I have read that the MTBE

can stick around in the water for really a long period of time. Mr.

Sullivan, do you have data on how long we are looking at?

Mr. SULLIVAN. No, I don’t have any data available, however it is

very persistent. It will stick around, as you say.

Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Hall is there a process to clean it to get it out

of the water?

Mr. HALL. There are processes being developed. Unfortunately,

none of them are totally effective; and they look very expensive.

And we also had a member on that blue ribbon panel and likewise

support the recommendations of the panel. And they addressed

such things as the kinds of questions you are asking which led to

their set of recommendations.

Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Olson, MTBE, I think, is known to have some

potentially pretty bad effects. Can you give us a short summary of

what the concerns are with MTBE?

80

Mr. OLSON. I am afraid I am not a toxicologist so I would be

happy to supply for the record some of the evidence, and I can confer with our scientist who is on top of that.

Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Hall, I think you have been really involved in

this issue. What are the concerns?

Mr. HALL. First, of course, is the public acceptance of their drinking water supply. People can taste and smell MTBE at extremely

low levels, just a few parts per billion. It tastes and smells like turpentine. Irrespective of any actual health effects it creates a crisis

of confidence among the public in their drinking water if their

water tastes and smells like turpentine.

It is a suspected carcinogen, not a known carcinogen. I am reluctant to go beyond that in describing health effects because I am not

a toxicologist either. However, the University of California has

done extensive research on MTBE, both the health effects and its

persistence and its ability to get into groundwater above and beyond other gasoline-based constituents. I would be happy to provide

the committee with any information that it would like based on the

University of California research.

Mr. GANSKE. Is the problem with MTBE in comparison to say

gasoline that it is so water soluble?

Mr. HALL. Apparently the compound unlike other compounds in

gasoline prefers water over soil. The molecules binds more quickly

to water than to soil, and that is not true of the other compounds

in gasoline.

Mr. GANSKE. I thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DEAL. Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sullivan, talk to us

about the specific earmarks since 1996 that the Appropriations

Committee has put in for your earmarks for the research budget.

What is your assessment of what that does overall to sort of the

strategy on the ORD and Office of Water Research Plans and

Budgets?

Mr. SULLIVAN. The only earmarks that I am familiar with are

the earmarks that go to the American Water Works Association Research Foundation. Those are usually worked in conjunction for

issues that are worked in conjunction with EPA. And I am unaware that they really present any particular problem associated

with drinking water research since the research foundation does

dedicate all of their research to drinking water.

Mr. BROWN. Well, the panelists earlier suggested, and I think

you were here, suggested that that causes them, in some cases, to

put priorities that they have established aside in order to carry out

the, you know, the will of the appropriators, I mean, and ultimately

the will of the Congress. Do you agree with that assessment or no?

Mr. SULLIVAN. I heard the comment. I am not sure I have

enough information to really evaluate it. I also heard the comment

that the drinking water budget is some 7 percent of the overall

budget.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Olson, you want to comment on that too.

Mr. OLSON. Yes. It is our understanding that there is over $7

million in earmarks just in the drinking water arena. I don’t believe all of that is going to water by any stretch of the imagination.

81

The other problem, I would agree just allocation in the Office of

Research and Development for drinking water traditionally, even

though it has gone up slightly or even doubled, still is very low by

comparison to the amount of risk that we believe is associated with

drinking water as compared to some of the other risks. So it is kind

of a zero sum game because you are trading things off. So we believe that, overall, the ORD budget needs to be going up and the

drinking water budget needs to accelerate.

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Olson, you talked about a water fee trust fund.

You said it is an idea whose time has come. Do you see any activity

in this body, any real interest in that? How—more importantly,

how would you structure it? How would you assess it? How much?

Who administers it? Talk that through briefly if you would.

Mr. OLSON. The idea has been kicked around as part of the—

there is a 25th anniversary of the Safe Drinking Water Act this

year, and there is a process of stakeholder discussion with the industry and environmentalists and others in which this idea has

been determined. I believe there is a paper that is being drafted,

I don’t know, Jack, if you know when it is coming out, but I don’t

believe it has been presented to the Hill yet really as part of the

legislative package. And those details would be worked out.

We think, however, that the hearing today and a lot of other previous hearings have suggested that it just isn’t a healthy atmosphere for the agency to plan long-term research if it can’t assure

that—although it has money this year, that it will have money 2

years from now. Many of these studies take 3 to 5 years, and a lot

of researchers frankly don’t want to dedicate their lab or efforts to

doing long-term research if they can only be told that they will get

money this year and they are not assured that they will get it

years 2 through 5.

So that is why we think that that kind of trust fund will absolutely be critical to making sure that the long-term research that

we all think is necessary will be funded.

Mr. BROWN. Do you have evidence that some of those researchers—did researchers make decisions not to pursue a contract or not

to do work because they think just aren’t certain of any long-term

efforts from—long-term commitment from us and long-term commitment from EPA?

Mr. OLSON. Let me give you an example: The 1994 agreement of

all the parties including EPA on disinfection by-products said the

top priority research project should be to look at short-term birth

defects and short-term effects of these by-products.

Everybody agreed that was the top priority. Most of those studies

never got started because there weren’t commitments of long-term

funding for them. Frankly, I think the big study that Dr. Noonan

referred to which is going to cost $3 to $4 million really only got

started about a year ago. The funding for it. And it is our belief

that that was largely because there was not a long-term funding

commitment.

Mr. DEAL. I have to interrupt here because we do have a vote.

We are going to try to finish. Mr. Lazio.

Mr. LAZIO. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow up on

that line of questioning. I knew you were in the room, Mr. Olson,

when I was positing some of those points earlier.

82

I wonder if you could flesh out a little bit more—I know NRDC

and other organizations have been very focused on these subpopulations that are particularly vulnerable, pregnant women, children, people with compromised immune systems. And you have

been testifying now to the fact that you think that the long-term

commitment of funding has undermined the ability of EPA to do

the studies, the epidemiological studies and others that would help

us create a policy that is most beneficial.

Is that the only reason that you see? Do you think that EPA

could have been engaged earlier in this, should they have been engaged earlier in this? Are there bureaucratic reasons why they

were not focused on these studies earlier?

Mr. OLSON. I think it is, in part, just a lack of commitment to

make that the highest priority. Just a bureaucratic lack of that

commitment. There are always trading off priorities. But the 1996

amendments, as I think you referred to specifically, said this was

supposed to be a priority. And it really wasn’t until about 2 years

after the act passed that the agency really made the firm commitment to funding those studies. And at that point, there are several

outside parties including the California Department of Health

Services that had made that long-term commitment that is the reason those studies got done. And the public health service did a

study in New Jersey on birth defects and these by-products. But

the vast majority of the funding from those was not coming from

EPA.

Mr. LAZIO. I know time is running out. We have a vote on the

floor. I want to ask the chairman if we can communicate and

maybe the ranking member, if we can communicate the need for

the EPA to heed the direction of the 1996 act in terms of some of

these subpopulations. I think it is critical.

Mr. DEAL. We will. I will remind the panel we may submit to you

written questions and inquiries as follow-up to this. We do have a

series of votes.

Rather than prolong it and ask you stay for that prolonged series

of votes, I believe this will conclude the questioning from the panel.

We thank all of you, both panels for being here today.

The committee is adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:30 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]

83

84

85

86

87

88