U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2104 Mail: Stop IDCC, Washington, DC 20402–0001

76–580 2012

H.R. lll, ASSISTANCE, QUALITY, AND 

AFFORDABILITY ACT OF 2010 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

MAY 13, 2010 

Serial No. 111–125 

( 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 

energycommerce.house.gov 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

Chairman Emeritus 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

Vice Chairman 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

TOM ALLEN, Maine 

JANICE D. SCHAKOWSKY, Illinois 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

BARON P. HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

DONNA M. CHRISTENSEN, Virgin Islands 

KATHY CASTOR, Florida 

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland 

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut 

ZACHARY T. SPACE, Ohio 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

BETTY SUTTON, Ohio 

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

Ranking Member 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO MACK, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

MIKE ROGERS, Michigan 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

TIM MURPHY, Pennsylvania 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 

MARSHA BLACKBURN, Tennessee 

PHIL GINGREY, Georgia 

STEVE SCALISE, Louisiana 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(III) 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts, Chairman 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JAY INSLEE, Washington 

G.K. BUTTERFIELD, North Carolina 

CHARLIE MELANCON, Louisiana 

BARON HILL, Indiana 

DORIS O. MATSUI, California 

JERRY MCNERNEY, California 

PETER WELCH, Vermont 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

FRANK PALLONE, JR., New Jersey 

ELIOT ENGEL, New York 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

CHARLES A. GONZALEZ, Texas 

TAMMY BALDWIN, Wisconsin 

MIKE ROSS, Arkansas 

JIM MATHESON, Utah 

JOHN BARROW, Georgia 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

SUE WILKINS MYRICK, North Carolina 

JOHN SULLIVAN, Oklahoma 

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(V) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

Hon. Edward J. Markey, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth of Massachussetts, opening statement ................................................... 1 

Hon. Fred Upton, a Representative in Congress from the State of Michigan, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Hon. Lois Capps, a Representative in Congress from the State of California, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 3 

Hon. Joseph R. Pitts, a Representative in Congress from the Commonwealth 

of Pennsylvania, opening statement ................................................................... 4 

Hon. Tammy Baldwin, a Representative in Congress from the State of Wisconsin, opening statement ................................................................................... 5 

Hon. Steve Scalise, a Representative in Congress from the State of Louisiana, 

opening statement ................................................................................................ 6 

Hon. Henry A. Waxman, a Representative in Congress from the State of 

California, prepared statement ........................................................................... 81 

Hon. G.K. Butterfield, a Representative in Congress from the State of North 

Carolina, prepared statement ............................................................................. 86 

Hon. Jim Matheson, a Representative in Congress from the State of Utah, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 89 

Hon. Bobby L. Rush, a Representative in Congress from the State of Illinois, 

prepared statement .............................................................................................. 91 

WITNESSES

Cynthia Dougherty, Director, Office of Water, United States Environmental 

Protection Agency ................................................................................................. 7 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 9 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 108 

Roger Crouse, Director, Drinking Water Program, Maine Department of 

Health and Human Services ............................................................................... 15 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 17 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 122 

Stephen Estes-Smargiassi, Director of Planning, Massachusetts Water Resources Authority ................................................................................................. 29 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 31 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 125 

Sarah Janssen, Staff Scientist, Natural Resources Defense Council .................. 38 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 41 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 126 

Steve Levy, Executive Director, Maine Rural Water Association ....................... 21 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 23 

Terry Quill, Quill Law Group, LLC ....................................................................... 51 

Prepared statement .......................................................................................... 54 

Answers to submitted questions ...................................................................... 134 

SUBMITTED MATERIAL

Statement of Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies .................................. 96 

Statement of American Society of Civil Engineers ............................................... 98 

Statement of American Water Works Association ................................................ 104 

Statement of Food & Water Watch ........................................................................ 106 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
(1) 

H.R. ————, ASSISTANCE, QUALITY, AND 

AFFORDABILITY ACT OF 2010 

THURSDAY, MAY 13, 2010 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT, 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 9:35 a.m., in Room 

2322, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Edward J. Markey 

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Markey, Inslee, Butterfield, Capps, 

Baldwin, Barrow, Waxman, Upton, Shimkus, Shadegg, Pitts, Burgess, Scalise, Griffith, and Barton. 

Staff Present: Greg Dotson, Chief Counsel, Environment and Energy Subcommittee; Tracy Sheppard, Senior Environmental Counsel; Peter Ketcham-Colwill, Special Assistant; Jacqueline Cohen, 

Counsel; Melissa Cheatham, Professional Staff; Caitlin Haberman, 

Special Assistant; Mitchell Smiley, Special Assistant; Lindsay 

Vidal, Press Assistant; Jerry Couri, Minority Professional Staff; 

and Garrett Golding, Minority Legislative Analyst. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. EDWARD J. MARKEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF MASSACHUSETTS 

Mr. MARKEY. Good morning. Welcome to the Subcommittee on 

Energy and Environment. 

We have a very important hearing today. Because when people 

turn on their bathroom or kitchen faucets, they often take for 

granted that an abundant supply of clean water flows freely into 

their taps. It is only when the water stops flowing due to a catastrophic failure that attention is given to the complexities of providing clean, safe drinking water. 

A prime example of such a catastrophic failure occurred just over 

a week ago in Massachusetts when a breach in a 7-year-old pipe 

caused a water supply emergency that affected over 2 million residents of Boston and its surrounding areas, including a large portion of my congressional district. A boil water advisory lasted for 

several days. People swarmed the Stop and Shop and other grocery 

stores to stock up on bottled water. Restaurants and diners had to 

close because they had no water to serve or to wash dishes with. 

And people had to go through Monday without their morning cup 

of Dunkin’ Donuts coffee, which resulted in a near riot at the 

Dunkin’ Donuts across from my district office in Medford Square. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
2 

In the Boston papers, the entire incident became known as 

‘‘Aquapocalypse’’. 

Although the MWRA, the agency in charge of this water project, 

could not have anticipated this incident because the pipe that 

broke was so new, public attention immediately turned to the need 

for increased Federal funding for infrastructure projects that ensure a safe drinking water supply for years to come; and the 

MWRA did an excellent job in restoring service in a very short period of time. 

The reality is that the country’s drinking water infrastructure is 

aging rapidly. EPA estimates that over the next 20 years water 

systems will need to invest nearly $335 billion on infrastructure 

improvements to ensure safe water to our Nation. Water systems 

simply can’t afford to do this on their own, and people who are already struggling to pay their water bills can’t absorb their cost either. We cannot turn off the flow of Federal funding for this essential infrastructure at a time when our water systems need it most. 

The Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act that Chairman 

Waxman and I introduced will reauthorize the Safe Drinking 

Water Act State Revolving Fund for the first time since its creation 

in 1996 and will make a number of changes to invest in our future. 

The bill increases water project funding from $1.5 billion in 2011 

to $6 billion in 2015. This will mean that more drinking water 

projects can be completed and that more jobs are created for people 

who need them. A December, 2008, report from the U.S. Conference of Mayors estimated that every million dollars of drinking 

water and wastewater infrastructure investment directly creates 

8.7 jobs. Over the next 5 years, our legislation would therefore lead 

to more than 100,000 more jobs. 

We have also included a new emphasis on cutting-edge projects 

to allow funding priority to be granted for projects that will make 

drinking water safe and affordable for years to come. We will also 

encourage projects that increase water and energy efficiency and 

projects that anticipate future problems and propose repairs before 

a crisis occurs. 

We have ensured that we are directing resources to those who 

need it most so that water systems serving communities that can’t 

afford to pay for the upgrades necessary to comply with Safe 

Drinking Water Act standards are given what they need to do. 

We have also included a change in drinking water enforcement 

requirements that will ensure that systems that have violated 

drinking water standards in the past are inspected to ensure they 

stay compliant. 

I would like to thank Congressman Bobby Rush for his work in 

this area following a truly horrific case in the village of Crestwood, 

Illinois, in which people were literally and knowingly poisoned by 

the water they were drinking for decades. 

And, finally, this bill also includes my language to strengthen 

EPA’s Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Endocrine disrupting chemicals are like computer viruses that over time can severely disrupt our body’s operating system, and it is vital that EPA 

have a more robust and transparent program that screens drinking 

water contaminants to identify the chemicals that pose such concerns. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
3 

So I thank all of the witnesses for being here today. 

Let me turn now and recognize the ranking member of the subcommittee, the gentleman from Michigan, Mr. Upton. 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I ask unanimous consent that all members put in their opening 

statements as part of the record. 

Mr. MARKEY. Without objection, so ordered. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRED UPTON, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF MICHIGAN 

Mr. UPTON. Thank you for calling this hearing today. 

Certainly, access to clean and safe drinking water is one of the 

most basic environmental issues. Changes in the Safe Drinking 

Water Act funding allocations and uses must be measured not just 

to what our suggested needs are but also what we as Americans 

can afford. We need to focus our attention on those items that help 

drinking water systems address immediate threats, comply with 

the law, and avoid the unfunded mandate issue that bedeviled 

States and municipalities and drove changes to the Safe Drinking 

Water Act back in 1996. 

In looking at the proposed reforms, we should be particularly 

sensitive to the rate base of various communities, particularly rural 

communities and their ability to afford the mandates required of 

the Act. We need to make sure evaluations of cost for feasible 

treatment, technologies, and techniques are appropriate and meaningful when drinking water contaminant regulations are issued. 

At a time when increasing debt is a major national and global 

issue, we need to be very careful about overspending and overexpanding eligible uses of the Drinking Water State Fund. The legislation in front of us authorizes nearly $15 billion over the next 

5 years. This amount for only 5 years represents the entire amount 

appropriated for Congress for the Drinking Water State Revolving 

Fund over the last 14 years. 

Finally, we need to understand what the new Endocrine 

Disruptor provisions in section 16 mean for EPA’s existing programs. Program changes should be focused based on good science 

and complement the ongoing public and private investments in 

that effort. 

I yield back my time. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time is expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. LOIS CAPPS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I poured this glass of water, and I am assuming everything is 

safe to drink. It is an essential resource that we take for granted. 

When Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water Act, the EPA 

gained the authority to regulate chemicals in our drinking water. 

But even with that authority there is troubling evidence that 

chemicals and other substances are polluting the Nation’s water 

supply. Right now, there are more than 140 chemicals in our drinking water that EPA does not regulate. These pollutants include 

gasoline additives, pesticides, and even rocket fuel. They have provVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:25 Feb 02, 2013 Jkt 076580 PO 00000 Frm 00009 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 E:\HR\OC\A580.XXX A580

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
4 

en negative effects on people’s health, indeed, some can even cause 

cancer; and we know that infants and pregnant women are especially vulnerable to their toxic effects. 

Treating these and other emerging pollutants in our drinking 

water is extremely costly. The best way to keep them out of the 

water is to prevent them from getting there in the first place; and 

that is why I am pleased, Mr. Chairman, that you have convened 

this morning’s hearing on the Assistance, Quality, and Affordability 

Act, AQUA. 

As others have stated, our drinking water infrastructure is aging 

and in desperate need of upgrading. Unfortunately, it may take 

some serious money to do that. As you mentioned, Mr. Chairman, 

in 2007, EPA estimated $335 billion needed over 20 years to protect public health and ensure compliance with the law. 

AQUA would authorize a much-needed increase in funding for 

the Drinking Water SRF. AQUA also provides incentives for public 

drinking water systems to ensure that they can better provide safe 

and affordable drinking water to their customers well into the future. 

Greater weight is given to applications for funding that include, 

for example, measures to improve a system’s energy and water efficiency or reduce its environmental impact. These are the types of 

projects that many water systems are already investing in as they 

prepare for the impacts of climate change. 

I know there are many more topics that we could bring up in my 

opening statement, and I am looking forward to hear our witnesses 

talking about this in greater detail. 

The legislation before us begins to make the steps and changes 

that we need to do, giving EPA the tools needed to protect our children and our communities across the country from dangerous 

water contamination. So I thank you, Mr. Chairman, for convening 

this hearing. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses, and I 

yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlewoman. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Mr. 

Pitts. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOSEPH R. PITTS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE COMMONWEALTH 

OF PENNSYLVANIA 

Mr. PITTS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for convening 

this hearing today on legislation to amend the Safe Drinking Water 

Act. 

Like all of us, I believe it is essential to assure the quality of our 

public water supplies. Here in the United States, public water systems must meet extensive regulations, and water utility management has become a much more complex and professional endeavor. 

In 2007, the number of community water systems reporting no violations of drinking water standards was 89.5 percent, yet some 

issues and challenges remain despite this progress. It is imperative 

that we focus our attention on matters that help drinking water 

systems address immediate threats and comply with the law. 

As we consider this bill before us, we need to be sensitive to the 

rate bases of various communities and their ability to afford the 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
5 

mandates required in the legislation. We also need to make sure 

evaluations of cost for treatment, technologies, and techniques are 

appropriate and meaningful when drinking water contaminant regulations are issued. 

Finally, we need to be extremely careful about spending and expanding eligible uses of the Drinking Water State Fund. The proposed authorization of $14.7 billion over the next 5 years is the entire amount appropriated by Congress for the Drinking Water 

State Loan Fund over the last 14 years. 

I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today, and I yield 

back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Georgia. 

Mr. BARROW. I thank the gentleman. I waive an opening. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman waives his time for an opening 

statement. 

The chair recognizes the gentlelady from Wisconsin, Ms. Baldwin. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TAMMY BALDWIN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF WISCONSIN 

Ms. BALDWIN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate your work 

on this very important piece of legislation. 

The Safe Drinking Water Act is a critical measure that helps to 

ensure the quality of Americans’ drinking water. Our Nation’s 

water system serves over 272 million people; and, as such, maintaining drinking water infrastructure, improving the sustainability 

and long-term viability of water systems, and enforcing drinking 

water violations are of utmost importance. 

Among the concerns I have as we ensure a safe water supply is 

the presence of prescription drugs and other personal care product 

residues in our water supply. In 2008, the Associated Press in a 

study found pharmaceuticals in the drinking water supplies that 

serve approximately 46 million Americans. A vast array of pharmaceuticals, including antibiotics, mood stabilizers, and hormones 

were found in this examination. In my district, in particular in 

Dane County, Wisconsin, traces of acetaminophen and hormones 

have been found in some of the water systems. I am concerned that 

this problem will only increase as prescription drugs are used more 

frequently in American society. 

While the concentrations of these pharmaceutical products are 

reportedly quite tiny, little is known about the effect these drugs 

and other personal care product residues have on health and the 

environment. The Federal Government currently does not require 

any testing and has not set safety limits for prescription drugs and 

personal care product residues in water. Much research still needs 

to be done to identify the sources of these elements so that we can 

effectively limit and prevent their presence. This bill provides an 

opportunity for us to investigate this further. 

I look forward to hearing from our panel today and their 

thoughts on how we can address prescription drugs in our water 

through this AQUA bill. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to this hearing. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
6 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentlelady’s time has expired. 

The chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. Scalise. 

OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. STEVE SCALISE, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the Safe Drinking Water Act. Obviously, a clean 

water supply that is both safe and affordable is critical to the public health of our Nation, and I look forward to working with this 

committee as we work to ensure the integrity of our drinking water 

supply. 

I do have concerns with the proposed legislation as it stands 

today, however. Particularly, it is important that we make sure 

that any legislation that we pass is both workable and avoids creating duplication of existing efforts. I look forward to working with 

the chairman as we continue to discuss the issues of this bill. 

Also, as our unemployment rate hovers near 10 percent, I would 

like to encourage the Democrats who are running Congress to focus 

on finding ways to improve the job outlook in the private sector. 

While government seems to be the only part of our economy that 

is growing and more Federal spending continues to reign the day 

and we see continued growth in the size of the Federal Government, families and small businesses in our districts are cutting 

back. So, as Congress refuses to pass any kind of budget, American 

families are having to tighten their belts and make tough decisions 

on how to keep their household budgets fiscally responsible and 

manageable. 

So I would hope as we talk about this legislation and other areas 

where government spending seems to be increasing we need to 

make sure that we are not duplicating efforts and not doing things 

that are going to hurt families out there even more than they are 

already hurting. We need to focus on creating jobs. 

Thank you, and I yield back. 

Mr. MARKEY. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

We move to our first witness. Cynthia Dougherty serves as the 

Director of the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Ground 

Water and Drinking Water. As Director, Ms. Dougherty oversees 

the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, which provides drinking 

water systems with funds to finance infrastructure improvements 

that protect human health and ensure the safety of our drinking 

water. 

We welcome you, Ms. Dougherty. Whenever you are ready, please 

begin. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
7 

STATEMENTS OF CYNTHIA DOUGHERTY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE 

OF WATER, UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY; ROGER CROUSE, DIRECTOR, DRINKING WATER 

PROGRAM, MAINE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN 

SERVICES; STEPHEN ESTES-SMARGIASSI, DIRECTOR OF 

PLANNING, MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY; SARAH JANSSEN, STAFF SCIENTIST, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL; STEVE LEVY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MAINE RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION; AND TERRY 

QUILL, QUILL LAW GROUP, LLC 

STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA DOUGHERTY 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. Thank you, Chairman Markey, Congressman 

Scalise, and members of the committee. As you said, I am Cynthia 

Dougherty, the Director of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water at the U.S. EPA. Thank you for inviting me to testify 

today. 

Administrator Jackson has expressed her commitment for ensuring the safety of our drinking water as a fundamental element of 

EPA’s overall mission. Strong and reliable drinking water infrastructure is an essential component of public health protection. 

For more than a decade, the Drinking Water State Revolving 

Fund has supported investment, upgrade, and improvement to 

maintain the Nation’s drinking water infrastructure by offering 

public water systems, including small systems, access to financing 

for infrastructure improvements. 

Implementation of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program is 

also part of one of Administrator Jackson’s top priorities to make 

significant and long-overdue progress in assuring the safety of 

chemicals in our products, our environment, and our bodies. 

Issuing test orders for the generation of data to better understand 

potential endocrine effects is an important step in improving our 

ability to protect the public health and the environment from 

chemicals. 

Under the Drinking Water SRF program, States provide low-cost 

loans and other types of assistance to public water systems to finance the cost of infrastructure projects needed to achieve or maintain compliance with drinking water requirements and otherwise 

improve public health. Since its inception, the Drinking Water SRF 

has provided over $16.2 billion of Federal and State assistance to 

over 6,600 projects that have improved public health protection for 

millions of people, with almost 40 percent of the assistance and 

more than 70 percent of the loans provided to systems serving 

fewer than 10,000 people. 

To be sustainable in the long term, a water system must have 

the capacity to address existing needs as well as to be prepared for 

the future so it can continue to provide safe water today, tomorrow, 

and into that future. EPA recognizes our responsibility to ensure 

that all Americans, including those served by small water systems 

and in disadvantaged communities, receive safe drinking water. 

The Safe Drinking Water Act currently provides tools to support 

sustainability through the SRF. These include the flexibility that 

States have to use optional set-asides that support capacity development and technical assistance. The Act also allows States to use 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
8 

up to 30 percent of their capitalization grant to provide additional 

subsidized assistance for communities that meet affordability criteria established by the State. All but 14 States have used this authority at some level over the years for an estimated 19 percent of 

the Drinking Water SRF funds. 

Given the accomplishments of the Drinking Water SRF to date 

and funding drinking water infrastructure improvements, there is 

some room to enhance aspects of the program to allow States to 

make better progress in key areas. We need to make sure we do 

that without diminishing the attractiveness to water systems of 

Drinking Water SRF funding. We appreciate the efforts of the committee to consider improvements in the program that focus on support for small systems and long-term sustainability. 

The proposed legislation would also amend provisions of the Act 

related to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program. Public 

health protection from contaminants that may be in drinking water 

is of the highest priority for the EPA. By providing information to 

help us better understand potential endocrine effects of these 

chemicals, test orders issued through the screening program will be 

an important step in improving our ability to protect public health 

and the environment. 

Under the requirements of the Food Quality Protection Act, we 

have already issued test orders covering 67 different pesticides 

chemicals; and, as instructed by the House Appropriation Committee this past year, EPA is preparing a second list of no less than 

100 chemicals that will be drawn from the National Primary 

Drinking Water Regulations, the Contaminant Candidate List, and 

pesticides that are on the re-registration schedule for 2007 through 

2008. We expect to begin issuing those test orders shortly and have 

that list out as well. 

We look forward to working with the committee to continue our 

efforts to more effectively implement the screening program. Thank 

you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Ms. Dougherty follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
9 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 13 76580A.001

TESTIMONY OF 

CYNTHIA C. DOUGHERTY 

DIRECTOR, 

OFFICE OF GROUND WATER AND DRINKING WATER 

OFFICE OF WATER 

U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

BEFORE THE 

ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT SUBCOMMITTEE 

HOUSE ENERGY AND COMMERCE COMMITTEE 

UNITED STATES HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

MAY 13,2010 

Chairman Markey, ranking member Upton, and members of the committee, I am 

Cynthia Dougherty, Director of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water at the United 

States Environmental Protection Agency. Thank you for inviting me to testifY today about the 

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) and the Endocrine Disruptor Screening 

Program (EDSP). 

Administrator Jackson has expressed her commitment to ensuring the safety of our 

drinking water as a fundamental element of EPA's overall mission. Strong and reliable drinking 

water infrastructure is an essential component of public health protection. One of the means 

EPA has to assist public water systems in achieving compliance with the Safe Drinking Water 

Act is the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. For more than a decade the DWSRF has been 

helping to meet the need that exists for investment, upgrade and improvement to maintain the 

nation's drinking water infrastructure by offering public water systems, including small systems, 

access to financing for infrastructure improvements. The Fund's success secures the provision of 

safe drinking water for millions of Americans for years to come. 

Also, implementation of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program is part of one of 

Administrator Jackson's top priorities: to make significant and long overdue progress in assuring 

1 
10 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 14 76580A.002

the safety of chemicals in our products, our environment and our bodies. Issuing test orders for 

the generation of data to better understand potential endocrine effects is an important step in 

improving our ability to protect the public health and the environment from chemicals. 

I appreciate the Committee's interest and I welcome continued dialogue on these issues. 

Success of.be Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Program 

The DWSRF program helps to ensure that the nation's drinking water supplies remain 

safe and affordable and that public water systems that receive funding are properly operated and 

maintained. The DWSRF program was established under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) 

Amendments of 1996 which authorize the Agency to award capitalization grants to States, which 

in tum are authorized to provide low-cost loans and other types of assistance to public water 

systems to finance the costs of infrastructure projects needed to achieve or maintain compliance 

with SDWA requirements. At their discretion, States may also use a portion of their 

capitalization grants to fund a range of set-asides designed in part to help small systems and 

disadvantaged communities. In addition, two percent ofDWSRF appropriations are for tribal 

infrastructure improvements. 

Since its inception, the DWSRF has provided over 16.2 billion dollars offederal and 

state assistance to over 6,600 projects that have improved public health protection for millions of 

people. 49 percent of the total funding has been provided through federal capitalization grants. 

Since 1997, almost 40% ofDWSRF assistance has been provided to systems serving fewer than 

2 
11 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 15 76580A.003

10,000 people, and almost 19% of the funds have gone to disadvantaged communities, as defined 

by the States. I 

One of the keys to the DWSRF's success is the considerable flexibility that states have to 

decide how funds are used to protect public health under varying state-specific circumstances. 

In addition to setting priorities among eligible projects, states are also able to choose how much 

money should be given to water systems in the form of subsidies and how much should revolve 

to provide for capitalization of the fund. 

As of February 17th, the one-year anniversary of the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA), EPA and its partners succeeded in placing 100 percent of available 

ARRA funding into contracts and into the economy, placing more than 1,300 projects under 

contract in all 50 states and Puerto Rico, totaling more than $1.8 billion. More than $500 million 

of this was in green infrastructure projects, exceeding the 20% Green Project Reserve 

requirement. 

Sustainability 

Water system sustainability, especially for small drinking water systems, is an ongoing 

challenge for the States and EPA. To be sustainable, a system must have the capacity to address 

existing needs as well as be prepared for the long term, so it can continue to provide safe water 

today, tomorrow and in the future. We at EPA particularly recognize our responsibility and the 

continuing work ahead of us to ensure that all Americans, including those served by small water 

systems and in disadvantaged communities, receive safe drinking water. Many small systems 

1 All numerical facts are from the DWSRF National Management System (DWNMS). 

3 
12 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 16 76580A.004

need help to achieve sustainability - 96% of health-based violations occur at systems serving less 

than 10,000 people. Small systems often face unique financial and operational challenges in 

providing safe drinking water. Many are not in business to provide drinking water as a primary 

function and lack the technical, financial, and managerial capacity necessary for successful 

operation in the long term. 

The Safe Drinking Water Act currently provides some tools to support sustainability 

through the DWSRF. These include the flexibility that states have to use optional set-aides that 

support capacity development and technical assistance. In addition to the set-asides, the SDW A 

allows states to use up to 30% of their capitalization grant to provide additional assistance for 

communities that meet affordability criteria established by the state. In these disadvantaged 

communities programs, additional subsidization can be provided through principal forgiveness, 

negative interest rates and extended loan repayment terms. All but fourteen states have used the 

disadvantaged community provision at some level over the years, accounting for an estimated 

18% of DWSRF funds. 

DWSRF Authorities 

The accomplishments of the DWSRF to date in funding drinking water infrastructure 

improvements have been remarkable. However, there is room to enhance aspects of the program 

to allow states to make better progress in key areas without diminishing the attractiveness to 

water systems ofDWSRF funding. We appreciate the efforts ofthe Committee to spur 

improvements in the program. The proposed legislation, The Assistance Quality and 

Affordability Act of 20 10, focuses on issues of fundamental importance to achieving the goals of 

the DWSRF, including support for small systems and long-term sustainability. We look forward 

to working with you on this recently released bill. 

4 
13 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 17 76580A.005

Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program 

The proposed legislation would also amend provisions of SDWA related to the Endocrine 

Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). Public health protection from contaminants that may be 

in drinking water is of the highest priority for the EPA. By providing information to help us 

better understand potential endocrine effects of these chemicals, test orders issued through the 

EDSP will be an important step in improving our ability to protect public health and the 

environment. 

The Food Quality Protection Act of 1996 (FQPA) required that EPA develop and 

implement a program to screen all pesticides for any "effect in humans that is similar to an effect 

produced by a naturally occurring estrogen and such other endocrine effect" as EPA may 

designate and we have been working across programs to make this happen. EPA has already 

issued test orders covering 67 different pesticide chemicals and as instructed by the House 

Appropriations Committee2

, EPA is preparing a second list of no less than 100 chemicals. The 

List 2 chemicals will be drawn from three sources: National Primary Drinking Water 

Regulations, the Contaminant Candidate List 3 (CCL 3), and pesticides that are on the 

reregistration schedule for 2007 through 2008. The CCL3 List is a list of contaminants that are 

currently not subject to any proposed or promulgated national primary drinking water 

regulations, that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems, and which may 

require regulation under SDW A. The CCL3 list includes pesticides, other chemicals used in 

commerce, and disinfection byproducts and degredates. We anticipate releasing the second list 

2 H. Rep. No. 180, l11th Cong., 1st Sess. 105 (2009), 

http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov!cgibin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_congJeports&docid=f:hr180.111. pdf#Page=10S 

5 
14 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 18 76580A.006

of chemicals shortly and expect to begin issuing test orders for the first 25 chemicals from the 

second list later this year. 

The proposed legislation would expand the Agency's Endocrine Disruptor Screening 

Program by focusing on the testing of drinking water contaminants for endocrine disrupting 

activity. We will work with the Committee to continue our efforts to more effectively implement 

the EDSP. 

6 
15 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Ms. Dougherty, very much. 

Our next witness, Roger Crouse, serves as the Director of the 

State of Maine Drinking Water Program, overseeing field inspection, operator licensing, and administration of the Drinking Water 

State Revolving Fund. Mr. Crouse is a licensed professional engineer with a master of science degree in civil engineering from 

Brigham Young University. 

Welcome, sir. 

STATEMENT OF ROGER CROUSE 

Mr. CROUSE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 

I am Roger Crouse, the Drinking Water Administrator from the 

State of Maine with responsibility for both the State’s Drinking 

Water Program and the State’s Drinking Water State Revolving 

Fund. I am representing the Association of State Drinking Water 

Administrators and appreciate this opportunity to offer testimony 

today on this important subject. 

We applaud the efforts of the committee to reauthorize the SRF 

portions of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The basic provisions of 

the Act have served us well for the past 13 years, but we appreciate many of the proposed changes the committee has included in 

this draft bill. Our reaction to the package, taken as a whole, is 

quite positive. However, several of the provisions will be challenging and resource-intensive for States to implement. Our perspectives on key provisions of the bill are as follows: 

Competitive Contracts: We believe that changes contemplated 

should take place at the national level and believe the bill needs 

to be clarified in this regard. We would object to this provision if 

it is intended to apply to technical assistance contracted issued by 

States, because such a restriction could take away the State’s ability to hire the best qualified third-party technical assistance providers. 

Davis-Bacon Provisions: States are split on this element of the 

draft bill. States with comparable provisions in their State laws 

recommend adding a phrase acknowledging that a State may satisfy Davis-Bacon requirements by implementing comparable and 

equivalent State prevailing wage rate laws. Other States feel that 

Davis-Bacon provisions unnecessarily inflate the cost of drinking 

water infrastructure projects. 

Lists of Systems with Variances, Exemptions, or Persistent Enforcement Violations: It doesn’t serve a practical purpose to include 

a system with a variance exemption or persistent violation in a 

State’s Intended Use Plan if the system has not expressed an interest in participating in the SRF. We recommend that this provision 

be changed to only require this information for systems wishing to 

participate in the loan fund. 

Priority for Disadvantaged Systems Out of Compliance: We support the approach of allowing States, rather than EPA, to make 

and apply disadvantaged system definitions. However, the evaluation criteria provision will be challenging for States to implement 

because of the need to determine the affordability of new standards. While some States have longstanding disadvantaged system 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
16 

programs, this will be a new requirement for many that will need 

to be carefully administered. 

Weight Given to Applications—General Observations: We believe 

the various weighting factors listed in the draft bill are a sound 

and appropriate set of considerations. Nonetheless, States will be 

challenged to develop new methods of assessing managerial and financial stability and to adjust the SRF scoring systems accordingly. 

Weight Given to Applications—Green Projects: States support energy and water conservation projects and continue to seek those 

projects in SRF applications. We appreciate that green projects 

would be considered in the bill in terms of a weighting factor, rather than as a mandatory percentage, as was the case under ARRA. 

Four Percent for Disadvantaged Communities: States generally 

agree with this requirement to use 4 percent of their funds on disadvantaged communities, and many are doing so now. 

Changes to State Set-Asides: States very much appreciate that 

the bill would increase the administrative set-aside from 4 to 6 percent. We also appreciate removal of the 100 percent match for 10 

percent State Program Management Set-Aside. 

Although not a feature of the current version of the proposed bill, 

we recommend that States be allowed to use the 15 percent SetAside on State source water protection activities in addition to the 

assessment activities, as the Safe Drinking Water Act currently 

provides. 

Realloted Funds for Disproportionally Impacted Systems: States 

generally support this provision. However, many States don’t currently have staffing, tools, or expertise to evaluate, identify, and 

track the impact on each disadvantaged system. 

Prescriptive Inspection Requirements: States generally do not 

support this provision and prefer the existing framework of escalating enforcement responses, including inspections, where appropriate, to return facilities to compliance. The requirement envisioned will have resource implications in terms of additional staff 

time and documentation and not necessarily produce the intended 

results. 

Definition of Lead Free: States believe manufacturers have already adjusted to the proposed new definition. Some States’ laws 

would need to be changed. However, revisions to State laws are not 

expected to be a major undertaking. 

These are our views on selected provisions. We have provided a 

more detailed version of these comments to committee staff. This 

committee is on the right track with this draft bill. 

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have about 

our perspective on the bill or how States administer the Drinking 

Water State Revolving Fund program. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Crouse follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
17 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 22 76580A.007

Association of State Drinking Water Administrators 

Testimony on 

Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of2010 

Before the 

House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Energy & Environment 

May 13,2010 

I am Roger Crouse, the drinking water administrator for the state of Maine, with 

responsibility for both the state's drinking water program and the state's drinking water 

State Revolving Fund (SRF). I am representing the Association of State Drinking Water 

Administrators and appreciate this opportunity to offer testimony today on this important 

subject. 

We applaud the efforts of the committee to reauthorize the SRF portions of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act. The basic provisions of the Act have served us well over the past 13 

years, but we appreciate many of the proposed changes the committee has included in 

this draft bill. Our reaction to the package, taken as a whole, is quite positive. However, 

several of the provisions will be challenging and resource-intensive for states to 

implement. OUf perspectives on the key provisions of the bill are as follows: 

Competitive Contracts: We believe the changes contemplated should take place at the 

national level and believe the bill needs to be clarified in this regard. We would object to 

this provision if it's intended to apply to technical assistance contracts issued by states --

because such a restriction could take away a state's ability to hire the best qualified 3,d 

party technical assistance providers. 
18 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 23 76580A.008

2 

Davis-Bacon Provisions: States are split on this element of the draft bill. States with 

comparable provisions in their state laws recommend adding a phrase acknowledging that 

a state may satisfy Davis-Bacon requirements by implementing comparable and 

equivalent state prevailing wage rate laws. Other states feel that including Davis-Bacon 

provisions unnecessarily inflates the cost of drinking water infrastructure projects. 

List of Systems with Variances, Exemptions or Persistent Enforcement Violations: 

It doesn't serve a practical purpose to include a system with a Variance, Exemption or 

persistent violations in a state's Intended Use Plan if the system has not expressed an 

interest in participating in the SRF. We recommend that this provision be changed to 

only require this information for systems wishing to participate in the loan fund. 

Priority for Disadvantaged Systems Out of Compliance: We support the approach of 

allowing states, rather than EPA, to make and apply disadvantaged system definitions. 

However, the evaluation criteria provision will be very challenging for states to 

implement because of the need to determine the affordability of new standards. While 

some states have longstanding programs; this will be a new requirement for many that 

will need to be carefully administered. 

Weight Given to Applications General Observations: We believe the various 

weighting factors listed in the draft bill are a sound and appropriate set of considerations. 

Nonetheless, states will be challenged to develop new methods of assessing managerial 

and financial stability and to adjust the SRF scoring systems accordingly. 
19 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 24 76580A.009

3 

Weight Given to Applications - Green Projects: States support energy and waterconservation projects and continue to seek those projects in SRF applications. We 

appreciate that green projects would be considered in the bill in terms of a weighting 

factor, rather than as a mandatory percentage (as was the case under ARRA). 

4% for Disadvantaged Communities: States generally agree with the requirement to 

use 4% of their funds on disadvantaged communities and many are doing so now. 

Changes to State Set-Asides: 

• States very much appreciate that the bill would increase the administrative set-aside 

from 4-6%. 

• We also appreciate removal of the 100% Match for 10% State Program Management 

Set-Aside. 

• Although not a feature of the current version of the proposed bill, we recommend that 

states be allowed to use the 15% Set-Aside on state source water protection activities, 

in addition to assessment activities, as the SDW A currently provides. 

Realloted Funds for Disproportionately Impacted Systems: States generally support 

this provision. However, many states don't currently have the staffing, tools, or expertise 

to evaluate, identify, and track each disadvantaged system impacted. 
20 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 25 76580A.010

4 

Prescriptive Inspection Requirements: States generally do not support this provision 

and prefer the existing framework of escalating enforcement responses (including 

inspections, where appropriate) to return facilities to compliance. The requirement 

envisioned will have resource implications, in terms of additional staff time and 

documentation, and not necessarily produce the intended results. 

Definition of Lead Free: States believe manufacturers have already adjusted to the 

proposed new definition. Some state laws would need to be changed; however, revisions 

to state laws are not expected to be a major undertaking. 

These are our views on selected provisions. We've provided a more detailed version of 

these comments to Committee staff. The Committee is on the right track with this draft 

bill. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have about our perspectives on the 

bill or how states administer their DWSRF programs 
21 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Crouse, very much. 

Our next witness is Steven Levy. He is the Executive Director of 

the Maine Rural Water Association and the Atlantic States Rural 

Water Association, which serves Rhode Island and Connecticut. He 

has over 30 years of experience in the financing and organization 

of water systems. 

Welcome, sir. 

Mr. LEVY. I am not very good with technology. 

Mr. MARKEY. With the exception of water technology, hopefully. 

STATEMENT OF STEVEN LEVY 

Mr. LEVY. Well, I am better with money than technology. 

Good morning, Mr. Chair and committee members. Thank you 

for the opportunity to testify. 

As said earlier, I have worked for over 30 years for the Maine 

Rural Water Association and Atlantic States Rural Water Association, and I focus more on funding than on technology. 

I am here today representing over 24,000 community members in 

the National Rural Water Association. As you know, when it comes 

to providing safe water and compliance with Federal standards, 

small and rural communities have a difficult time due to their limited customer base. This is compounded by the fact that these communities often have low or medium household incomes and higher 

water rates compared to larger communities. As a result, the cost 

of compliance is dramatically higher for small systems on a perhousehold basis. However, the vast majority of U.S. water supplies 

are small. Ninety-two percent of the country’s 52,000 community 

water supplies serve less than 10,000 people. 

We want to thank the committee for the important new policy directions in the Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act, your SRF 

authorization bill that, if enacted, will improve the current program. 

The proposed bill increases the role of technical assistance in the 

Nation’s drinking water safety program. Its reliance and recognition of technical assistance will ensure small communities will have 

access to technical resources needed to operate and maintain water 

infrastructure, comply with standards in an economical way, and 

obtain assistance in applying for State Revolving Loan Funds. 

The NRWA technical assistance effort is truly unique in the Federal system to protect public health because it accomplishes progressive environmental protection with the support of the local 

community. Without these initiatives, the effective implementation 

of the Safe Drinking Water Act in our rural and community water 

supplies would be nearly impossible. 

The need for rural water systems continues to increase with the 

expansion of Federal water regulations. The bill includes new provisions for solving two of the most pressing and intractable issues 

in the current drinking water program: affordability of the rules in 

disadvantaged communities and ensuring SRF funding is targeted 

to the most needy communities. 

Communities exhibiting the greatest need should receive funding 

first. Commonly, low-income communities do not have the ability to 

pay back a loan, even with very low interest rates, and require 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
22 

some portion of grant or principal forgiveness funding to make a 

project affordable to the ratepayers. 

The proposed bill retains key elements that ensure targeting of 

funding to the most needy communities, including a minimum setaside for small systems, a disadvantaged community subsidy, and 

a prioritization for the most serious risk to human health. 

The 1996 Act grants States considerable discretion in the operation of their revolving loan fund with regard to providing principal 

forgiveness and defining disadvantaged communities and in targeting funds. As a result, there is a great variety in their programs 

throughout the country. 

The proposed bill recognizes small system funding constraints in 

the newly drafted provisions contained in section 8 and section 7. 

The Priority and Weight of Application section includes a process 

for States to consider affordability of new standards, which we support. We urge you to consider applying this provision to all existing 

standards because many of the current standards are resulting in 

affordability problems. 

The new Disadvantaged Communities section targets SRF funding to the systems identified in a new IUP approach. We support 

these innovative provisions. 

We urge the committee to reconsider a provision in section 8 regarding the proposal to allow funding a portion of the system under 

the Disadvantaged provision of the SRF. This fundamentally 

changes the relationship between a primary agency and a regulated water system. This proposal could also serve as a disincentive 

for water systems to view their systems as a whole and may in fact 

generate reverse cherry-picking for infrastructure replacement. 

Finally, we ask the committee to please consider including an 

Etheridge bill type provision to attempt to direct technical assistance funding to be most beneficial to small communities. 

As currently written, the bill would retain the current process 

where EPA chooses not to fund the most effective and beneficial 

drinking water safety assistance initiatives for small communities 

but instead fund other EPA priorities. Representative Etheridge’s 

bill requires EPA to weigh what small communities believe is most 

beneficial when making decisions on providing assistance to them. 

This seems only reasonable in making assistance the most beneficial. 

Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee, 

for this opportunity to testify today. I look forward to answering 

any questions. 

And in my last two seconds, I want to thank Maine for being 

such a strong advocate for rural water systems. They have done a 

fabulous job. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Levy follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
23 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 29 76580A.011

TESTIMONY OF STEVEN LEVY 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, MAINE RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION 

ON BEHALF OF THE 

NATIONAL RURALW ATER ASSOCIATION 

REGARDING THE 

"THE ASSISTANCE, QUALITY, AND AFFORDABILITY ACT OF 2010" 

MAY 13,2010 

National Rural Water Association 

"Grassroots Environmental Protection in Rural and Small Communities" 

The country's largest community based environmental association, representing over 24,000 small 

and rural communities' water supplies. 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Committee Members - and thank you for the opportunity 

to testifY today on behalf of small and rural communities on this important public health issue. 

As you know, when it comes to providing safe water and compliance with federal standards, 

small and rural communities have a difficult time due to their limited customer base. This is 

compounded by the fact that small and rural communities often have lower median household 

incomes and higher water rates compared to larger communities. As a result the cost of compliance 

is often dramatically higher per household. However, the vast majority ofV.S. water supplies are 

small, 92 percent of the country's 52,000 community water supplies serve less than 10,000 persons. 

I am Steven Levy, the Executive Director of the Maine Rural Water Association and the 

Atlantic States Rural Water Associations in Connecticut and Rhode Island. I am familiar with the 

financing programs in these three states. [work directly with small and rural communities' water 

infrastructure funding - securing about 20 million dollars a year for specific communities over the 

past 30 years. [am here today representing over 24,000 community members in the National Rural 

Water Association. 

We would like to thank the committee for the important new policy directions in the 

"Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 20 10," your SRF reauthorization bill that, ifenacted, 

will improve the current program. 

The proposed bill increases the role of technical assistance in the nation's drinking water 

safety program. Rural and small communities want to ensure quality drinking water and 

wastewater. After all, local water supplies are operated by people who are locally elected and 

whose families drink the water every day. However, they need common-sense technical assistance 

in a form they can understand. Many small communities rely on volunteers or part-time 

administration to operate their local water supplies. The bill's reliance and reorganization of 

technical assistance should allow small communities to have access to technical resources needed to 

operate and maintain water infrastructure, comply with standards in the most economical way, and 

obtain assistance in applying for state revolving loan funds. 

Steven LeVY,NRWA,May 13,2010 

"'The Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of2010" 

Page 1 of6 
24 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 30 76580A.012

With a significant turnover in water operators and board members, and the ever-increasing 

regulatory burden, the need for training and technical assistance remains constant. A typical on-site 

contact could include ensuring the water service is protected from terrorism, discovering and 

repairing a faulty gas chlorination system, assisting a community remove and replace the filtration 

media, training a new operator to run that particular treatment system, finding engineering and 

construction errors in a new sewer system, implementing a non-point pollution prevention plan, 

solving lead and copper rule problems, or completing all the paperwork for funding programs 

including the SRFs . Often the assistance saves thousands of dollars for the community and keeps 

the systems in long-term compliance with EPA rules. 

The NR WA technical assistance effort is truly unique in the federal system to protect public 

health because it accomplishes progressive environmental protection with the support of the local 

community. Having local community support for environmental protection is essential to its longterm success. Without these initiatives effective implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act 

and Clean Water Act in our rural areas would be nearly impossible. The need for rural water 

assistance continues to increase with the expansion of federal water regulations including arsenic, 

radon, operator certification requirements, disinfection by-products, and the ground water treatment 

rule - in addition to the over 80 EPA rules that are currently on the books. 

The bill includes new and innovative provisions for solving two of the most pressing and 

intractable issues in the current drinking water program; affordability of the rules on disadvantaged 

communities and ensuring SRF funding is targeted toward the most needy communities. 

Communities exhibiting the greatest need should receive funding first. A significant portion 

of the funding should flow toward small systems because, generally, they need it more. Rates are 

often much higher per household in small communities often from compliance requirements. It 

only makes sense that federally subsidized funding would flow toward the communities with the 

greatest need. Commonly, the most needy communities will not have the ability to pay back a loan 

even with very low interest rates - and require some portion of grant (or principle forgiveness) 

funding to make a project affordable for the ratepayers. 

The proposed bill retains the key elements that ensure targeting of funding to the most needy 

communities including: 

• A minimum set-aside for small systems. 

• A disadvantaged community subsidy. 

• Requirements to prioritize funding address the most serious risk to human health; to ensure 

compliance; and assist systems most in need on a per household basis. 

The 1996 Act grants states considerable discretion in the operation of their revolving loan funds 

with regard to providing principal forgiveness, in defining disadvantaged communities, and in 

targeting funds to the most needy communities. As a result, there is great variety in programs, with 

some states providing no forgiveness, with other states targeting significant resources to needy 

systems. 

Steven Levy, NRWA, May 13,2010 

·The Assistance, Quality, and Atfordability Act of2010·· 

Page 20f6 
25 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 31 76580A.013

The proposed bill recognizes small system funding constraints in newly drafted provisions 

contained in Priority and Weight of Applications (Section 7) and Disadvantaged Communities 

(Section 8). 

The new Priority and Weight of Applications section includes a new process for states to 

consider affordability of new standards related to SRF funding by "evaluating whether capital 

improvements required to meet the new standard are affordable for disadvantaged communities .,. 

f and} If the state finds that such capital improvement do not meet affordability criteria for 

disadvantaged communities, the state's IUP shall provide that priority use of funds ... by giving 

priority to systems affected by the standards and serving disadvantaged communities." Please 

consider applying this provision to all standards not just new standards because many current 

standards are resulting in affordability problems that this provision could assist (arsenic, 

disinfection by-products, ground water rule, SWTR, lead/copper, etc). The new Disadvantaged 

Communities section targets SRF funding to the systems identified in the new IUP approach. We 

support these new and innovated ideas/provisions and believe they would be helpful in ensuring the 

intent of the SRF is accomplished. 

We urge the Committee to reconsider a provision in Section 8, regarding the proposal to 

allow funding a "portion" ofa system under the "disadvantaged" provision of the SRF. This 

fundamentally changes the current relationship between a primary agency of the EPA, and the 

regulated water systems as a whole. This proposal could serve as a disincentive for water systems 

to view their systems as a whole, and may in fact generate reverse "cherry picking" for 

infrastructure replacement. ft could also complicate loan/forgiveness relationships with SRFs given 

that these could be multiple deals within one loan. Finally, the current Community Development 

Block Program under HUD already has the expertise and funding to target infrastructure dollars to 

needy portions oflarger communities. 

It is already more difficult for small communities to access SRF funds than large 

communities, this provision would likely compound this problem - and large communities' 

economies of scale put them in a much better position to access the low-interest loans available 

from the SRFs to provide assistance to the disadvantage portions of their communities and still 

remain financially viable. 

Finally, please consider including an Etheridge bill (HR 2006) type provision to attempt to 

direct technical assistance funding to be most beneficial to small communities. As currently 

written, the bill would retain the current process where EPA chooses not to fund the most effective 

and beneficial drinking water safety assistance initiatives for small communities - but, instead, fund 

other EPA priorities. Representative Etheridge's bill requires EPA to weigh what small 

communities believe is most beneficial when making decisions on providing assistance to them 

this only seems meritorious in making assistance the most beneficial. 

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for your assistance, and the 

opportunity to testify today - and I look forward to answering any questions. 

Steven LeVY,NRWA,May 13,2010 

"The Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act 0[2010" 

Page 3 of6 
26 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 32 76580A.014

Initial Comments (5/912010) - Mike Keegan, Analyst 

Section 2: Technical Assistance 

Reauthorizes current technical assistance authorization without significant changes. Increases 

authorization from $15 million to $20 million. Does not include Etheridge bill (HR 2006) type 

provision to attempt to allow technical assistance funding to be provided in the manner most 

beneficial to small communities. As currently written, the bill would retain the current process 

where EPA chooses not to fund the most effective and beneficial drinking water safety assistance 

initiatives in small communities - but, instead, fund other EPA priorities. Also, we are concerned 

that the earmarking provision in this section may result in Congress limiting its authority to direct 

technical assistance funding that is the most effective within their Districts if the Congress 

determines that EPA is not funding the preferred initiatives. Under the FY2007 Continuing 

Resolution, EPA utilized their one-year discretion to choose not to continue funding for the existing 

technical assistance initiatives that had been prioritized by Congress. 

Section 3: Prevailing Wages 

The recent Davis-Bacon requirements are diminishing the advantages that subsidized interest rates 

provided to SRF borrowers. Currently, some SRF projects are rejecting the SRF and issuing bonds 

as these borrowers prefer not to comply with prevailing wage requirements. Prevailing wage 

requirement increases the cost of projects and decreases the amount available for construction and 

providing public health and environmental projects/services at lowest cost. Recognizing there is a 

(greater) public welfare benefit to prevailing wage requirements, we do not take a position on the 

issue, and recognizing the funding is from the federal government with federal objectives, we defer 

to Congress on merit of including the requirement in the SRF. 

Section 4: Use of Funds 

Expands use of funds to be eligible for planning, designing, pre-construction, aging infrastructure, 

capturing sustainable energy, etc. in addition to compliance expenditures. This does not seem to 

be a dramatic change in use of funds as many of these expenditures have been funded in the pastand the new expenditures would still be awarded based on need. Allows states greater flexible on 

use of SRFs for financing state GO bonds. This could serve as a disincentive for increased use of 

the grant authorities in the SRF; however, it will be at the discretion of the states. 

Section 5: Data on Variances, etc. 

Requires that states report additional information in the process of developing their intended use 

plans such as systems with variances, exemptions, and "persistence" violations. These systems, 

ostensibly, should be the priority for funding for SRF funding (and perhaps have not been), and this 

disclosure can only help direct the SRF funding toward its enumerated/meritorious priorities. 

Section 6: Assistance for Restructuring 

Expands or clarifies the definition of restructuring under the act. It does not provide any additional 

authorities to the federal governmental to require restructuring. The new definition only clarifies 

what is commonly understood to mean restructuring. 

Section 7: Priority and Weight of Applications 

Expands the criteria/priority for awarding SRF beyond the current three priorities (risk health, 

compliance, and most in need) to include affordability compliance in the future. This new criterion 

seems ambiguous and subjective compared to the current criteria - however, it doesn't appear to 

Steven Levy, NRWA, May 13,2010 

"The Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 20 10" 

Page 4 of6 
27 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 33 76580A.015

significantly redirect the current priorities for funding. Also this section includes a new process for 

states to consider affordability of new standards related to SRF funding by "evaluating whether 

capital improvements required to meet the new standard are affordable for disadvantaged 

communities ... If the state finds that such capital improvement do not meet affordability criteria for 

disadvantaged communities, the state's IUP shall<provide that priority use offunds ... by giving 

priority to systems affected by the standards and serving disadvantaged communities. This new 

provision would be helpful and should be applied to all standards not just new standards because 

many current standards are resulting in affordability problems that this provision could assist 

(arsenic, disinfection by-products, ground water rule, SWTR, lead/copper, 

etc). This subsection also includes a new series of reporting requirements/topics (what are 

commonly referred to as sustainability elements) for SRF applicants. This new provision seems 

redundant to current limitations in the current SRF: "Except as provided in subparagraph (B), no 

assistance under this section shall be provided to a public water system that- (i) does not have the 

technical, managerial, andjinancial capability to ensure compliance with the requirements of this 

subchapter; or (ii) is in significant noncompliance with any requirement of a national primary 

drinking water regulation or variance. " 

The new reporting could overwhelm many smaller communities' (and the most worthy) ability to 

apply for funding - as is the case now with some states capacity development reporting criteria. 

This potential problem would be ameliorated by mentioning in the bill that the reporting should be 

scaled to various system sizes and by ensuring technical assistance is available to small 

communities to assist with the funding process. 

Section 8: Disadvantaged Communities 

It is unclear where this new 4 percent provision is in the current law and its intent. It seems that all 

(100 percent) of the states' grant should be used to target the systems identified in the new !UP 

process because they are the most needy and economically disadvantaged. Regarding the new 

provision to allow for the funding of a "portion" of a water system under the SRF, this 

fundamentally changes the current federal program/relationship of requiring compliance from the 

regulated water system, as a whole organization, and providing funding to the community as a 

whole. It will serve as a disincentive for a community to function as a holistic social/pUblic welfare 

institution and encouraging civic responsibility for the welfare of the entire community water 

supply. Also it could lead to a moral hazard where the wealthier portion of the community has an 

interest in sequestering funds from lower-income portions of the community because (under this 

proposal) the lower-income portions of the community could apply for subsidized federal funding -

that much of which was contributed from communities, as a whole, are less affluent than the 

community receiving the subsidy. Also it would seem de facto that every community that would 

apply for this funding could otherwise afford to pay for the project with an SRF loan (or else they 

would qualifY as a disadvantaged community under the status quo). Federal funding programs 

designed to assist with SDW A should retain the emphasis on providing funds to the entity they 

regulate (i.e. community water systems). This retains the traditional federal/state/local governing 

structure. Local governments should be encouraged to be responsible for being the primary source 

for the entire community welfare. Currently, the Community Development Block Grant program 

makes such grants, and is a more appropriate agency to administer this type of funding because of 

its economic development expertise and non-regulatory mission. It is already more difficult for 

small communities to access SRF funds than large communities, this provision would like 

compound this problem. And large communities' economies of scale put them in a much better 

Steven Levy, NRWA,May 13,2010 

"The Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 2010" 

Page50f6 
28 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 34 76580A.016

position to access the low-interest loans available from the SRFs to provide assistance to the 

disadvantage portions of their communities and still remain financially viable. 

Section 9: Administration of State Loan Funds 

Allows states a larger set-aside to administer their SRF funds. The main set-aside in the SRF that is 

achieving compliance, improving water quality, and providing communities assistance to access 

SRF assistant in the vast majority of water supplies is the 2 percent technical assistance in the SRF. 

This set-aside provision should be raised to 4 percent. The use of the set-aside is up to the 

discretion of the state (and it is not mandatory). 

Section 10: Autborization of Appropriations 

Increase the annual authorization of appropriations 

Section II: Negotiation of Contracts 

Applies only to large communities 

Section 12: Autborization of Appropriations 

Requires the EPA to continually revise list of affordability technologies for small communities. 

Allows EPA to re-direct additional "pooled' SRF funds to states with greater compliance 

affordability burdens. 

Section 13: Autborization of Appropriations 

Changes standard setting provision from "taking cost into consideration" to include taking lifecycle 

costs, maintenance, replacement, and avoided costs into consideration. Unclear how this would 

affect the standing setting section. However, it does not appear problematic on its face. 

Section 14: Enforcement 

Provides EPA with new authority to develop regulations for conducting inspections of systems in 

violation or post violation. Content, frequency, or degree of inspection not clarified. Problematic 

because EPA has shown inability to assess or advise systems on operations or even compliance 

assistance. Unclear what EPA would be inspecting or what enforcement action could be taken in a 

system in compliance. Inspections are limited to violations and EPA is to consider the severity and 

frequency of violations in conducting inspections. Perhaps the self-assessment under the recent 

TCR rule revisions could be looked at as a model for this policy objective? It appears that the 

inspections would be conducted by state agencies, however, this needs to be verified. 

Section 15: Reducing Lead in Drinking Water 

Steven Levy,NRWA, May 13,2010 

"The Assistance. Quality, and Affordability Act of 20 I 0" 

Page 6 of 6 
29 

Mr. MARKEY. Maine has done a great job. And Massachusetts did 

a good job in breaking off Maine and making it a State in 1820 as 

part of the Missouri Compromise, where Maine would have two 

Senators opposed to slavery and Missouri would have two Senators 

in favor of slavery. So Maine was part of Massachusetts, and we 

are very proud of how well they have done since we broke them up. 

So let’s move to our next witness. 

Stephen Estes-Smargiassi is the Director of Planning at the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority, where he has worked for 23 

years. I want to note that I have the third-most Italian of 435 congressional seats. 

He is an engineer and planner with a bachelors of science in civil 

engineering from MIT and a masters in planning from Harvard 

University. 

Stephen and the rest of the MWRA team have had their hands 

full addressing the recent water main break in the greater Boston 

area and taking all of the corrective actions necessary. 

I can imagine how valuable your time is right now, so we very 

much appreciate your being here. Thank you. 

STATEMENT OF STEPHEN ESTES-SMARGIASSI 

Mr. ESTES-SMARGIASSI. Good morning. I am Steve EstesSmargiassi, Director of Planning at the MWRA in Boston. 

MWRA is the wholesale water supplier to 61 cities and towns in 

eastern and central Massachusetts, serving about 2.8 million people. We are an active member of the American Water Works Association and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies. MWRA 

appreciates the opportunity to testify here this morning on the Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 2010. 

As Chairman Markey has indicated, MWRA experienced a major 

water supply emergency 2 weeks ago. While the causes of the incident won’t be known for some time, as the full-scale investigation 

is really just in its infancy, I can certainly say that it galvanized 

public attention on the value of water supply infrastructure. 

We all take for granted, even those of us in the business, that 

when we open the tap a plentiful supply of safe drinking water will 

flow. Only when it stops flowing or when we tell people they have 

to boil it do we stop to think about how much goes into turning 

rainwater into drinking water. 

Two Saturdays ago, a major leak erupted on a 120-inch steel pipe 

connecting two major tunnels. The pipeline was part of a new 

project, a new tunnel system built to enable us to take the now 7- 

decade-old Hultman Aqueduct out of service for inspection and repairs. We, fortunately, were able to reroute water around the 

break, activate emergency sources and a pump station using facilities and plans developed over the last decade to ensure that our 

customers had water for flushing toilets, fighting fires, and, with 

the serious inconvenience of having to boil it, drinking and cooking. 

In less than 2 days we were able to make the repair to the pipeline, 

and before 4 days had elapsed Governor Patrick was able to lift the 

boil water order for our system. 

MWRA, like many older urban areas, has a significant amount 

of older piping. In 1985, when we were created, over half of our 

pipe was over 80 years old; a fifth of our pipe was over 100 years 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
30 

old. Aging facilities can contribute to degradation of water quality, 

including aesthetic concerns, problems with compliance with distribution system water quality rules, and increased frequency of 

leaks and breaks. 

Inclusion of replacement and rehabilitation of aging facilities as 

an eligible SRF item will assist utilities in maintaining and improving system water quality all the way to the tap, while helping 

to control costs to our repairs. 

MWRA is fortunate that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts 

has a forward-looking environmental agency overseeing the SRF. 

Our State Department of Environmental Protection has already 

added green infrastructure and an emphasis on rehabilitating old 

water and sewer assets to the program guidelines, and we have 

been able to fund a significant number of projects through that. We 

are here today in support of this bill because that increased funding flexibility and focus on aging water assets should be available 

to systems nationwide. 

The SRF program has proven to be an important component of 

managing the MWRA’s cost of capital. We have realized debt service savings of over $700 million since our 1993 program. 

It is difficult for any utility to sustain support for yearly rate increases sufficient to fully cover the need to rehabilitate aging infrastructure, and this legislation’s expansion of the SRF eligibility will 

help communities afford well-maintained water systems. 

Switching gears, I would like to say lead in drinking water is the 

number one water quality concern for our customers. While there 

is no lead in our source water, consumers can have lead leach out 

of their home plumbing. After the Lead and Copper Rule was 

issued by EPA in 1991, we moved rapidly to build modern corrosion 

treatment; and, as a result, our lead levels have dropped by almost 

90 percent. 

You undoubtedly recall the Washington, D.C., lead issues of several years ago. A common theme which arose out of the efforts to 

understand and respond to that issue was the fact that common 

plumbing fixtures, such as faucets and drinking water fountains, 

could leach excessive amounts of lead and still be available for sale 

and use under current Federal law. The Safe Drinking Water Act 

defines lead free as up to 8 percent lead in a brass component. This 

is simply wrong and should be remedied as soon as possible. However, to date, no Federal action on the allowable amount of lead in 

brass has occurred, and only two States have taken the necessary 

legislative action to resolve the outrage that a consumer can walk 

into a home improvement center and buy a fixture that may poison 

his or her child. California and Vermont now mandate that no 

more than one-quarter of 1 percent brass be lead. Making that national would make a big step forward, ensuring sure access to safe 

products and safe water for all Americans. 

In conclusion, MWRA utilities across the country must make difficult choices in determining the best ways to spend limited ratepayer funds because our needs far exceed our ability to raise rates. 

Adequate funding and flexibility to move forward will help us meet 

those critical needs. 

Thank you. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Estes-Smargiassi follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
31 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 38 76580A.017

MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY 

BEFORE THE 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

U. S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

STATEMENT ON 

"ASSISTANCE, QUALITY AND AFFORDABILITY ACT OF 2010" 

MAY 13,2010 

PRESENTED BY 

STEPHEN ESTES-SMARGIASSI 

DIRECTOR OF PLANNING 

MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY 

BOSTON, MASSACHUSETTS 

INTRODUCTION 

Good morning Mr. Chairman. I am Stephen Estes-Smargiassi, Director ofPJanning, at 

the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority (MWRA), in Boston, Massachusetts. 

MWRA is the wholesale provider of water and wastewater services to 61 cities and towns 

in eastern and central Massachusetts, serving a total of about 2.8 million people and over 

5,000 businesses. MWRA has a capital budget of$ 1.1 44 billion for the current five year 

period covering fiscal year 2009 through 2013 and expects to spend $250.6 million on 

water and wastewater infrastructure this fiscal year. 

Many of you are undoubtedly aware of the water supply emergency that MWRA 

experienced two weeks ago. While the cause's of the incident will not be known for some 

time, as the full scale investigation is in its infancy, I can certainly say that it galvanized 

public attention on the value of the water supply infrastructure. We all take for granted 

that when we open the tap, a plentiful supply of safe drinking water will flow; only when 

it stops flowing or we're told to boil it, do we stop to think about how much goes into 

turning rain into drinking water. 

On the morning of May 1st, a major leak erupted on a 120" steel pipeline connecting two 

major tunnels. The pipeline was part of a new tunnel system built to enable MWRA to 

take the now seven-decade old Hultman Aqueduct out of service for inspection, repairs 

and the construction of interconnections. MWRA was able to quickly re-rout water 

around the area of the break, and activate an emergency pump station and backup supply 

using facilities and plans put in place over the past decade, ensuring that adequate water 

pressure and flow was maintained so our customers had water for flushing toilets, 

fighting fires, and other uses. However, because of uncertainty as to whether the water 

met the same high standards, a boil order was instituted. In less than two days, repairs to 

the pipeline were made, and before four days had elapsed, Governor Patrick was able to 

lift the boil water order. 

DRAFT May 12,2010 
32 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 39 76580A.018

BACKGROUND 

MWRA appreciates the opportunity to provide testimony here today on the "Assistance, 

Quality, and Affordability Act of2010". The proposed legislation includes a number of 

components that MWRA and other utilities across the nation will find valuable. 

Increasing the type of projects able to secure revolving loan funds will allow older 

metropolitan areas to leverage additional critical water system rehabilitation and 

improvement work while keeping costs manageable to our ratepayers. 

MWRA's water system includes its source reservoirs, treatment facilities, transmission 

lines, and distribution system facilities and pipelines. The system (excluding the source 

reservoirs) has an estimated asset replacement value of over $6 billion. MWRA's 2006 

Water System Master Plan identified water system needs for the FY07-FY48 timeframe 

at approximately $1.1 billion (in 2006 dollars). 

Ongoing capital projects and identified capital needs include significant work to: 

improve both transmission system and localized distribution system redundancy; provide 

additional treatment to meet Safe Drinking Water Act requirements; construct additional 

distribution system storage; rehabilitate and replace old cast-iron mains; ensure system 

security; and, systematically upgrade and replace other water system assets including 

facilities, equipment, dams and support systems. 

In addition, funds provided through the Massachusetts Department of Environmental 

Protection 2009 Intended Use Plan have allowed MWRA to expand the use of green 

infrastructure including the installation of a photovoltaic array at the John J. Carroll 

Water Treatment Plant, the construction of a 200kw hydro generation plant within the 

water transmission system, and a wind turbine at our Delauri pump station. 

MWRA is fortunate in that the Commonwealth of Massachusetts has a forward looking 

environmental agency overseeing the State Revolving Fund. Our state Department of 

Environmental Protection has already added green infrastructure and an emphasis on 

rehabilitating old water and sewer assets to the program guidelines, under which MWRA 

has been able to fund a significant number of projects. We are here today in support of 

this bill because that increased funding flexibility and focus on aging water assets should 

be available to water systems nation-wide. 

Since its creation 25 years ago, MWRA has made significant investments in the 

reliability of the water system. New tunnels and covered storage tanks, updated pumping 

stations, emergency facilities and disaster planning, and rehabilitated and interconnected 

water mains all provide additional flexibility to move water through the system to our 

customers, even under emergency conditions. 

DRAFT May 12, 2010 2 
33 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 40 76580A.019

SECTION 4-USE OF FUNDS 

MWRA, as is the case with many utilities, particularly those in older urban areas, has a 

significant amount of older distribution piping. Replacement and rehabilitation of aging 

facilities is critical to the proper management of all water systems and inclusion of this 

work as an eligible item will assist MWRA and other utilities in safeguarding the system 

operations, and maintaining and improving system water quality all the way to the tap 

while helping to control costs to ratepayers. 

MWRA must note that in the development of a Water System Master Plan, it has been 

able to identify locations or assets in the system where there was insufficient information 

on asset condition and then consider the most appropriate mechanism for obtaining that 

information. Master planning over a longer term horizon has also allowed the MWRA to 

think proactively about future regulatory changes and the need for long-term asset 

replacement strategies. The language in Section 4 which supports the use of funds for 

rehabilitation and replacement of aging infrastructure is particularly valuable to those 

systems such as MWRA where many parts of the system were initially built over 100 

years ago and where, for many years prior to MWRA's inception, system reinvestment 

was limited. For many utilities such as MWRA, aging facilities may contribute to 

degraded water quality including aesthetic concerns, problems in compliance with 

distribution water quality rules, and to increased frequency ofleaks and pipe failures. 

When MWRA was formed in 1985, nearly half of the piping network was installed prior 

to World War I and the median age of the distribution system was around 80 years. 

Nearly 20 percent of the water mains were over 100 years old. Most of these older pipes 

were installed during an era where the modem loads and stresses of heavy truck, bus and 

car traffic did not exist. 

As a new agency created in 1985 to solve serious problems with the water and 

wastewater systems, MWRA was able to gain support for initial rate increases to 

rehabilitate the system. However, it is very difficult for any utility, including MWRA, to 

sustain support for yearly rate increases sufficient to fully cover the need to rehabilitate 

aging infrastructure and this legislation's support through the expansion ofSRF 

eligibility for such rehabilitation is critical to many older systems across the country. 

Although MWRA has made major system reinvestment since 1985, a continued emphasis 

on programs for rehabilitating or replacing assets such as unlined cast iron pipes remain a 

critical emphasis for the agency to ensure that catastrophic breaks do not occur but also to 

ensure high quality water. It is clear that many ofthe old cast-iron mains also can 

contribute to water quality degradation and diminished carrying capacities due to the 

build-up of tuberculation in the pipe. Between the first Water System Master Plan in 

1993 and the updated Plan in 2006, MWRA constructed 22 miles of new pipeline and 

rehabilitated 63 miles of pipe (38 miles which were cast iron) leaving 198 miles to be 

rehabbed of which 70 miles of work (39 miles cast iron pipes) was either underway or 

recognized in the FY06 CIP. This left 128 miles of pipeline to be addressed. Of this 

pipe, approximately 48 miles of pipe was less than 50 years of age in 2006 and 54 miles 

DRAFT May 12,2010 3 
34 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 41 76580A.020

were between 50-100 years of age. However, 26 miles of distribution system piping was 

greater than 100 years old (and 25 of the 26 miles were cast iron mains). The 2006 Water 

System Master Plan recommended the inclusion in the crp of an additional 51 miles of 

cast iron main. 

The ability for MWRA and other utilities to obtain low cost financing for these 

rehabilitation and replacement programs is invaluable. In addition, the targeting of 

older cast iron pipe for rehabilitation and replacement also allow MWRA to anticipate 

EPA's potential regulatory direction relative to distribution systems, focusing not just on 

the customers aesthetic experience of the water, but how the old unlined cast iron mains 

may increase the public health risk. The support that this bill provides to systems 

wishing to think proactively about aging infrastructure needs is very encouraging. 

Since 1993, MWRA has utilized the Massachusetts' State Revolving Fund (SRF) 

program administered by the Massachusetts Water Pollution Abatement Trust to finance 

critical infrastructure projects. Since that time, MWRA has accessed over $1.3 billion in 

grants and low interest loans for both clean and drinking water projects. The SRF 

program has proven to be an important component in managing the MWRA's cost of 

capital and the associated rate revenue requirements to its member communities and 

ratepayers. Since 1993, the MWRA has realized debt service savings of over $700 

million through the SRF program, greatly improving the affordability of delivering 

quality water and wastewater services to 2.8 million customers. 

Section 4 also authorizes the use of revolving funds for the "producing or capturing 

sustainable energy on site or through the transportation of water through the public water 

system". As the 2009 stimulus funding package illustrated, inclusion of funding for 

green infrastructure is tremendously valuable to utilities across the country. MWRA was 

able to fund a wind turbine, photovoltaic installations and a hydro generation facility as 

part of that program continuing our state's commitment to maximizing green 

technologies. While Massachusetts now allows these type projects under the SRF, the 

expansion nationally of eligibility under this legislation for sustainable technologies will 

allow other utilities to pursue low cost loan financing improving the affordability of these 

renewable energy projects and reducing our carbon footprint. 

SECTION 7-PRIORITY AND WEIGHT OF APPLICATION 

This section encourages utilities to improve the management and financial stability of 

their systems through such measures as development of asset inventories and condition 

information, asset replacement schedules, audits of water losses, and use of life cycle cost 

analysis. MWRA has found these measures to be useful tools in developing long-term 

financial projections of system needs. The legislation also encourages utilities to 

undertake measures to improve system efficiency or reduce the system's environmental 

impact. Included under these measures are such items as increased energy efficiency and 

DRAFT May 12.2010 4 
35 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 42 76580A.021

actions to generate or capture sustainable energy on site or through the transportation of 

water through the system. As noted above, these types of measures have been extremely 

valuable to MWRA' s ability to mange our costs of service and meet our commitment to 

green energy technologies. 

Additionally under measures to improve efficiency or reduce environmental impact, the 

legislation also notes water efficiency or conservation, including the rehabilitation or 

replacement of leaking water pipes. MWRA has long had a program of leak detection 

and also facilitates leak detection by our 51 water system member communities. The 

annual goal is for staff to perform leak detection surveys of the entire MWRA system 

each year. From a high of 92 leaks detected in the MWRA system in 1988 when the 

program began, leaks have steadily decreased to a low of seven last year. Pipelines with 

repeated leaks have been prioritized for replacement. MWRA's long-term planning 

emphasizes the need to assess system piping, particularly key steel mains, to be able to 

proactively plan the replacement of such infrastructure. 

The legislation also notes that actions to protect source water may be another means of 

improving system efficiency. The source reservoirs for MWRA are highly protected and 

unlike many systems nation-wide, the reservoirs are not impacted by upstream 

wastewater discharges. High quality source water means that less treatment is required; 

reducing the amount of chemicals we need to add to the water and lessening the amount 

of energy used to treat the water. Thus we can provide a higher quality product to our 

customers at a lower cost. 

SECTION 15-REDUCING LEAD IN DRINKING WATER 

I would also like to provide supporting testimony on Section 15 of the bill- Reducing 

Lead in Drinking Water. 

Lead in drinking water is the number one water quality concern of our customers. While 

there is no lead in M\VRA's source water it can enter our customers' water from their 

home plumbing. MWRA has been an aggressive and active in working to reduce the lead 

exposure of our own customers, and to work with EPA, Congress and others to reduce 

lead exposure through drinking water nationally. 

After the Lead and Copper Rule was issued by EPA in 1991, MWRA moved rapidly to 

build modem corrosion control treatment, and as a result our lead test results have 

dropped by almost 90 percent. After the Washington DC water system lead issue arose in 

2004, MWRA staff participated in a number of EPA workshops and working groups to 

identify opportunities to reduce the chance that consumers would be exposed to lead in 

drinking water, and one of our staff testified before the House Committee on Government 

Reform in March 2005 on this issue. MWRA also participated in a number of national 

research efforts examining causes of increased lead levels in drinking water. 

A common theme which arose out of all these efforts was the fact that common 

household fixture such as faucets and drinking water fountains could leach excessive 

DRAFT May 12,2010 5 
36 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 43 76580A.022

amounts of lead - and still be available for sale and use under current federal law. The 

Safe Drinking Water Act defines lead free as up to 8 percent lead in a brass component. 

This is simply wrong - and should be remedied as soon as possible. In months of expert 

workshops and hearings after the 2004 DC incident, water suppliers, environmentalists, 

health professionals and parents all had a common cry - simply get the lead out. 

However, to date, no federal action on the allowable amount oflead in brass has 

occurred, and only two states have taken the necessary action to resolve the outrage that a 

consumer can walk into a home improvement center and buy a fixture which may poison 

his or her child. California and Vermont now mandate that no more than Y. of one 

percent of brass content be lead. The 12 percent of US citizens who live in California 

and Vermont can now purchase real lead-free faucets and other plumbing components, 

ensuring that the lead-free water that flows from almost all water supplies stays that way 

all the way to the consumer's glass. 

By making the successful efforts of California and Vermont into Federal law by enacting 

Section 15 of the Assistance, Quality and Affordability Act of2010, Congress can spread 

that successful effort nationwide, providing the same sure access to safe products, and 

safe water to all Americans. 

Change, especially, mandated change, always brings charges that it will not work, will be 

unaffordable or is occurring too fast for manufactures to keep up. With a significant 

portion of the national plumbing market almost a half a year into implementation, it is 

clear that the new standards are workable, available, and affordable. 

The reduction in lead content may cause a minor increase in the cost of some fixtures, at 

least for a time. Based on the experience in California we know that in the context of a 

bathroom or kitchen renovation the increase is almost unnoticeable, but the benefits are 

clear. Medical care, special education, and lost earnings costs associated with lead in the 

blood - even at low levels - are significant. Scientific studies estimate the economic and 

social costs of lead poisoning are almost five times the costs of childhood asthma, cancer, 

cardiovascular disease and neurological disorders, combined. 

Another significant benefit is the potential for reducing unnecessary water wastage. If a 

consumer is not sure that their home plumbing is not leaching lead into the water, EPA 

recommends that they run the tap between one and three minutes before drinking or 

cooking with the water in order to flush out possible lead-contaminated stagnant water 

from pipes and faucets. It may not seem like much, but it can add up. In the MWRA 

service area, if every homeowner flushed their taps twice a day, it could add up to almost 

10 million gallons of additional usage each day. Now, MWRA has plenty of water due to 

our aggressive conservation efforts over the past 20 years, but other systems either don't, 

or are adversely affecting the environment by excessive pumping. Eliminating this 

currently necessary waste could reduce utility costs for energy and chemicals, and reduce 

their impact on streams and rivers. 

DRAFT May 12,2010 6 
37 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert graphic folio 44 76580A.023

Regardless of the outcome of all the other sections of this Act, MWRA urges this 

committee to move the effort to "get the lead out" forward by taking favorable action on 

Section 15. 

CONCLUSION 

MWRA and utilities across the country are grappling with the issue of aging 

infrastructure. Communities must make difficult choices in determining the best ways to 

spend ratepayer funds because needs far exceed the ability of utilities to raise rates on an 

annual basis. Making additional funds available to the SRF to support replacement and 

rehabilitation of aging infrastructure provides an additional tool for communities to 

maintain their systems and act proactively before additional deterioration occurs. Utilities 

have spent billions of dollars to meet immediate public health priorities; the next critical 

need is to tackle the issue of an aging infrastructure in order to ensure reliable service and 

consistent water quality. For MWRA, 80% of the capital funds expended over the past 

25 years for water and sewer system work have been for compliance with the regulatory 

mandates of the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act. This legislation will 

help MWRA and other utilities to move forward with the next level of high priority 

system improvements. 

The unfortunate events of May 1 sl to 4th in the Boston area only serve to point out how 

critical water systems are to the regions they serve. Adequate funding and the flexibility 

to move forward with the critical needs of our aging systems will go a long way toward 

ensuring that our citizens get the safe and reliable water service they expect and deserve. 

Thank you for this opportunity to testify. 

DRAFT May 12,2010 7 
38 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you very much. 

Our next witness is Sarah Janssen, who is a staff scientist in the 

Health and Environment Program of the Natural Resources Defense Council. She is board certified in preventive medicine, with 

a subspecialty in occupational and environmental medicine. Dr. 

Janssen is also an assistant clinical professor at the University of 

California-San Francisco in the Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine. 

So we welcome you. Whenever you are ready, please begin. 

STATEMENT OF SARAH JANSSEN 

Dr. JANSSEN. Thank you. 

Good morning, Chairman Markey and other members of the committee. My name is Dr. Sarah Janssen. I am a staff scientist in the 

health program at NRDC, and I am representing NRDC here 

today. I am also a practicing physician and also trained as a reproductive biologist with expertise in endocrine-disrupting chemicals. 

My oral testimony to you this morning will focus on improvements to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program, or the 

EDSP, as proposed in this legislation. 

Endocrine disruption was first described in the early 1990s when 

chemical contamination in water was linked to feminized male fish, 

alligators with small penises, and impaired reproduction in birds. 

These abnormalities were caused by endocrine disruption contaminants; and subsequent studies in laboratory animals have confirmed that exposure to some endocrine-disrupting chemicals, especially early in development, can result in a wide range of adverse 

effects, including reproductive harm, cancer, and altered development of the brain. 

The effects described in wildlife and laboratory animals, coupled 

with observations of reproductive harm, including birth defects of 

baby boy genitals, poor sperm quality, infertility, and altered development of the brain in humans, have raised concern that endocrine-disrupting chemicals could also be harming human health. 

Though EPA has not yet prioritized drinking water contaminants 

in the implementation of the long-delayed EDSP, recent scientific 

studies have documented multiple endocrine-disrupting contaminants in our Nation’s waterways. A recent USGS surface water 

study found an average of seven and as many as 38 chemical contaminants in any given water sample. Among the chemicals most 

commonly detected in this national survey are known and suspected endocrine-disrupting chemicals, including various pesticides, 

antibacterials, detergents, cosmetics, fragrances, plastics, rocket 

fuel, and steroid hormones. 

In addition, there are potentially hundreds of other chemical contaminants for which we have no information about their endocrinedisrupting potential. This legislation will begin to solve this problem by requiring EPA to expand the EDSP to include water contaminants. 

AQUA will strengthen the EDSP by requiring four major and 

necessary changes. Number one is testing of drinking water contaminants on a reasonable and achievable timeline. Under the proposed legislation, EPA will publish a list of 100 drinking water contaminants within 1 year and require that they be screened within 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
39 

4 years. This is a realistic time frame since EPA has recently 

issued test orders for just 67 chemicals with test results expected 

in 2 years. 

The Act further requires EPA to identify and schedule testing of 

other substances, including all of the chemicals on the preliminary 

Contaminant Candidate List within 10 years of enactment. Again, 

this represents an average of less than 60 chemicals a year for 

issuing test orders and should be easily within EPA’s capabilities. 

The legislation will also prioritize testing of substances that pose 

the greatest threat to the health of vulnerable populations. 

The second improvement is a fast track for substances known or 

suspected of endocrine-disrupting effects. EPA can place the screening of these substances on an accelerated track by substituting scientifically relevant information, such as scientific studies published 

in peer-reviewed publications. This provision is necessary to prevent redundancy in testing for known endocrine disruptors such as 

perchlorate, where the mode of action has already been well described and there is evidence for widespread contamination of 

drinking water and of people. 

Perchlorate is a component of rocket fuel and is known to interfere with thyroid hormone production by inhibiting the uptake of 

iodide. In fact, perchlorate was once used as a prescription medication to treat patients with elevated thyroid levels. Chemicals as 

well studied as perchlorate should not be subject to repeat and redundant testing that will cost only more time and money and 

delays in regulation. 

A third improvement is increased transparency and public participation in the EDSP by creating a publicly searchable database, 

a public petition process for requesting test orders of potential endocrine-disrupting chemicals, and opportunities for public comment, all of which are necessary for informing and engaging the 

public in the progress and process of testing for endocrine 

disruptors. 

The fourth and final improvement that I want to highlight today 

is updating and revising the testing protocols to be consistent with 

our current scientific knowledge. The screening and testing protocols required under the current EDSP are outdated, time consuming, and expensive. EPA should be able to replace these 

screens with newer, more efficient, and less expensive tests which 

rely less on the use of animals. EPA should also expand the EDSP 

to include endpoints beyond estrogen, androgen, and thyroid hormones. 

The need to expand and improve the EDSP has been called for 

by EPA’s own science advisory panel and prominent scientific societies, such as the Endocrine Society, the American Medical Association, and the American Chemical Society. 

In conclusion, AQUA will provide much-needed improvements to 

the EDSP by making it more relevant to known sources of exposure 

of endocrine-disrupting chemicals in drinking water, more transparent and understandable to the public, and more scientifically 

valid by updating and revising the protocols to be consistent with 

our current scientific knowledge base. 

We commend Mr. Markey for taking a leadership role in protecting the public’s health by identifying endocrine disruptors in 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
40 

our drinking water, and we look forward to working with you and 

your staff as this bill moves forward. 

Thank you for inviting me to testify today, and I would be happy 

to answer your questions. 

[The prepared statement of Dr. Janssen follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
41 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 48 here 76580A.024

Testimony of Dr. Sarah Janssen 

TESTIMONY OF 

Dr. SARAH JANSSEN, MD, PhD, MPH 

STAFF SCIENTIST 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

ON BEHALF OF: 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

BEFORE THE U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT 

ON THE HEARING COVERING LEGISLATION TO 

5/13/10 

REAUTHORIZE THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT STATE REVOLVING FUND, 

THE "Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 2010" ("AQUA"). 

May13,2010 

1 
42 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 49 here 76580A.025

Testimony of Dr. Sarah Janssen 5/13/10 

Good morning Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Upton and members of the committee. Thank you 

for this opportunity to testify on the "Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 2010" ("AQUA"). 

I am Dr. Sarah Janssen, a staff scientist in the Health Program at the Natural Resources Defense Council 

(NRDC). I am a physician, board certified in Occupational and Environmental Medicine and have a 

clinical appointment at the University of California, San Francisco in the Department of Medicine. I also 

have a Master's degree in Public Health and a Ph.D. in Reproductive Biology. I have expertise in 

chemicals that interfere with the natural action of hormones known as "endocrine disrupting 

chemicals". NRDC is a national, nonprofit organization of scientists, lawyers and environmental 

specialists dedicated to protecting public health and the environment. 

NRDC's Health and Environment program focuses on reducing human exposure to toxic chemical 

pollutants in air, water, food, shelter, the workplace and our homes. The Program has worked for many 

years to identify endocrine disrupting chemicals by supporting previous amendments to Food Quality 

Protection Act (FQPA) and the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) which established the Endocrine 

Disrupting Screening and Testing Program (EDSP) at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

NRDC participated in the initial expert panel, EDSTAC, which created a set of recommendations for the 

development and execution of the EDSP, and has taken legal action over delays in the implementation 

of the EDSP at EPA. We have also led efforts to reduce exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals 

found in consumer products such as phthalates found in toys and air fresheners, bisphenol A (SPA) in 

food cans, "antibacterial" chemicals in hand soaps and flame retardants in home furnishings and 

electronics. We have also worked for many years to improve the quality of our drinking water, leading 

the efforts to establish strong health-protective standards for both well-known contaminants, such as 

arsenic, perchlorate, cryptosporidium and pesticides, and raise awareness about "emerging 

contaminants" such as pharmaceuticals and personal care products. 

A Dependable Water Infrastructure Is Essential for Public Health. 

We strongly support increased investment in our nation's water infrastructure which desperately needs 

to be upgraded and restored. The recent broken water main that left two million Bostonians without 

clean drinking water for four days is one prominent example of a growing nationwide problem that will 

only increase in frequency as our aging drinking water infrastructure begins to reach the end of its useful 

life. Currently, we lose an estimated 7 billion galions of water each day from leaking pipes.! The 

American Water Works ASSOCiation estimates that there are more than 200,000 breaks every year in the 

u.s. causing a loss of $2.8 billion in revenue annually.' At the same time, an often overlooked 

consequence of even small leaks in water distribution lines is that when these lines are placed in close 

1 American Society of Civil Engineers. Report Card for America's Infrastructure. 

http://www.infrastructurereportcard.org/fact-sheet/drinking-water 

, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Review Draft: Control And Mitigation Of Drinking Water Losses In 

Distribution Systems. 2009. Available at http://www.epa.gov/safewater/pws/pdfs/analysis_wa03_water_loss_doc_final_draft_v62.pdf 

2 
43 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 50 here 76580A.026

Testimony of Dr. Sarah Janssen 5/13/10 

proximity to sewer lines, a substantial amount of contaminated water can be pulled into pipes resulting 

in waterborne disease outbreaks.3 

In 2007, EPA estimated that U.S. municipalities will need $334 billion over the next 20 years to protect 

public health and ensure compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act." 

Since the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 

(OW SRF) has been one of the main sources of money for states to distribute to municipalities to fund 

drinking water infrastructure improvement projects. With continued funding through the SRF program, 

drinking water utilities can work to improve the availability and quality of drinking water that they 

provide to their customers. 

However, federal funding for the OW SRF has declined since 2002, even without adjusting for inflation. 

Since 2004, when authorization for the SRF expired, Congress has continued to appropriate monies for 

the Fund, but with each budget up to 2009, those numbers had been dropping steadily-despite EPA's 

needs analysis showing that the nation's water systems need much more funding. The Assistance, 

Quality, and Affordability Act of 2010 (AQUA), if enacted, will authorize a much needed increase in 

funding for the OW SRF ($1.5 billion in 2011, $2 billion in 2012 and 2013, $3.2 billion in 2014, and $6 

billion in 2015.) The 1996 amendments authorized appropriations for the DWSRF program of $599 

million for FY1994 and $1 billion for each of FY1995 through FY2003 but funds appropriated by Congress 

never exceeded $850 million except for the very first year in 1997 and this past year under the stimulus 

package. We support this much needed increase in authorization for funding and call on Congress for 

full appropriations up to the authorized level to continue the much needed work on our drinking water 

infrastructure. 

AQUA also provides incentives for public drinking water systems to ensure that they can better provide 

clean and affordable drinking water to their customers well into the future. Currently, there are three 

types of applications that receive priority under SDWA: those which address the most serious risks to 

human health, those that assure compliance with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act, and 

those that assist systems most in need. AQUA would add a fourth priority - consideration of 

sustainability and the future of the water utility. As such, if a project will prevent a system from 

deteriorating to a point where public health is put at serious risk, this project also receives priority for 

funding. This proactive prioritization of funding could be just as important to protect public health as 

are projects to fix current public health problems - and potentially costing less in the long-run. 

Once priority projects are identified, AQUA establishes other criteria by which applications can be 

weighted. This provision allows a state to give consideration to applications that include, for example, 

measures to improve a system's water and energy efficiency or protect the source water. As a result, a 

'U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Panel Summary from the 2000 Emerging Infectious Diseases 

Conference in Atlanta, Georgia. Panel on Waterborne Diseases. Emerging Infectious Diseases Vol. 7. No.3 

Supplement Jun 2001. http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/eid/voI7no3supp/hunter.htm 

4 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey and Assessment. Fourth 

Report to Congress. 2007. 

3 
44 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 51 here 76580A.027

Testimony of Dr. Sarah Janssen 5/13/10 

project to fix leaking pipes, thereby helping staunch the loss of billions gallons of water every day, could 

be given more weight than a project that had no such environmental benefit. 

Importantly, AQUA also gives special priority to poor communities that may have difficulty affording the 

system improvements necessary to comply with new drinking water standards. Rather than relying 

upon a system of variances that would result in some communities drinking water below federal safety 

standards, the bill ensures that funding is prioritized to these communities so that they can meet the 

standards without facing severe economic hardship. As a result, all Americans are assured access to 

both safe and affordable drinking water, regardless of their socioeconomic status. 

Reducing Lead in Drinking Water. 

lead is a common environmental contaminant which is known for frequently contaminating older 

homes because of lead paint. However, lead is also found as a drinking water contaminant due to the 

use of lead or lead solder in water pipes. lead is absorbed across the gut after ingestion and builds up in 

soft tissue -- kidneys, bone marrow, liver, and brain -- as well as bones and teeth. Absorption rates vary; 

the gastrointestinal tracts of adults typically absorb 10-15 percent of ingested lead, while those of 

pregnant women and children can absorb up to 50 percent. 

New research indicates that no amount of lead is safe for a child; yet according to the U.S. Centers for 

Disease Control and Prevention, almost one million American children under the age of six have 

elevated levels of lead in their blood. Even low lead doses are a concern for children, since continuing 

exposure can add up to a significant dose over time. 

Studies show that even low concentrations of lead can cause permanent damage including reduced IQ, 

learning disabilities, shortened attention span, aggressive behavior and impulsivity. Some scientists 

believe that low-level chronic lead exposure in childhood can alter secretion of the human growth 

hormone, stunting growth and promoting obesity. In adults, lead has been associated with the high 

blood pressure (hypertension), hardening of the arteries (atherosclerosis) and dementia. 

Currently, SDWA prohibits the use of pipes that are not "lead free" to install or repair a public water 

system or plumbing that provides water for human consumption.s While on its face, this provision 

seems health protective, the definition of lead free is not protective at all. "lead free" refers to any 

pipes and pipe fittings containing not more than 8.0 percent lead, which is remains an unacceptable and 

preventable source of exposure, especially for a fetus and young child whose developing bodies are 

particularly vulnerable to low levels of lead exposure. As such, the change in AQUA to define "lead free" 

in pipes, pipe fittings, plumbing fittings, and fixtures as "not more than a weighted average of 0.25 

percent" lead will bring a significant public health benefit - especially to areas plagued with old pipes 

that leach lead into the tap water. For an area like Washington, D.C. which faced its own lead poisoning 

crisis just a few years ago, this provision could prevent future problems and protect unsuspecting 

families from the detrimental development effects associated with lead poisoning. 

5 42 U.S.c. § 300g-6. 

4 
45 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 52 here 76580A.028

Testimony of Dr. Sarah Janssen 5/13/10 

I've highlighted a few of the improvements that AQUA will bring to the SDWA; the remainder of my 

written testimony will focus on the improvements to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP) 

proposed in Section 16 of the AQUA legislation. 

Addressing the Problem of Endocrine Disrupting Chemicals in Drinking Water. 

The endocrine system is a complex network of glands and hormones that regulates many of the body's 

functions, including growth, development and function of organ systems. The endocrine glands--

including the pituitary, thyroid, adrenal, thymus, pancreas, fat tissue, ovaries, and testes -- release 

carefully-measured amounts of hormones into the bloodstream that act as natural chemical 

messengers. These messengers travel to different parts of the body where they control and adjust many 

life functions including reproduction, lactation, energy balance, growth and development of nearly every 

organ system in the body including the brain and nervous system. 

For many decades, scientists have recognized that synthetic chemicals are capable of interfering with 

the action of hormones produced within the body. This interference scrambles the body's key signaling 

pathways resulting in a phenomenon known as endocrine disruption. Endocrine disruption was first 

described in the 1990's when environmental chemical contamination was associated with numerous 

wildlife abnormalities including observations of male fish with female characteristics, impaired 

reproduction in birds, and alligators with small penises.' Subsequent labo.ratory animal studies have 

confirmed that exposure to some endocrine-disrupting chemicals, especially during development, can 

result a wide range of adverse effects including birth defects of the genitals, changes in sex hormone 

levels, infertility or increased time to pregnancy, cancer, and altered development of the brain and 

nervous system. The effects described in wildlife and laboratory animals coupled with observations of an 

overall decline in sperm counts in adult men, increased rates of infertility in couples, increased rates of 

birth defects of the genitals including malformed penises and undescended testicles in infant boys, and 

increased rates of testicular and other hormone-dependent cancers raised concern that endocrine 

disrupting chemicals were not only affecting wildlife, but also could be harming human health. 

In response to these concerns, in 1996, Congress passed in amendments to the FQPA and SDWA that 

mandated EPA to create an Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Program to 

" ... develop 0 screening program, using appropriate validated test systems and other scientifically 

relevant informatian, to determine whether certain substances may have an effect in humans 

that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally occurring estrogen, or other such endocrine 

effect as the Administrator may designate. ,,7 

The laws required EPA to develop a screening program by August 1998, to implement the program by 

August 1999, and to report on the program's progress by August 2000. Unfortunately, EPA has missed 

every deadline and was over a decade late when it issued the first chemical test orders in October, 2009. 

This first round of orders will require screening of only 67 chemicals (mostly pesticides) and includes a 

number of chemicals that are already well-known endocrine disruptors." 

• Colborn T, vomSaal FS, Soto AM. Developmental effects of endocrine disrupting chemicals in wildlife and humans. 

Environ Health Perspect 1993;101:378-84. 

721 U.S.c. §346a(p)(1). 

"http://www.epa.gov/endo/pubs/edsp orders status OS0610.pdf 
46 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 53 here 76580A.029

Testimony of Dr. Sarah Janssen 5/13/10 

None of the contaminants in this first round of test orders were chosen because they are drinking water 

contaminants, though Section 136 of the SDWA Amendments states that: 

In addition to the substances referred to in [the FQPAj, the Administrator may provide for testing 

under the screening program authorized by [the FQPAj of any other substance that may be 

found in sources of drinking water if the Administrator determines that a substantial population 

may be exposed to such substance. 9 

Congress recognized that drinking water was likely to be a significant source of exposure to endocrine 

disrupting chemicals, yet, EPA has never used the authority granted by Congress under the SDWA, and 

has not prioritized drinking water contaminants for endocrine disruption testing. Unfortunately, in the 

14 years since the amendments were passed, there has been mounting evidence documenting the 

presence of endocrine disrupting chemicals in drinking water sources. These contaminants are causing 

further wildlife contamination and deformities and are concerning for their potential harm to human 

health. This cO\ltamination is threat to public health that must be addressed. 

EPA must do a better job of testing and regulating drinking water contaminants. 

Despite EPA's failure to adequately test drinking water for endocrine disrupting effects, other reliable 

scientific studies have documented the endocrine disrupting effects of multiple contaminants in our 

nation's waterways, including in the water that millions of people rely on for drinking. Studies by the 

U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) have revealed a chemical soup of pharmaceuticals, steroid hormones, 

unregulated pesticides, flame retardants, rocket fuel chemicals, plasticizers, detergents, fragrance 

ingredients and stain repellants in drinking water sources (ground water and surface water) and in 

drinking water itself.'o "" Among the chemicals most commonly detected in these national surveys are 

known and suspected endocrine disruptors, including the antibacterial chemical triclosan, alkyl phenols 

and alkylphenol polyethoxylates, bisphenol A, musk fragrances, and pharmaceutical estrogens. 

Because conventional drinking water treatment does not eliminate many contaminants, drinking water 

is likely to be contributing to our daily exposure to these chemicals. Although they are found in low 

levels in the water, these levels are nonetheless concerning because hormones normally circulate and 

exert their effects in the body at the parts per billion to parts per trillion level. Water is certainly not the 

only source of these chemicals, but trace amounts from one source add up with traces from other 

sources, and the sum total becomes a threat to human health. 

The soup of chemicals that has been measured in drinking water sources also exists in the majority of 

American's tested for chemicals such as triclosan, phthalates, BPA, flame retardants, perchlorate and 

, 42 U.S.c. § 300j-17. 

10 Kolpin DW, Furlong ET, Meyer MT, Thurman EM, Zaugg SD, Barber LB, Buxton HT. 

Pharmaceuticals, hormones, and other organic wastewater contaminants in U.S. streams, 1999-2000: a national 

reconnaissance. Environ Sci Techno!. 2002 Mar 15;36(6):1202-11. 

11 Barnes KK, Kolpin OW, Furlong ET, Zaugg SO, Meyer MT, Barber LB. A national reconnaissance of 

pharmaceuticals and other organic wastewater contaminants in the United States--I) groundwater. Sci Total 

Environ. 2008 Sep 1;402(2-3):192-200. 

12 Focazio MJ, Kolpin OW, Barnes KK, Furlong ET, Meyer MT, Zaugg SO, Barber LB, Thurman ME. A national 

reconnaissance for pharmaceuticals and other organic wastewater contaminants in the United States--II) 

untreated drinking water sources. Sci Total Environ. 2008 Sep 1;402(2-3):201-16. 

6 
47 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 54 here 76580A.030

Testimony of Dr. Sarah Janssen 5/13/10 

other contaminants.13 Biomonitoring has also confirmed that we are exposed to multiple chemicals at 

the same time and the impacts of exposure to these chemicals as a mixture are not very well 

understood but are concerning for additive or multiplicative effects. For example, certain phthalates are 

well-characterized for decreasing testosterone production and mixtures of these phthalates at relatively 

low individual doses is capable of lowering of testosterone just as is seen after exposure to one 

phthalate at a high dose. Therefore, exposure to a mixture of phthalates and other anti-androgenic 

chemicals in drinking water, even at very low doses, could be harmful because of this mixture effect. 

In addition to the known and suspected endocrine disrupting chemicals in water, there are potentially 

hundreds of other chemical contaminants for which we have no information about their endocrine 

disrupting effects. The result of the decade of foot-dragging on testing chemicals for hormonal activity 

means that the vast majority of chemicals in our water supply and environment are "unknowns" when it 

comes to their hormonal effects. Due to the well-known flaws in the Toxic Substances Control Act 

(TSCA), almost all chemicals come onto the market with no toxicity information, and older chemicals 

remain untested too. 

Legislation is necessary to mandate testing of drinking water contaminants for endocrine disruption. 

Though EPA has had the authority to require endocrine disruption screening and testing of drinking 

water contaminants, it is not mandated to do so and thus far has not exercised that authority. This is a 

missed opportunity to identify a number of chemicals to which millions of Americans are exposed and 

may present a threat to their health. The AQUA will require EPA to expand the EDSP beyond testing only 

pesticides to include water contaminants. 

AQUA will strengthen the EDSP at EPA by requiring four major changes: 

1. Require testing of drinking water contaminants for endocrine disruption on a reasonable 

and achievable timeline. 

2. Accelerate the identification of endocrine disrupting substances when scientific evidence 

already exists, thereby making the EDSP more efficient. 

3. Promote transparency and public participation in the EDSP. 

4. Create a process for updating and revising testing protocols to be consistent with current 

scientific knowledge. 

Testing of drinking water contaminants on a reasonable and achievable timeline. 

The AQUA requires EPA to publish a list of 100 drinking water contaminants within one year of 

enactment and requires that they be screened within four years. This is a very reasonable timeframe 

since EPA has just issued test orders for 67 chemicals in one year with the test results due to EPA in just 

two years. AQUA could, in fact, create a shorter timeline for test results to be submitted since these 

screening tests can be conducted relatively quickly and the tests have already been validated at 

13 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. National Report on Human Exposure to Environmental Chemicals. 

Fourth Report, 2009. http://www.cdc.gov/exposurereport/. 

7 
48 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 55 here 76580A.031

Testimony of Dr. Sarah Janssen 5/13/10 

approved contract labs. The Act further requires EPA to identify and schedule testing of other 

substances with the goal of testing at least all of the 561 chemicals on the Preliminary Contaminant 

Candidate List within ten years of enactment of the Act. Again, this represents an average of less than 

60 chemicals a year for issuing testing orders and should not create an unreasonable work load for EPA. 

Accelerated identification of endocrine disrupting substances. 

Importantly, for substances known to contaminate drinking water, to which a substantial portion of the 

population is exposed, and is suspected to be an endocrine disrupter, EPA can put the screening of that 

substance on an accelerated track which will provide for more timely protection of public health. Under 

this provision, EPA can identify a chemical as an endocrine disruptor by substituting scientifically 

relevant information on endocrine disrupting effects. EPA will have the authority to identify equivalent 

scientific studies published in peer-reviewed publications which meet the criteria of the screening and 

testing battery. For chemicals where the mode of action has already been sufficiently described, for 

example, as in phthalates which are known to interfere with testosterone production, the chemical 

should not be required to undergo repeat and redundant testing that will cost more time and money. 

Instead the chemical should be quickly identified as an endocrine disruptor and be subject to 

determination of an appropriate drinking water standard. 

One chemical which will qualify for the accelerated track is perchlorate. Perchlorate is a contaminant 

that comes from rocket fuel, fireworks, road flares, fertilizer, and other sources. It is known to interfere 

with the normal function of the thyroid gland." Iodine is needed by the thyroid in order to create 

thyroid hormones. Normally, iodine is transported into the thyroid gland through an energy-requiring 

mechanism called the sodium-iodide symporter. Perchlorate blocks this transport and prevents uptake 

of iodine into the gland, thereby interfering with the production of these vital hormones. The 

mechanism of action for perchlorate has already been well-characterized and perchlorate is known to 

interfere with thyroid hormone action. Based on this reliable and repeated scientific evidence, 

perchlorate should not be subject to endocrine disruptor screening and testing but should be identified 

by EPA as a thyroid disrupting chemical and subjected to a drinking water standard. We don't need any 

further confirmation ofthe endocrine disrupting potential of perchlorate, instead EPA must set an 

enforceable drinking water standard for perchlorate that will protect pregnant women, children, and 

people with underlying thyroid disease or iodine deficiency. It is unconscionable that millions of people 

are drinking water contaminated with this known endocrine disruptor and remain unprotected. 

Promotes transparency and public participation in the EDSP. 

AQUA adds much needed public participation and public information dissemination provisions to the 

EDSP. One of the most difficult problems for the public is access to information about the potentially 

toxic chemicals lurking in consumer products, in our homes, and in our drinking water. The AQUA 

creates a publicly searchable database where information about the EDSP will be posted, including 

information about the status of a chemical, the schedule, and the testing results. Importantly, the 

database will also include the data evaluation records, which are the Agency's own evaluation of the 

,. Benjamin C. Blount, James L. Pirkle, John D. Osterloh, liza Valentin-Blasini, and Kathleen L. Caldwell. Urinary 

Perchlorate and Thyroid Hormone Levels in Adolescent and Adult Men and Women Living in the United States. 

Environmental Health Perspectives Volume 114, Number 12, December 2006. 

8 
49 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 56 here 76580A.032

Testimony of Dr. Sarah Janssen 5/13/10 

testing results and will allow for public access to information about how screening and testing results 

were evaluated by the Agency. 

Another important component for public participation that AQUA incorporates into the EDSP is a 

petition process by which the public may petition EPA either to add a substance to the list of chemicals 

that must be tested in the next four years or to identify a chemical to be included in the plan for 

identifying additional substances for testing in the subsequent ten years. A person may also petition the 

EPA to issue a test order on an accelerated basis. Most importantly, the petition process requires EPA to 

make a final determination about whether to grant or deny the petition within 90 days, ensuring that 

these public requests will not get hung up indefinitely in the Agency with no resolution. 

Updating and revising testing protocols to be consistent with current scientific knowledge. 

The screening and testing protocols required under the current EDSP are based on scientific knowledge 

that is outdated and needs to be updated. Some of the screening tests rely on methodology that is 

cumbersome, redundant, time-consuming and expensive. EPA should be able to replace these screens 

with newer tests that are based on high-throughput screens which are more efficient, less expensive 

and do not rely on animals. EPA should also expand the EDSP to include endpoints beyond estrogen, 

androgen and thyroid hormone disruption. There is emerging evidence that endocrine disruptors are 

also able to interfere with other hormone systems in the body including those that regulate fat 

metabolism and glucose (sugar) levels. 

The need to expand and improve the EDSP has been recognized by scientific experts and prominent 

scientific societies have recently issued consensus statements speaking to this issue. The Endocrine 

Society evaluated the science on endocrine disruptorslast year and concluded: 

"The evidence for adverse reproductive outcomes (infertility, cancers, malformations) from 

exposure to endocrine disrupting chemicals is strong, and there is mounting evidence for effects 

on other endocrine systems, including thyroid, neuroendocrine, obesity and metabolism, and 

insulin and glucose homeostasis. ,,15 

The Endocrine Society is the premier professional organization devoted to research on hormones and 

the clinical practice of endocrinology, comprised of over 14,000 research scientists and physicians from 

over 100 countries. This statement has since been endorsed by the American Medical Association. The 

American Chemical Society just issued a similar statement with additional recommendations for "More 

rapid advancement of the congressionally-mandated effort by the EPA, called the Endocrine Disruptor 

Screening Program (EDSP).,,'6 

is Diamanti-Kandarakis E et al. 2009 Endocrine-Disrupting Chemicals: An Endocrine Society Scientific Statement. 

Endocrine Reviews 30(4):293-342. http://www.endosociety.org/journals/scientificstatements/upload/edc scientific statement. pdf 

,. American Chemical Society. Statement on Testing for Endocrine Disruption. Available at 

http://portal.acs.org/portaI/PublicWebSite/policy/publicpolicies/promote/endocrinedisruptors/CNBP _023441. 

9 
50 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 57 here 76580A.033

Testimony of Dr. Sarah Janssen 5/13/10 

AQUA will create a process for EPA to update and expand the EDSP to make it more efficient and 

consistent with current scientific knowledge. This is necessary to keep the Program scientifically relevant 

and credible. 

In conclusion, AQUA would provide a much needed improvements in the Safe Drinking Water Act so 

that EPA may more effectively protect the quality of our nation's drinking water. From providing the DW 

SRF with more funding than it has ever had to improving the EDSP by mandating testing of drinking 

water contaminants, this bill, if enacted, will help ensure that all Americans continue to have access to 

some of the safest drinking water in the world. 

We commend Mr. Markey for taking a leadership role in protecting the public's health by identifying 

endocrine disrupting chemicals in our drinking water sources. These provisions are an important step 

towards improving the EDSP and we look forward to working with you and your staff as this bill moves 

forward. 

Thank you again for inviting me to testify before you today. I would be happy to answer any questions 

from the panel. 

Sincerely, 

Sarah Janssen, MD, PhD, MPH 

Staff Scientist 

Natural Resources Defense Council 

10 
51 

Mrs. CAPPS [presiding]. Thank you for your testimony, Ms. 

Janssen. 

For our last witness, we now turn to Terry Quill. Mr. Quill is an 

attorney and has 15 years of experience representing the chemical 

and pesticide industries on legal and technical issues related to enactment of endocrine testing provisions of the Food Quality Protection Act and EPA’s development and implementation of its Endocrine Disruptor Screening and Testing Program. 

In addition to his law degree, Mr. Quill has masters degrees in 

biology and toxicology from Wayne State University and the University of Michigan, respectively. 

And you are now recognized for 5 minutes of testimony, Mr. 

Quill. 

STATEMENT OF TERRY QUILL 

Mr. QUILL. Thank you. I want to thank the committee for inviting me to testify today. 

I have been involved in endocrine issues, including issues related 

to development and implementation of EPA’s EDSP, for well over 

15 years. Much of my legal practice centers on regulatory science, 

and I often deal with issues concerning statutory interpretation. So 

when I look at the legislation today, I try to think ahead to issues 

concerning how this will be interpreted and used in the future. 

In that regard, my written testimony lays out a number of improvements that I believe could be made to the legislation. However, I do want to commend the committee for drafting a bill that 

in many respects is reasonable, calls for the use of scientifically relevant information—although I will mention a few points concerning 

that—directs EPA to develop a weight of evidence process—we 

have been asking EPA to do that for years now, and I think that 

needs to be done soon—directs EPA to assess and update screening 

assays—EPA intends to do that, we have been also asking them to 

do that—and provides for cost sharing. EPA has been reluctant to 

apply those provisions to non-pesticide chemicals. 

My written testimony suggests a few ways in which I believe the 

bill can be improved to best ensure the use of best available 

science, and I would like to just highlight a few of the issues I raise 

in my written testimony. 

First, I believe that the requirement that EPA publish a list of 

100 drinking water contaminants within 1 year and require that 

EPA order screening of 25 of those chemicals per year appears reasonable. However, I think it could turn out to be more challenging 

to EPA than many think, but I will leave that to EPA to comment 

on that. 

My only concern with that is the idea of the EDSP, as it currently is, is that, initially, EPA would require testing 67 chemicals 

that would be assessed to improve the battery. One thing that I 

think the committee needs to understand is that there is still great 

uncertainty regarding how the assays will perform and how the 

battery in general will perform. In many senses, this first round of 

screening is to validate the assays in the battery. With this bill, we 

have may have two more rounds of orders before we even have a 

chance to review the performance of the assays. That is why in my 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
52 

written testimony I suggest it would be better if additional testing 

didn’t commence for 2 years. 

What really needs to happen in the next year is EPA needs to 

develop the weight of evidence approach, it needs to develop a procedure for updating its screening battery, and it needs to develop 

procedures for considering other scientifically relevant information. 

That needs to be done right away. 

Second, I outline in my written testimony basic scientific principles that I believe are applicable to endocrine screening. I have 

tried to point out areas in the bill where those principles are especially applicable. My general concern is that too often in this endocrine debate there has been a failure to, one, consider all the data; 

secondly, to assess the reliability of the data—and that goes to the 

three basic scientific principles I outline; and determine the relevance of the data. Too often, we see individuals take just a piece 

of information, maybe some molecular data or biochemical data, 

and then apply to that a hypothesis for how this is relevant to adverse effects in humans and then not bother trying to test that hypothesis but instead evoke the precautionary principle to move 

right to regulation. Well, that is not how we regulate in this country; and I would be greatly concerned if this bill reflected any of 

that thinking. 

Richard Sharpe, one of the leading researchers on endocrine 

disruptors, has put it pretty well. He says that we should stay true 

to the scientific method and not to strong convictions. I think that 

that is what we need to do in this bill and throughout the process. 

In regards to the bill itself, let me give just a few examples of 

how basic scientific principles might be applied. 

While I support the bill’s call for the use of scientifically relevant 

information, I am concerned that, unless that information is required to comport with minimum criteria for reliable and relevant 

scientific information, the term ‘‘scientifically relevant information’’ 

can mean almost anything. Without some objective measure, you 

can just basically put anything up as relevant scientific information. That is why I laid out the principles that might be applied. 

This concern also applies to otherwise reasonable provisions, 

such as the provision to accelerate the identification of substances 

for which it will be necessary to identify suspected endocrine 

disruptors. Well, what is a suspected endocrine disruptor? What 

kind of data are we going to rely on to determine that? Well, we 

need some kind of objective principles applied to that, also. I think 

the bill would be ideal if it could talk to that point and make sure 

that it is understood that this science has to be objective. There 

needs to be a procedure for assessing it. 

Finally, I would like to express what was my major concern, that 

the bill might be interpreted as suggesting that it is appropriate 

to base chemical regulation on a mode or mechanism of action, 

such as the interaction with the endocrine system. Chemical regulation in the United States is typically based on the potential for 

a substance to cause a harm or an adverse effect. 

My concern is derived from three things: First of all, the definition of endocrine disruption, which doesn’t even address the concept of harm. Secondly, the provision that requires EPA to deterVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:25 Feb 02, 2013 Jkt 076580 PO 00000 Frm 00058 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A580.XXX A580

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
53 

mine whether to take administrative action based on testing, and 

testing in the bill includes screening. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Quill, your time is up. 

Mr. QUILL. OK. I will finish then. 

So my concern is that the bill suggests that screening data can 

lead to regulation, and that concerns me. 

Thank you very much. 

[The prepared statement of Mr. Quill follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
54 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 61 here 76580A.034

Testimony of 

Terry F. Quill, J.D., M.S. 

before the 

House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

"The Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of20l0" 

May 13,2010 

Thank you for inviting me to testify. I am pleased to have this opportunity 

to address the recently introduced Bill that would, among other things, amend the 

Estrogenic Substances Screening Program provisions of the Safe Drinking Water 

Act. 42 U.S.C. §300j-17. My testimony addresses only Section 16 (Endocrine 

Disruptor Screening Program) of the Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 

2010 (the "Act"). 

Background 

I am an attorney with a toxicology background. For the last 15 years I 

have addressed legal, regulatory, scientific and policy issues related to the 

endocrine issue and to the development and implementation of EPA's Endocrine 

Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP). During this time I have represented 

various sectors of the chemical industry. In my regulatory and litigation practice I 

address issues that arise at the intersection of science and law. Endocrine 

disruption is one of those many legal/science issues I have addressed in my years 

of practice. 

I represent only myself today. My testimony is based on my legal and 

scientific training and expertise, my own experiences concerning endocrine 

legislation and regulatory activities, and my experiences concerning the potential 

effects of regulation on the affected community. 

General Observation 

While I understand the concern of the Subcommittee regarding the pace at 

which the EDSP has been developed and implemented and the Subcommittee's 

desire to push forward with a Bill to speed up testing of chemical substances 

(especially those that may be found in drinking water), I am concerned that 

various provisions of the Bill are contrary to good science, fail to require the use 

of good science and either intentionally or unintentionally significantly undermine 

existing, well-established procedures for science-based regulation. In that regard, 

I believe significant improvements can and should be made to the Bill to ground it 

1 
55 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 62 here 76580A.035

more on objective principles of science. I suggest a number of areas of 

improvement in the following section of my testimony. 

This Subcommittee heard testimony on February 25,2010 and on April 

22,2010, concerning the basic scientific principles applicable to endocrine 

screening. While not new, those principles were well summarized by Dr. Borgert 

at the February 25th hearing. Briefly, those principles concern: (1) measurement: 

scientific studies must measure what they claim to have measured within a known 

margin of error; (2) confounding: measurements and observations must not be 

confounded by extraneous factors and influences known to corrupt their accuracy 

and precision; and (3) replication: measurements and observations must be 

replicable in independent hands. At the April 22nd hearing, Dr. Birnbaum of 

NIEHS and Dr. Falk of ATSDR agreed that "good science" includes these 

principles and that "regulatory policy in the United States, things that we do, to 

the extent that it is going to rely on scientific research should, at a minimum, 

make these criteria ... the cornerstone of our policymaking." April 22, 2010 

Hearing on "The Environment and Human Health: HHS' Role" at 79-80. When I 

refer to "good science" in my testimony I am referring to these and related 

scientific principles. For purposes of this statement, I would add other scientific 

concepts such as the need to weigh and consider all data when forming broader 

scientific conclusions or managing risks. I also believe it is important to 

understand to what extent certain data and observations are relevant to answering 

broader scientific questions (such as whether a substance is an "endocrine 

disruptor" or whether a substance may pose a risk to human health or the 

environment) and to managing related potential risks. Generally, I have been 

concerned that many involved in the endocrine disruptor issue often fail to adhere 

to the above-mentioned scientific principles, fail to consider all the data, and often 

misstate the relevance of data upon which they rely. 

Section 300j-17 of the Safe Drinking Water Act currently grants EPA the 

Authority to accomplish most if not all of the activities provided in the Bill. An 

obvious feature of the Bill is that it directs EPA to list and order testing of 

substances that may be found in sources of drinking water. More significantly, 

the Bill sets deadlines for those activities. Those deadlines, while understandable, 

may lead to unnecessary endocrine screening that could waste limited resources 

and lead to the unnecessary use of a great number of laboratory animals. For that 

reason, I believe the deadlines in the Bill should be slightly revised to allow EPA 

to modify, to the extent necessary and consistent with scientific principles, its Tier 

1 screens and screening battery before undertaking additional screening. 

Less obvious are a variety of other provisions and the use of various terms 

in the Bill that may significantly undermine the well developed scientific process 

currently used for science-based regulation in the United States. It is not clear 

whether those provisions are intentional or merely an artifact oflegislative 

drafting. Specifically, health-based chemical regulation in the US currently is 

based on the potential for substances to produce adverse affects. As discussed 

2 
56 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 63 here 76580A.036

below, the Bill appears to suggest that EPA may and possibly should regulate 

based on a substance's mechanism or mode of action, regardless of whether that 

mechanism is adverse or leads to an adverse effect. Again, it is unclear whether it 

is the intent of the Bill to create a new regulatory paradigm. In any event, 

consistent with well-established principles for conducting risk-based regulation 

and with principles of sound science, the Bill should be modified to clearly state 

that to the extent EPA manages (i.e., regulates) endocrine disruptors, that 

regulation should be risk-based and designed to manage adverse effects. 

Suggested Improvements to the Act 

1. EPA should be allowed to complete its initial phase of screening before it 

is required to issue additional testing orders. 

As the committee learned from the testimony it heard at its February 25, 

2010 hearing, the time it has taken EPA to develop and implement its EDSP was 

expected by scientists given the Agency's attempt to develop and implement a 

very ambitious program along with the need to develop and validate a large 

number of new assays. Even at this time there remains significant uncertainty as 

to how well the individual assays and the Tier 1 EDSP battery will perform. 

Because of the uncertainties related to the Tier 1 screens and battery, EPA's 

Science Advisory Panel recommended that EPA initially undertake screening of 

fewer than 100 chemicals and, based on the results and experiences for those 

chemicals, modify Tier 1 screens and the Tier 1 battery as necessary prior to 

undertaking additional screening. Indeed, the initial phase of EDSP screening 

will be necessary to evaluate the performance of the screening assays and to 

validate the Tier 1 battery. The expectation of the SAP was that additional 

screening would not commence until after the first phase of screening was 

completed and assessed, and necessary changes were made to the assays and 

battery. 

The Bill would require EPA to issues one or two rounds of new screening 

orders prior to its compietiort and assessment of the initial phase of screening. 

The Subcommittee should realize that, to the extent modifications to the Tier 1 

assays and battery will need to be made in response to problems uncovered in the 

initial phase of screening, additional screening conducted prior to those 

modifications could result in a waste of limited resources and the unnecessary use 

of laboratory animals. 

It will take two years from this point for EPA to complete the initial phase 

of screening under the EDSP and to analyze the data generated by that screening. 

During that time EPA should work diligently to develop a weight of evidence 

process for assessing Tier I screening data. I believe it would be more 

scientifically sound for the Act to require additional screening after that two-year 

period and to direct EPA to develop its weight of evidence assessment procedures 

3 
57 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 64 here 76580A.037

within one year so that those procedures are available as data from Tier 1 

screening are reported. 

2. The Bill should define "endocrine disruptors" as substances that exert an 

adverse effect. 

The Bill changes the current definition of "endocrine disruptors" used in 

EPA's EDSP. The current definition of endocrine disruptor includes the concept 

of adverse effect (i.e., "endocrine disruptors" are currently viewed as substances 

that cause adverse effects through interactions with the endocrine system). The 

Bill's new definition is sufficiently broad to label anything that interacts with the 

endocrine system, regardless of effect, an "endocrine disruptor." In effect, the 

new definition would result in labeling anything screening positive in EDSP Tier 

1 screening an "endocrine disruptor." It is unclear whether this is the intent of the 

Bill. 

The Subcommittee should realize that the Bill's new definition would include 

within the term "endocrine disruptor" substances in the diet such as soy, sugar, 

salt, vegetables and almost all other exposures including physical factors such as 

sunlight. It should be remembered that the endocrine system functions as a 

mechanism to maintain homeostasis. Almost any exposure, given the right dose, 

will elicit adaptive changes in the endocrine system. Most of those changes are 

normal and without adverse effect. For these reasons, the Bill's new definition of 

endocrine disruptor is so broad as to be meaningless and useless. My concern is 

that the term "endocrine disruptor" is often used to elicit emotional responses that 

are not supported by the science. Indeed, how can the average person believe that 

the term "disruption" is not bad or adverse, even when endocrine disruption refers 

to a normal, uneventful interaction. In sum, the Bill's new definition of 

"endocrine disruption" implies adversity when there may be no adversity. 

I believe the definition of "endocrine disruptor" in the Bill should be modified 

to read: "'Endocrine disruptor' is an exogenous agent or mixture of agents that 

causes an adverse effect by interfering with or altering the synthesis, secretion, 

transport, metabolism, binding action, or elimination of hormones .... " Again, 

in my view, without this modification the Bill's definition of endocrine disruption 

is meaningless, useless and likely to cause mischief. 

3. The Bill appears to promote regulation based on mechanism or mode of 

action. 

When viewed in its entirety, the Bill appears to promote, contrary to currently 

established scientific and regulatory principles, regulation based simply on a 

substance's mode or mechanism of action. It is unclear whether this result is 

intended. In any event, the Bill plows new ground in this regard - we generally 

do not regulate based on mechanism. Rather, chemical regulation in the US is 

generally based on the potential for a chemical to cause adverse effects on 

4 
58 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 65 here 76580A.038

humans or the environment. My view is that the Bill should not promote 

regulation based solely on mechanism of action. I believe for a variety of reasons 

that such regulation would be contrary to good science and sound regulatory 

policy. It would also set a dangerous precedent that could affect all agency 

action. 

My concerns arise out of the Bill's new definition of "endocrine disruptor" 

which appears to' over emphasize the relevance of mechanism and ignores the 

importance of adverse effects. Further the Bill's definition of "testing" fails to 

distinguish the important difference between, and respective relevance of, 

screening and testing. Finally, the Bill explicitly directs EPA to determine 

whether to take action on "testing results" within 6 months after receipt of those 

results. See Section 1457(f)(2). Given the definition of "testing," which includes 

screening, and the fact that for most compounds EPA will have only screening 

data within 6 months of receiving "testing results," it appears the Bill may 

envision regulation based on screening results (i.e., mechanistic data) alone. 

For the above reasons, I believe the Bill should be modified to (1) include the 

concept of adverse effects in the definition of "endocrine disruptor"; (2) 

distinguish screening and testing in the definition of "testing" and throughout the 

Bill to the extent necessary; and (3) clearly state in Section 1457(f)(2) that 

regulation should be risk-based and designed to manage adverse effects consistent 

with the current regulatory approach. As currently written, the scientific basis for 

various provisions in the Bill appear, at best, garbled and may lead to 

interpretations ofthe Bill contrary to Congressional intent. At worst, the Bill may 

actually intend to create a new regulatory paradigm unsupported by science and 

good regulatory policy. 

I believe modifications to the Bill should be informed by a number of basic 

scientific and policy concepts upon which the EDSP and science-based chemical 

regulations are based. These concepts have been extensively discussed by the 

National Academy of Science, other scientific bodies and by various scientists. 

First, it is important to understand that screens are not tests. Screens are designed 

to be very sensitive and, therefore, generally have high false positive rates. 

Screens are useful to prompt testing. In the case of the EDSP, Tier 1 screening is 

designed to identifY substances that may interact with the endocrine system and, 

in that regard, prompt more definitive Tier 2 testing. Tier 1 screens are not useful, 

on their own, for determining hazard or as a basis for regulation. Tests, however, 

can determine the potential for adverse effects and can serve as the basis for 

determining hazard. It is important to note, however, that identifYing hazard is 

not equivalent to testing. Hazard is identified after testing data are interpreted 

using a weight of evidence assessment. Hazard, while not sufficient in itself for 

assessing risk, is used along with exposure data to assess risk. Finally, risk 

assessment, along with consideration of various societal issues, forms the basis 

for regulation. 

5 
59 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 66 here 76580A.039

4. All scientifically relevant information should be considered when ordering 

EDSP screening and testing. 

Focusing on what should be the ultimate goal of the EDSP - determining 

which substances have the potential to cause adverse effects and managing 

associated risks - Congress may want to take this opportunity to clearly direct 

EPA to utilize, to the greatest extent possible, existing data that examines 

potential adverse effects. In that regard, it may be possible for some chemicals to 

forgo Tier I screening when sufficient Tier 2 type data are available. Although in 

some of these cases complete mechanistic data may not be available (data that 

might be generated in Tier 1 screening), sufficient data may still exist for 

purposes of assessing and managing risks. Therefore, while mechanistic data may 

be interesting in these cases, it may not be necessary for achieving the ultimate 

goal of the EDSP. By eliminating unnecessary screening and testing it may be 

possible to redirect limited resources to substances for which there exists fewer 

relevant data. Eliminating unnecessary screening and testing may also decrease 

the use oflaboratory animals and further animal welfare concerns. 

5. Throughout the Bill, EPA should be reminded to use the minimum criteria 

for developing reliable and relevant scientific information. 

Congress may want to take this opportunity to reiterate the importance of 

using reliable and relevant scientific information, which is discussed in the 

previous section of this testimony. For example, the Bill directs EPA to: 

• Prioritize the selection of substances that pose the greatest public 

health concern and to identify subpopulations that are at greater risk. 

Section 1457(b)(2)(A). That prioritization and identification should be 

based on actual data that comport with minimum criteria for reliable 

and relevant scientific information. 

• Publish guidance on procedures for developing and updating 

protocols, determining when testing will be required and using other 

scientifically relevant information. Section 1457(c)(l). That guidance 

should require the adherence to the minimum criteria for reliable and 

relevant scientific information. 

• Revise testing protocols. Section 1457(d). Determining whether to 

revise testing protocols and revising those protocols should comport 

with the minimum criteria for reliable and relevant scientific 

information. 

Accelerate testing for substances that, among other things, are 

"suspected to be an endocrine disruptor or has a structural similarity to 

a substance known to be an endocrine disruptor." Section 1575(e)(l). 

6 
60 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 67 here 76580A.040

The determination as to whether a substance is suspected to be an 

endocrine disruptor should be determined on the basis of actual data 

that comport with the minimum criteria for reliable and relevant 

scientific information. Further, EPA is to use "scientifically relevant 

information" to make that determination. Section 1575(e)(2). 

"Scientifically relevant information" should be data that comport with 

the minimum criteria for reliable and relevant scientific information. 

6. The scope of the Act should be clarified. 

The Clean Water Act currently states, and the Bill reiterates, that a substance 

is subject to Section 1457 of the Act if "the substance may be found in sources of 

drinking water" and if"a substantial population may be exposed to such 

substance." The Act does not define the operative terms "may be found," 

"sources of drinking water," "substantial population" and "may be exposed." 

This language could be construed broadly as including within the scope of the Act 

almost any substance, even if the substance is not found in actual drinking water 

and even when no one is actually exposed. Indeed, an argument could be made 

that almost any water is a "potential" source of drinking water, possibly even an 

isolated aquifer under a Superfund site. Arguably, perhaps with some exceptions, 

any chemical may be found in such a source. Scenarios might also be imagined in 

which some number of people may be exposed to any water source. 

Given limited testing resources, I believe it would be of greater benefit to 

human health to require testing of substance that may actually be expected in 

actual sources of drinking water. For purposes of prioritizing EDSP screening 

and testing, it would also be beneficial to focus first on more significant 

exposures. For these reasons, i believe it would be beneficial for the Bill to better 

define these terms and focus more on actual exposures or realistic exposure 

scenarios rather than what could amount to an highly unlikely chance of exposure. 

I believe the Bill should be modified to limit the scope of the Act to more likely 

drinking water contaminants. This could be accomplished by more narrowly 

defining the terms outlined above. 

Again, I thank the Subcommittee for inviting me to testify on this very 

important Bill. 

7 
61 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Quill. 

Before we begin with questions, I would like to ask unanimous 

consent to include several letters and statements that we have received on this legislation, to include these in the record. 

Without objection, so ordered. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

Mrs. CAPPS. I will begin with my questions, and I am going to 

turn first to Ms. Dougherty. 

Currently, EPA is exploring whether to develop a drinking water 

standard for perchlorate. Some are arguing that EPA should stop 

this work. For example, one argument is made that the thyroid effect caused by perchlorate is also sometimes caused by eating foods, 

and so addressing the contaminant in drinking water might not 

even eliminate the risk. 

Now, let me draw a parallel. EPA currently has a drinking water 

standard to ensure that there aren’t harmful levels of E. coli in 

drinking water, even though E. coli can also be found in food. Do 

you think EPA should rescind its E. coli drinking water standard 

because it can also be found in food? 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. No. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Some people also say that pregnant women could 

just take iodine supplements to prevent the adverse health effects 

caused by perchlorate. Do you think that EPA should stop regulating E. coli in drinking water and instead advise people to just 

take antibiotics to prevent E. coli infections? 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. No. 

Mrs. CAPPS. So, just to sum up, even though the health risk may 

exist in more than just drinking water—and medication could be 

used to treat that health risk—you would agree that those are not 

reasons why EPA should cease its efforts to regulate perchlorate. 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I would agree that it is not necessarily the reason to do that. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. 

Mr. Estes-Smargiassi, a study released last year by the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies and the National Association 

of Clean Water Agencies found that the Nation’s drinking water 

systems alone would need $692 billion through 2050 to adapt their 

operations and their infrastructure to the impacts of climate 

change. AQUA directs States to give greater weight to Drinking 

Water SRF applications if the system improves its efficiency or reduces its environmental impact through measures like increased 

water efficiency or conservation, greater source water protections, 

and actions to develop sustainable energy on site. Do you believe 

that these types of projects will help water systems prepare for the 

impacts of climate change? 

Mr. ESTES-SMARGIASSI. All of those things increase our flexibility 

and should make it easier for systems to adapt to climate change, 

yes. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Are there some additional types of projects that you 

would like to list that would help you do this? 

Mr. ESTES-SMARGIASSI. I would say what we can use from EPA 

and from the Federal Government is more detailed information, 

more research on the specific impacts for every use system. It is 

very different from place to place. So maybe not projects, because 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
62 

I can’t say what any individual system would require, but information and technical assistance would help us move that forward. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you very much. 

And I turn now to Mr. Levy. 

Several government reports have concluded that climate change 

will lead to increased heavy precipitation events in the Northeast 

and rising sea levels along the coast. What is Maine Rural Water 

Association or other rural water agencies doing to prepare for these 

impacts and how can the Federal Government help, either through 

Drinking Water SRFs or some other program? 

Mr. LEVY. That is an interesting question. As you know, we have 

about 3,000 miles of coastline in Maine. I would say that climate 

change will probably be less of an issue for water systems typically 

because the water supplies aren’t located next to the ocean. That 

being said, the wastewater facilities are often discharging into the 

ocean and in fact are often located nearby. So I would say that the 

clean water SRF fund would be a very, very valuable source of 

funding to help them either to move or to protect their resources 

due to climate change. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you very much. Your prompt answers are allowing me to ask another question, and I can turn to Dr. Janssen. 

My State has defined, the State of California—I am not Mr. Markey, by the way. I am Mrs. Capps, from a different coastline, where 

we are impacted by climate change as well. My State has defined 

lead free as 0.25 percent lead content, rather than the extraordinarily high 8 percent lead content currently permitted under the 

Safe Drinking Water Act. The AQUA Act adopts this 0.25 percent 

lead content standard. You are from California as well. In your 

opinion, why is it unacceptable to define lead free as containing no 

more than 8 percent lead content? 

Dr. JANSSEN. Thank you for your question. 

We know that lead is a potent neurotoxin which has strong 

neurodevelopmental impacts, especially in babies and infants who 

are exposed to that. So, therefore, we really worry about even very 

low levels of exposure. So 8 percent might not seem like very much, 

but, in actuality, it is a level of lead exposure that could cause a 

loss of IQ points, a change in behavior, impairments in learning 

and memory. And so 0.25 percent is a much better level of exposure than a much higher percentage. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. 

Mr. Crouse, I am over time, but would you offer two words in response to that? Do you agree or disagree? 

Mr. CROUSE. We agree. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Two words. Thank you very much. 

And now I turn to Mr. Scalise for questions. 

Mr. SCALISE. I thank the chairman. 

For Dr. Janssen, right now, in an ideal world, of course, we 

would have unlimited resources to address potential health issues, 

such as aging drinking water systems. I don’t think anybody up 

here would disagree with that. However, we are most decidedly not 

living in an ideal word, and we have very limited resources. According to a report yesterday, the Federal Government ran a deficit 

in April for the first time in 26 years. We spent $20.9 billion more 

than we took in for last month alone. Since October, our overdraft 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
63 

account has a balance of a record $802 billion; and at that pace we 

are on the road to our Nation’s first-ever $1 trillion annual deficit. 

So is it wise to say that some of the extra funds authorized in 

this bill, funds that we clearly don’t have, should, as a priority, go 

to projects like the fourth priority, which was added in section 

seven of this bill, which makes preventative projects as much of a 

priority as the systems in most need or present the most danger 

to human health? 

Dr. JANSSEN. When I took an oath as a physician, prevention was 

a big part of that. That is part of the Hippocratic Oath. Preventing 

disease is much less costly than treating disease. 

So bacterial contamination has been associated with not just 

nausea and vomiting and having to be in bed all day with diarrhea 

and staying home from work, which is costly to businesses, but also 

has resulted in kidney failure, hospitalization in the ICU, and 

even—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Right. And so we have got a host of problems that 

you deal with, that we all deal with. 

But, again, with unlimited resources, we could address each of 

those. But if you’ve got a situation—if a doctor is treating patients 

at a hospital and three people come in all at the same time with 

various levels of degrees, wouldn’t you take the patient who is the 

most in dire need of attention? If you have only got one doctor and 

three patients, the one that is near death versus the one that 

might just need an aspirin, wouldn’t you take the one with near 

death first or would you—— 

Dr. JANSSEN. I think that is true, but I would say our aging infrastructure is a dire situation. 

Mr. SCALISE. Right. But until they change the priorities so that 

a system that is most severely in need gets the same attention as 

one that is not severely in need when you have limited resources— 

when you don’t have limited resources, I understand it would be 

fine to treat all of those, but do you think it is appropriate that this 

bill changes that priority so that you as an administrator or somebody who is an administrator of a water system can’t treat the 

most-in-need system, even if they have limited resources? 

Dr. JANSSEN. Well, I am here to speak about the endocrine 

disruptor screening provisions in the bill, but my read of the bill 

and my interpretation of it is that prevention becomes an equal priority with the other priorities that you are describing. So it is not 

placing that priority above the other ones and the water system 

could—— 

Mr. SCALISE. Let me ask Mr. Crouse, who deals with the water 

system in Maine. What is your take on that? 

Mr. CROUSE. When we look at projects that—we always get more 

project requests than we have money available, so we do prioritize 

based on those systems that are in violation. So our scoring system 

is weighted to the ones that are out of compliance with Safe Drinking Water Act regulations. Those are our highest priority. The ones 

that are lower priority are the ones that are maintenance, infrastructure, replacement, those types of activities. 

Mr. SCALISE. Mr. Levy, your take on that, representing rural 

water systems. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
64 

Mr. LEVY. Representative, I probably spend 2 nights a week out 

raising water rates for some small town, and I understand what 

you are getting at. What I am seeing, frankly, is small communities 

being unable to keep up with both aging infrastructure and complicated rules and regulations, and it is an ongoing struggle. I 

think this bill does a lot to put the greatest needs first, and I think 

that is important. 

Now, let me just share a little story we are doing—— 

Mr. SCALISE. I am almost out of time, so I apologize. 

If I could go on, back to Mr. Crouse, why do some States’ analysis conclude the Davis-Bacon provisions will inflate the cost of 

drinking water projects and how would you remedy that? 

Mr. CROUSE. Well, in Maine, we do not have a State prevailing 

wage rate requirement. So when ARRA came along with the DavisBacon provision attached, we had to begin implementing that, so 

we did see some increases in costs, project costs, as a result of contractors having to meet the Davis-Bacon wage rate requirements. 

Mr. SCALISE. OK. Mr. Levy, in terms of the prevailing wage, how 

would that increase costs for you? Any kind of quantitative analysis? 

Mr. LEVY. In terms of—we have seen some project costs go up. 

We have seen some project costs stay the same. I would say that 

there is a mixed opinion on it. We are basically deferring to Congress on the implementation of Davis-Bacon. We feel that this is 

an issue that you are going to need to wrestle with. 

I would say—— 

Mr. SCALISE. But it does, in cases, increase the cost and make 

it to where you are not able to fix as many water systems if that 

cost is increased on particular projects? 

Mr. LEVY. I would say it is catch as catch can in terms of individual projects. Some of them are going up; some are staying the 

same. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I now recognize Mr. Inslee for 5 minutes. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

I wanted to ask some of the witnesses about endocrine disruptors 

specifically. We have certainly had a problem. I am from the State 

of Washington, and we have found these disruptors in Puget 

Sound. We have got male fish with female proteins in Elliot Bay. 

We are finding there is 150,000 pounds of untreated toxic finding 

its way into Puget Sound every day. We have got the endocrinedisrupting chemicals found in numerous King County waters, and 

I won’t list the names of them. 

But I wanted to ask witnesses about the ability to keep endocrine 

disruptors out of the waterways in general. I have introduced a bill 

to create a legal pathway to dispose of pharmaceuticals so they 

don’t get flushed down the toilet and end up in our waterways. We 

are particularly concerned about endocrine disruptors, and I just 

wanted to ask—maybe I would start with Ms. Dougherty—what 

advice you could give us. 

I am trying to keep these things out of the waterway in general. 

We have suggested a way to allow communities to do drug takeback programs to keep these out of our sewer systems which are 

not designed to segregate this stuff from going into the bays and 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
65 

estuaries. But I just wondered—and I will start with Ms. Dougherty—what comments you would give us on trying to keep this out 

of the water system in general. 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I think improving the ability for communities 

to have drug take-back programs is a good idea and something to 

follow through on. We have done some work over the last couple 

of years to try to see what could be done with that. That doesn’t 

completely solve the problem, because, obviously, what goes 

through people’s bodies also comes out; and we need to look at 

what we do in terms of the wastewater treatment plants and 

whether there are things that can be done to understand what 

comes out of wastewater treatment plants and goes into the environment. 

Mr. INSLEE. Ms. Dougherty, you could help us. The bill that I 

have introduced—there are two concerns about leftover pharmaceuticals. One, they end up getting into the hands of our kids who 

then sell them on the street; and prescription drug abuse is now 

the fastest-growing problem with drug abuse right now. So that is 

one of the problems. The other thing is these endocrine disruptors 

and other chemicals getting in our natural water systems. 

Our bill would address both of these issues. I hope you might 

think about trying to alert other members of my committee, frankly, of the necessity of making sure we deal with both of the problems, including the ones that we are here talking about of endocrine disruptors. Some of us suggested we don’t deal with the environmental issue, we only deal with the drug abuse problem. We 

think we should deal with both. 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I agree you need to deal with both. 

Mr. INSLEE. I appreciate that, and I will quote you widely. And 

if you can let others know in the House your thoughts on that, that 

would be appreciated, because we are trying to move this bill. 

Does anyone want to comment on this issue on the panel? 

Dr. JANSSEN. I can comment on this. 

Thank you for your questions and for your efforts to reduce the 

upstream of these chemicals into the environment. NRDC published what we call a scoping paper on pharmaceuticals in the environment, and I will provide that to this committee for your pleasure in reading. 

[The information appears at the conclusion of the hearing.] 

We talk about the whole entire lifecycle of the pharmaceuticals 

so not just the disposal practices but also designing better drugs 

to begin with. Because we know that some drugs are more likely 

to remain in the environment than others and especially drugs 

which are not necessarily the most prescribed by volume or in 

terms of numbers but drugs which for whatever reason are very 

persistent because of the way that they are structured and developed. 

A second is to have better physician practices in prescribing 

medications. I think physicians have largely gotten the message 

about reducing prescriptions for antibiotics, for example, for a viral 

infection. Well, we know they are not going to do any good to the 

patient. But patients still go in and expect to get an antibiotic 

when they see their doctor. So we have to do better education of 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
66 

both patients and physicians to decrease the prescriptions of unnecessary drugs. 

And, finally, I do agree that we need better treatments in our 

wastewater plants and better research into methodologies that can 

remove these things before they are put back into the wastewater 

stream. 

Mr. INSLEE. Thank you. 

Anyone else. 

Mr. QUILL. Yes, if I may. 

I think your approach is rational, but I don’t know why it would 

be limited to so-called endocrine disruptors. It is always good to 

limit the release of any chemical to the environment. 

I would say, on the fish issue, you may regulate or prevent the 

release of drugs per se, but it doesn’t address other issues. You 

know, there’s estrogens that come from female urine that are not 

related to pharmaceuticals. Those would have to be regulated. And 

there are other sources such as runoff, just what are called 

phytoestrogens from plants. There are a number of things that 

have to be regulated, and pharmaceuticals may be one, but there 

are other places to look. 

Mr. INSLEE. I can assure you I will not be offering a bill to regulate the female constituents of the First Congressional District. 

And, by the way, our bill does deal with all chemicals and prescriptions, not just endocrine disruptors. Thank you. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Dr. Burgess is recognized for your questions, 5 minutes, please. 

Dr. BURGESS. Thank you. I appreciate that. 

As a public service announcement, the water in your pitchers is 

either taken from a plastic bottle in the back which has not been 

screened for BPA or, worse yet, it came from the tap, and we are 

advised not to drink the water in the Capitol because of the high 

lead content. Just so you know. 

Ms. Dougherty, let me ask you a couple of questions, if I could, 

because you are the director of one of the major offices in the Office 

of Water in the EPA; is that correct? 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. Yes. 

Dr. BURGESS. In March of this year, there is a report that came 

from the EPA Inspector General concerning recommendations from 

past Inspector General reports, and the report delineates down to 

the Office of Water, and some of these programs I think would fall 

under the jurisdiction of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking 

Water. So if I mention programs that are handled by another office, 

please let me know that. 

But the report is the compendium of unimplemented recommendations as of March 31, 2010; and the report itself is dated 

April 28, 2010. The Inspector General lists six reports that involve 

unimplemented recommendations. One of the reports was issued in 

2002, another in 2004, another in 2006. No other EPA program office was close to this record. If you could, tell us why the Office of 

Water has such a problem in implementing recommendations from 

the EPA Inspector General compared to other EPA program offices. 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I am afraid I will have to get back to you on 

that, since I don’t have the list in front of me. But, normally, the 

Inspector General reports have recommendations for actions for 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
67 

EPA to take and EPA responds with what actions we plan to take 

and tracks those actions. So I am not familiar with exactly 

which—— 

Dr. BURGESS. I think there is—— 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. Occasionally, there are some differences in 

what we think meets what we have said we would do and what the 

Inspector General thinks meets what we are expected to do. But let 

me get back to you on that. 

Dr. BURGESS. But we are not just necessarily as a Federal agency 

free to ignore those IG recommendations because we disagree. 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. What they track is not so much their recommendations but what we have said we would do about them, I 

believe, and—— 

Dr. BURGESS. Well, just a couple of specifics on the April 28 report which I will make available to your office. 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I am sure I have it. Thank you. 

Dr. BURGESS. The EPA Office of Water agreed to complete implementation of a recommendation from a 2002 IG report on wastewater management by September 30, 2009, but as of the April 28 

report it was still unimplemented. We are a few weeks past that 

point at this juncture. Is it still unimplemented at this time? 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I can assure you that it is not my office. That 

one is not my office, but I will go back and respond back to you 

on that. 

Dr. BURGESS. Very good. Also, according to this same report, the 

Office of Water has not implemented a recommendation in which 

the Office of Water agreed to take corrective action by September 

30. This action would be in response to a recommendation from a 

2004 IG report that found that the EPA needed to reinforce its national pretreatment program; and, in particular, the Office of 

Water was to develop a long-term strategy to identify the data it 

needs for developing pretreatment results-based measurements. 

The IG says the Office of Water has not implemented the recommendations as of March 31, 2010. 

I would ask you today, have those recommendations been implemented? 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I can’t answer that. Again, that is not my particular office within the Office of Water, but I can get you a response. 

Dr. BURGESS. I would appreciate that; and we will provide you 

the several things here that we have got, recommendations that 

haven’t been implemented. 

Mr. Quill, let me ask you, because you were building up to what 

sounded like an important apex in your testimony, and we unfortunately cut you off. You were making the point that the screening 

data sometimes can lead to regulation that, if I understood you correctly, that may be jumping the gun or missing the mark. Would 

you care to finish that thought that you had when you were giving 

your opening statement? 

Mr. QUILL. Yes, sir. And thank you for the question. 

The point I was making is, in the bill, there is a definition of endocrine disruptor which basically includes anything. If you don’t incorporate into that definition the idea of adversity—although the 

term ‘‘disruptor’’ suggests adversity—what you have defined as an 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
68 

endocrine disruptor is anything. It could be soy, it could be baby 

formula, anything that interacts with the hormone system, with 

the endocrine system. 

On top of that, you have a definition of testing which includes 

screening, and it is important to understand that screening merely 

tells you whether something has the ability to interact with the endocrine system. It kind of tells you a mechanism of action. Not only 

that, screening tests are designed to be highly sensitive, which 

means there is a high false-positive rate. 

Really, screening tests are valuable for prompting more definitive 

testing. So the idea is you have a definition of an endocrine 

disruptor, you have a definition of testing which includes screening, 

and then you have a provision that says, based on the results of 

testing—read screening or mechanistic data—the agency shall take 

action. And that action some might perceive to be regulatory action, and therefore what we might see is regulatory action based 

on mechanistic information. That is not the way science-based regulation is done currently in the country. 

However, the thing that concerned me is there is this trend to 

not rely on data, to rely on some very basic screening-type data and 

use precautionary principles and call for regulation. That was my 

concern. 

Dr. BURGESS. I know we have gone over time, but let me just ask 

you if you all will work with us on the language of that so maybe 

we could possibly get it right in the underlying bill. We would appreciate that very much. 

Mr. QUILL. Thank you. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. 

Now turning to Mr. Shadegg for your questions, 5 minutes. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Dr. Burgess hit upon the line of questioning that I would like to 

go ahead with, Mr. Quill, and I am interested in getting further 

definition. You say that there are various provisions of the bill that 

you believe are contrary to good science and fail to use good science 

either intentionally or unintentionally, significantly undermining 

existing, well-established procedures for science-based regulation. 

Can you compare the concerns you have or illustrate the concerns 

you have with what is in the proposed legislation compared to the 

program that is currently going on? 

Mr. QUILL. Yes, sir. If we go back to the 96 amendments to the 

Safe Drink Watering Act that include the endocrine provisions, 

EPA was granted full authority to do pretty much everything that 

is in the current bill. The big difference here is that the bill orders 

the EPA to act, as opposed to just granting it authority, and it has 

some hard deadlines. 

Mr. SHADEGG. Could you stop—it orders it to test or does it do 

more than order it to test? Because ordering it to test—— 

Mr. QUILL. It orders the agency to list and then test 25 chemicals 

per year. OK. 

Mr. SHADEGG. I thought you said it was going to be up to the 

EPA to determine whether or not they could achieve—— 

Mr. QUILL. Well, that is always the case. In the Food Quality 

Protection Act that EPA bases its current EDSP on, the bill exVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:25 Feb 02, 2013 Jkt 076580 PO 00000 Frm 00074 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A580.XXX A580

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
69 

pected EPA to take certain action within 2 years. The science didn’t 

allow it. So you know—— 

Mr. SHADEGG. Apparently. OK. Proceed. 

Mr. QUILL. In any event, the current EDSP envisions that endocrine disruptors are substances that cause adverse effects. That is 

a change in the new bill. 

I have this overarching concern that—I am not sure what the bill 

intends to do, but I have a concern that it might promote regulation based on screening data. The current EDSP makes it clear 

that that is not what is supposed to happen with screening data. 

Screening data are supposed to be used to prompt Tier 2 testing. 

And just in reading the bill, I was just concerned that it wasn’t 

clear that it fully understood the value of screening data versus 

testing data and how regulations are typically done. And perhaps 

the committee fully understands this. However, as a person who 

has to deal with the interpretation of this Act down the road, I 

have some concerns. 

Mr. SHADEGG. In your oral testimony, you said that we needed 

to stay true to the scientific method, not avoid, I guess, preconditions or preconclusions. But you also said that it was important to tie the definition to the potential for harm or adverse effect. 

From what you have just said, I gather what you are saying is that 

the current law says, in defining endocrine disruptors, that they 

are those with adverse effect and your concern is this legislation 

removes the requirement that there be adverse effect or that criteria? 

Mr. QUILL. No, sir, not precisely. There is no definition in the 

current law. The current definition is in the EPA’s EDSP, and 

there are a variety of definitions out there but the only one that 

really makes any sense is to have adversity incorporated in the definition. Even during the hearing today, the term ‘‘endocrine 

disruptor’’ is thrown around. Frankly, I don’t know what it means. 

I don’t know whether it means something that there is evidence of 

a molecular interaction or does it mean something where there is 

evidence of an adverse effect? Because we don’t define our terms 

well. 

Mr. SHADEGG. And you believe that a definition should be added 

to that law making that clear? 

Mr. QUILL. Well, to the extent that the definition is added to law 

as it would be in this Act, it ought to be improved to include the 

concept of adverse effects. 

Mr. SHADEGG. I appreciate that answer. And I would echo what 

Dr. Burgess said. I appreciate your assistance in clarifying that 

point. 

I think often when we write laws we don’t clarify the terms, and 

failing to define those terms then leaves vast discretion. 

I yield back the balance of my time, ma’am. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. 

We have completed our first round of questions. If there are no 

objections, we will do a second round; and I will begin for 5 minutes. 

Ms. Dougherty, one of our witnesses says that EPA shouldn’t 

issue any more test orders for chemicals under the endocrine 

disruptor screening program until its first set of test results come 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
70 

back in the next year or two. Isn’t it true that EPA is already finalizing its next list of 100 chemicals for testing, and this is following 

direction from the House appropriators? 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. Yes. As I mentioned in my oral testimony, we 

have a list of a hundred that we are doing based on current drinking—regulated drinking water contaminants, the contaminant candidate list of potential future drinking water regulations, and the 

pesticides that are up for review in the next 2 years. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And isn’t it true that the tests EPA has required 

have been validated by multiple laboratories? Is this the case? 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. We have gone through a process to validate the 

tests, and they have been also peer reviewed by the Science Advisory Panel that the pesticides program has. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Do you think the results of these tests will yield valuable information? 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I believe that they will, and we will be able to 

use that information then to evaluate the next steps that we would 

need to take on particular contaminants. 

Mrs. CAPPS. So do you have the belief or opinion that there is 

any reason we should stop in our tracks and disrupt the continuation—— 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. No. I think that we need to have a process over 

time as the bill considers to relook at how we are doing the testing 

and improve things over time, but I think that we are fine with 

starting what we have and improving that over time. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I will turn to you, Ms. Janssen. 

One of our witnesses stated in his testimony that the endocrine 

disruptor screening language in the bill requires EPA to regulate 

endocrine disruptors even when there is no adverse health effect 

found. Isn’t it true that the definition of testing in our legislation 

requires EPA to determine whether something is an endocrine 

disruptor as well as to determine what the effects of the substance 

are? And you can expound on that if you wish. 

Dr. JANSSEN. Yes. Thank you for the question. 

I agree that is correct. My reading of the bill is that it is requiring EPA to issue test orders which will be carried out by the manufacturers with these contract labs to determine whether or not they 

have endocrine disrupting effects. Right now, that protocol is both 

screening and testing; and then at the end of that EPA will have 

the discretion to decide the next steps that they will take based on 

the information. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Isn’t it also true that nothing in our legislation requires EPA to regulate any substance? In fact, really all the legislation does is to require EPA to determine whether or not to do so 

based on the result of the testing? 

Dr. JANSSEN. Yes, that is correct. 

Mrs. CAPPS. So, basically, all legal thresholds that must be met 

for substances to be regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act 

would still apply to endocrine disruptors under our language; is 

that correct? 

Dr. JANSSEN. That is correct. Thank you. 

Mrs. CAPPS. And I will turn back to you for final agreement or 

disagreement, Ms. Dougherty. 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
71 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. Yes. We would still have the statutory criteria 

that we use to make a determination as to whether to regulate, 

and we would still be required to establish our regulations on the 

same basis that we do now. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. 

I am going to yield back the balance of my time and turn to Mr. 

Scalise for any questions you may have. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you. 

Ms. Dougherty, section 16 in the bill establishes an endocrine 

disruption screen and testing program for 100 substances over 4 

years. Is that a realistic set of criteria? 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. It is consistent with what we are doing right 

now in terms of identifying the next list of a hundred. 

Mr. SCALISE. So it is something that you think you all can meet? 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I believe so, yes. 

Mr. SCALISE. OK. Thanks. 

Mr. Levy, section 7 of the bill contains a new series of reporting 

requirements for SRF applicants. In your testimony you state that 

the new reporting could overwhelm many smaller communities’ 

ability to apply for funding. What specific fix do you suggest be 

added to the bill to address this concern for the smaller water systems? 

Mr. LEVY. Congressman, my understanding is the reporting is 

more based—is more a requirement of the primacy agencies than 

the drinking water systems themselves. That being said, small 

water systems and large water system always have enormous difficulties providing the reports that are required by the primacy 

agencies, which is why we contend that technical assistance is so 

important for our programs. 

Thank you. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you. 

Mr. Crouse, you recommended that States be allowed to use the 

15 percent set-aside for source water protection activities in addition to the assessment activities currently proposed. What are 

these activities and why shouldn’t the States pay for them? 

Mr. CROUSE. Under the ’96 amendments, the 15 percent set-aside 

allowed us to assess source water protection needs, and most of 

that assessment work is done in the States, I believe, at least in 

Maine, and we are trying to implement those recommendations 

that we found in the source water assessments. 

So we still have the 15 percent set-aside available. We have done 

the majority of the assessments. We would like to now move to the 

next phase of actually implementing a number of those recommendations. 

Mr. SCALISE. OK. Why do the States need the administrative setaside to increase? Because in the bill—and it is in section 9—they 

actually allow for a 50 percent increase in administrative costs for 

4 percent up to 6 percent; and in these tight economic times when 

you have got families and businesses that are tightening their belt, 

why would you want the increase in administrative costs to go up 

by 50 percent? 

Mr. CROUSE. Well, the 4 percent generally has not been adequate 

to finance the staff time and expenses needed to administer the 

Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, in Maine, anyway, where 1 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
72 

percent stays so we get 1 percent of the national cap grant. So 4 

percent of that has not been enough to cover all our staff costs to 

administer this area. 

Mr. SCALISE. But a 50 percent increase seems like a pretty dramatic and to many people offensive increase when you are considering that people in businesses are cutting back, that here in this 

bill you are actually allowing for a 50 percent increase. What percent are systems? What is it costing systems right now? If 4 percent isn’t enough, what is the kind of going rate? I mean, if they 

are doing it, if there is a cap now, they are making by. 

Mr. CROUSE. Right now, we are using funds from other sources 

to supplement the administration of the SRF program, whether it 

be other set-asides, using the 10 percent set-aside or some other 

State money or fees on loans that are administered. 

You now, there is a certain amount of staff that is needed to administer the SRF and there is a certain amount of costs associated 

with that. So we are just trying to meet those needs. 

Mr. SCALISE. And clearly we can look at that as well. 

On the 10 percent State set-aside you just talked about, the legislation removes the 100 percent State match. Shouldn’t States 

have to put up money in order to be able to get money under this? 

Why take away the interest? If a State is that vested that they are 

putting up money, it seems like you should want to incentivize 

them to have a stake in it. This bill completely takes that away. 

Mr. CROUSE. Well, with the SRF, States are required to come up 

with a 20 percent State match for the overall capitalization grant. 

So, in Maine, we are getting $13 million. So we have got to match 

20 percent of that, $2.7 million. 

So the 100 percent State match, the 100 percent match on the 

10 percent set-aside is an additional match in addition to the 20 

percent. So it is almost like there is a double match requirement 

on this. Where we have already matched based on the 20 percent, 

now with the 10 percent we are asked to match it once again, and 

so that is why we would like to remove that—— 

Mr. SCALISE. I have got just a few seconds left. I wanted to ask 

one quick question for Mr. Smargiassi. 

You talked about faucets in your testimony. Right now, there is 

legislation in this committee that looks at products with any kinds 

of chemicals in them. No-lead faucets that you talked about, it 

seems no-lead faucets would be taken off the market because of the 

legislation that is also moving through here. Would you want to 

comment on that since no-lead faucets seem something you promote? There is other legislation moving through that would actually take them off the market. 

Mr. ESTES-SMARGIASSI. I am not familiar with the specific legislation and this piece of legislation. What was done in California 

was to go from an unreasonable 8 percent lead in brass to a practical, reasonable one-quarter of 1 percent that the manufacturers 

can actually produce a salable product that homeowners will buy 

and install. Our goal is to make sure that, as people renovate, that 

they actually do change out those faucets with ones which leach 

less lead but not to ban a product. 

Mr. SCALISE. You would promote no-lead faucets, wouldn’t you? 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
73 

Mr. ESTES-SMARGIASSI. The question is, would you—it is, again, 

a definitional question. In this case, we are talking about allowing 

the manufacturer to include a very small amount of lead which is 

necessary to machine the brass components so they can actually 

produce it. It is hopeful at some point in the future plumbing manufacturers will come up with adequate substitutes so that—absolutely no lead would be a long-term goal, but in the short term we 

need a product that actually can be produced and sold. 

Mr. SCALISE. Thank you. I yield back. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. 

And now the chair recognizes the chairman of the committee who 

has returned and prefers to ask his questions from our far right 

but, of course, the witnesses’ far left of the dias. So recognized. 

Mr. MARKEY. I thank the gentlelady very much. 

Mr. Estes-Smargiassi, Massachusetts is extremely progressive 

when it comes to funding State revolving funds projects. It allows 

for funding to be used for rehabilitation of all systems, creating 

system redundancies, and the incorporation of water and energy efficiency technologies. But I have heard from the water sector that 

other States do not consistently fund these types of projects which 

is why our bill explicitly authorizes the use of a State revolving 

fund for a wide range of forward-thinking projects. Why is it important, in your opinion, for water systems to be able to get funding 

for these types of projects? 

Mr. ESTES-SMARGIASSI. Well, I think that encouraging systems to 

think about fixing things before they are broken, to plan for problems which may occur, in the case of making sure that you have 

got redundant facilities, and to think long term, not to only think 

about the problem at hand but to think 20, 30, 40, 60 years out 

and make sure you are doing something that is not just cost effective today but cost effective long term makes good sense. We are 

fortunate that our State has opened up the rules so that systems 

can set those priorities in their own system, and it just makes common sense that that be available elsewhere in the country. 

Mr. MARKEY. So what you are basically saying is that ensuring 

that these sorts of cutting-edge projects are eligible for funding can 

actually help to boost compliance with drinking water standards 

and save drinking water systems money in the long run? 

Mr. ESTES-SMARGIASSI. I think that is a fair statement. 

Mr. MARKEY. As you know, our legislation also expands the eligibility for extra assistance for disadvantaged communities to portions of water systems that are disadvantaged. Water systems that 

serve big cities typically can’t receive such assistance even though 

portions of their service areas can include extremely poor neighborhoods whose residents can’t afford the rate increases necessary to 

bring their systems into compliance with safe drinking water 

standards. For example, El Paso, Texas, is one of the poorest cities 

in the country, but it still can’t qualify for this funding. Do you 

think that poor urban areas should qualify for extra assistance just 

as poor rural areas do? 

Mr. ESTES-SMARGIASSI. I think it is definitely a problem, that in 

large metropolitan areas, if we think of the system simply as a 

broad system, then we are going to have some of our ratepayers 

pay more than they can afford. That is clearly the case in our servVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:25 Feb 02, 2013 Jkt 076580 PO 00000 Frm 00079 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A580.XXX A580

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
74 

ice area with a city like Chelsea being among the poorest in the 

State is grouped and averaged in with towns like Weston, among 

the richest in the State. This bill takes some steps forward which 

should help some metropolitan areas with some increased flexibility for State programs to give a little bit extra umph there. It 

is a difficult problem. Won’t solve every problem, but it is a step 

forward. 

Mr. MARKEY. But, again, going to El Paso or other poor cities, 

obviously, there should be some way that we think this thing 

through to ensure that poor urban areas do get to qualify. 

Mr. ESTES-SMARGIASSI. Absolutely. 

Mr. MARKEY. Now, the State revolving fund has not been this reauthorized since it was originally passed and appropriations levels 

decreased steadily until we passed the Recovery Act. We need to 

reauthorize this fund and raise the authorization levels. 

This legislation will provide $1.5 billion in 2011, and the authorization will grow each year, reaching $6 billion in 2015. There are 

water systems ready and waiting for these funds, and people across 

the country are counting on these funds to keep them safe. 

I would like to hear a little bit more from our panel about their 

views on the funding levels. Ms. Dougherty, can you give the committee a sense of how these levels compare to past appropriations 

for the State revolving funds? 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. Historically, the SRF has been appropriated at 

about a little bit under a billion dollars a year, in the range of 850 

or so. So this would be a significant increase of that. When we received the appropriation for the Recovery Act of $2 billion more on 

top of the 2009 appropriation of about 850, that was almost tripling 

the size of the appropriation available to States; and they were able 

to move projects very quickly, find good projects, and move those 

projects very quickly. 

Mr. MARKEY. Now, how does this can compare to EPA estimates 

of the infrastructure costs facing our Nation’s water systems? 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. Our latest needs survey estimated about $334 

billion of need over 20 years for all the eligible categories of 

projects, which includes the rehabilitation kind of projects. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Crouse, how would these authorization increases affect your State’s program? 

Mr. CROUSE. The State of Maine is a 1 percent State, so we get 

1 percent of whatever comes naturally. So next year we would get 

$15 million. In the past, we have gotten around $8 million; and 

this year, through the 2010 appropriation, we are going to get 

about $13.5 million. 

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Levy, how would these increases impact on 

rural systems across the country? You are here to testify on behalf 

of rural systems. 

Mr. LEVY. I am. I would say that small utilities are the bottomless pit for financing. They are old. They need to be replaced. They 

need to come into compliance with new rules and regulations. So, 

frankly, we will use your money and put it to good use. Small 

water systems, large systems—— 

Mr. MARKEY. Do they need it? 

Mr. LEVY. They do need it. Just in the three States that I work 

in on a daily basis, most of the water utilities are somewhere beVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:25 Feb 02, 2013 Jkt 076580 PO 00000 Frm 00080 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A580.XXX A580

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
75 

tween 75 and 110 years old; and they need the money because the 

pipes are leaking and because they also need to put in sort of the 

cutting-edge projects, green things, new pumps, et cetera, to save 

their operating costs. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. And, Ms. Janssen, could you talk a little bit about 

how these increases could help enhance public health? 

Dr. JANSSEN. Thank you, Representative. 

As I submitted in my written testimony, the deteriorating condition of our water infrastructure is concerning for public health reasons in part because when things like main pipes break, like happened recently in Massachusetts, people are forced to boil their 

water. We are not really sure exactly how to do that always, and 

it requires an inconvenience that some people might forego and 

subject themselves to a water-borne illness. 

We also know that there are throughout the aging water infrastructure small leaks in the distribution lines, which create opportunities, especially when these lines are close to sewer lines, for 

sewerage waste to enter into the drinking water lines; and this has 

been documented to result in water-borne illnesses in the population. So shoring up our water infrastructure will go a long ways 

to prevent these bacterial illnesses in the public. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Dr. Janssen. 

I yield back the balance of my time. Thank you, Madam Chairman. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

And final questions come from Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you very much. 

I want to, to the panel and our guests, thank you for coming. It 

is a very busy time, and members are coming and going, and it is 

a very important issue. So I appreciate the chairman for holding 

the hearing and your testimony. 

Just a comment. If we have people who don’t understand how to 

boil water, we are in a world of hurt. So not belittling that point, 

but that is that is a very great statement to be said. 

I want to start with Ms. Dougherty, because there is a vested interest. I am a cosponsor of Bob Etheridge’s bill, H.R. 2206, which 

requires EPA to give priority to what assistance small communities 

believe is working the best to help their compliance needs. Is this 

something the EPA is capable of? 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. I think in terms of how we do the technical assistance grants it is important for us to make sure we understand 

the issues that need to be addressed by technical assistance, and 

what we have tried to do over the last several years with the earmarks that we have received is to make sure that the technical assistance providers and the States work together to identify the priorities that need to be dealt with in a particular State so that the 

technical assistance providers are providing small systems the help 

that they need. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. Because I have been here longer than I would 

like to admit sometimes and you learn that really the water supply 

is very diverse throughout the country and the people that have 

had to deal with it, especially in small town, rural areas, and they 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
76 

have to address the needs. There really is some expertise there on 

the localism issue. So we would hope that that would be a focus. 

I have a question to, if I can find it—Mr. Quill, I noticed that 

the legislation has a petition process to have substances included 

on this list, but I am curious that I don’t see a process or at least 

a formalized process where substances could be removed. And the 

issue is, if there is—I always want to focus on real science, real 

data, the ability to replicate through the scientific method. If the 

scientific process poses a point that a substance should not be on 

the list, should there be a process by which an element can be removed? 

Mr. QUILL. Well, that would make sense. I would think, though, 

that it could be a different process and there could be different requirements for adding a substance to the list or removing a substance to the list. 

Keep in mind the point of adding a substance to the list now is 

just for it to undergo screening where we intend that there is going 

to be a high false-positive rate. What would it take to remove something from the list? It may take more evidence that a substance either doesn’t interact with the endocrine system or, more importantly, evidence either for or against regulating. Because, at the 

end of the day, the point here should be to determine what substances cause an adverse effect and to manage those effects, not 

necessarily just to gather a bunch of facts about interactions with 

the endocrine system molecular data. So I think you make a very 

good point. I would just say it could be different types of data. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Because everything we do—and we are all in it— 

we want to make sure folks are safe and systems are sound, but 

for every addition there is an additional cost, especially in some of 

the systems. So I would think that we would focus on some real 

science and have a process. 

Mr. QUILL. Yes, sir. 

And if I may add one thing, the earlier question about the billions of dollars for infrastructure, the thing that popped in my 

mind was, jeez, if we had 5 to $10 billion, we might be able to 

screen and test a thousand chemicals. Well, that really raises the 

issue as to where is money best spent and how can we do the 

screening and testing in a more efficient manner so that funds can 

actually be used where they may have a greater impact. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Yes. And I want to end with this—and those bells 

are votes, and it looks like I am the last person—but, Mr. EstesSmargiassi, this question is for you. It talks about the risk-risk 

tradeoff of implementation and it uses the D.C. Lead removal fixture story as a case study that, in trying to solve a problem, we 

may create more. And I think in essence shaving off to replace lead 

pipes may, in essence—our understanding is more lead contamination versus what was, in essence, a mitigated amount if you would 

have kept it. 

Can you talk to that? How do we address this risk-risk tradeoff. 

Mr. ESTES-SMARGIASSI. I think it is important to be thoughtful 

whenever you take an action that you understand the potential adverse impacts. 

In the instance you are referring to, when you disturb a lead 

service line, the pipe connecting the main to the house, the eviVerDate Mar 15 2010 05:25 Feb 02, 2013 Jkt 076580 PO 00000 Frm 00082 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 E:\HR\OC\A580.XXX A580

smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
77 

dence does seem to indicate that you do get some additional lead 

for release during at least a short period of time after that. If you 

don’t remove the whole lead service line, you see an increase in 

lead levels at the tap perhaps or certainly in the water that you 

are sampling for a period of time, and then the lead level returns 

pretty close to where it was before from the remaining lead pipe, 

at least in the research data we have seen. 

So that says you want to be thoughtful and make sure that if you 

are spending money having a short-term adverse impact that you 

are actually getting a benefit at the back end, and that may not 

be the case for every lead service line replacement program. They 

need to be designed carefully, thoughtfully, and hopefully get all 

the lead out, if that is what you are trying to do. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you. 

Mr. Chairman, that is all the questions I have. 

Mr. MARKEY [presiding]. Thank you. 

Here is what we will do. We will wrap up the hearing this way. 

We will give each one of you 1 minute to tell us what you want 

us to remember. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Lightning round. 

Mr. MARKEY. Yes. This is it. This is the moment where you get 

to talk to America. We have C–SPAN covering this. 

What do you want us to know as we are looking at the water 

that people drink in our country, that comes into their homes, into 

their children’s bodies. What do you want us to know about these 

issues as we are—— 

So, this way, we will go in opposite order of the original testimony. We will begin with you, Mr. Quill. We will give each one of 

you 1 minute. 

Mr. QUILL. Thank you. 

I think my major issue, again, is the message that the Act sends 

concerning regulation. In earlier questions, it was suggested that 

there was no intent to regulate based solely on mechanism of action. I would say that the legislation is not clear in that regard. It 

may be misinterpreted. I would urge the committee to, in that regard and throughout the bill, improve the language so it is very 

clear that the bill accomplishes the committee’s purposes. 

Mr. MARKEY. OK. Well, we want to work with you to make sure 

it is crystal clear. Thank you. 

Dr. Janssen. 

Dr. JANSSEN. Thank you. 

I would like to say that—I didn’t get a chance to mention it in 

my testimony, but the bigger picture problem is that, because of 

the weak chemical regulation laws that we have in this country, we 

have virtually no information about the majority of chemicals 

which are in our drinking water as well as in our food and our consumer products and inside of our homes, including whether or not 

these chemicals are endocrine disruptors. 

Congress recognized that endocrine disruptors present a threat 

to human health in 1996, and then here we are 14 years later. 

They have spent a lot of money at the Environmental Protection 

Agency, but we have not yet tested one chemical for its endocrinedisrupting potential. The point of the screening and testing program is not to regulate these chemicals but rather to be identifying 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
78 

them so that we know where we are being exposed to these chemicals which do likely present a threat to our health. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Estes-Smargiassi. 

Mr. ESTES-SMARGIASSI. Our goal as water supply systems is to 

provide safe, reliable, affordable water for our customers. So in my 

remaining 40-some seconds, more SRF funding, that is helpful in 

making sure that we can accomplish what we need to do and not 

make our bills so high that our customers can’t afford the water. 

More flexibility so that we can actually manage the problems that 

we see at the local level, whether it be aging infrastructure or our 

need for redundancy. And other portions of the system we don’t 

control, such as the plumbing in people’s homes. Less lead there so 

that our customers receive the high-quality water that comes out 

of our reservoirs and through our treatment plants all the way to 

their tap. It doesn’t do any good for us to spend a lot of money on 

treatment if at the end the water is degraded in that last few feet 

of pipe. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. 

Mr. Levy. 

Mr. LEVY. Thank you for my 60 seconds. 

The National Rural Water Association represents over 20,000 

small water systems. These small water systems are mostly run by 

locally elected people, and they take public health very seriously. 

They have special challenges. We feel this bill is an improvement 

because it helps target more resources to the most needy and helps 

prioritize that funding. There is never enough money, because 

there is just not enough money. 

We also thank you for providing more technical assistance 

through rural water to these small towns who have these special 

circumstances, and we intend to work with the committee and EPA 

for the next 30 years. 

Thank you. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you. Thank you for the 18 seconds back. 

Mr. Crouse. 

Mr. CROUSE. Thank you. 

The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators appreciates the opportunity to be here and to provide testimony, and I 

will speak specifically again on the SRF. We feel like it is not all 

doom and gloom. There are incredible things going on across the 

country with water systems and infrastructure improvement. The 

SRF has served us well, tremendously well over the last 13 years, 

and this reauthorization has the opportunity to continue to provide 

great work both on the Federal, State, and local levels to enhance 

our water systems’ abilities to provide safe, reliable drinking water 

24 hours a day, 7 days a week, and we very much appreciate being 

here. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Mr. Crouse. 

Ms. Dougherty. 

Ms. DOUGHERTY. EPA’s goal is to make sure everyone has safe 

water everywhere every day. The SRF has been an important tool 

in helping make that happen in a number of places, and we think 

it is important as we look at improvements to the SRF that we 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
79 

make sure that it still is a valuable tool for States to use and for 

systems to get financing from. The endocrine disruptor testing program provides us with an opportunity to get better information on 

a number of chemicals that we are looking at in the drinking program that will help us make our decisions down the road in terms 

of regulatory decisions. 

Mr. MARKEY. Thank you, Ms. Dougherty, very much. 

This is obviously a very important piece of legislation because it 

deal with something that affects every American every day, the 

water that we put into our bodies, and we have to make sure that 

we have policies in place that ensure that it is dependable. That 

is a daunting challenge, because many of our systems are 75, 100 

years old, especially in rural America, so that we ensure that the 

funding is there. And as we are looking at reliable funding sources, 

we also want to find ways of encouraging systems to use new, innovative technologies so that we move to the future, we capture the 

innovations that have been made. 

And, finally, I would say that, because children especially are 

very vulnerable to chemicals that can impact on their endocrine 

system—and the endocrine system is no more, no less than just the 

computer system of the body and in children that computer system 

is still developing and if chemicals impact on any part of that endocrine system, that computer system for young people’s bodies, it 

can change the way in which the genetic makeup of that body is 

then structured for the rest of those children’s lives. We have a responsibility to make sure that we learn as much as we can about 

those chemicals that are in the water that are going into small 

children’s bodies, especially because the impact on those children 

for the rest of their lives, if their DNA, if their genetic makeup is 

altered because they are so vulnerable, they are so fragile in the 

early years, that this responsibility falls to the government to ensure that we learn about these chemicals. 

Because we know that while we have cured most of the diseases 

that affected people a hundred years ago, we know now that most 

of the diseases that people suffer from are diseases that we give 

ourselves, too much smoking, too much drinking, other dangerous 

activities that people might engage in, obesity, putting food in our 

bodies, but, also, what are those chemicals that are in people’s bodies? What are those things that are now causing these extra levels 

of diseases that we are seeing? 

And we do know that children are the most vulnerable and this 

water contains, we know, chemicals that did not exist 100 years 

ago, did not exist 50 years ago, and could, in fact, provide, if we 

learn more about the chemicals, the clues that we need in order to 

avoid the genetic makeup of children being altered as it is in its 

formative stage. 

That is why this legislation is so important. Because it might 

give us that chance to begin to track those clues a little bit more 

closely. And then, in doing that research, because research is medicine’s field of dreams from which we will harvest the findings that 

will give hope to families, that perhaps we can prevent children 

from growing up with disorders, diseases, or vulnerability to diseases that was preventable because we allowed their bodies to grow 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
80 

strongly and not have them damaged in their early years through 

the water they were drinking. 

And that is all we really are trying to do here, just get the information. Because information ultimately will allow us to put together the most commonsense and smart ways of protecting those 

children. 

So we you thank all of you for being here. We want to work with 

you. We want to make sure that everything that we do is, Mr. 

Quill, crystal clear, but that the goals that we have should in fact 

be clear as well, and as long as we are achieving those goals, I 

think that we can all work together. That is our hope. 

We thank all of you for your testimony. We would like you all 

to work closely with this subcommittee and the full committee over 

the next month or so, because we are going to continue to need to 

have access to your expert insight, and if we do that, I think we 

can put something together that will really work for the American 

people. 

Thank you. 

With that, this hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 11:30 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 

[Material submitted for inclusion in the record follows:] 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARING
81 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 89 here 76580A.041

Opening Statement of Rep. Henry A. Waxman 

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Legislative Hearing on H.R. __ , the "Assistance, Quality, and 

Affordability Act of 2010" 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

May 13, 2010 

Thank you, Chairman Markey, for holding today's hearing 

on the Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 20 1 0 or the 

"AQUA" Act. This legislation takes a strong step forward in 

helping to ensure that public water systems deliver safe drinking 

water to the American people. 

In 1996, this Committee passed amendments to the Safe 

Drinking Water Act that established the state revolving fund 

program, which has been a tremendous success. To date, it has 

helped finance more than 6,600 drinking water projects 

throughout the country, using federal funds to supplement and 

leverage investment from other sources. 

Unfortunately, the need for drinking water investment has 

overwhelmed available funds. According to a recent estimate 

from the Environmental Protection Agency our nation needs to 
82 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 90 here 76580A.042

invest over $330 billion in our drinking water infrastructure. 

This staggering shortfall results in real life impacts on families 

across the country. 

For instance, families in Boston and Nashville have been 

facing boil water advisories because of contamination of their 

drinking water supplies. Sadly, boil water advisories are not 

uncommon. A recent story in The New York Times detailed the 

problems of water main breaks in our aging infrastructure. In 

Washington, DC, on average, a water pipe bursts once a day. 

Every day. And nationwide, a significant water pipe bursts 

every two minutes, on average. 

The AQUA Act takes a step towards helping to meet this 

need by increasing the revolving fund's authorization levels over 

the coming years. The legislation increases the authorization 

from $1 billion to $1.5 billion in 2011 and ultimately to $6 

billion in 2015. Investment in the state revolving fund program 

allows states to leverage funding and yields a significant return 

on investment. It improves drinking water quality and promotes 

jobs. 

2 
83 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 91 here 76580A.043

This legislation also includes several improvements to the 

program designed to strengthen the state revolving fund 

program, make it more forward-looking, and ensure that all 

Americans are receiving safe and affordable drinking water. 

For instance, under existing law, funding is focused on 

three priorities: addressing the most serious risk to human 

health, ensuring compliance with the requirements of the Safe 

Drinking Water Act, and assisting systems most in need on a per 

household basis. The AQUA Act adds another priority: 

increasing public water system ability to provide safe, affordable 

drinking water in the future. Adding this consideration of 

sustainability should allow states to fund projects that prevent 

breaches and catastrophic failures before they occur - which is 

cheaper and more desirable than fixing them after they fail. 

The legislation also encourages systems to plan for the 

future and assess their infrastructure needs, by giving greater 

weight to applications from systems that are striving to improve 

their management and financial stability, improve their water 

and energy efficiency, and lower their environmental impact. 

3 
84 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 92 here 76580A.044

This legislation also seeks to strengthen the state revolving 

fund program by increasing overall compliance and enforcement 

of drinking water standards. Because funds are targeted at 

projects to bring systems into compliance, increasing 

compliance can free up funds for other projects. We hope to 

increase compliance by helping systems that are struggling to 

comply with new and existing standards because of 

affordability . 

Instead of granting variances from SDWA rules, this 

legislation would require states to direct a portion of their funds 

to disadvantaged communities and to give greater weight to 

projects that will address compliance issues in these 

communities. This legislation will ensure that customers of all 

public water systems, large and small, wealthy and 

disadvantaged, will have safe, affordable drinking water. 

4 
85 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 93 here 76580A.045

I'd like to take a second to recognize that the AQUA Act 

contains the good work of other members of this Committee. 

Chairman Markey contributed the improvements to the 

endocrine disruptor screening program. Chairman Rush worked 

on the enforcement provisions. Representative Eshoo worked 

hard to strengthen the definition of "lead-free." 

We have an outstanding group of witnesses this morning 

who are here to help us learn more about the AQUA act. I thank 

each of them in advance for their testimony and look forward to 

hearing from them. 

5 
86 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 94 here 76580A.046

Butterfield Opening Statement 5/13/10 

The Safe Drinking Water State Revolving Fund has 

been successful in helping many communities 

modernize their water systems. In this Committee, we 

are frequently faced with policy needs related to our 

aging infrastructure. With the SRF, we have a working 

program that to date has completed over 6,000 projects. 

We have an excellent opportunity in this 

reauthorization to improve upon this system, focusing 

our resources on the most needy communities. , 

I am pleased with the commitment in this bill to small 

and disadvantaged communities. My district has 88 

communities, and only 11 have populations greater than 

10,000. I also represent the fourth poorest district in the 
87 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 95 here 76580A.047

United States by median household income. Small and 

poor communities often lack the personnel necessary to 

adequately address needs of their water systems. 

Technical assistance is crucial to their compliance with 

SIDWA. I look forward to the testimony of Mr. Levy. 

I'm a long-time supporter of the Rural Water Agency, 

and I think he best represents the needs of small 

community water systems. 

2 

With respect to endocrine disruptors, an Associated 

Press article published September 15th of 2009 reported 

that "The Southeast, especially the Pee Dee River Basin 

of North Carolina and South Carolina, had the highest 

rates of feminization. In Bucksport, South Carolina, 10 

of 11 largemouth bass examined were intersexed." 
88 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 96 here 76580A.048

It is critical that the Endocrine Disruptor Screening 

Program truly get off the ground. EPA has an 

important job here: Collect what appears to be . 

somewhat disparate data on the impact of these 

chemicals, evaluate it, report it, and in the process 

ensure the public trust with respect to one of our most 

precious resources, our drinking water. 

3 
89 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 97 here 76580A.049

Opening Statement 

House Energy and Commerce Committee 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Hearing 

H.R. __ , the Assistance, Quality and Affordability Act of 2010 

May 13, 2010 . 

Thank you, Chainnan Markey and Ranking Member Upton for holding 

today's hearing. I want to also thank the panel of witnesses here today. 

I have always supported efforts to provide safe and clean water to our 

communities and to improve our nation's health, environment, economy, and 

quality of life through responsible clean water initiatives. I look forward to 

hearing from witnesses today about the importance of the Drinking Water 

State Revolving Fund in helping water systems meet the requirements of the 

Safe Drinking Water Act, as well as exploring ways we can ensure this 

reauthorization bill continues to serve the purpose of ensuring safe drinking 

water for all citizens while providing more focused assistance to small and 

disadvantaged communities that need the most help. 

In my state of Utah, many counties are struggling to bring clean, reliable 

water to their communities. I am interested in hearing how this 

reauthorization proposal can help local communities make long-awaited 

improvements to their water systems in order to protect human health and 

the environment. I applaud the forward-looking approach this 

reauthorization takes and the goal of ensuring sustainability of our water 

systems, encouraging folks to do more with less. 
90 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 98 here 76580A.050

However, as we move forward, we must continue to be mindful of the 

challenges that these new requirements can pose on many of the small and 

disadvantaged systems and ensure that we take steps to educate, inform, and 

assist these communities about the new process. 

In Utah, the vast majority offunds through the Drinking Water State 

Revolving Fund go to rural communities -many of which lack the 

manpower, resources, and expertise on their own to fulfill the reporting and 

administrative requirements of the SDW A. It is important that as new 

priorities for projects through the SRF are considered, we be careful to 

ensure we clearly communicate the new requirements to small rural systems. 

Key to this education and outreach is the technical expertise provided by the 

Rural Water Association of Utah, and I hope to hear today more detail about 

how we can ensure that funding for this crucial technical assistance 

continues to go to those associations that have demonstrated past success in 

aiding small and disadvantaged water systems to meet the requirements of 

SDW A. It is important we strike the right balance between advocating new 

goals while not placing too many burdens on small systems to meet the new 

requirements. 

Again, thank you for holding this hearing on this important legislation. I 

look forward to working with the Committee on this bill, and I yield back 

the balance of my time. 
91 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 99 here 76580A.051

Extension of Remarks- Rep. Rush- Energy & Environment Subcommittee Hearing 

Reauthorization of State Revolving Funds (May 13. 20101 

Chairman Waxman, Chairman Markey, Ranking Member Barton, 

Ranking Member Upton, and all of my distinguished colleagues that sit 

on the Subcommittee on Energy & Environment, thank you all for 

allowing me to participate today on this important hearing on the 

reauthorization of State Revolving Funds within the liThe Assistance, 

Quality, and Affordability Act of 2010." 

Chairman Markey, I would especially like to thank you and your 

staff for working with my office over the past year to tighten the 

regulations within the SRF that govern water security to ensure that the 

incident that happened in my congressional district of Crestwood will 

not be replicated and all of our constituents will have access to clean, 

safe drinking water. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to briefly recount for all of my 

colleagues the preposterous and unbelievable events that happened in 

Crestwood that has brought us to the point we are today. It is a story 

that, unfortunately, is ripe with abuses of the public trust by crooked 

and corrupt public officials at a level that is hard to fathom. 
92 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 100 here 76580A.052

And it is a story that, hopefully with the measures that we will 

enact in this legislation, will never be allowed to happen again. 

Mr. Chairman, the story of Crestwood began in 1986, when the 

Illinois EPA was notified that the well water that was being used for 

public consumption was contaminated and was found to be unsuitable 

under federal EPA standards. Officials from the Village of Crestwood 

told state EPA authorities that the well would no longer be used for 

drinking purposes, but would remain open for emergency uses, such as 

fighting fires, only. 

Unbelievably, despite the warning from the IL EPA to the 

Crestwood officials about using the well for public consumption, for 

another 20 years, from 1986-2007, untreated well water was mixed 

with Lake Michigan water and was piped into the homes of village 

residents for drinking and other uses. 

Mr. Chairman, for over 20 years, the citizens of Crestwood Village 

were consuming water, filled with contaminants, while the IL EPA never 

went back in to test the water quality or ensure that Crestwood officials 

had followed their edict to stop using the well for public consumption. 

Then in December 2007, acting on a tip from a private citizen, 

Tricia Krause, IL EPA decided to test the well water for the first time 

since first being alerted to the problem in 1986. 
93 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 101 here 76580A.053

During these tests, IL EPA found that the well water contained 

unacceptable levels of per-chloro-ethylene (PCE), a chemical linked to 

liver damage and neurological problems, as well as other carcinogenic 

chemicals that were higher than federal standards permit. 

Mr. Chairman, it took the brave and courageous act of an 

everyday, hardworking, private citizen, Ms. Tricia Krause, to finally pull 

the plug on the nefarious and despicable acts of Crestwood officials, 

who for 20 years, willfully and reprehensibly, lied to state authorities 

and fed contaminated water to the very citizens they had swore to 

protect. 

After Ms. Krause blew the whistle on these despicable acts and 

the story became public, the US EPA and the Dept. of Justice executed 

search warrants and found that Village officials had been falsifying 

records regarding the purchase and delivery of water to its citizens for 

over 20 years. 

And while we must acknowledge and praise the work of 

courageous citizens like Ms. Krause for taking matters into her own 

hands to shed a light and seek justice, we must also do everything in 

our power to make it more difficult for immoral and despicable public 

officials to dupe the public again and feed contaminated and poisonous 

water to our citizens. 
94 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 102 here 76580A.054

Mr. Chairman, the steps that you have taken in this bill would go a 

long way in restoring the public trust in the system by requiring our 

state agencies, which are in many cases the last line of defense in 

ensuring public safety, to go that extra step in protecting the public. 

This language would simply compel the EPA to set up 

requirements for notifying the public served by a water system when 

different types of violations occur. The EPA would be allowed to use 

the same categories of violations that have already been developed 

under subsection (c) of the Safe Drinking Water Act 

Additionally, for each category of violation, the EPA will 

determine what types of follow-up inspections are needed, and how 

many inspections the state will need to carry out. This gets right at the 

issue of Illinois EPA not being required to go out and check whether the 

contaminated well was being used, without being overly burdensome if 

the violations are not related to public safety. 

Mr. Chairman, as Representatives of the people we serve, for 

most of us the actions taken by Village of Crestwood officials would be 

unconscionable. In all of my time as a public servant, I have rarely 

encountered public officials acting so egregiously against their own 

citizens or abusing their power in a way that puts the public safety at 

risk. 
95 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 103 here 76580A.055

In March 2010, the IL Dept. of Public Health released a report that 

found cancer rates were "significantly elevated" in Crestwood 

residents, with higher-than-expected cases of kidney cancer in men, 

lung cancer in men and women, and gastrointestinal cancer in men. 

While researchers could not make a definite link between the 

consumption of contaminated water for 20 years for the 11,000 

residents of Crestwood and the elevated rates of cancer there, they 

determined it was possible that toxic chemicals in the drinking water 

caused the extra cancer cases. 

Well, I'm not a researcher, but I can analyze commonsense, and 

for me, the coincidence between drinking cancer-causing contaminated 

water for 20 years and then having higher-than-normal rates of cancer 

appear in those same citizens shows that there must be some 

connection between the two. 

With our actions here today and in moving this bill forward, it is 

my sincere hope that no other community in America will have to suffer 

from the reprehensible acts of a few despicable public servants who 

would seek to abuse the public trust. 

Thank you again Mr. Chairman, and distinguished Members of the 

subcommittee for allowing me to participate hear today, and with that I 

yield back my time ... 
96 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 104 here 76580A.056

May 12,2010 

The Honorable Henry Waxman, Chairman 

The Honorable Joe Barton, Ranking Member 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

U.S. House of Representatives 

The Honorable Edward Markey, Chairman 

The Honorable Fred Upton, Ranking Member 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Dear Representatives: 

On behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies, thank you for 

recognizing the importance of maintaining the nation's drinking water infrastructure 

through the "Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act (AQUA) of20l0." 

AMWA believes that reauthorizing the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund 

(DWSRF) will bring renewed attention to the nation's infrastructure challenges. 

As you know, the DWSRF was established to protect public health by offering 

loans to help community water systems come into compliance with federal drinking 

water standards. However, as a result of this focus on rectifYing existing public 

health threats, the program tends to overlook the infrastructure needs of our nation's 

largest drinking water systems. As EPA Assistant Administrator for Water Peter 

Silva told the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last year, ninetysix percent of all health based SDWA violations occur at systems serving less than 

10,000 people. As a result, states have traditionally directed most SRF assistance 

toward these smaller systems. 

EPA's own data confirms this imbalance. From the beginning of the DWSRF 

program in 1997 through 2009, community water systems serving more than 

100,000 people received only twenty-three percent of funds distributed by the 

program, despite serving forty-six percent of the American population. In addition, 

EPA's 2007 Drinking Water Needs Survey found that these metropolitan water 

systems represent thirty-five percent of the drinking water sector's twenty-year 

infrastructure need. 

While AQUA would not solve this problem, it would take several important steps to 

make the DWSRF more accessible to urban water systems. For example, under the 

bill projects that help water systems comply with SDW A "affordably in the future" 

will be afforded priority for funding. This will help systems plan ahead to address 

potential public health threats before they become serious, and thus widen the scope 

of projects that are given funding preference. 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

Ptl!sicient 

Vice President 

Roneri rt~nter 

secretary 

Jornson 

Dav<lMQd~e' 

CenlralAnzonaPmjecl 

CommlSSlO1l 

Scott Potter 

C~uckClarKe 

CascadeWalerAiJi,mce 

DianeVanOeHel 

Executive Dtrector 

Leaders in Water Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies 1620 I Street, NW, Suite 500 Washington, DC 20006· P 202 331 2820 f 202 785_1845' wwwamwanet 
97 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 105 here 76580A.057

The bill would also institute a new set of criteria through which states will give additional weight to 

project applications from systems that have implemented good management and financial 

sustainability practices. This will ensure that federal funds are not wasted at utilities that have failed 

to be responsible with their own dollars. Additionally, weight would be afforded for projects that 

reduce a water system's environmental impact, such as through increased water efficiency or 

conservation. These are the same type of projects that some water systems are investing in as they 

prepare for the impacts of global climate change. 

The legislation recognizes that metropolitan water systems often serve a range of communities with 

varied income levels and would allow these systems to receive additional subsidization if a portion 

of their service area qualifies as a "disadvantaged community" under state affordability guidelines. 

Current law only allows a utility's entire service area to qualify as disadvantaged, which severely 

limits access to this assistance by large systems. 

Other portions of the bill also deserve praise. We believe that the increased funding levels 

authorized in the bill will, if appropriated, help large water systems access more funding without 

forcing states to divert dollars away from smaller projects. We also support the inclusion of 

language to match the lead content permitted by SDW A in repaired or replaced service lines and 

plumbing fixtures with the new California state standard that will take effect in 2012. 

While we hope to see these provisions maintained as the hill moves forward, we would also like to 

suggest several enhancements. First, just as AQUA would clarify that preconstruction activities and 

the rehabilitation and replacement of aging infrastructure are permitted uses of DWSRF funds, the 

bill should make clear that projects to upgrade the security of public water systems are also eligible. 

Such a clarification was included in the Drinking Water and Clean Water SRF reauthorization bill 

approved by the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee last year. 

Additionally, AQUA would direct states to give additional weight to applications from utilities that 

have reviewed restructuring options which is defined to include changes in ownership and 

consolidation with other water systems. AMW A understands that the legislation is not intended to 

force public water systems to consider privatization, or to require large water systems to absorb 

smaller nearby systems in order to have a better chance of receiving SRF assistance. We hope to 

have the opportunity to work with you to develop report language making this point clear. 

Again, thank you for introducing this important legislation. EPA estimates that America's drinking 

water systems need nearly $335 billion worth of infrastructure investment over the next twenly 

years, and AQUA represents a step in the right direction. 

Sincerely, 

Diane VanDe Hei 

Executive Director 

~. 

Leaders in Water Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies 1620 I Street. \;W. Sui:e 500 Washmglon DC 20006' P 202 331 2820 f 202 7851845' wwwamwi3.ne! 
98 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 106 here 76580A.058

May 11, 2010 

TO: 

FROM: 

RE: 

MEMORANDUM 

The Hon. Henry Waxman, Chairman 

House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

The Hon. Edward Markey, Chairman 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

The American Society of Civil Engineers 

Strengthening Public Safety in the 

Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of2010 

I. Introduction 

The American Society of Civil Engineers! (ASCE) supports the goals and 

funding authorizations for critical infrastructure in the Assistance, Quality, and 

Affordability Act (AQAA) of 2010. The bill would provide $14.7 billion in new 

funding for the Safe Drinking Water Act State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF) program 

over five years. It also would authorize $100 million over five years for technical 

assistance to small community water systems to ensure that they can comply with 

federal primary drinking-water standards. In addition, the bill would authorize $25 

million to identify endocrine-disrupting substances in drinking-water, and it would 

seek to reduce the amount of lead in drinking-water. 

Each of these legislative proposals is vital to the general public health, safety 

and welfare, and ASCE is pleased to support their passage into law. We believe, 

however, that the bill could provide even greater protection for public safety 

through the wider use of the qualifications-based selection (QBS) process for the 

awarding of architectural and engineering design contracts funded by the state 

SRFs. 

1 ASCE was founded in 1852 and is the country's oldest national civil engineering 

organization. It represents more than 144,000 civil engineers individually in private 

practice, government, industry, and academia who are dedicated to the advancement of the 

science and profession of civil engineering. ASCE is a non-profit educational and 

professional society organized under Part 1.501(c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code. 

- 1 -
99 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 107 here 76580A.059

II. Qualifications-Based Selection (QBS) for AlE Contracts Should Be 

Expanded to Broadened to Protect Public Safety 

Section 11 of the bill, Negotiation of Contracts, would require that contracts 

carried out using federal funds provided through the SRF program be negotiated in 

keeping with federal qualifications-based selection (QBS) requirements under the 

Brooks-Architect Engineers Act of 1972, or equivalent state or local requirements. 

This section, however, applies only to communities of 10,000 or more people. 

Finally, the section leaves discretion to the states to determine what state or local 

requirements are equivalent. 

ASCE believes this provision needs to be broadened to require the 

application ofQBS for all contracts funded through state SRFs to ensure that public 

safety is not compromised. We concur with the provision that defers the choice of 

which state law to apply to the states, however. 

Enacted by Congress in 1972 for all federal agency acquisitions, the 

qualifications-based selection (QBS) procedure assures the selection of the best 

qualified firm.2 This protects public safety in the long run by ensuring that those 

engineers most experienced in the design and construction of unique projects are 

professionally and ethically responsible to the public client. 

One of the more important tasks associated with any construction 

project is the selection of a design professional to design the project. 

Many people assume that all design professionals are equally qualified 

for all types of projects; therefore hiring the one with the lowest price 

is the best approach. This is far from the truth. Procuring design 

services is not the same as procuring road salt or paper for the office 

copier} 

Engineering design contracts by highly qualified professional engineers are 

essential to the delivery of safe projects. The safety of critically important drinkingwater facilities should not be compromised by the use of budget-driven contract 

procedures. The design of public water treatment facilities should not be 

dependent on a state's reliance on optional contracting procedures that may place 

cost (in the form of a low-bid design contract) on a par with public safety. Lowest 

cost selection is the worst way to acquire professional services when quality and 

professional creativity are necessary for public works projects. 

Under QBS, AlE firms compete based on their professional qualifications and 

quality of services, which allows large and small firms alike to compete on an equal 

2 40 U.S.c. § 1101 et seq. 

3 State of Maine, Qualification Based Selection Process at 

www.state.me.us/education/const/pwOl0.doc (last visited May 11, 2010). 

- 2-
100 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 108 here 76580A.060

footing. In other words, small firms are able to win contracts based exclusively on 

the quality of their services. Without QBS, larger firms would have a distinct 

advantage if competitive bidding were based solely on price. Indeed, we have been 

told by more than one executive of major engineering firms that the larger firms 

would be able to win many more federal contracts without the Brooks ArchitectEngineers Act simply by underbidding their smaller competitors and making up the 

loss elsewhere on the contract. 

QBS is the preferred system for selecting AlE services because the preCise 

scope and range of the design services which are the basis for any contract price 

cannot be accurately determined until specific negotiations begin. Innovative 

approaches and alternative designs or methods arise when a client and a design 

professional develop the precise scope of a project together. 

QBS requires AlE firms to compete based on skills, experience and ability to 

perform the required services-not on the illusory economy that a low bid may 

seem to provide. Low bids requiring substantial change orders or resulting in high 

construction or high life-cycle operating or maintenance costs are not cost effective. 

This process has been so successful at the federal level that it is 

recommended by the American Bar Association in its model procurement code for 

state and local government. Forty-six states-including California and 

Massachusetts-have enacted formal qualifications-based selection laws for 

architecture, engineering, surveying and mapping services based on the federal 

model.4 Significantly, no state has a law requiring bidding of architectural or 

engineering design services. 

III. Congress Has Repeatedly Broadened QBS Coverage to Other 

Government Engineering Services 

The application of QBS to government acquisitions over the past 38 years has 

been an unqualified success. Indeed, since 1972 Congress has clarified and 

extended the application of the QBS process to the awarding of architectural and 

engineering services contracts for: 

;.. Aviation programs project grant application (49 U.S.C. § 47107) 

;.. Mass transportation contract requirements, management and architectural 

engineering (49 U.s.c. § 5325). 

;.. Military construction projects (10 U.S.c. § 2855). 

;.. Engineering services as competitive procedures for procurement purposes 

(10 U.s.C. § 2302; 41 U.S.C. § 259). 

4 Iowa, South Dakota. Vermont. and Wisconsin do not have statewide QBS laws. 

- 3 -
101 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 109 here 76580A.061

~ River and harbor improvements (33 U.S.c. § 569b). 

~ Surveying, mapping, charting and geodesy contracts of the National Imagery and 

Mapping Agency (NIMA). 

Indeed, Congress has even tightened other laws to require stricter 

application of the QBS process. In November 2005, Congress enacted the 

Transportation, Treasury, Housing and Urban Development, the Judiciary, the 

District of Columbia, and Independent Agencies Appropriations Act, 2006. Section 

174 of the Act amended federal law relating to the award of engineering and design 

services contracts that are directly related to a construction project and use federalaid highway funding. 

The amendment deleted a previous provision of law and required that these 

contracts to be awarded in the same manner as a contract for architectural and 

engineering services is negotiated under the federal QBS requirements. Under the 

new law, state and local agencies were no longer permitted to procure engineering 

and design-related service contracts (directly relating to construction) with federalaid highway funding using "alternative" or "equivalent" state QBS procedures that 

were permitted prior to the 2005 amendment. 

Finally, Congress is considering legislation to reauthorize the Airport 

Improvement Program to expand the use of QBS to airport projects. H.R. 915, which 

passed the House a year ago, authorizes the Secretary of Transportation to approve 

an eligible agency's application for authority to impose a "passenger facility charge" 

to finance airside projects for airports, provided the agency gives satisfactory 

written assurances that each contract and subcontract for program or construction 

management, architectural, engineering, and related services is awarded in the 

same way a contract for architectural and engineering services is negotiated with 

respect to QBS requirements or an equivalent qualifications-based method 

prescribed for or by the agency. 

IV. The Agency Retains Control of the Selection Process, Including the 

Schedule and Price Factors 

The QBS process should never be burdensome or pose an obstacle to the 

speedy acquisition of the necessary professional design services. 

To keep the process of selecting a design professional advancing 

smoothly, the owner establishes a time frame for completion of the 

selection process. Establishing the time frame communicates 

requirements with the firms and prevents misunderstandings and last 

minute "surprises" which may delay the process. The time frame for 

each public project differs, depending upon the nature of the project, 

the concerns of the owner and other factors. The suggested time 

frame for an average QBS project is a total of four to six weeks to 

- 4-
102 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 110 here 76580A.062

allow proper planning and administration between each step of the 

selection process. Depending upon the status of the owner's project, 

adjustments can be made to accommodate the owner's needs.s 

This is not a recent discovery. In 1985, the American Institute of Architects 

(AlA) analyzed procurement practices and laws in Maryland and Florida in the 

awarding of more than 1,200 architectural and engineering contracts. The study 

concluded that "the QBS selection method appears to result in about one-half the 

cost of selection and design and about one-half the administrative cost, while 

delivering projects in about three-fourths the time of the (apparently) pricedominated quaHty-and-price selection method."6 

V.Summary 

The qualifications-based selection procedures of the Brooks-Architect 

Engineers Act result protect public safety by awarding design contracts for federally 

funded infrastructure projects to the most highly qualified architects and engineers. 

Congress has repeatedly broadened QBS coverage to other government 

engineering services over the past 38 years. The Committee should expand the 

coverage of the QBS provisions in the AQAA to ensure the Safe Drinking Water Act is 

no less protective of public safety than other federal infrastructure laws. 

Respectfully submitted, 

THE AMERICAN SOCIETY OF CIVIL ENGINEERS 

5 New Mexico Professional Technical Advisory Board, Owner Manual for QualificationBased Selection 12 (2006), at 

http://www.nmenv.state.nm.uslcpb IPTAB Manual%20ReyOt02005-24-06.pdf (emphasis in 

original) (last visited May 11, 2010). 

6 Symeon Christodoulou et aI., Qualifications-Based Selection of Professional ALE Services, 

20 J. MGMT.IN ENGINEERING 34, 36 (2004). 

- 5 -
103 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 111 here 76580A.063

For more in/ormation; please contact: 

Michael Charles, Senior Manager, Government Relations 

American Society of Civil Engineers 

101 Constitution Avenue NW, Suite 375 East 

Washington, D.C. 20001 

(202) 789-7844 DIRECT 

(703) 539-9498 MOBILE 

(202) 789-7859 FAX 

mcharles@asce.org 

www.asce.org 

-6-
104 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 112 here 76580A.064

The Authoritative Resource on Safe Water SM 

May 13, 2010 

The Honorable Henry A. Waxman 

Chair, House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

The Honorable Joe Barton 

Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy and Commerce 

The Honorable Edward J. Markey 

Chair, House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

The Honorable Nathan Deal 

Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

Dear Representatives, 

The American Water Works Association (AWWA) applauds your efforts to tackle the challenges 

faCing the nation's drinking water infrastructure via the state revolving loan fund (SRF) program. 

While the United States has long enjoyed safe, reliable drinking water, we must all heighten our 

efforts to maintain and upgrade our drinking water infrastructure to keep that water safe and 

reliable for the future. 

Since its creation in 1996, the drinking water SRF program has become one of the most 

important tools available to communities seeking to improve their drinking water systems. The 

Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act being presented at today's hearing includes a number 

of long-standing recommendations that AWWA has made in the interest of improving the SRF 

program. These include: 

1. significantly boosting capitalization grants to state SRF programs; 

2. making replacement and rehabilitation of aging treatment, storage, or distribution 

facilities explicitly eligible for SRF funds; and 

3. giving greater weight to SRF applicants who can provide 

a. an inventory of assets and their condition; 

b. an asset replacement schedule; 

c. a comprehensive financing plan; 

d. a study of approaches to improve the sustainability of the system; and 

e. an audit of water losses. 

We are indeed happy to see authorized funding for the SRF increased substantially in this bill. 

In many states, larger drinking water systems have been unable to access the program, Simply 

because the scope of their projects could legitimately consume such a large portion of a state's 

available SRF funds. If states had more SRF capitalization funding, it might help fund some of 

these larger projects. AWWA looks forward to working with the committee to seek full funding of 

the program through the appropriations process. 

Headquarters Office: 

6666 W. Quincy Avenue, Denver CO 80235 

T 303.794.771111 F 303.347.0804 

www.aW.Wa.org 

Government Affairs Office: 

1300 Eye Street NW, Suite 701W 

Washington, DC 20005 

T 202.628.830311 F 202. 628.2846 
105 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 113 here 76580A.065

We believe the bill could be further improved by adding the following features: 

1. a requirement that loan recipients work toward self-sustainability whether via water rates 

that reflect full-cost pricing, restructuring, consolidation, or related measures; 

2. eligibility of security infrastructure upgrades for SRF loans; and 

3. the inclusion of a provision similar to Section 304 of S. 1005, the Senate SRF reform bill, 

which would have EPA work with SRF stakeholders to identify ways to expedite and 

improve the SRF application and review process. 

Like you, AWWA has long supported additional research on the occurrence and health effects 

associated with exposure to very low levels of endocrine-disrupting compounds. The 1996 

Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act created a sound methodology for screening 

potential drinking water contaminants and making determinations whether to regulate them. We 

are concemed that the fast-tracking of possible endocrine disruptors for regulatory consideration 

will come at the expense of EPA resources devoted to these and other contaminants, some of 

which may already be in the Candidate Contaminant List pipeline and that may be more 

hazardous. We believe the best answer to the needs of water suppliers is significantly more 

funding for research on the health effects of various contaminants in drinking water, with the 

research priorities driven by the needs of scientists and researchers. 

AWWA appreciates the opportunities it has had to discuss this bill in the past with the 

Committee, and looks forward to continuing to work with members and staff on this legislation. 

As we said earlier, the SRF program is a sound tool in the toolbox of infrastructure finance 

mechanisms; it just needs some improvements, several of which are found in this bill. We hope 

to continue to work with the committee in exploring other tools, such as a water infrastructure 

bank, that would address the needs of large systems via direct loans and provide assistance to 

small and medium-sized systems by helping states leverage SRF funds. 

AWWA is the world's largest educational and scientific organization dedicated to the promotion 

of safe drinking water. Our 60,000 members work as community water providers, federal and 

state regulators, environmentalists, academics and scientists, and reside in all 50 states. Our 

utility members serve 80 percent of the U.S. population. AWWA stands ready to assist the 

committee in further addressing the nation's water infrastructure needs. 

Sincerely, 

Tom Curtis 

Deputy Executive Director for Government Affairs 
106 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 114 here 76580A.066

The Honorable Henry Waxman 

Chairman, Energy and Commerce Committee 

2204 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

The Honorable Ed Markey 

Chairman, Subcommittee on Energy and the Environment 

2108 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515 

May 11, 2010 

Dear Chairmen Waxman and Markey 

I am writing on behalf of Food and Water Watch, a national consumer advocacy 

organization based in Washington, D.C., in support of the "Assistance, Quality, and 

Affordability Act of2010." This legislation is a much needed and long overdue 

reauthorization of the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund. We urge Congress to 

quickly pass this legislation. 

As you know, our essential water infrastructure has been grossly underfunded for 

decades. The federal share of drinking water infrastructure funding was cut in half 

between 1997 and 2007. While Congress has recently restored some of tllis funding, the 

State Revolving Fund (SRF) remains underfunded. 

The changes to project eligibility included in this legislation expand the SRF program to 

cover much needed areas including rehabilitation and replacement of infrastructure 

systems. At the same time, ilie technical assistance grants program for small public \'iater 

systems is amended to ensure competition among non-profits to provide this valuable 

service. 

We are pleased to see that your legislation includes two sections that address important 

public healili concerns. We encourage the Committee and the Congress to ensure that the 

new definition of '"lead-free", reducing the current definition of8 percent to.25 percent, 

remains in any final SRF reauthorization passed into law. We also support inclusion of 

amendments to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program that will begin to strengthen 

tile Environmental Protection Agency's ability to protect us from ilie harmful health 

effects of EDCs in our drinking water. 

We note that although this legislation contains these positive changes to ilie current Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA), it does not amend the system eligibility for the SRF. Our 

research has shown iliat allowing privately owned drinking water systems access to low 

interest SRF loans is bad policy for ratepayers and utility workers. Private drinking water 

systems are more expensive, less efficient, and less responsive than publicly owned 

systems. When water systems are privatized, rates go up, workers are laid off, and 
107 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 115 here 76580A.067

service suffers. We urge you to amend the SDW A to prohibit privately owned drinking 

water systems from receiving these taxpayer-subsidized loans. We look forward to 

working with you on making this change to your legislation. 

Again, we urge you to quickly move this legislation through your Committee and look 

forward to working to ensure that a strong, pro-ratepayer "Assistance, Quality, and 

Affordability Act" passes this Congress. 

Cordially, 

~~=------- Wenonah Hauter 

Executive Director 

Enclosure 
108 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 116 here 76580A.068

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

June 1. 2010 

Cynthia Dougherty 

Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water 

Euvironmental Protection Agency 

1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW 

Washington. D.C. 20460 

Dear Ms. Dougherty: 

Thank you for appearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on May 

13,2010, at the hearing entitled "H.R. ~_. the "Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 

2010." 

Pursuant to the Committee's Rules, attached are written questions for the record directed 

to you from certain Members of the Committee. In preparing your answers, please address your 

response to the Member who submitted tbe questions. 

V{)l,r n'.nlm</'. by June 15. 20 I 0, to t-:arley Green, Chief Clerk, via e-mail 

E!l;tOOc.Qr.!l£n.@irrullk!:!lli~.gQY. Please contact EarJey Green or Jennifer Berenholz at (202) 

Sincerely, 

Attachment 
109 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 117 here 76580A.069

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460 

The Honorable Henry Waxman 

Chairman 

Energy and Commerce Committee 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Washington, DC 20515 

Dear Chairman Waxman: 

JUl 1 5 2010 

OFFICE OF CONGRESSIONAL AND 

!NTERGOVERNMENTAL RElATIONS 

Thank you for the opportunity to respond to questions for the record that followed the 

May 13,2010 hearing before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment on H.R. __ , the 

"Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of 201 0." I hope this information will be useful to 

you and the members of the Committee. 

If you have any further questions, please contact me or your staff may contact Greg 

Spraul in my office at 202.564.0255. 

Sincerely, 

\./ 

Arvin R. Ganesan 

Deputy Associate Administrator 

Attachment 

Intomot Address (UAL). hltp:llwww.opa.gov 

RecycledlRecyc1abl. -Printed with Vegelable 011 Based Inks on Recycled Paper (Minimum 25% Poslconsumer) 
110 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 118 here 76580A.070

Legislative Hcaring on H.R. _ "Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of2010" 

U.S. House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

May 13, 2010 

Cynthia Dougherty's Responses to 

Questions for the Record 

The Honorable Joe Barton 

1. There are provisions in tbis bill concerning prevailing wages. How are they 

different from the existing Davis-Bacon treatment under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act? 

The Safe Drinking Water Act currently has a Labor Standards provision that applies to 

direct procurement by the Agency. See 42 U.S.C. §300j-9 (e). Since the Drinking Water 

State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program does not involve direct procurement, DavisBacon prevailing wages have not applied to projects funded by the DWSRF. The 

provisions in the bill concerning prevailing wages would be a new statutory component 

to the DWSRF base program. Note, however, that under the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) and the Fiscal Year 2010 (FY201O) Appropriations Act, 

Davis-Bacon prevailing wage treatment has applied to construction projects funded in 

whole or in part by the ARRA or for construction projects where the assistance from a 

DWSRF was provided as of October 30,2009 through September 30,2010. 

2. Your testimony mentions that 40 percent of DWSRF monies went to small 

systems and 19 percent went to disadvantaged communities. How much overlap 

was there bctween those two groups? 

At this point, EPA has very limited information on specific systems. Historically, EPA's 

data system has collected only aggregate state-level data, and so we can not see if 

systems that are in one category are the same in another category. For ARRA and 

moving forward, EPA will have project level data, and we will be able to see if projects 

fall into multiple categories, such as "small system" and "disadvantaged community." 

3. Could you please explain for me the practical effect of the changes - what 

happens today under the Safe Drinking Water Act versus after enactment of this 

bill- on affordability and variance criteria? 

The changes in the bill affect the evaluation of affordability, affordability variance 

procedures and financing systems with affordability and compliance issues. 

We do not believe there are significant practical changes to EPA's small system 

affordability evaluation that would result from enactment of the bill. Section 13 of the 

bill retains the requirements under Section 1412.b.4.E.ii which requires that EPA "list 

any technology, treatment technique or other means that is affordable" for small drinking 
111 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 119 here 76580A.071

water systems to comply with each drinking water regulation. Under the current 

provisions, EPA has identified affordable small system compliance technologies for all 

applicable drinking water regulations. If the bill were enacted, EPA would still identify 

small system compliance technologies for future regulations. 

Enactment of the bill would change the process if EPA were not able to identify 

affordable small system compliance technologies for future regulations. Under this 

condition, SDWA 1412.b.lS requires that EPA identify variance technologies that "may 

not achieve compliance" but that are "protective of public health." Section 13 of the bill 

would eliminate this requirement, and instead require the Agency to periodically review 

small system compliance technologies to update the list of affordable technologies when 

they become available. 

Section 13 of the bill also eliminates small system variances under SDWA 141S.e. Under 

a small system variance, a small water system could install and operate a less costly 

technology that does not reduce the contaminant to the level required by the regulation. 

Under SDWA, small system variances can only be issued by states if EPA cannot 

identify a small system compliance technology, and if EPA identified affordable variance 

technologies that are protective of public health. Small system variances are not 

available presently for States to issue to systems, because EPA has identified affordable 

small system compliance technologies for all applicable regulations. Therefore 

enactment of the bill would not have a practical effect on the current availability of small 

system variances, though it would preclude the use of small system variances for future 

regulations. 

With regard to fmancing systems with affordability and compliance issues, currently, the 

DWSRF provisions of the SDWA allow a State, at its discretion, to establish a 

disadvantaged communities program and to offer to communities, the State determines to 

be disadvantaged, additional subsidies including principal forgiveness and extended 

repayment terms. Under the existing statute, the State establishes priority for DWSRF 

funding based upon criteria it develops and which provide priority for systems facing an 

immediate threat to public health; systems requiring assistance to achieve and maintain 

compliance with SDW A; and systems most in need on a per household basis. 

Under the committee passed bill, Section 5 would require states to list all systems within 

the state that have, in effect, an exemption or variance for any primary drinking water 

regulation, or are in persistent violation of the requirements for any maximum 

contaminant level under a national primary drinking water regulation. Then, under 

Section 8, each state would be required to use 6% (as part of the state's disadvantaged 

communities subsidy) of the DWSRF's capitalization grant funds for the year in question 

for projects at public water systems that are included on the state's latest list as described 

above, to the extent that there are eligible applications. 

The current DWSRF provisions of the SDWA allow a state to choose whether it will 

provide additional subsidization to communities that it designates as disadvantaged 

communities. This bill continues to allow States to establish their own criteria for 

2 
112 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 120 here 76580A.072

designation of disadvantaged communities. The bill, in Section 7, requires the State to 

determine if capital improvements necessary to meet a new national primary drinking 

water standard are affordable for disadvantaged communities in the State. lfthe State 

finds that the improvements are not affordable for disadvantaged communities, the 

State's Intended Use Plan must provide that priority for the use of the DWSRF 

capitalization grant for the year in question be given to public water systems affected by 

the new national primary drinking water standard and serving disadvantaged 

communities. 

The Honorable Michael Burgess 

1. According to tbe April 28, 2010 EPA DIG report, the EPA Office of Water 

agreed to complete implementation of a recommendation from a 2002 IG report 

on wastewater management by September 30, 2009 but it was still 

unimplemented. Is this recommendation still unimplemented, and if so, why? 

The 1994 Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) Policy requires that permittees" ..... .include 

a post-construction monitoring program adequate to verify compliance with water quality 

standards and protection of designated uses as well as to ascertain the effectiveness of 

CSO controls." In 1995, EPA developed technical guidance to facilitate implementation 

of the Policy. Two of the documents that were developed (Guidance/or Long-Term 

Control Plan and Combined Sewer Overflow Guidance for Permit Writers) provided 

guidance on the development and implementation of post construction compliance 

monitoring programs. These guidance documents indicate that the post construction 

compliance monitoring plan should be implemented during implementation of the longterm control plan, and it should continue after the plan has been implemented. 

DIG recommended that the Office of Water develop a compilation of monitoring 

approaches to better determine the impact of CSOs on water quality. After consultation 

with Regions and States, we elected to do a guidance which was determined to be more 

useful. The guidance includes information on designing effective monitoring programs 

(such as ensuring that monitoring is conducted during implementation of the long-term 

control plan) and is designed to help EPA regions, states, and the public to verify 

compliance with water quality standards as well as to ascertain the effectiveness of CSO 

controls. This guidance was reviewed by our regional offices and revised to reflect their 

comments. The guidance, while still in draft, is available for use by Regions and States. 

We intend to revise the guidance based on the experience of regions and states in using 

the draft guidance. 

2. According to the April 28, 2010 EPA OIG report, the Office of Water has not 

implemented a recommendation in which the Office of Water agreed to take 

corrective action by September 30, 2007. This action would be in response to 

recommendation from a 2004 IG report that found the EPA needed to reinforce 

its national pretreatment program, and in particular, the Office of Water was to 

3 
113 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 121 here 76580A.073

develop a long-term strategy to identify the data it needs for developing 

pretreatment results-based measurements. The IG says the Office of Water has 

not implemented this recommendation as of March 31, 2010. Has the Office of 

Water implemented this recommendation since March 31, 2010? If not, why 

not? Why is it taking so long to implement a corrective action that your office 

agreed to complete by September 30, 2007? 

orG recommended that the Pretreatment Program develop a long-tenn strategy to 

identify the data it needs for developing pretreatment results-based measurements; 

determine the resources necessary to carry out the strategy; and gain the support of other 

Agency, State, and POTW staff to carry out the strategy. 

EPA has not met its commitment with respect to pretreatment, because developing a long 

term strategy for results-based measurements and gaining support of stakeholders has 

proven to be an issue that is more complex than EPA initially expected, and will take 

additional time. As part of its plan of action to address the orG recommendations, EPA 

agreed to assess data collection, methods of data collection, and data availability and 

accessibility on pretreatment program performance. EPA examined information on 

databases used by the EPA regions and states to store program information, and 

determined that although data considered crucial to program management were 

historically required through policy, the input of these data into a central, national 

database had been inconsistent for the past 20 years. Instead, programmatic data were 

maintained in decentralized databases within each state andlor EPA regional office. To 

resolve the centralized data entry challenges identified by states and EPA regions, EPA 

is: developing an educational handbook for non-programmatic managers which identifies 

the environmental and economic merits of implementing the pretreatment program; 

developing new guidance to minimize data quality errors for facilitation of data upload to 

a centralized database (necessary for national reporting requirements), and exploring 

ways to reduce data entry burden into such centralized database through the Clean Water 

Act Action Planl

. 

3. According to the April 28, 2010 EPA OIG report, the Office of Water has not 

implemented a recommendation from a 2008 report to improve oversight of 

tribal water systems. The IG says that the Office of Water agreed to complete 

implementation of the recommendation by April 30, 2009 but it is still listed as 

unimplemented. Has the Office of Water implemented the recommendation? If 

not, why not? 

This recommendation was completed on March 11, 2010 when the Office of Water 

issued guidance regarding expectations of regions implementing the tribal drinking water 

program. Please see the attached letter. 

I http://www.epa.gov/oecaerth/civillcwalcwaenfpJan.htmJ 

4 
114 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 122 here 76580A.074

4. Listed below are the program recommendations identified in the April 28, 2010 

EPA OIG report that have not been implemented by the EPA Office of Water. 

Please identify whether each of the specific programs listed below fall within the 

Office of Water's Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water, and ifso, whether 

each of the recommendations has been implemented. If recommendations have 

not been implemented, please explain why they have not, and whether the Office 

of Water/Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water intends to implement them 

in the future: 

Only two of the items in the identified program recommendations fall within the purview 

of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. 

A. EPA Assisting Tribal Water Systems but Needs to Improve Oversight 

See answer to Question #3. 

B. More Information Is Needed on Toxaphene Degradation Products 

For this recommendation, the action identified by the report as unimplemented is 

development of the third Contaminant Candidate List (CCL3), anticipated to have 

been completed by August 31, 2009. CCL3 was released on October 8,20092

. 

2 http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstrIEPA-W ATERl200910ctoberlDay-08/w24287.htrn 

5 
115 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 123 here 76580A.075

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 (Report 

No. 10-N-01l4) 

Action Office: OW 

Report Title: EPA Needs to Accelerate Adoption of Numeric Nutrient Water 

Quality 

Standards Report No.: 09-P-0223 

Date Issued: 08/26/2009 

Report Summary 

EPA's 1998 National Strategy and Plan to promote State adoption of nutrient water 

quality standards (which better protect aquatic life and human health) has been 

ineffective. In 1998, EPA stated that a critical need existed for improved water quality 

standards, given the number of water bodies impaired from nutrients. In the 11 years 

since EPA issued its strategy, half the States still had no numeric nutrient standards. 

States have not been motivated to create these standards because implementing them is 

costly and often unpopular with various constituencies. EPA has not held the States 

accountable to committed milestones. The current approach does not assure that States 

will develop standards that provide adequate protection for downstream waters. Until 

recently, EPA has not used its Clean Water Act authority to promulgate water quality 

standards for States. 

EPA cannot rely on the States alone to ensure that numeric nutrient standards are 

established. EPA should prioritize States/waters significantly impacted by excess 

nutrients and determine whether it should set the standards. EPA also needs to establish 

effective monitoring and measures so that accurate program progress is reported. These 

progress reports will assist EPA management in program decision making. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 2-3: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OW 

establish EPA and State accountability for meeting milestones for adopting numeric 

nutrient water quality standards for those waters in the rest of the Nation that require 

them. EPA should do this by: 

(a) Requiring States to develop milestones based on resources available. 

(b) Reviewing those milestones and approving them as appropriate 

Recommendation 2-4: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OW 

establish metrics to gauge the actual progress made by States in adopting numeric 

nutrient water quality standards. 

Recommendation 2-5: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OW ensure 

that the regions annually validate Water Quality Standards Actions Tracking Applications 

data. 

Status: OW agreed to utilize the next available opportunity to revise internal program 

activity reports to better gauge cumulative State progress. This corrective action is 

associated with the three recommendations above. The agreed-to completion date was 

February 28, 2010. 

6 
116 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 124 here 76580A.076

Action Office: OW 

Report Title: EPA Assisting Tribal Water Systems but Needs to Improve Oversight 

Report No.: OS-P-0266 

Date Issued: 09116/2008 

Report Summary 

EPA, rather than the States, has the responsibility for protecting htunan health and the 

environment on tribal lands. Approximately 600 tribal community water systems (CWSs) 

serve an estimated 622,000 people. EPA staff members provide these systems with 

technical and other assistance so that tribal CWSs maintain compliance with Safe 

Drinking Water Act requirements. We conducted this evaluation to assess EPA's 

oversight and assistance of tribal CWSs, and to independently evaluate water quality at 

selected drinking water systems. 

Tribal drinking water sample results in EPA files indicate that drinking water supplies 

consistently met regulatory requirements. Regional EPA staff also made correct 

compliance decisions with sample results that tribal CWSs provided. However, the OIO 

found internal control deficiencies in administering EPA's oversight of tribal CWSs in 

two of the five regions we reviewed. To varying degrees, tribal drinking water records in 

four of the five regions were incomplete due to a failure to maintain oversight of system 

operations andlor poor records management. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

Recommendation 2-3: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OW direct 

regions to issue monitoring and reporting violations, take appropriate enforcement 

actions against tribal CWSs with health-based violations or who fail to monitor or submit 

monitoring reports, and enter violations into Safe Drinking Water Information System. 

Status: OW planned to issue guidance regarding expectations of regions implementing 

the tribal drinking water program. The original agreed-to completion date was April 30, 

2009. 

7 
117 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 125 here 76580A.077

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 (Report 

No. 10-N-0114) 

Action Office: OW 

Report Title: Total Maximum Daily Load Program Needs Better Data and 

Measures to Demonstrate Environmental Results 

Report No.: 2007-P-00036 

Date Issued: 09/19/2007 

Report Summary 

EPA does not have comprehensive information on the outcomes of the Total Maximum 

Daily Load (TMDL) program nationwide, nor national data on TMDL implementation 

activities. EPA and States are responsible for implementing point source TMDLs; 

however, EPA cannot identify all of the permitted dischargers that should receive or have 

received wasteload allocations. Measuring nonpoint source TMDL implementation is 

difficult because EPA does not have statutory authority to regulate nonpoint sources and 

it is highly dependent on State and local stakeholders. EPA's lack of information prevents 

the Agency from determining the extent to which TMDLs are restoring impaired waters 

and whether TMDL implementation activities are occurring in a timely manner. 

EPA has begun to take steps to measure program results and improve program data, 

sponsored several studies ofTMDL implementation, and is studying additional TMDL 

results measures. Developing meaningful measures is challenging; however, EPA needs 

to provide more management direction to improve its ability to assess how well this 

critical program is functioning. The TMDL and performance measures we reviewed do 

not provide clear and complete metrics of the program's accomplishments. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

Recommendation 1-2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OW 

demonstrate that TMDLs are being implemented by annually reporting on the progress of 

TMDL implementation activities completed nationwide including the number ofTMDLs: 

that have all wasteload allocations incorporated into NPDES permits, 

that have implemented load allocations through at least one best management 

practice funded through the Section 319 Program, and 

for which implementation data are not available to EPA. 

Status: According to MATS, OW has: 

Reported on TMDL implementation rates, including point source pcrmits and 

nonpoint source best management practices, through a statistical study covering EPA 

Region 5. 

Completed development of a national statistical study design to assess TMDL 

implementation rates . 

• Queried EPA data systems and issued its first annual national report on the three 

metrics specified in 1-2. OW has three corrective actions that have not been completed 

for this recommendation: 

Complete development of an information collection rule (ICR) that covers 

assessments of TMDL implementation. 

8 
118 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 126 here 76580A.078

18 Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 20 I 0 (Report No. 

IO-N-0114) 

Produce a synthesis paper covering the findings from multiple implementationrelated, studies. 

Initiate national sample-based assessment upon ICR approval. 

The agreed-to completion date for these actions was December 31,2009. The OW 

indicated that they have not proposed rescheduled completion dates for -- developing the 

ICR and completing a national sample-based assessment -- because they plan to request 

modifications to these corrective actions with the OIG. OW feels that the relevance of the 

ICR to the TMDL implementation survey is questionable. If the ICR is no longer 

essential to the implementation survey as originally conceived, OW could potentially 

request that the ICR's development be withdrawn as a corrective action. OW also stated 

that the value-added worth ofa national TMDL implementation survey, estimated to cost 

$400,000 or more in 2007, is also questionable given improved knowledge about 

implementation and budgetary constraints. OW's position is that the survey would not be 

cost effective and should be withdrawn as a corrective action. 

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 (Report No. 

IO-N-0114) 

Produce a synthesis paper covering the findings from multiple implementationrelated studies. 

Initiate national sample-based assessment upon ICR approval. 

The agreed-to completion date for these actions was December 31, 2009. The OW 

indicated that they have not proposed rescheduled completion dates for -- developing the 

ICR and completing a national sample-based assessment -- because they plan to request 

modifications to these corrective actions with the OIG. OW feels that the relevance of the 

ICR to the TMDL implementation survey is questionable. If the rCR is no longer 

essential to the implementation survey as originally conceived, OW could potentially 

request that the ICR's development be withdrawn as a corrective action. OW also stated 

that the value-added worth of a national TMDL implementation survey, estimated to cost 

$400,000 or more in 2007, is also questionable given improved knowledge about 

implementation and budgetary constraints. OW's position is that the survey would not be 

cost effective and should be withdrawn as a corrective action. 

9 
119 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 127 here 76580A.079

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 (Report 

No. 10.N.01l4) 

Action Office: OW 

Report Title: More Information Is Needed on Toxaphene Degradation Products 

Report No.: 2006·P·00007 

Date Issued: 12/16/2005 

Report Summary 

Toxaphene in the environment changes, or degrades. The resulting degradation products 

are different from the original toxaphene in chemical composition and how they appear to 

testing instruments, so they could go unreported. The analytical methods EPA uses to 

identify and measure toxaphene are not designed to identify toxaphene degradation 

products. However, a new testing method used by others specifically tests for toxaphene 

degradation products. We believe EPA should validate, approve, and use this method. 

Certain toxaphene degradation products accumulate inside people. Although studies 

indicate that some of these degradation products may be harmful, more research is 

needed to determine how much of a risk these products pose to people. The report 

recommendations were reported to OA, OW, OSWER and ORD, OA and ORD have no 

past-due corrective actions recorded in MATS. 

Unimplemented Recommendations 

Recommendation 2: We recommend that the Administrator direct the Assistant 

Administrators for ORD, OW and OSWER to arrange for specific research into the 

dangers of tumors (i.e., cancer) and of harm to embryos posed principally by a mixture of 

toxaphene congeners and metabolites found in fish. 

Status: OW anticipated completing the third Contaminant Candidate List by August 31, 

2009. 

10 
120 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 128 here 76580A.080

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of March 31, 2010 (Report 

No. lO-N-01l4) 

Action Office: OW 

Report Title: EPA Needs to Reinforce Its National Pretreatment Program 

Report No: 2004-P-00030 

Date Issued: 09128/2004 

Report Summary 

The reductions in industrial waste discharges to the nation's sewer systems that 

characterized the early years of the National Pretreatment Program have not endured. 

Since the middle of the 19905, there has been little change in the volume of a broad list of 

toxic pollutants transferred to Publicly Owned Treatment Works (POTWs) or in the index 

of risk associated with these pollutants. As a result, the performance of EPA's 

pretreatment program, which is responsible for controlling these discharges, is 

threatened, and progress toward achieving the Clean Water Act goal of eliminating toxic 

discharges that can harm water quality has stalled. 

The curtailing of the early gains may be explained in part by two factors: (1) dischargers 

that developed systems in response to EPA's initial program requirements have not 

enhanced their pretreatment systems in recent years, and (2) the rate at which EPA has 

been issuing effluent guidelines dramatically declined since 1990. Without more visible 

leadership from Headquarters, improved programmatic information, and the adoption of 

results-based performance measures, EPA's pretreatment program is at risk oflosing the 

gains it made in its early years. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

Recommendation 4-1: We recommend that the Acting Assistant Administrator for OW 

direct staff to develop a long-term strategy to identify the data it needs for developing 

pretreatment results-based measurements; determine the resources necessary to carry out 

the strategy; and gain the support of other Agency, State, and POTW staff to carry out the 

strategy .. 

Status: OW agreed to request information on databases used by the EPA regions and 

States to store information regarding POTW pretreatment program performance. Through 

the Permitting for Results process, OW will compile information regarding current data 

systems used to store pretreatment data at the EPA regional and State level. OW intends 

to use this information to identify inaccurate data and target data correction in the Permit 

Compliance System. Both of these activities are crucial to facilitate migration and 

retention of data as we transition to the Integrated Compliance Information System. Once 

these efforts are complete, OW will be able to determine a long-term strategy based on 

data availability and resources, which should ultimately assist it in developing 

pretreatment results-based measurements. The agreed-to completion date for this 

corrective action was September 30,2007. 

11 
121 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 129 here 76580A.081

Compendium of Unimplemented Recommendations as of Marcb 31, 2010 (Report 

No. 10-N-0114) 

Action Office: OW 

Report Title: Wastewater Management: Controlling and Abating Combined Sewer 

Overflows 

Report No: 2002-P-00012 

Date Issued: 08/26/2002 

Report Summary 

Combined sewer overflows (CSOs) are the total discharges into waterbodies of untreated 

domestic, commercial, industrial waste, wastewater, and stonn water runoff, which can 

adversely affect the health of humans, animals, and aquatic organisms, as well as cause 

beach closings and fishing and recreational restrictions. We found that many 

communities do not as yet have the data to detennine the effect of CSO controls on water 

quality. Most communities were only monitoring the number, volume, and duration of 

CSO discharges, and did not have data on the effect CSO controls were having on the 

quality of receiving waters. This was because EPA does not require monitoring until 

completion of CSO projects. Consequently, it could not be determined until it was too 

late whether each CSO project being undertaken was a wise investment of taxpayers' 

dollars. 

Unimplemented Recommendation 

Recommendation 5-1: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator for OW work 

with CSO pennitting authorities and communities to assure they negotiate and establish 

the proper level of interim monitoring of CSO efforts to detennine the impact of the 

project on water quality. 

Status: OW agreed to initiate an effort at EPA Headquarters to develop a compilation of 

the monitoring approaches that are or may be used in different situations. This 

compilation, which will be available in Fiscal Year 2009, will help permit writers 

develop appropriate monitoring expectations for those pennitees that have completed 

construction of their planned CSO controls. In August 2008, EPA reached a settlement 

filed in U.S. District Court for the Central District of California that requires EPA to 

complete studies and develop new recreational water quality criteria by October 2012. 

The agreed-to completion date was September 30, 2009. 

12 
122 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 130 here 76580A.082

Responses to Follow-up Questions Posed by Congo Barton 

Regarding Roger Crouse's May 13th Testimony 

on the Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act (AQUA) of 2010 

June 14,2010 

1. In Section 7 of the legislation, the state's intended use plan is required to provide priority for 

funding public water systems affected by a new national drinking water standard and service 

disadvantaged communities. Would this requirement pose undue challenges for the states? 

This subject provision in Section 7 would be quite challenging for states to implement; 

however, we do not necessarily believe it would represent an undue challenge. Some states 

have long-standing disadvantaged loan programs. Presumably, such states will mainly need 

to ensure that their programs meet all of the new statutory provisions. Where their programs 

need to be augmented to address certain of the new requirements, they will need to take on 

those tasks - which may well have an associated workload burden. However, the bill can be 

expected be particularly challenging for those states that currently do not have a 

disadvantaged loan program. Amendments that were added to the bill after the hearing lay 

out a number of criteria that states will need to consider in developing and applying 

disadvantaged loan programs per the requirements of Section 7 of the draft legislation. To 

the extent states are afforded substantial deference and discretion in how those factors are 

taken into account, we believe the provision can be implemented without becoming an undue 

burden on states. We appreciate the draft bill's approach of allowing states, rather than EPA, 

to make and apply disadvantaged system definitions. 

2. On the issue of competitive contracts, you state ASDWA believes the changes contemplated 

in section 11 should take place at the national level. Why? 

We believe the changes contemplated should take place at the national level and believe the 

bill needs to be clarified in this regard. We would object to this provision if it's intended to 

apply to technical assistance contracts issued by states --since such a restriction could take 

away a state's ability to hire the best qualified 3rd party technical assistance providers. Many 

states have long standing grant agreements with 3rd party technical assistance providers that 

are built upon those particular provider's knowledge and background in assisting individual 

water systems in the state. Requiring a competitive process in such cases can be expected to 

add additional administrative hurdles and time to the process without any expected benefits. 

3. You testifo that states with comparable prevailing wage provisions in their state laws 

recommend adding a phrase acknowledging that a state may satis'/y Davis-Bacon 

requirements by implementing comparable and equivalent state prevailing wage rate laws. 

What is the difference between these laws and state wage laws? 

I made this recommendation in reference to those state prevailing wage requirements for 

which there is no functional difference between state and Federal requirements. The 

equivalent state requirements are already codified in state statutes and regulations. Hence, it 
123 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 131 here 76580A.083

2 

would burdensome and ineffective to require states to substitute Federal law for their own, 

equivalent statutes. 

4. You testifY that the provisions in Section 5 do not serve a practical purpose to include a 

system with a Variance, Exemption or persistent violations in a state's Intended Use Plan --

if the system has not expressed an interest in participating in the SRF Are there many 

systems that wouldfall into that category? 

Yes, we believe there are many systems that would fall into that category. We think it's 

important to remember, in connection with this question, that the SRF program finances 

infrastructure. Many systems in persistent violation need financial and managerial attention, 

rather than improvements to their infrastructure. In addition, not all water systems are 

eligible for assistance from the SRF. Listing an ineligible system would thus be an 

administrative requirement with no useful purpose. We therefore recommend that this 

provision be changed to require that the IUP include an indication of any eligible water 

systems on the IUP that has a Variance, Exemption, or are in persistent violation. 

5. You testified that states generally do not support the provisions in Section 14 related to 

inspections and that they prefer the existing framework of escalating enforcement responses 

(including inspections, where appropriate) to returnfaGilities to compliance. Could you 

please explain why the states find such a provision objectionable? 

This section would direct EPA to develop regulations prescribing the number of inspections 

required of field staff after violations, classified into various tiers. States generally do not 

support this provision and prefer the flexibility provided in current statutory and regulatory 

provisions which allow states to use an escalating series of enforcement responses (including 

inspections, where appropriate) to return facilities to compliance as quickly as possible. The 

requirement envisioned by this part of the bill will have resource implications, in terms of 

additional staff time and documentation, and not necessarily produce the intended 

consequences. The underlying presumption of the requirement is that inspections remedy 

compliance problems. While it is true that many types of non-compliance problems at public 

water systems can benefit from a field inspection by state personnel (and associated technical 

assistance), that is not necessarily the case with all violations. Some are remedied with a 

phone conversation about the nature of the violation. Some types of violations are associated 

with long standing deficiencies in the technical, managerial, or financial capacity of water 

systems that are not necessarily helped by an inspection. We see no reason to replace the 

existing compliance and enforcement approaches effectively used by states with a new 

provision that is not grounded in the reality of everyday workings of water systems. 

However, one of the most effective ways Congress could support state efforts to ensure 

compliance would be to increase the relatively meager funding provided to states through the 

Public Water Supply and Supervision grant. Without additional funding, the inspection 

requirements contemplated in this part of the bill, would necessitate states shifting their very 

constrained resources away from other aspects oftheir program to accomplish the requisite 

inspections. 
124 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 132 here 76580A.084

3 

6. What is the likely outcome of imposing new requirements on the states to create criteria for 

evaluating disadvantage i>ystems that are out of compliance? What is the cost to the states? 

We believe that most states operate their programs in this manner already, thus we would not 

expect a massive shift in approach for most states. However, the relatively prescriptive 

nature of the new requirements may well require changes in state statutes, regulations, and 

on-the-ground activities. As with our answer to the question #1 above, we think it will be 

important to afford states a substantial degree of discretion and latitude to apply these criteria 

in ways that are most appropriate in their states. We are not able to accurately assess the 

likely costs at this stage. 

Additional Note: While not specifically posed as a follow up question to me, I would like to 

take a moment to react to the Buy American provisions of the final bill. These provisions were 

added by amendment after the hearing and thus, I was not able to react to them in my testimony. 

We understand and appreciate the desire to buy American-made goods and services. However, 

we think this laudible goal is not practical in the context of the Drinking Water SRF. The 

requirement to adhere to these buying procedures involves project delays, increases the cost of 

projects (in some case, inordinately so), and involves considerably more administrative activities 

on the part of states to oversee. Thus, we recommend that this provision be omitted. 
125 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 133 here 76580A.085

MASSACHUSETTS WATER RESOURCES AUTHORITY 

Charlestown Navy Yard 

The Honorable Joe Barton 

United States House of Representatives 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Dear Representative Barton: 

100 First Avenue 

Boston, Massachusetts 02129 

Telephone: (617) 242-6000 

facsimile: (617) 788-4899 

June 11,2010 

In response to my testimony at the May 13 Subcommittee on Energy and Environment hearing 

on the "Assistance, Quality and Affordability Act of2010" you requested that I provide 

additional information on the question: 

Why do you need the revolving loan jimds rather than tapping the capital markets/or 

wind turbines, hydroelectric pumps, and items beyond piping and contaminant removal 

compliance costs? 

In Massachusetts, the State Revolving Fund (SRF) program provides loans with interest rates 

that range from 2.0 to 2.5 percent depending on the term of the loan, which is below what most 

issuers can achieve in the municipal bond market. By reducing the overall cost of financing for a 

project the SRF fund lessens the burden placed on local rate or taxpayers while ensuring critical 

infrastructure projects are being completed. SRF funding for renewable energy projects will 

significantly improve the pay back period for the projects making them more cost-effective for 

the public. Increasing the scope and scale of the SRF program will help local water and sewer 

utilities to continue to improve critical infrastructure and pursue renewable energy projects 

which will benefit all citizens. 

I trust that this information is responsive to your question. If you require additional information, 

I will be happy to provide it. Thank you again for the opportunity to testiry on behalf of the bill. 

Very truly yours, 

Stephen Estes-Smargiassi 

Director of Planning 
126 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 134 here 76580A.086

www.nrdc.org 

July 21, 2010 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-6115 

NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL 

Dear Chainnan Waxman, Rep, Barton, and Members of the Committee: 

I am pleased to respond to the additional written questions posed by Representative 

Barton in follow-up to my testimony before the Subcommittee on Energy and 

Environment on May 13,2010, at the hearing entitled, H,R, 5320, the "Assistance, 

Quality, and Affordability Act of2010 (AQUA)", My original testimony focused on 

the importance of a dependable water structure for public health, the importance of 

reducing the amount of lead iu drinking water, and addressing the problem of endocrine 

disrupting chemicals, I expressed serious concerns about the documented presence of 

chemical contaminants, including endocrine disruptors, in source water in the United 

States, The decade-long delay in the implementation of the EPA Endocrine Disruptor 

Screening Program (EDSP) has resulted in a huge backlog of chemicals that have not 

been tested for endocrine disrupting effects, including many common drinking water 

contaminants, Furthennore, EPA has failed to take regulatory action under the Safe 

Drinking Water Act (SDWA) to protect the public from chemicals that have been tested 

and found to be endocrine disruptors, and that are known to be contaminants in drinking 

water. In my testimony, I offered support for a number of provisions in AQUA that will 

address endocrine disrupting chemicals, including: 

• Require testing of drinking water contaminants for endocrine disruption on a 

reasonable and achievable time line; 

Accelerate the identification of endocrine disrupting substances when 

scientific evidence already exists, thereby making the EDSP more efficient; 

Promote transparency and public participation in the EDSP; and 

Create a process for updating and revising testing protocols to be consistent 

with current scientific knowledge, 

Responses to follow-up questions from Representative Barton are presented below, 

111 Sutter Street 

20th Floor 

San Francisco. CA 94104 

TEL 415 875-6100 FAX 415 875,6161 

NEW YORK ,WASHINGTON,DC - LOSANGELES- CHICAGO· BEIJING 
127 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 135 here 76580A.087

Sarah J Janssen, MD, PhD, MPH Answers to AQUA testimony questions. July, 2010 

1. In your testimony, you cite a Center for Disease Control and Prevention statistic that 

almost I million children under the age of 6 have elevated blood lead levels (BLLs) 

in this country. 

a. What is considered an elevated BLL today? What was it 30 years ago? 

In the 1960s, blood lead levels (BLL) greater than 60 micrograms per deciliter (j.lg/dL) 

were considered toxic. The level was revised downward several times in the following 

decades, based on an accumulation of scientific evidence demonstrating adverse effects 

of lead on children's neurodevelopment at lower levels. The level was reduced to 40 

Ilg/dL in 1971,30 j.lg/dL in 1975,25 Ilg/dL in 1985, and 10 j.lg/dL in 1991. 1 In 2007, 

the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) issued a document on 

"Interpreting and Managing Blood Lead Levels <10 rg/dL in Children and Reducing 

Childhood Exposures to Lead" (November 2, 2007). This document stated that "CDC 

also recognized that a BLL of 10 llg/dL did not define a threshold for the harmful 

effects oflead. Research conducted since 1991 has strengthened the evidence that 

children's physical and mental development can be affected at BLLs <10 j.lg/dL.,,3 The 

report also affinns that "no safe level for blood lead in children has been identified.,,4 

In 1991, EPA recognized that there was no level oflead at which it could assure "no 

anticipated or adverse health effects" while providing "an adequate margin of safety," 

and accordingly set the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for lead in 

drinking water at zero.s EPA preserved the MCLG, and reiterated its rationale, when it 

revised other national drinking water regulations for lead in 2007. 6 In setting the 

MCLG, EPA relied on I) the occurrence of various low-level health effects for which it 

is difficult to identifY clear thresholds levels below which there are no risks of adverse 

health effects; 2) EPA's policy goal that drinking water should contribute minimal 

additional lead to existing exposures because a portion of the sensitive subpopulation 

(children) already exceeds acceptable blood lead levels; and 3) the classification of lead 

as a probable human carcinogen. 7 

In recent years, extensive scientific research has emerged that supports the conclusion 

that there is no "safe" blood lead level for children. These new studies substantially add 

to the overwhelming body of scientific evidence clearly showing adverse effects in 

children at BLLs well below 5 llg/dL. 

l David C. Beilinger, Andrew M. Bellinger. "Childhood lead poisoning: the torturous path from science to policy." L 

Clin. Invest. 2006; 116(4):853. 

2 Recommendations of CDC's Advisory Committce on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention. "Interpreting and 

Managing Blood Lead Levels <10 J.lgldL in Children and Reducing Childhood Exposures to Lead." MMWR 2007; 

56(RR08):1-14. 

J Ibid p. 1. 

'Ibidp.1. 

'EPA, Maximum Contaminant Level Goals and National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper, 

56 Fed. Reg. 26460, 26462 (June 7, 1991) (to be codified at 40 C.P.R. pts. 141 and 142). 

6 EPA, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations for Lead and Copper: Short Term Regulatory Revisions and 

Clarifications, 72 Ped. Reg. 57782, 57790 (Oct. 10,2007) (to be codified at 40 C.P.R. pts 141 and 142). 

'Ibid 

2 
128 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 136 here 76580A.088

Sarah J Janssen, MD, PhD, MPH Answers to AQUA testimony questions. July, 2010 

For example: 

• N igg et al (2007) studied 150 children ages 8-17 years, including children with 

two forms of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) and normal 

children. 8 The blood lead levels in this study population ranged from 0.4 to 3.4 

IlgldL, with a mean of 1.03 Ilg/dL, mirroring the range in the U.S. population 

today. Blood lead levels in the children with ADHD-combined type were 

statistically significantly higher than in control children. Blood lead was 

associated with both inattention-disorganization and with hyperactivityimpulsivity in these children. Thus, this study reported adverse effects in 

children at BLLs below 3.4 Ilg/dL. 

• The association between ADHD and lead exposure in childhood was further 

defined by Braun et al (2006), based on data from the National Health and 

Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES), a statistically representative 

subsample of the entire U.S. population 1999-2002.9 This study, which 

included data on 4,704 children ages 4-15, found a statistically significant 

association between higher blood lead levels and ADHD. Children in the top 

quintile (BLL of~ 2.0 IlgldL) of population blood lead had a 4. I-fold higher 

likelihood of carrying a diagnosis of ADHD compared to children in the lowest 

quintile (BLL ofS: 0.7). On the basis of these findings, the authors projected 

that environmental lead exposure accounts for 290,000 excess cases of ADHD 

in U.S. children. This study supports the finding that BLLs as low as 2 Ilg/dL 

are associated with adverse neurobehavioral effects in children. 

• A recent cohort study of294 1-2 year-old children in Mexico City focused on 

the effects of BLLs below 10 Ilg/dL. 10 The study found that higher blood lead 

levels at ages I and 2 were associated with lower scores on the Mental 

Development Index and the Psychomotor Development Index at age 2. The 

slope of the relationship was steeper at BLLs below 5 Ilg/dL. The authors 

concluded that: "These findings thus provide additional evidence that 10 IlgidL 

should not be viewed as a biological threshold for lead neurotoxicity." 

• Other new research has shown that blood lead levels as low as 2 Ilg/dL cause 

statistically significant discemable impacts on the performance of school-aged 

children on standardized tests. 11 This study analyzed the educational testing 

data for over 8,600 fourth grade students in North Carolina in 2000-2004, and 

linked the test results to blood lead surveillance data for seven counties. The 

8 Nigg JT, Knottnerus GM, Martel MM, et al. "Low blood lead levels associated with clinically diagnosed 

attention-deticitlhyperactivity disorder and mediated by weak cognitive control." BioI Psych 2008; 63(3):325-31. 

9 Braun JM, Kahn RS, Froehlich T, et al. « Exposures to environmental toxicants attention deficit hyperactivity 

disorder in U.S. children." Environ Health Perspect 2006; 114( 12): 1904-1909. 

10 Tellez-Rojo MM, Bellinger DC, Carmen Arroyo-Quiroz II, et a!. "Longitudinal associations between blood 

lead concentrations lower than 10 fig/dL and neurobehavioral development in environmentally exposed children in 

Mexico City," Pediatrics 2006; 118: 323-30. 

11 Miranda ML, Kim D, Galeano MAO, et al. «The relationship bctween early childhood blood lead levels and 

performance on enrl-of-grade tests." Environ Health Perspect 2007; 115(8); 1242-1247. 

3 
129 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 137 here 76580A.089

Sarah J Janssen, MD, PhD, MPH Answers to AQUA testimony questions. July, 2010 

authors found that a blood lead level of 5 ,ug/dL was associated with a decline in 

reading and mathematics test scores that is roughly equal to the magnitude of the 

impact of poverty on educational perfonnance. There was a discernable effect 

on the test results in this cohort at blood lead levels as low as 2 ,ug/dL. 

• A prospective cohort study on 194 children in Rochester, NY focused 

specifically on the question of whether blood lead levels less than 10 ,ug/dL can 

adversely affect cognitive function. 12 In this study population, the lifetime 

average BLL was 7.2 ,ug/dL, with a range from 1.4-27.1 ,ugidL. Lifetime 

average blood lead concentrations in these children (now 6 years old) were 

inversely associated with IQ. In comparison to the children with an average 

BLL < 5 ,ugidL, children with average BLLs between 5-9.9 ,ug/dL scored 4.9 

points lower on both full-scale IQ and on perfonnance IQ. The researchers 

found similar relationships when they examined concurrent lead levels, infancy 

lead levels, and peak lead levels. A dose-response assessment of the peak blood 

lead relationship with IQ revealed a non-linear relationship with an inverse 

association between BLL and full-scale IQ down to 2.1 flg/dL (the lowest peak 

lead level measured in this study population). The slope of the relationship was 

steeper at lower blood lead levels, consistent with the findings in numerous 

other studies. 

As many of these studies indicate, current lead concentrations are associated with 

significant IQ losses. Subpopulations of children with nutritional deficiencies are likely 

to be significantly more susceptible to lead toxicity. Diets low in calcium are known to 

significantly increase lead absorption and toxicity. 13 14 In fact, there is an inverse 

relationship between brain lead levels and dietary calcium. IS Similarly, dietary iron 

deficiency has been found in numerous studies to be associated with increased intestinal 

absorption oflead, and with increased vulnerability to lead toxicity. 16 

b. What is the average BLL of children today? What was it 30 years ago? 

The mean ("average") BLL for children ages 1-5 was 13.7 micrograms per deciliter 

(f.lg/dL) in the second National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, 1976 to 

1980. 17 Today the mean BLL is 1.5 I-lg/dL. 18 This decline reflects public health policies 

12 lusko TA, Henderson CR, Lanphear BP, et al. "Blood lead concentrations less than 10 micrograms per 

deciliter and child intelligence at 6 years of age." Environ Health Perspect. 2008;116(2):243-8. 

13 Mahaffey KR. "Environmental lead toxicity: nutrition as a component ofintervention." Environ Health Persp 

1990; 89:75-78. 

14 Mahaffey KR. "Nutrition and lead: strategies for public health." Environ Health Perspect 1995; !03(supp 

6):191-196. 

IS Goyer RA. "Nutrition and metal toxicity." Am J Clin Nutr 1995; 6J(suppJ):646S-650S. 

16 Ros C, Mwanri L. "Lead exposure, interactions and toxicity: food for thought." Asia Pacific 1 Clin Nutr. 2003; 

12(4):388-395. 

17 Pirkle IL, Brody DJ, Gunter EW, et al. "The decline in blood lead levels in the United States. The National Health 

and Nutrition Examination Surveys (NHANES)." JAMA. 1994; 272(4):284-91. 

l'http://cfpub.epa.gov/eroe/index.cfm?fuseaction=detail.viewMidlmg&ch=49&lShowlnd=O&subtoo=381&h=list.lisl 

BvChapter&r-188246. Accessed 6116110. 

4 
130 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 138 here 76580A.090

Sarah J Janssen, MD, PhD, MPH Answers to AQUA testimony questions. July, 2010 

by EPA and other agencies that have reduced many sources oflead contamination in the 

environment. 

2. In your written statement, you describe how hormones are released by endocrine 

glands and travel through the blood to different parts of the body where they control 

and adjust many life functions. 

a. Using insulin as an example, would you agree that carbohydrates in foods 

elicit an insulin response from the endocrine system of rats, and also of 

humans? Would you characterize that insulin response as "adverse?" 

Yes, I would agree that insulin release from the pancreas is a response that occurs after 

ingestion of carbohydrates to regulate levels of glucose in the body. This is a normal 

physiological response which maintains homeostasis by keeping glucose levels within a 

set range. It is not an adverse effect and when glucose levels are not maintained within 

a set point range over the long term, permanent damage occurs in major organs such as 

the kidney, heart, and eyes. A severe drop or elevation in blood glucose out of the set 

range can cause immediate death, so maintaining the set point is vital for proper 

functioning and vitality of an organism. 

b. What about temperature, would you agree that a change in the air 

temperature can elicit responses of the adrenal glands in rats and in humans? 

If so, would you characterize the adrenal glands responding to a change in 

air temperature as "adverse?" 

Physiological responses to a change in air temperature are controlled by the 

hypothalamus region of the brain, which is the body's "thermostat" and responds to 

changes in temperature by controlling and activating responses from many different 

organs. This can include responses from the adrenal gland but also include other brain 

regions, skin and the nervous system. For example, in response to cold temperature, the 

adrenal medulla will secrete epinephrine to cause an increase in metabolism, fat-burning 

and heat generation in the body. Like the insulin example given above, this is a normal 

physiological response which maintains homeostasis by keeping core body temperature 

within a set range. It is not an adverse effect but something that is necessary for life and 

when temperature is not maintained within this set range there can be damage to all 

body systems, especially the limbs and brain. A severe elevation out of the set range can 

cause immediate death so maintaining the set point is vital for proper functioning and 

vitality of an organism. 

c. Do you consider both of those examples as normal or adaptive responses of 

the endocrine system? lfan endocrine response is not "adverse," then what 

is the significance? 

Both of the above examples, insulin and temperature regulation, are examples of normal 

physiological responses which maintain homeostasis in an organism. Homeostasis is the 

dynamic process that living things use to actively maintain stability in vital functions 

like blood flow, temperature, metabolism and energy balance. An analogy of these 

5 
131 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 139 here 76580A.091

Sarah J Janssen, MD, PhD, MPH Answers to AQUA testimony questions. July, 2010 

processes could be made for your home thermostat. You set it at 70 degrees Fahrenheit 

and the house's heating and air conditioning system responds to maintain that 

temperature by either turning on or off whenever the home's temperature changes. It 

involves a constant monitoring, response, recheck, and response. Interfering with the 

thermostat by blocking or exaggerating the response is analogous to an adverse effect. 

The thermostat no longer responds to changes as expected and doesn't maintain the 

house at 70 degrees. 

Endocrine disruptors change the "set point" to either interfere with or alter a 

homeostatic response. Chemicals such as bisphenol A have been associated with 

interference with insulin regulation for example, so that insulin secretion is no longer 

able to maintain glucose balance. 19 Bisphenol A has also been shown to interfere with 

estrogen signaling, interfering with development of reproductive organs causing a 

predisposition to cancer and altering the age of onset of puberty. 20 Other endocrine 

disruptors such as perchlorate interfere with the thyroid hormone by interfering with 

thyroid hormone production and lowering the amount of hormone circulating in the 

blood. This results in a state of relative hypothyroidism such that the thyroid hormone 

level "set point" that is lower than normal for the organism. This has significant 

consequences for a fetus which relies on thyroid hormone for development of the brain 

and nervous system. A relative lowering of thyroid hormone during prewancy has been 

associated with a loss ofIQ points and impaired learning and memory. 1.22,23 

3, If EPA should focus on all chemicals, regardless of how strong or weak their 

endocrine activity, how can you be sure that EPA's actions will have any beneficial 

effect? What if EPA can't do anything about the biggest contributors -- such as 

human hormones? 

For the vast majority of chemicals contaminating drinking water, we have no 

information about their potential endocrine activity, This information is needed before 

any determinations about effects on wildlife or human health can be made. This is why 

we are urging testing of drinking water contaminants for their potential endocrine 

disrupting activity, Prioritization for testing should be done based on suspected 

endocrine activity, identification in drinking water sources, evidence of human exposure 

through biomonitoring or evidence of wildlife contamination. We also know that 

endocrine disruptors are likely to have additive effects when found in mixtures, and the 

combination of hormonally active synthetic chemicals is likely to have greater 

19 Ropero, A, B., P. Alonso-Magdalena, et a1. "Bisphenol-A disruption ofthe endocrine pancreas and blood 

glucose homeostasis." International Journal of Andrology 2008; 31(2): 194-200. 

20 Chapin, R. E., J. Adams, et al. "NTP-CERHR expert panel report on the reproductive and developmental 

toxicity ofbisphenol A." Birth Defects Res B Dev Reorod Toxicol2008; 83(3): 157-395. 

21 Haddow, J. E., G.li. Palomaki, et 01. "Maternal thyroid deficiency during pregnancy and subsequent 

neur~~sychological development of the child." N Engl J Med 1999; 341(8): 549:55. . 

- Pop, V. J., J. L. KUlJpens, et a!. "Low maternal free thyroxme concentratIOns dunng early pregnancy are 

associated with impaired psychomotor development in infancy." Clin Endocrinol (OxOI999; 50(2): 149-55. 

23 Miller, M. D., K. M, Crofton, et a1. "Thyroid-disrupting chemicals: interpreting upstream biomarkers of 

adverse outcomes." Environ Health Perspect 2009; 117(7): 1033-41. 

6 
132 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 140 here 76580A.092

Sarah J Janssen, MD, PhD, MPH Answers to AQUA testimony questions. July, 2010 

endocrine activity than either alone. Therefore, weak activity cannot be an excuse for 

not regulating a chemical found to contaminate drinking water. 

Furthermore, it is incorrect to presume that "human hormones" are the biggest 

contributors given the lack of knowledge about the endocrine disrupting effects for so 

many water contaminants and the evidence of endocrine activity of other contaminants. 

For example, there is evidence that alkyl-phenols, used as surfactants in consumer 

products such as detergents, and artificial hormones, used in the cattle industry, are also 

major contributors of hormonal activity in waterways.24 25 26 Restrictions in discharge 

limits for known industrial estrogenic chemicals, such as the alkyl-phenols has lead to 

significant reductions in the estrogenic activity in U.K. waterways and a reduction in 

the feminization of fish. 27 This suggests the regulation of discharges of endocrine 

disrupting chemicals in the U.S. would have similar beneficial effects. 

Finally, EPA has the authority under the Clean Water Act and Safe Drinking Water Act 

to act on all chemical contaminants in drinking water and in addition to regulating 

discharges could require, for example, treatment technologies which have been shown 

to remove hormonally active compounds, including synthetic human hormones. 28 

4. On Page 5 of your testimony, you mention many human diseases that you believe 

are caused by endocrine disruption, including infertility, birth defects of the genitals, 

and testicular cancer, to name a few 

a. If there were no endocrine disrupting chemicals in the water supply, how 

much lower would the incidence of infertility be? How much lower would 

the incidence of birth defects be? What about testicular cancer? 

b. Can you assure us that there will be any measurable decrease in these health 

problems if endocrine disrupting chemicals were removed from the water 

supply? 

c. How could EPA measure the effectiveness of removing potential endocrine 

disrupting chemicals from the water supply? Is there any way to document 

that removing such chemicals actually improves public health? 

It will be difficult to detect any measurable decrease in the incidence of diseases and 

disorders such as infertility or birth defects because there doesn't exist a method for 

documenting the incidence of these diseases in America. Some states, such as 

California, maintain a birth defects registry and a cancer registry. But these databases 

24 Orlando, E. F., A. S. Kolok, et al. "Endocrine-disrupting effects of cattle feedlot effluent on an aquatic 

sentinel species, the fathead minnow." Environ Health Pcrspect 2004; 112(3): 353-8. 

25 Hutchins, S. R., M. V. White, el al. "Analysis of lagoon samples from different concentrated animal fccding 

operations for estrogens and estrogen conjugates." Environ Sci Technol 2007;41(3): 738-44. 

26 Ying, G. G., B. Williams, et al. "Environmental fate of alkylphenols and alkylphenol ethoxylates--a review." 

Environ lnt 2002; 28(3): 215-26. 

27 Sheahan, D. A., G. C. Brighty, et al. "Reduction in the estrogenic activity ofa treated sewage effluent 

discharge to an English river as a result of a decrease in the concentration of industrially derived surfactants." 

Environ Toxicol Chern 2002; 21(3): 515-9. 

28 Khanal, S. K., B. Xie, et al. "Fate, transport, and biodegradation of narural estrogens in the environment and 

engineered systems." Environ Sci Technol 2006; 40(21): 6537-46. 

7 
133 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 141 here 76580A.093

Sarah J Janssen, MD, PhD, MPH Answers to AQUA testimony questions. July, 2010 

are not universal. Therefore, it will be difficult to document a decrease in incidence in 

these diseases because there doesn't exist a good baseline measurement. 

This is information that is desperately needed. Environmental public health tracking 

programs, such as those run by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

(CDC) would greatly benefit from improved and consistent funding so that we could 

obtain this baseline data. It will not only be useful for measuring the impacts of water 

treatment technologies on the incidence of disease but will also be beneficial for 

understanding and monitoring the incidence ofa number of human health conditions 

suspected of being on the rise. 

However, this lack of incidence data should not be interpreted or used as a reason for 

not acting. There is solid animal data that oral exposure to known drinking water 

contaminants such as phthalates can cause birth defects and infertility in animals. 

Emerging human evidence also suggests that this group of chemicals is harming human 

health. Efforts should be undertaken now to reduce exposure to these and other 

endocrine disrupting chemicals in addition to testing other water contaminants for their 

potential endocrine disrupting activity. 

I hope that this additional information is useful to the Committee as it continues its 

deliberations on these important public health issues. I have also attached here a copy 

ofNRDC's report on the problem of pharmaceutical contamination of drinking water 

sources. I mentioned this report during the question and answer session following the 

testimony and respectfully request it be placed into the record. 

Sincerely, 

Sarah Janssen, MD, PhD, MPH 

Senior Scientist 
134 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 142 here 76580A.094

Via email: Earley.Green@mail.house.gov 

June 14,2010 

The Honorable Joe Barton 

House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment 

Committee on Energy and Commerce 

2125 Rayburn House Office Building 

Washington, DC 20515-6115 

Quill Law Group 

Re: Response to written questions related to the May 13, 2010 Subcommittee 

hearing on the Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of2010. 

Dear Congressman Barton, 

Thank you for your written questions related to my May 13,2010 

testimony before the House Subcommittee on Energy and Environment related to 

the Assistance, Quality, and Affordability Act of201O. Following are my written 

Responses. 

1. Your testimony states that the timelines in the legislation should be 

matched up to synchronize with the existing work of the Endocrine 

Disruptor Screening Program. What practical as well as financial benefits do 

you think would accrue from such an approach? 

Response 

EP A has adopted a phased approach for implementing its Endocrine 

Disruptor Screening Program (EDSP).I Pursuant to the current EPA approach, 

the Agency has ordered Tier 1 Screening for 67 pesticide active and inert 

chemical ingredients. After receiving results for this first phase of screening, 

which is expected to take up to two years after the initial orders were issued, EPA 

intended to review and revise as necessary its Tier I battery prior to issuing new 

See, EPA's final EDSP Policies and Procedures, Endocrine Disruptor Screening 

Program; Policies and Procedures for Initial Screening, 74 Fed. Reg. 17650, Apr 15, 

2009 ("EDSP Policies and Procedures"). See, also, Final List of Initial Pesticide Active 

Ingredients and fnert Ingredients to be Screened Under the Federal Food, Drug, and 

Cosmetic Act, 74 Fed. Reg. 17579, Apr. 15,2009 ("EDSP Listing"). 

QUILL LA w GROUP LLC 

1629 K STREET, NW SUITE 300 

WASHlNTON, DC 20006 

202-508-1075 
135 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 143 here 76580A.095

testing orders. 

Although EPA has worked to validate individual Tier 1 screening assays, 

the Agency has not yet validated the Tier I battery. Information from the initial 

screening phase should be useful for validating the battery. Further, concerns 

remain as to the usefulness, accuracy and repeatability of the individual assays -

the Tier 1 battery and individual assay protocols will likely need to be modified. 

Indeed, EPA wi1llearn of battery, assay and compliance problems only after it 

assesses the results of the first phase of screening. 

EPA's phased approach is consistent with its Scientific Advisory Board's 

(SAB's) scientific recommendation to initially screen 50 to 100 substances. 2 

The SAB also recommended that, once EPA had collected the data from these 

50 to 100 substances, the Agency should review all endocrine screening battery 

phase one screening data and test methods to revise the program "with an eye 

towards revising the process and eliminating those methods that don't work.,,3 

Likewise, the Office of Management and Budget approved EPA's Information 

Request (submitted pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act) for the initial 67 

chemicals and stated in its Terms of Clearance: "This infonnation collection is 

approved for the 67 chemicals published by EPA at 74 Fed. Reg. 17579 (April 15, 

2009). OMB appreciates the continuing dialog with respect to the practical utility 

of the Tier I battery of EDSP assays and the role that the results from these first 

67 chemicals will play in ensuring practical utility for subsequent groups of 

chemicals.,,4 It is clear OMB also envisioned that EPA would not order additional 

EPA, Review of the EPA's Proposed Environmental Disrnptor Screening 

Program; Review of the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program by a Joint 

Subcommittee of the Science Advisory Board and Scient!fic AdVisory Panel. EPA-SABEC-99-013, July 1999 ("SAB EDSP Report"). 

SAB EDSP Report at 2. 

Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of Management and 

Budget, Approval of EPA 's Information Collection Request: Tier 1 Screening of Certain 

Chemicals Under the Endocrine Disrnptor Screening Program (EDSP), OMB Control 

No: 2070-0176, ICR Reference No: 200904-2070-001, Oct. 2, 2009, ("OMB Terms of 

Clearance"). 

QUILL LAW GROUP LLC 

1629 K STREET, NW SUITE 300 

w ASHINTON, DC 20006 

2 

202-508-1075 
136 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 144 here 76580A.096

endocrine screening until the first phase of EDSP screening was completed, EPA 

assessed the perfonnance of its screening assays and battery, and the Agency 

made necessary changes to the assays and battery. 

For the reasons discussed above, the scientifically supportable approach is 

for EPA to await completion of its first phase of EDSP screening and to make 

necessary modifications to its Tier 1 battery and assays before ordering additional 

EDSP screening. This may take two years. Over the next year, EPA should 

develop, and has committed to develop, (1) a weight of evidence approach for 

assessing the results of Tier 1 screening, and (2) guidelines for assessing existing 

data (tenned "Other Scientifically Relevant Data" or OSRl) that might obviate the 

need for some Tier 1 screening. These efforts should be completed before EPA 

orders additional EDSP screening. Indeed, EPA has .stated that it intends to 

develop, prior to completion of the first phase of screening, a weight of evidence 

approach for assessing Tier 1 screening results. EPA has also indicated it will 

develop in the near tenn guidelines for assessing OSRl. 5 It is unclear what 

progress EPA has made in regards to those activities. 

Contrary to the more scientifically supportable approach discussed above, 

the legislation appears to require EPA to issue additional EDSP testing orders 

prior to (1) completing the initial phase of EDSP screening; (2) assessing and 

modifying the current Tier 1 screening battery and assays; (3) developing a 

weight of evidence approach for assessing screening results; and (4) developing 

guidelines for assessing and accepting OSRl. The legislation would require EPA 

to issue additional EDSP testing orders within one year of enactment. Further, the 

legislation would not require EPA to develop approaches for assessing screening 

results, modifying its assays and screening battery, and assessing and accepting 

OSRl for two years. 

The timeline mandated by the legislation could result in unnecessary 

5 EPA's stated efforts in regards to developing guidelines for assessing and 

accepting other scientifically relevant infonnation is consistent with OMB's directive that 

"under the principles of the PRA [Paperwork Reduction Act], EPA should promote and 

encourage test order recipients to submit Other Scientifically Relevant Information 

(OSRI) in lieu of performing all or some of the Tier I assays, and EPA should accept 

OSRI as sufficient to satisfy the test orders to the greatest extent possible." OMB Tenns 

of Clearance. 

QUILL LAW GROUP LLC 

1629 K STREET, NW SUITE 300 

W AS HINTON, DC 20006 

3 

202-508-1075 
137 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 145 here 76580A.097

screening, unnecessary use of inaccurate and non-repeatable assays, and 

unnecessary use of assays and protocols that may be unable to determine whether 

a substance interacts with the endocrine system. Again, after completion of the 

first phase ofEDSP screening EPA could learn of significant assay, battery and 

compliance problems. Requiring new EDSP testing before EPA has an 

opportunity to learn of and correct problems with its existing assays and battery 

would likely result in unnecessary testing costs and the unnecessary use of 

laboratory animals. Indeed, assays may need to be repeated and new assays may 

need to be included in the screening battery. Conceivably, tens of millions of 

dollars could be wasted on unnecessary or useless screening if EPA departs from 

its originally planed screening timeline. 

Given the potential problems that are likely to arise in conducting and 

interpreting the Tier I screening assays and battery, a phased implementation of 

the EDSP that will allow for modifications of the Tier 1 assays and battery should 

serve to improve the EDSP while conserving limited testing resources. The 

legislation should not impose a timeline that is not scientifically supportable, 

contrary to good science-based policy, and contrary to scientific and policy advice 

provided by the Agency's SAB and by OMB. 

2. You mention the scope issue in your testimony. Though the language used 

in Section 16 is the same as that already in law, you remain concerned. Why 

should this be a concern? 

Section 16 of the legislation,6like current law, fails to clearly define the 

scope of the endocrine screening and testing program under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act. The scope of the legislation refers to the chemical substances that 

would be included under the Act. The scope turns on the interpretation of the 

terms "may be found in sources of drinking water" and "substantial population." 

EP A has not yet interpreted those terms as they apply to the endocrine testing 

provisions of the SDWA. A broad Agency interpretation of those terms will 

6 Please note that the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program is now Section 17 of 

the legislation. My responses refer to the Endocrine Disruptor Screening Program 

provisions of the legislation. 

QUILL LAW GROUP LLC 

1629 K STREET, NW SUITE 300 

W ASHINTON, DC 20006 

4 

202-508-1075 
138 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 146 here 76580A.098

result in almost any substance falling within the endocrine testing provisions of 

the Act. 

I believe the legislation provides an opportunity for Congress to clarify its 

intent concerning the scope of endocrine testing under the SDW A. It appears that 

the purpose of the legislation is to prioritize for endocrine testing those substances 

that may pose a real threat to human health through a drinking water route of 

exposure. To the extent substances that are unlikely to be found in drinking water 

are included within the scope of the legislation, substances ofless concern (i.e., 

those that pose less chance of exposure) may receive greater priority over 

substances that are known to exist in actual sources of drinking water to which 

large numbers of people are exposed. Endocrine testing under the SDW A and 

prioritization should be driven by actual threats of exposure. By clearly defining 

the scope of the legislation and Act, testing can be better prioritized and limited 

testing resources can be maximized. It should be noted that limiting the scope of 

the endocrine provisions of the SWDA will not preclude endocrine testing of 

chemical substance. EPA has ample authority under FFDCA (Section 408p), 

FIFRA and TSCA to require endocrine testing. 

3. While Section 16 of the legislation suggests in one place a weight of the 

evidence approach to scientific review, your testimony is much more 

skeptical that valid, relevant, repeatable, and reliable science will be what 

EPA uses in this program. Why do you think it is important to have sound 

science provision included in the legislation? 

Section 16 suggests in only one place a weight of evidence approach for 

scientific review. That provision does not appear applicable to other parts of 

Section 16. Further, even in that single instance, the legislation fails to state that 

scientific evidence should be repeatable. The requirement for sound science 

should be a universal requirement applicable to all provisions of health and 

environmental legislation. This is especially true for legislation concerning 

endocrine disruption, an issue that has been driven as much by ideology and 

hypothesis as by sound science. 

QUILL LAW GROUP LLC 

1629 K STREET, NW SUITE 300 

w ASHINTON, DC 20006 

5 

202-508-1075 
139 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 147 here 76580A.099

Surely, some view the requirement for sound science a burden that might 

require additional work or inhibit non-scientific, policy-based actions. Some 

appear satisfied to generate rudimentary endocrine data (such as biochemical or 

mechanistic data) followed by hypotheses that argue for the relevance of that data 

to potential effects in humans and wildlife. There is certainly value in 

biochemical and mechanistic studies, and hypotheses are useful in directing 

further research. Hypotheses, however, must be tested. In the area of endocrine 

disruption, hypotheses are rarely tested while new hypotheses are continually 

created and promoted. Further, biochemical and mechanistic studies should be 

relied on as a basis for taking action (including prioritization of substances for 

screening) only when they comport with basic scientific principles: (I) 

measurement: scientific studies must measure what they claim to have measured 

within a known margin of error; (2) confounding: measurements and observations 

must not be confounded by extraneous factors and influences known to corrupt 

their accuracy and precision; and (3) replication: measurements and observations 

must be replicable in independent hands. I would add to this list other important 

scientific concepts such as the need to weigh and consider all data when forming 

broader scientific conclusions. I also believe it is important to understand to what 

extent certain data and observations are relevant to answering broader scientific 

questions (such as whether a substance is a potential "endocrine disruptor" or 

whether a substance may pose a risk to human health or the environment) and to 

managing related potential risks. As I stated in my testimony, I have been 

concerned that many involved in the endocrine disruptor issue often fail to adhere 

to the above-mentioned scientific principles, fail to consider all the data, and often 

misstate the relevance of data upon which they rely. 

I believe requiring the use of sound scientific criteria will lead to the 

protection of health and the environment by allowing EPA to distinguish real 

scientific information from theory, hypothesis, bias, policy, and unsubstantiated 

belief. Application of sound scientific criteria will also allow the Agency to better 

weigh available scientific evidence to arrive at supportable and reasoned scientific 

conclusions. Better assessments of data quality will lead to better assessments of 

potential risks to health and the environment. That, in tum, will enable EPA, 

other agencies and Congress to better focus limited resources in areas where those 

resources can have a more meaningful effect. Better risk assessments also will 

help avoid the unintentional selection of riskier products and adoption of poor risk 

management choices. 

QUILL LAW GROUP LLC 

1629 K STREET, NW SUITE 300 

W ASHINTON, DC 20006 

6 

202·508·1075 
140 


smartinez on DSK6TPTVN1PROD with HEARINGInsert offset folio 148 here 76580A.100

EPA is a science agency that should adhere to strict principles of sound 

science. My experience, however, is that the Agency's adherence to principles of 

sound science can vary depending on the EPA office, the views of the current 

Administration and broader policy objectives. Adherence to principles of sound 

science also varies greatly among different government agencies. For these 

reasons, I believe EPA and all government agencies should adopt and utilize 

sound scientific principles when assessing scientific studies and information. 

Some notice may be taken of Federal and some State courts, which have adopted 

rules for determining the reliability of scientific information. Congress can playa 

pivotal role in ensuring Agency adherence to principles of sound science by 

including sound science provisions in its health and environmental legislation. 

QUILL LAW GROUP LLC 

1629 K STREET, NW SUITE 300 

W ASHINTON, DC 20006 

7 

202·508·1075 

o