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) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

80–670CC 2001

MTBE CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER:

IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND 

HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND 

COMMERCE 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SEVENTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MAY 21, 2002

Serial No. 107–108

Printed for the use of the Committee on Energy and Commerce

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/house

2

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE 

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman 

MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida 

JOE BARTON, Texas 

FRED UPTON, Michigan 

CLIFF STEARNS, Florida 

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER COX, California 

NATHAN DEAL, Georgia 

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina 

ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky 

GREG GANSKE, Iowa 

CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia 

BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona 

CHARLES ‘‘CHIP’’ PICKERING, Mississippi 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

ROY BLUNT, Missouri 

TOM DAVIS, Virginia 

ED BRYANT, Tennessee 

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts 

RALPH M. HALL, Texas 

RICK BOUCHER, Virginia 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

BART GORDON, Tennessee 

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida 

BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois 

ANNA G. ESHOO, California 

BART STUPAK, Michigan 

ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York 

TOM SAWYER, Ohio 

ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri 

TED STRICKLAND, Ohio 

DIANA DEGETTE, Colorado 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana 

JANE HARMAN, California 

DAVID V. MARVENTANO, Staff Director 

JAMES D. BARNETTE, General Counsel 

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

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio, Chairman 

JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania 

GREG GANSKE, Iowa 

JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois 

HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico 

VITO FOSSELLA, New York 

(Vice Chairman) 

ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland 

STEVE BUYER, Indiana 

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California 

CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire 

JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania 

MARY BONO, California 

GREG WALDEN, Oregon 

LEE TERRY, Nebraska 

ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky 

W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, Louisiana 

(Ex Officio) 

FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey 

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York 

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio 

GENE GREEN, Texas 

KAREN MCCARTHY, Missouri 

THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin 

BILL LUTHER, Minnesota 

LOIS CAPPS, California 

MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania 

JANE HARMAN, California 

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California 

PETER DEUTSCH, Florida 

JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan, 

(Ex Officio) 

(II) 

3

C O N T E N T S 

Page

Testimony of: 

Ellis, Patricia, Hydrologist, Delaware Underground Storage Tank ............. 46

Grumbles, Hon. Benjamin H., Deputy Assistant Administrator, Office 

of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ...................................... 13

Jones, James R., President, Board of Directors, South Tahoe Public Utility District ..................................................................................................... 56

Miller, Timothy L., Chief of National Water Quality Assessment Program, 

U.S. Geological Survey ................................................................................. 16

Perkins, Craig, Director of Environmental and Public Works Management, City of Santa Monica ......................................................................... 60

Stephenson, John B., Director of Environmental Issues, U.S. General 

Accounting Office .......................................................................................... 21

Williams, Pamela R.D., Exponent ................................................................... 53

(III) 

(1)

MTBE CONTAMINATION IN GROUNDWATER: 

IDENTIFYING AND ADDRESSING THE PROBLEM 

TUESDAY, MAY 21, 2002

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES,

COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE,

SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT

AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS, 

Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 3:40 p.m., in room 

2123, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Paul E. Gillmor (chairman) presiding. 

Members present: Representatives Gillmor, Ganske, Shimkus, 

Ehrlich, Radanovich, Terry, Pallone, Brown, Green, McCarthy, Luther, Capps, Harman, and Waxman. 

Staff present: Jerry Couri, policy coordinator; Amit Sachdev, majority counsel; Hollyn Kidd, legislative clerk; Michael Goo, minority 

counsel; Dick Frandsen, minority counsel; and Courtney Johnson, 

minority research assistant. 

Mr. GILLMOR. The subcommittee will now come to order. 

The Chair recognizes himself for the purpose of delivering an 

opening statement. 

Today’s hearing has been called to look into the scope and the 

impact that MTBE has had on groundwater throughout our country. As Congress prepares to look at proposals to remediate MTBE 

in groundwater through significant use of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, I think it is reasonable that our 

committee explore exactly what kind of situation we are trying to 

remedy. 

Close observers of our committee know that debates over this 

fuel additive are not without their passions and agendas, but we 

are not interested in rehashing the debates of the past but rather 

in dealing with the realities of the present and the future. For this 

reason, our hearing is designed to not talk about the statutory provisions of the Clean Air Act reformulated fuel program or any 

pending or potential MTBE litigation or efforts to phaseout, ban or 

mandate the use of a specific fuel additive. Not only are some of 

those questions outside the jurisdiction of the subcommittee, some 

of those matters are best left to other branches of government. I 

believe that Congressman Greenwood’s excellent hearing last November gave an appropriate forum for many of those issues to be 

aired. 

2

So let me be as clear as I can about what our committee does 

seek to accomplish. 

First, we want to know exactly how many parts of our country 

are facing MTBE contamination in the groundwater and drinking 

water. 

Second, we want to know how severe this contamination is and 

how rapidly we must respond to avoid potential health risks. 

Third, we want to know what is causing MTBE to get into 

groundwater and drinking water. 

Fourth, we want to know how active the current local, State and 

Federal efforts are to protect groundwater and drinking water. 

Last, it is incumbent upon our committee to see what further efforts need to be undertaken to ensure the safety of the environment against MTBE contamination. 

I want to welcome our experts who have come to testify today. 

I want to thank them for the sacrifices that they have made here 

to be with us. 

Our first panel combines the wide-ranging work of the U.S. Geological Survey on MTBE and groundwater with the most recent 

work of the General Accounting Office on leaking tanks and their 

relationship to MTBE and groundwater contamination. In addition, 

the view of the U.S. EPA’s Office of Water will hopefully tie all of 

those findings together. 

Our second panel brings us a wealth of insight as well. We will 

be hearing from the National Groundwater Association, which is 

comprised of several drinking water professionals that deal with 

MTBE on a daily basis. We will also hear the experiences from two 

members of local governments in California that have two of the 

larger MTBE contaminated sites. 

Finally, we will have the opportunity to get a Ph.D.’s perspective 

on the science on MTBE. 

Getting to the bottom of this issue is essential, not as part of the 

larger oxygenated fuels debate but rather because we must understand if there is another environmental threat for us to address. 

Regardless of which fuel Americans put in their gas tanks, if a 

dangerous MTBE continues to lurk in our groundwater and nothing is done, then we will be facing massive cleanup responsibilities 

and serious drinking water delivery issues. If our hearing today 

bears out that we must take further action, I am prepared to take 

that step and will move our committee toward a legislative solution. I hope that we will have the bipartisan cooperation of members of this committee when this time comes. 

I now yield 5 minutes to my colleague and the ranking member 

of this subcommittee, the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pallone, 

for the purpose of an opening statement. 

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Chairman, I want to start out by saying that 

I always want to have a hearing on an important environmental 

issue like MTBE. 

I would hope that the subcommittee would move quickly to move 

a bipartisan bill that would authorize more spending on leaking 

underground storage tanks, which is the primary source of MTBE 

contamination. I know that Mrs. Capps had language in the energy 

bill and that the Senate has addressed this in the energy bill. I am 

not sure whether that conference would move to include something 

3

like this, but I think it is incumbent upon us as the subcommittee 

to try to move legislation on this important issue as soon as possible after the hearing. 

I also want to say, on a side issue, that I would urge the subcommittee to move on an interstate waste bill as soon as possible, 

hopefully immediately after the Memorial Day recess. I know a 

number of Members on our side of the aisle, as well as the other 

side of the aisle, would like to see action on that legislation as soon 

as possible. 

Mr. Chairman, concern over water contamination caused by the 

gasoline additive methyl tertiary-butyl ether, or MTBE, has raised 

question concerning the desirability of using the additive as a 

means of producing cleaner-burning fuel. MTBE is used by most refiners to produce the reformulated gasoline required under the 

Clean Air Act in portions of 17 States and the District of Columbia. 

It is credited with producing marked reduction in carbon monoxide 

emissions. RFGs have also reduced emissions of toxic substances 

and the volatile organic compounds that react with other pollutants 

to form smog. 

Over the last few years, however, incidence of drinking water 

contamination from MTBE have raised serious concerns, particularly in California by Mr. Waxman, and have led to calls for restrictions on its use. In March 1999, Governor Davis of California 

ordered a phaseout of MTBE use in the State by December 31, 

2003. Twelve other States, including New Jersey, have subsequently enacted limits or phaseouts of the substance. 

We all remember that EPA responded to initial reports of water 

contamination by intensifying research and focusing on the need to 

minimize leaks from underground fuel tanks. As reports of contamination spread in 1998 and 1999, however, EPA’s position 

evolved. On March 20, 2000, the Agency announced it was beginning the process of requiring a reduction or phaseout of MTBE use 

under the Toxic Substances Control Act. Because regulatory action 

could take years to complete, EPA urged Congress to amend the 

Clean Air Act to provide specific authority to reduce or eliminate 

use of the substance. 

Since then, the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee has twice reported a bill to provide such authority, and the 

Senate incorporated similar provisions in its version of H.R. 4, the 

energy bill which only recently passed. 

I recognize if MTBE were removed from gasoline without amending the Clean Air Act there would be a need for refiners to use alternative sources of oxygen in RFG. The potential alternatives are 

other forms of ether or alcohol such as ethanol. Of course, we know 

that substitutes do exist. For that reason I think Congress should 

act immediately to phaseout the use of MTBE. However, we should 

also provide for the opportunity to use alternative fuels that will 

meet strict air quality standards. 

Mr. Chairman, the other action that Congress needs to be addressing is the No. 1 source of MTBE contamination in our drinking water, petroleum releases from leaking underground storage 

tanks, LUST. With nearly $2 billion in the trust fund to clean up 

these LUST sites across the country and hundreds of thousands of 

sources of contamination identified, I am at a loss to understand 

4

why the administration actually cut funding and in its budget only 

dedicated $73 million to clean up these leaking tanks. 

Cleanup needs to happen now. As we will hear from the witnesses, MTBE contamination poses a real problem, one that should 

not be overlooked by this administration. We must do better; and, 

hopefully, working together on a bipartisan basis, we can move 

quickly to accomplish the goal and address this matter. 

I thank you for having the hearing today. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Thank you, Mr. Pallone. 

Mr. Ganske. 

Mr. GANSKE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

A year or 2 ago I brought a vial—and it is vile stuff—of MTBE 

here to the hearing; and I just unscrewed the cap and left it unscrewed for just a very short period of time, maybe 30 seconds, and 

it totally filled the room with such obnoxious odor I think most people wanted to leave. I then screwed it on tightly, and somehow or 

other it ended up back in my apartment. Even though it was a 

glass vial with a very thick plastic cap, it evaporated through the 

plastic eventually. 

This is a substance that I think we need to worry about. Iowa 

is not one of the States where it is in the gasoline, but 2 years ago 

Iowa’s Department of Natural Resources issued a report that 

showed that 32 percent of groundwater samples had MTBE levels 

of at least 15 micrograms per liter. What is worse is that 29 percent of the groundwater samples had MTBE concentrations above 

the level at which the EPA issues a drinking water advisory. Think 

about that. No MTBE sold or used in Iowa today, yet 29 percent 

of groundwater samples in Iowa qualify for Federal drinking water 

advisories due to contamination of this product. 

We are going to hear testimony today about MTBE. Some of the 

worst contamination occurs in States like New Jersey and California, but it is a problem that we are seeing everywhere. How does 

it get into Iowa’s water? Possibly from previous years, but also possibly from exhaust pipes, trucks, cars coming across Iowa or maybe 

from two-cylinder engines. 

Some have looked at fixing this. British Petroleum, California’s 

largest gasoline marketer, is replacing MTBE with ethanol before 

Governor Gray Davis’s deadline. Since Governor Davis set a date 

of banning MTBE, the ethanol producers have come online with 1 

billion gallons of production capacity for the new market. I think 

we should move to replace this substance with something that is 

environmentally more friendly; and in the future, as we consider 

how best to solve the problem of MTBE contamination in groundwater, I hope we will keep renewable ethanol in mind. 

I would also like to say that another common sense measure we 

ought to think about is opening up the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund in order to help fund the States’ cleanup of 

underground storage tanks. I am sure that many of them contain 

MTBE. 

Mr. Chairman, I think it is important to have this hearing. The 

safety of our water supply is very, very important to our citizens. 

When you have a chemical that is so pervasive and so emissible as 

MTBE is, then the public I think is demanding that we do something about it. 

5

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GILLMOR. The gentleman from Ohio, Mr. Brown. 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, since 1999 California and a dozen 

other U.S. States have placed restrictions on the sale of MTBE. Regardless of your views on that chemical, it is clear that the intent 

of these laws in each of these States is to protect public health and 

the environment. 

The problem is that Chapter 11 of the North American Free 

Trade Agreement allows private corporations from Mexico and 

Canada to challenge laws like these on the basis that they are barriers to free trade and that they constitute an expropriation of the 

company’s property. To make matters worse, lawsuits brought 

under Chapter 11 of NAFTA are decided behind closed doors by tribunals comprised almost primarily of trade lawyers with little public health and environmental and medical expertise. These 

unelected tribunals are empowered by the North American Free 

Trade Agreement to repeal a sovereign nation’s public health and 

environmental laws without accepting even petitions or testimony 

from third parties. 

The investor-state relationship cast by Chapter 11 exemplifies 

the greatest imaginable abuse of our democratic principles by allowing private corporations to sue a foreign sovereign government 

and overturn domestic health and safety laws passed by regulation 

or by votes of legislative democratically elected bodies. 

Corporations have been quick to capitalize on Chapter 11. In response to California’s decision to phaseout the use of MTBE, a decision made democratically in a State in the United States, the 

Methenex Corporation of Canada, a for-profit corporation, sued the 

State of California for $970 million, something which could not 

have been done under any trade agreement ever agreed to in this 

country—$970 million. 

While Congress and the stakeholders in the MTBE debate have 

not reached a consensus on how to deal with the problem, we 

should be free to resolve this issue through domestic, democratic 

means. The Bush administration, unfortunately, does not share 

this view. Fast track legislation supported by the White House does 

not include any provision that would prevent a similar Chapter 11 

from being included in future trade agreements, and the Senate 

process holds little hope for such a provision. 

U.S. Trade Representative Bob Zoellick is committed to a similar 

Chapter 11, again allowing a corporation to sue and try to overturn 

a democratically obtained law or regulation in another country, has 

committed to a similar Chapter 11 in future agreements. 

If Chapter 11 is included or a Chapter 11 look-alike is included 

in future agreements like a free trade act to the Americas, this 

committee might as well close its doors, because any new law that 

would be passed to protect the environment, to preserve public 

health, is ultimately subject to review by private corporations in 

any other country in this hemisphere. We must not allow international trade laws to undermine this committee’s work, this 

Congress’s work, the work of the American people to draft environmental and public health laws in our own States and in our own 

country. 

I yield to Mr. Waxman. 

6

Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman from yielding to me. I have 

to go to another hearing. 

I thank the chairman for holding this hearing and for accommodating my request to hear testimony from the city of the Santa 

Monica. I believe all members of the subcommittee will benefit 

from learning of the disastrous impact MTBE has had on Santa 

Monica’s water supply. We must be mindful that as long as MTBE 

is in the fuel supply what happened to Santa Monica can happen 

elsewhere. 

I am pleased that the city of Santa Monica was able to send Mr. 

Craig Perkins to testify today. Mr. Perkins is Director of the Environmental Public Works Management for the City, and he has 

worked tirelessly to address Santa Monica’s MTBE contamination 

since 1996. 

Like Santa Monica, many communities throughout the country 

have had their drinking water contaminated by leaking underground storage tanks. It is time for Congress to take action to prevent additional communities from being poisoned by MTBE. 

I thank the gentleman from Ohio for yielding to me so I can get 

my 2 cents in on his 5-minute period. 

Mr. BROWN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Ehrlich. 

Mr. EHRLICH. Mr. Chairman, this is the latest in a series of hearings in this committee on MTBE contamination of groundwater. In 

my opinion, it is time to move legislation on this issue. To that extent I adopt the comments of my friend from California, Mr. Waxman. 

I am aware that many of my colleagues do not agree on issues 

such as banning MTBE or mandating the use of ethanol, but there 

is one thing on which we all agree, the need to reform the Federal 

LUST program to ensure that all tanks comply with and are operating in accordance with current regulations designed to prevent 

petroleum releases and to get more money out of the LUST fund 

to the States so that these leaking tanks can be cleaned up. The 

LUST trust fund will have a balance of just under $2 billion at the 

end of this fiscal year. The administration has requested appropriations of only $73 million in fiscal year 2003, less than the amount 

the fund will earn in interest next year. 

Last year, the GAO released a report containing numerous recommendations to Congress to reform the Federal LUST program. 

Reform legislation has been introduced in the Senate and is moving 

in committee. Moreover, this committee has twice moved bipartisan 

legislation targeted toward improving the program. In fact, in the 

105th Congress, the House passed the last bill, H.R. 668, on the 

suspension calendar on a voice vote. Clearly, there is precedent in 

this area and a history of bipartisan cooperation. This committee’s 

oversight subcommittee held a hearing last year on this issue with 

respect to MTBE contamination, and there was virtually universal 

agreement that we could move a storage tank bill forward. 

In light of these factors, I strongly urge the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee to introduce and move tank reform legislation in the near future. I will support their efforts, and 

I am sure many of my colleagues will as well. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

7

Mr. GILLMOR. Mrs. Capps. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. 

I am very pleased that the subcommittee is turning its attention 

to the problem of MTBE contamination and the leaking underground storage tanks that are causing drinking water supplies 

across the country to become contaminated. It is about the most 

basic service the government does, to ensure clean and safe drinking water. 

As we know, MTBE is a fuel additive designed to reduce the production of smog by increasing the burning efficiency of gasoline. 

But because of its unique properties which Mr. Ganske described, 

MTBE often escapes underground storage tanks and contaminates 

groundwater, making the water smell and taste like turpentine at 

even very low levels, and has resulted in closing important drinking water supplies all across the country. 

There are two issues I want to raise today. First, MTBE contamination in groundwater supplies from leaking underground tanks is 

prevalent and a problem. In my central coast district of California, 

there are 42 known MTBE-contaminated sites in San Luis County 

and 111 in Santa Barbara County. 

For example, the coastal town of Cambria is facing a real calamity. MTBE contamination has shut down two municipal drinking 

water wells the community service district has used as backup 

sources during dry seasons and droughts. The district has spent 

more than $1 million to research the problem. Cambria is also considering the addition of a desalination plant to ensure an adequate 

supply of drinking water, and that will cost millions more. 

However, Mr. Chairman, the threats posed by MTBE are not 

confined to my congressional district. Our colleague from Santa 

Monica described what it is like there. Nationwide, more than 

419,000 leaks from underground storage tanks have been detected; 

and the EPA projects that many more can be confirmed as older 

tanks are upgraded, replaced or closed to meet current regulations. 

Currently, over 160,000 of these sites need to be addressed. 

South Tahoe Public Utility District—and the second panel has a 

representative from that district—has shut down 13 of its 34 drinking wells due to MTBE contamination. Twenty-one of Wisconsin’s 

71 counties have detected MTBE in groundwater, and in Iowa it 

has been detected in over 23 percent of urban alluvial wells. So it 

is time that we do something about this. 

We need to assist the communities directly affected by MTBE 

contamination. Our committee, the House and the Senate, has already started the process of addressing this issue. In the energy 

package, the committee included my amendment to authorize $200 

million to clean up MTBE contaminated sites, but this was only a 

small step toward addressing these cleanup needs when we should 

be taking a giant leap forward. 

In 1986, Congress established the Leaking Underground Storage 

Tank, or LUST, Trust Fund to tackle this nationwide problem. It 

was specifically created to ensure prompt and appropriate cleanup 

from leaking underground storage tanks at gas stations and other 

facilities. It is financed by one-tenth of a cent gallon gasoline tax 

on motor fuel, but because we have appropriated less each year for 

cleanup than is collected in taxes annually, this trust fund will 

8

have an estimated balance of $2.14 billion at the end of fiscal year 

2003. 

This year, the trust fund will collect an estimated $193 million, 

yet the President’s budget requests only $73.2 million to undertake cleanup activities. This is $68,700 less than last year’s appropriation. I think we need to do better than that. The American people 

are paying taxes on gasoline and other fuels precisely to ensure 

that these underground tanks are not polluting their drinking 

water, and we should use the funds for that purpose. This is something that this Congress needs to move forward on. 

MTBE-contaminated sites will continue to pop up around the 

country unless we immediately fix this contamination problem. If 

not, we are gambling on the purity of our drinking water. That is 

a risk I am not willing to take. 

I look forward to exploring the issue. I thank the witnesses for 

appearing today, and I thank you for holding this hearing, Mr. 

Chairman. 

Mr. GILLMOR. The gentlewoman from Missouri. 

Ms. MCCARTHY. Mr. Chairman, I am going to put formal remarks in the record so we can get on to the witnesses, and I thank 

the witnesses for being here, and I thank you for this hearing. 

I would like to associate myself with the statements of Mr. Ehrlich. Having been in the Missouri legislature and having been the 

author and sponsor of the Missouri LUST program in my service 

there, I am concerned that we in Congress are not adequately funding the program. There is no money in the Missouri fund, and 

there will be no money in the future. 

While we do try to inspect our tanks once every 3 years and we 

have had a pretty good program in place in the past, I think it is 

time to revisit the LUST fund legislation, that we make a commitment to fund it adequately, reform it and improve upon it as needed. 

Fortunately, my State has not had a problem with MTBE except 

in a few instances. But for the sake of all States who want to protect their groundwater, we really need to address this issue. 

I thank you, and I will put formal remarks in the record. 

Mr. GILLMOR. I would like to ask unanimous consent that all 

members may have 5 days to submit opening statements and 10 

days to file relevant information on the topic of the hearing. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered. 

The gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate you calling this meeting 

because much of the debate centered around whether to ban MTBE 

is the impact on our drinking water supplies. I have read the testimony of most of our witnesses and am encouraged to see MTBE 

groundwater detections are declining. 

Addressing leaky underground storage tanks and keeping the 

two-stroke motors off our lakes used for drinking water has contributed to cleaner water. However, more needs to be done on the 

regulatory level to address the underground storage tank issue. 

The States and the EPA need to crack down on tank owners not 

in compliance with Federal underground storage tank regulations. 

1998 was supposed to be the year that all tanks were to be doublelined and inspected for leaks, but, unfortunately, many of these 

9

tanks still do not meet the Federal standards. I strongly urge all 

communities to stop allowing uninspected tanks to be refilled until 

they are brought in compliance. 

In addition, for tanks located in close proximity to critical drinking water sources, more extensive leak-proofing may be needed. 

We must look at all alternatives before banning MTBE because 

of the significant economic impact on American consumers and further help our enemies in the Middle East and even Iraq. The price 

of gasoline will dramatically increase as new supplies of oil must 

be imported to make up for the loss of MTBE. We import now 5 

percent of our oil needs from Iraq, and we will lose 5 percent of 

daily gasoline needs if MTBE is banned. Banning MTBE means we 

may have to purchase more Iraqi oil to meet our needs. 

Mr. Chairman, I have a chart that I would like to put into the 

record reflecting this fact. 

[The chart referred to follows:]

Mr. GREEN. In addition to the national security issues, whole 

areas of this country will experience the ethanol effect. States like 

California will see gas prices increase from 50 to 100 percent because they must use ethanol. Ethanol cannot be transported 

through pipelines so the only way to move it around the country 

is by tanker trucks, rail or barge. When you add all of the additional transportation costs to the basic cost of the gasoline, aside 

from price implications, our nonattainment regions of this country 

will see a reduction of air quality because of the clean air benefits 

of MTBE cannot be equaled by ethanol. 

Mr. Chairman, I support emptying the Leaking Underground 

Storage Tank Trust Fund down to the last nickel if it means we 

can bring all the underground storage tanks into compliance. Banning MTBE will only fix a symptom of a much larger problem. 

Where there is MTBE there is a host of other chemicals that States 

need to be testing for and forcing remediations where necessary. I 

have used this statement many times: Anything that makes my 

truck run, I don’t want to taste or smell. Just because I can taste 

or smell MTBE, there are lots of other chemicals in our gasoline


g:\graphics\80670.001
10

that may be in there that we may not be testing for. MTBE is an 

easy marker that, once removed, should not be taken as a sign that 

the underground contamination problem is fixed. 

I look forward to discussing this issue in great depth with today’s 

witnesses.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

Mr. GILLMOR. The gentleman from Illinois is recognized, but first 

I would like to congratulate him on the passage of his Dot Kids bill 

on the floor today. It was very well done. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I thank you; and I appreciate those 

kind words. It was a great victory, and we have a great opportunity 

to at least have another tool in the attempt to protect our kids. We 

are excited. We also are excited that we have Senator Ensign and 

Senator Dorgan ready to move it forward on the Senate side. 

I have a few comments to make, but I am going to disregard 

those. I understand that we have a panel of experts. I don’t want 

to get into a fist fight with my friend from Texas, who is doing his 

best to ensure that his issue is up front; and, with all due respect, 

he knows that we have some disagreements and we are aligned on 

the side when we need to be on the same side. We will not make 

this bloody for his purposes, which is to say we look forward to listening and hearing from our panel of experts. 

Mr. GREEN. If the gentleman will yield for a brief response. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am honored to. 

Mr. GREEN. We will save our physical competitiveness for the 

basketball court.

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my 

time.

Mr. GILLMOR. The gentlewoman from California, Mrs. Harman. 

Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, I have a statement for the record. 

Mr. Chairman, I am the one sitting next to Mr. Green, and I 

have promised not to be violent either. But I would point out just 

a few facts about California. Mrs. Capps and Mr. Waxman have 

also addressed these facts. 

First of all, I am sorry that we postponed the MTBE ban for a 

couple of years. I guess it is 1 year. I am for implementing that 

ban as soon as possible. 

Second of all, my understanding is that we do in California the 

most extensive MTBE monitoring of drinking water that is done 

anywhere in the country. As of May 2002, which is this month, this 

is very current data, we have 2,996 systems serving 31.4 million 

of the State’s 34 million people. Over 56 systems, that is 1.9 percent, reported detections of MTBE in their drinking water sources. 

Thirteen had concentrations exceeding California’s MTBE drinking 

water standards. That may not sound like a lot, but over the millions of people served that is a lot of people, and that is a lot of 

potential health problems. 

I would just say to Mr. Green on his point about being dependent 

on Iraqi oil, I don’t think that we should be dependent on Middle 

Eastern oil at all. I think we should ban harmful additives from 

our gasoline, and we should move expeditiously to energy independence. The way I would get there is to use all forms of alternative energy, not fossil fuels, many of which are developed and 

produced in my State and his State; and I think that is a recipe

11

for a more secure country, a cleaner environment, and a healthier 

population. 

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time. 

[The prepared statement of Hon. Jane Harman follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. JANE HARMAN, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS

FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

My thanks to Chairman Gillmor for convening this hearing on MTBE contamination of ground water. 

As a representative from a state with considerable experience with MTBE in gasoline, I can also attest to the severe groundwater contamination found in several 

areas of the state—including Los Angeles County and the city of Santa Monica, 

which is adjacent to my Congressional District. 

Today’s hearing will hopefully focus needed attention on local, state and federal 

efforts to remove MTBE from ground water and, in particular, on the need to increase expenditures from the LUST leaking tank trust fund. 

Like my colleague from Santa Barbara (Mrs. Capps), I believe the expenditures 

from the LUST Trust Fund are inadequate to address the extent of MTBE contamination, aid states in their inspections, or improve enforcement actions against tank 

owners. Last year, in testimony before our sister subcommittee, the General Accounting 

Office said that despite installation of required protective equipment, more than 

200,000 underground tanks were not operated and maintained property—thus contributing to the chance of leaks. 

Most of the operating and maintenance problems were attributed to poorly trained 

staff and the lack of regular state inspections. In its testimony, GAO said only 19 

states physically inspect all of their tanks at least once every three years and 22 

states only target inspections on potentially problematic tanks. 

In addition to more frequent inspections, a number of states reported to the GAO 

that they need additional enforcement tools to correct problems tanks. One of the 

most effective tools is the ability to prohibit suppliers from delivering fuel to stations with tank problems. Twenty-seven states said they did not have the authority 

to take this simple preventative step. 

These are a few of the issues that can be addressed by improving the LUST fund 

legislation and increasing the allocation of federal funding for these activities. 

I hope this hearing presages our efforts to consider such legislation. 

Mr. Chairman, between the information we will receive today and that already 

obtained by the Investigations Subcommittee in its hearing last November, we have 

a full appreciation of the extent of MTBE ground water contamination and the steps 

necessary to stop it at its source. 

I encourage you to take the next step and bring to the Subcommittee a legislative 

proposal to address this need. 

I look forward to working with you toward that end. 

Thank you.

Mr. GILLMOR. The gentlewoman yields back. 

[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. GEORGE RADANOVICH, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

Mr. Chairman, I commend you for taking the time to evaluate and focus on the 

extent of MTBE contamination in our nation’s water supply. 

As more studies on MTBE contamination are being completed across the nation, 

the extent of the problem is becoming fairly well known. MTBE contamination has 

affected communities across the country. I have personally witnessed the terrible effects of MTBE in my home state of California where communities have faced the 

loss of a significant portion of their drinking water supplies due to MTBE contamination caused by failures of underground storage tank systems. 

With the threat of adverse health effects, it is imperative that EPA works aggressively to conduct and support studies to better quantify the risk from ingesting 

water containing MTBE. Once MTBE enters the environment, it is difficult to respond to the fast moving contaminant, therefore now is the time to utilize the LUST 

trust fund to its maximum capability. It is crucial that we immediately implement 

improved methods to protect our water supply systems, and I look forward to hearing what type of guidance EPA will provide for states on the assessment and remediation of MTBE contaminated sites. 

12

In the end, I hope we can work together to protect the drinking water that our 

citizens depend on each and every day and build on our Committees’ recent progress 

and result in continued improvements in one of our Nation’s most critical and precious resources. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this hearing today. I look forward to the 

witnesses’ testimony. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. W.J. ‘‘BILLY’’ TAUZIN, CHAIRMAN, COMMITTEE ON

COMMERCE

Thank you, Chairman Gillmor. I want to commend you for your efforts in putting 

together today’s hearing on the scope of concerns related to Methyl Tertiary Butyl 

Ether (MTBE) cleanup efforts. 

The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 created reformulated gasoline requirements that resulted in widespread use of MTBE as a gasoline additive designed to 

reduce air pollution caused by mobile sources, such as cars, trucks, and boats. But 

since its implementation, we have also heard in hearings before this Committee that 

MTBE may pose some significant threats to groundwater sources when it leaks from 

underground tanks. 

Today’s hearing is important, because I believe it is another opportunity for us 

to listen to Federal and State officials involved in cleanup efforts and to hear from 

scientific experts about the nature and scope of concerns regarding MTBE contamination. We need to determine how to proceed in crafting public policy regarding 

MTBE contamination that utilizes the best available scientific information and 

makes the most effective use of available Federal and State resources. 

As my colleagues know, both the House and Senate-passed energy bills provide 

additional authorization to use Federal resources, including funds collected in the 

Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund, for MTBE cleanups. The 

House-passed bill authorizes $200 million to be taken from the LUST Trust Fund 

for the cleanup MTBE releases from leaking underground storage tanks. The Senate-passed bill also authorizes $200 million to be appropriated from the LUST Trust 

Fund to be used for release prevention and compliance and to clean up MTBE releases from underground storage tanks and otherwise. In the coming weeks we will 

be working to reconcile the House and Senate energy bills and these provisions. 

I look forward to the testimony of the witnesses today to assist us in designing 

appropriate public policy in addressing releases of MTBE. 

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF HON. ED TOWNS, A REPRESENTATIVE IN CONGRESS FROM

THE STATE OF NEW YORK

Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this important hearing. As you know, my 

state, New York, is one of fourteen states that has already taken steps to limit or 

ban MTBES. The problem with MTBE’s is not limited to these fourteen states. I 

welcome this hearing as an opportunity to learn how widespread the MTBE groundwater contamination problem is, but i come to this hearing skeptical that we know 

the answer to that question. 

I believe that the federal government must take preventative steps to ban 

MTBE’s, assist states with their remediation efforts in a far more meaningful way, 

and offer those states that are required to use reformulated gas under the 1990 

clean air act amendments of 1990 with a waiver until an appropriate alternative 

can be provided. Today, I hope to hear what steps can be taken on a federal level 

to eliminate this potentially devastating organic chemical as well as what can be 

done to assist states, such as New York, that do not have the infrastructure in place 

to replace MTBEs with ethanol.

Mr. GILLMOR. We will proceed to our panel. 

Our first witness is the Honorable Ben Grumbles, Deputy Assistant Administrator for the Office of Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

13

STATEMENTS OF HON. BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, DEPUTY ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; TIMOTHY L. MILLER, 

CHIEF OF NATIONAL WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT PROGRAM, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY; AND JOHN B. STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES, U.S. GENERAL 

ACCOUNTING OFFICE 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

I am Ben Grumbles, the Deputy Assistant Administrator for the 

Office of Water at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

First, let me convey the Assistant Administrator Tracy Meehan’s 

regrets for not being able to be here today to testify before the subcommittee. 

Second, I appreciate the opportunity to share with you some of 

EPA’s perspectives and actions regarding the extent of MTBE contamination of our Nation’s valuable water resources. EPA continues to craft national policies and programs to improve air quality while also ensuring the provision of safe, reliable drinking 

water. 

I know the value of your time, Mr. Chairman, so I will just summarize the basic message, which is MTBE presence in water supplies is widespread but at relatively low levels. We recognize that 

it may be more of an issue of taste and odor, but it is also a potential public health issue, so more aggressive research is needed and 

analysis is needed on that point. 

EPA is working aggressively with its Federal, State and local 

partners to accelerate the level of pollution prevention and source 

water protection and watershed planning. 

In the remaining minutes of the testimony, I would like to get 

into some of the specifics and the background. 

In terms of the sources of MTBE contamination, as the members 

of the subcommittee have already pointed out, the Nation’s fuel 

supply contains constituents, including MTBE, which may pose environmental and human health risks when not managed carefully. 

These gasoline components have the potential to be released to the 

environment wherever gasoline is stored, transported or transferred. The most significant sources of contamination of water resources are from leaking storage tanks, pipelines, refueling spills, 

and emissions from older marine engines. However, the presence of 

MTBE makes the challenge of cleaning up these releases more difficult because MTBE’s chemical and physical properties make it 

much more likely to reach groundwater than other petroleum constituents. Even at low concentrations, MTBE may make the drinking water undrinkable due to its unpleasant taste and odor. 

MTBE’s impact on drinking water supplies. MTBE contamination from all sources, but primarily underground storage tanks, is 

fairly widespread. Approximately 419,000 petroleum releases from 

underground storage tanks have been reported since the beginning 

of EPA’s LUST program in the mid-1980’s. There are also hundreds 

of thousands of abandoned underground storage tanks, many of 

which have releases. 

A national study by New England Interstate Water Pollution 

Control Commission in 2000 found that most States detect MTBE 

at 60 to 80 percent of Leaking Underground Storage Tank sites. 

14

MTBE contamination has affected communities across the country, as members have mentioned this afternoon. Santa Monica, 

California, has faced the loss of a significant portion of its drinking 

water supplies due to MTBE contamination caused by failures of 

underground storage tank systems. Lake Tahoe has faced similar 

problems; and in Long Island, New York, MTBE contamination has 

resulted in alternate or improved drinking water supplies having 

to be provided for over 160 affected public and private wells. 

To assess the extent of MTBE contamination at the national 

level, EPA is collecting data on MTBE in finished drinking water 

as part of its Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule published 

in 1999. Preliminary data indicates that MTBE has been detected 

in only 1 of 154 large systems that have reported to date at a level 

of 13 parts per billion. Of the 283 small systems that have reported, 3 systems detected MTBE at levels ranging from 6 to 49 

parts per billion. The complete set of EPA’s unregulated contaminant monitoring occurrence data will be available in 2004. 

The USGS has amassed a large data set for the period 1993 to 

2000. Their data show that MTBE occurs more frequently in water 

supplies in regions with high MTBE use but that the vast majority 

of detections are very low levels. 

In addition, results published in 2001 from a joint USGS/EPA 

study of 12 northeastern States from 1993 through 1998 showed 

that MTBE was detected in 7.8 percent of community drinking 

water supplies. Less than 1 percent of these detections were above 

the levels of 20 to 40 parts per billion cited in EPA’s Drinking 

Water Advisory which the Agency had published in 1997 to help 

consumers avoid unacceptable taste and odor from low levels of 

MTBE in water supplies. 

In terms of addressing the challenges, let me just say public 

health researchers have limited data about what the adverse 

health affects may be if a person ingests water contaminated with 

MTBE. EPA has been working aggressively to conduct or support 

studies to better quantify the risk from ingesting water containing 

MTBE. 

In March 1998, EPA added MTBE to its Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate List for making risk-based decisions on contaminants the Agency will consider for future regulatory action. 

EPA is committed to making a decision at the earliest possible time 

as to whether or not a health-based regulation is appropriate. 

Mr. Chairman, in closing, I would just like to say I appreciate 

the opportunity to testify before you today on this important subject. EPA is taking several actions to aid States and localities in 

addressing MTBE contamination. We have provided substantial 

funding and technical support, and we look forward to working 

with you and your colleagues to address this most significant and 

important issue. 

I would be happy to answer any questions at the appropriate 

time. 

[The prepared statement of Benjamin H. Grumbles follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, DEPUTY ASSISTANT

ADMINISTRATOR FOR WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Good morning Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Subcommittee. I am Ben 

Grumbles, Deputy Assistant Administrator for Water at the U.S. Environmental 

15

Protection Agency (EPA). First, let me convey Tracy Mehan’s regrets for being unable to be here today to speak with this Subcommittee. Second, I appreciate the opportunity to share with you EPA’s perspectives and actions regarding the extent of 

Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether (MTBE) contamination of our nation’s valuable water 

resources. EPA has been and continues to craft national policies and programs to 

improve air quality while also ensuring the provision of safe, reliable drinking water 

to all of our citizens. 

SOURCES OF MTBE CONTAMINATION

The nation’s fuel supply contains constituents, including MTBE, that may pose 

both human health and environmental risks when not managed carefully. MTBE, 

as well as other gasoline components, has the potential to be released to the environment wherever gasoline is stored, transported, or transferred. The most significant sources of contamination of water resources are from leaking underground and 

aboveground storage tanks, pipelines, refueling spills, emissions from older marine 

engines, and to a much lesser degree, storm runoff and precipitation. However, the 

presence of MTBE makes the challenge of cleaning up these releases more difficult, 

because MTBE’s chemical and physical properties make it much more likely to 

reach ground water than other petroleum constituents. Even at low concentrations, 

MTBE may make the water undrinkable due to its unpleasant taste and odor. 

MTBE’S IMPACT ON DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES

MTBE contamination from all sources, but primarily from underground storage 

tanks, is fairly widespread. Approximately 419,000 petroleum releases from underground storage tanks have been reported since the beginning of EPA’s Underground 

Storage Tank program in the mid-1980’s. There are also hundreds of thousands of 

abandoned underground storage tanks, many of which have releases that need to 

be addressed. In addition, there is emerging evidence that vapor releases from new 

and upgraded underground storage tanks are common, and these vapors containing 

MTBE can find their way into ground water. 

A national study by the New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission in 2000 found that most states detect MTBE at 60 to 80 percent of leaking underground storage tank sites. Based on an analysis of data from 31 states, a report 

in Environmental Science & Technology (May 2000) estimated that up to 9,000 community water supplies in those 31 states may be threatened by MTBE contamination. However, the U. S. Geological Survey (USGS) and others have reviewed the 

data underlying this study, and more recent surveys, and have estimated that the 

number of threatened community water supplies is likely far lower. 

MTBE contamination has affected communities across the country. For example, 

the City of Santa Monica, California has faced the loss of a significant portion of 

its drinking water supplies due to MTBE contamination caused by failures of underground storage tank systems. Lake Tahoe has faced similar problems. In Long Island, New York, MTBE contamination has resulted in alternate or improved water 

supplies having to be provided for over 160 affected public and private wells. 

Pascoag, Rhode Island, while smaller in size than Santa Monica, Lake Tahoe or 

Long Island, has also lost its drinking water supply. More recently, attention has 

turned to a release in Roselawn, Indiana. 

To gauge the impacts of MTBE levels in our water supplies, let me give you some 

background on the Agency’s Drinking Water Advisory for MTBE, published in 1997. 

The advisory provides information and guidance to people and agencies concerned 

with potential taste and odor impacts on consumers from the presence of low levels 

of MTBE in their drinking water. The advisory is not a legally enforceable standard. 

The 1997 advisory recommends not exceeding MTBE levels of 20-40 parts per billion 

(ppb) to avoid unacceptable taste and odor. 

To assess the extent of MTBE contamination at the national level, EPA is collecting data on MTBE in finished drinking water as part of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, which was published in 1999, to cover new monitoring 

that began in 2001. This rule requires all large public water systems and a nationally representative subset of small systems to monitor for and report results of 

MTBE sampling. Preliminary data indicates that MTBE has been detected in only 

1 of the 154 large systems that have reported to date, at a level of 13 ppb. Of the 

283 small systems that have reported, 3 systems detected MTBE at levels ranging 

from 6-49 ppb. The complete set of EPA’s unregulated contaminant monitoring occurrence data will be available in 2004. 

The USGS has amassed a large data set for the period 1993-2000 through its National Ambient Water Quality Assessment. Their data show that, as you might expect, MTBE occurs more frequently in water supplies in regions with high MTBE 

16

use, but that the vast majority of detections are very low levels, with a median concentration of 0.5 ppb. In addition, results published in 2001 from a joint USGS/EPA 

study of 12 northeastern states for the period 1993-1998 showed that MTBE was 

detected in 7.8 percent of community drinking water supplies, with less than 1 percent of these detections above the 20-40 ppb levels cited in EPA’s Drinking Water 

Advisory. Again, this 12-state study also concluded that MTBE is detected five times 

more frequently in drinking water from public water systems in areas requiring reformulated gas or winter oxygenated fuel than in areas where non-reformulated gas 

or winter oxygenated fuel are not required. 

Another concern is the potential risk to private household wells, which EPA does 

not have the statutory authority to regulate. In 1998, the State of Maine reported 

on sampling conducted on 951 household drinking water wells and 793 public water 

supplies. In this study, MTBE was detected in 16 percent of the sampled household 

wells, with 1 percent of these wells containing MTBE levels exceeding the EPA 

Drinking Water Advisory level. The public water systems also reported detection 

frequency of 16 percent, but none of the systems showed levels above the upper end 

of EPA’s Drinking Water Advisory. 

ADDRESSING THE CHALLENGES

Public health researchers have limited data about what the adverse health effects 

may be if a person ingests water contaminated with MTBE. EPA has been working 

aggressively to conduct or support studies to better quantify the risk from ingesting 

water containing MTBE. 

In March 1998, EPA added MTBE to its Drinking Water Contaminant Candidate 

List, which is the Agency’s targeting and prioritization tool to make risk-based decisions on contaminants the Agency will consider for future regulatory action. EPA 

is committed to making a decision at the earliest possible time as to whether or not 

a health-based regulation for MTBE is appropriate. 

This decision, like others involving the protection of public health, should be 

based on sound scientific information. In the case of MTBE, we are currently conducting an assessment of the human health consequences due to ingestion of water 

containing low levels of MTBE. We plan to issue a final health assessment in spring 

2003. This assessment, coupled with a much clearer picture of the levels and extent 

of MTBE contamination across the U.S. from data collected through EPA’s unregulated contaminant monitoring program data and USGS’s studies, will provide the 

solid scientific underpinning for making the right public health decision. 

EPA is taking several actions to aid states and localities in addressing MTBE contamination. EPA has provided substantial funding and/or technical support to Santa 

Monica, South Lake Tahoe, Long Island, and Pascoag, Rhode Island to remediate 

MTBE. In addition, EPA is chairing a federal-state workgroup that will create interim guidance for states on the assessment and remediation of MTBE contaminated sites. EPA also maintains a comprehensive website covering the full depth 

and breadth of MTBE issues. EPA is also conducting a demonstration of treatment 

and remediation technologies for MTBE-contaminated soil, ground water and drinking water at Port Hueneme, California. 

CLOSING THOUGHTS

Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to testify today before this Subcommittee on this important subject. EPA looks forward to working with you on this 

and other issues relevant to protecting the quality of one of our nation’s most precious and critical resources. That concludes my prepared remarks, and I would be 

happy to answer any questions.

Mr. GILLMOR. Thank you very much, Mr. Grumbles. 

We will go to Mr. Timothy Miller, Chief of the National Water 

Quality Assessment Program, U.S. Geological Survey. 

STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY L. MILLER 

Mr. MILLER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before the subcommittee and testify on the findings of the U.S. Geological Survey. 

I ask that my full statement be entered into the record, and I 

have a few brief comments. 

17

The mission of the U.S. Geological Survey to assess quantity and 

quality of the Nation’s resources and providing information that 

will assist policymakers at all levels in making sound decisions is 

one of the focuses of our efforts. 

U.S. Geological Survey studies over the past 8 years have shown 

that MTBE typically is present at very low concentrations in shallow groundwater, and concentrations are almost always below the 

levels of concern for taste and odor. The locations in our data base 

with high concentrations of MTBE may be associated with leaking 

underground storage tanks typically. 

The results presented today come from studying MTBE and 

other volatile organic compounds as part of the National Water 

Quality Assessment Program. Within that program we measure 

about 60 VOCs on a routine basis. 

Since we first reported results in 1995 on a small number of 

sites, we have now sampled more than 40,000 wells for MTBE and 

a wide range of other compounds. About 10 percent of those 4,000 

wells are public water supply wells. The remaining 3,600 are wells 

that are evenly split between domestic supply wells and monitoring 

wells which are not used for drinking water. 

At a reporting level of two-tenths of a microgram per liter in that 

large data set, we detected MTBE in about 5 percent of the wells 

sampled. Most of the MTBE detections are low concentrations. 

None of the public water supply wells and only one of the domestic 

wells had MTBE at a concentration above 20 micrograms per liter, 

the lower limit of EPA’s drinking water advisory. 

The large data set shows that low levels of MTBE are detected 

in about one out of five wells in MTBE high-use areas. MTBE is 

the second most frequently detected volatile organic compound. 

Chloroform, a drinking water disinfection by-product and a commercial solvent, is the most frequently detected VOC. 

We have also undertaken two additional large-scale studies, first 

in cooperation with USEPA. As Mr. Grumbles has reported, we did 

look at drinking water supply wells in 12 States in the Northeast 

and Mid-Atlantic from 1993 through 1998, and we found about 9 

percent of those systems had detectable MTBE. Ten systems had 

MTBE concentrations that equaled or exceeded the lower limit of 

EPA’s advisory on taste and odor. 

We are now completing a second large study in selected reservoirs, rivers and wells that supply community water systems. We 

are working with the American Water Works Research Association 

and with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. 

In this 4-year study, we have tested about 950 randomly selected 

community water systems. Sixty percent of those systems are 

wells. The rest are rivers and reservoirs. The samples have come 

from all 50 States and Puerto Rico. 

The initial findings are similar to what we have noted earlier. 

Specifically, MTBE concentrations were almost always below the 

drinking water advisory. About 9 percent of all sources sampled 

had MTBE present. In general, the detection of MTBE increased 

with the increasing size of community water systems. For example, 

MTBE was detected in about 4 percent of systems serving more 

than 10,000 and in nearly 15 percent of systems serving greater 

than 50,000. 

18

Last year, USGS also coauthored an article that pointed out that, 

within 31 States, although the data are limited, about 9,000 community wells may have one or more leaking underground storage 

tanks within a radius of 1 kilometer of the well. Not all community 

wells with gasoline releases nearby are at risk for MTBE contamination because not all gasoline releases contain MTBE and not all 

MTBE releases are sufficiently large to pollute a nearby well. Also, 

many wells draw water from deeper zones of aquifers and may be 

isolated from land surface contamination by low permeability 

rocks. 

In summary, the USGS has not found widespread, high-level 

MTBE contamination at rivers, reservoirs and groundwater that 

are actively used as community water systems. Furthermore, we 

have not found high concentrations in public wells and domestic 

wells sampled in our NAWQA program or in the drinking water of 

community water systems in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic 

States. We have, however, identified MTBE and other VOCs frequently found in groundwater, source water and drinking water at 

concentrations below EPA’s advisory. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify today, and I would be 

happy to respond to any questions. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

[The prepared statement of Timothy L. Miller follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY L. MILLER, CHIEF, NATIONAL WATER-QUALITY

ASSESSMENT PROGRAM, U.S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE INTE- RIOR

Mr. Chairman and subcommittee members, I appreciate the opportunity to appear 

before the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials to testify on the 

findings of U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) studies on water-quality issues related 

to methyl tertiary-butyl ether, commonly referred to as MTBE. 

As you may know, the mission of the USGS is to assess the quantity and the quality of the earth’s resources and to provide information that will assist resource managers and policy makers at the Federal, State, and local levels in making sound decisions. Assessment of water-quality conditions and research on the fate and transport of pollutants in water are important parts of the overall mission of the USGS. 

USGS studies over the past 8 years have shown that MTBE typically is present 

at very low concentrations in shallow ground water within areas where MTBE is 

used. Our studies also suggest that MTBE levels do not appear to be increasing over 

time and are almost always below levels of concern from aesthetic and public health 

standpoints. The few locations in our database with high concentrations of MTBE 

may be associated with leaking underground storage tanks. 

Based on comparisons with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (USEPA) 

drinking water advisory, the health threat to water supplies is small compared to 

other water-related issues. MTBE is primarily an aesthetic (taste and odor) problem. However, we believe it may be prudent to continue our monitoring and research within available resources so that we can verify that the threat remains low 

and to further the understanding of this chemical to contribute to effective strategies to protect our Nation’s water supplies and to efficiently remediate those ground 

waters that have become contaminated. 

The results I will present today come from about a decade of sampling and study 

of MTBE and other Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs). MTBE is one of about 60 

VOCs that we measure on a routine basis in our water-quality studies. 

The single largest study we have made of MTBE is part of our National Water 

Quality Assessment (NAWQA) Program. Based on initial monitoring data for wells 

sampled in 1993-94 in the NAWQA Program, we published a report on the occurrence of MTBE in shallow ground water in urban and agricultural areas. At that 

time our data set was fairly small—about 200 randomly selected wells in urban 

areas and 500 randomly selected wells in agricultural areas. We reported finding 

MTBE in about 25 percent of urban wells and 1 percent of agricultural wells. Many 

of the MTBE detections were low concentrations. In fact, only 3 percent of the urban 

wells exceeded 20 micrograms per liter, the lower limit of USEPA’s consumer advisory for taste and odor. Also, many of the urban wells that contained MTBE were 

19

located in Denver, Colorado, and in New England, both areas with extensive use of 

MTBE prior to our sampling. At the time, MTBE was a chemical for which usage 

had increased dramatically in recent years and we knew it moved in the subsurface 

differently from other gasoline components. Thus, even though it was detected in 

few wells and at very low levels, we believed it would be prudent to continue studying it at many locations and over a period of several years to learn more about its 

national distribution and fate. 

Since our first report in 1995, we have sampled additional wells in the NAWQA 

Program. This now gives us much better coverage of aquifers across the Nation. For 

the period 1993-2000, we sampled 4,260 wells (or springs) for MTBE and a wide 

range of other compounds. Of this total, 396 are public water-supply wells; 1,847 

are domestic wells; and 2,017 are monitoring wells (or other wells not used for 

drinking water). At a reporting level of 0.2 micrograms per liter (a level that is one 

one-hundredth of the USEPA advisory level), we detected MTBE in 5.2 percent of 

the wells sampled. Most of the MTBE detections are low concentrations. None of the 

public water-supply wells and only one domestic well had MTBE at a concentration 

above the lower limit of USEPA’s advisory. Through our interpretations of this large 

data set we have also determined that low-levels of MTBE are detected in about 

1 out of 5 wells in MTBE high-use areas. Although we do not expect to see a great 

change in these results over time, we recognize that there may be a delay in the 

detection of MTBE in some wells—particularly those that are deeper and may be 

farther from the source of contamination. MTBE is the second most frequently detected volatile organic compound (VOC). Chloroform, a drinking-water disinfection 

by-product and a commercial solvent, is the most frequently detected VOC. 

Based on our NAWQA findings and interests of other agencies, we have undertaken two allied, large-scale studies to further our understanding of the occurrence 

of MTBE and other VOCs. We have completed a study in cooperation with the 

USEPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. For the period 1993-98, we 

have compiled information on the occurrence of MTBE and other VOCs in drinking 

water supplied by Community Water Systems in 12 States in the Northeast and 

Mid-Atlantic Regions of the United States. Parts of these Regions are designated 

Reformulated Gasoline (RFG) Areas and, in general, these RFG Areas have used 

MTBE in gasoline in large amounts for many years. USGS obtained the MTBE/VOC 

data from each State’s drinking-water program. We then randomly selected about 

20 percent of the almost 11,000 Community Water Systems in the study area for 

our analysis. States with MTBE data included Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, and 

Virginia. Data for MTBE were not available for Delaware and Pennsylvania, at the 

time the study was completed. 

At a reporting level of one microgram per liter, about 9 percent of the Community 

Water Systems had detectable MTBE in their drinking water; however, most of the 

detections were low concentrations. Ten Community Water Systems had MTBE concentrations that equaled or exceeded the lower limit of the USEPA advisory, or 

about 1 percent of all Community Water Systems with MTBE data. We also confirmed that MTBE was detected more frequently in RFG Areas than elsewhere in 

the two Regions. Furthermore, larger Community Water Systems located in urban 

centers had a larger incidence of MTBE detections. 

We are also working with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, 

and the Oregon Graduate Institute of Science and Technology, to complete a study 

of MTBE, other ether gasoline oxygenates, and other VOCs in select reservoirs, rivers, and wells that supply Community Water Systems. This study was partly funded 

through the American Water Works Association Research Foundation (AWWARF). 

We are in the final year of this 4-year project. 

For this study, we tested the source water of 954 randomly selected Community 

Water Systems, including 579 wells, 171 rivers, and 204 reservoirs. Samples were 

collected in all 50 States and Puerto Rico, and varied sizes of systems were included. 

All sampling for this project is completed; however, some of our intended interpretations and report writing are not yet completed and peer reviewed. Initial findings, 

which were reported on June 20, 2001, at the Annual Conference of the American 

Water Works Association, were similar to our findings noted earlier in this statement. Specifically, when detected in source waters, the concentrations of MTBE 

were almost always below the USEPA advisory. However, MTBE was found in 

about 9 percent of all sources sampled (at a reporting level of 0.2 micrograms per 

liter), and it was the second most frequently detected VOC. A larger detection frequency of MTBE was found in surface-water sources (14 percent), than groundwater sources (5 percent). In general, the detection of MTBE increased with increasing size of the Community Water Systems. MTBE was detected in about 4 percent 

of Community Water Systems serving less than 10,000 people, and in nearly 15 perVerDate Sep 04 2002 14:00 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081391 PO 00000 Frm 00023 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 W:\DISC\80670 80670
20

cent of systems serving greater than 50,000 people. Many of the surface-water 

sources sampled in the AWWARF study were large rivers and reservoirs that had 

recreational watercraft usage. Older models of watercraft motors are known to release a fraction of non-combusted gasoline to water and this, in part, may explain 

the larger occurrence of MTBE in surface-water sources. 

We also conduct research on the fate and transport of MTBE in ground water and 

surface water through the USGS Toxic Substances Hydrology Program. In this program, we explore the range of geochemical and microbiological processes that determine how MTBE will behave when it enters soil, ground water or surface water. 

This research is demonstrating that MTBE does biodegrade under a wide range of 

environmental settings although at slower rates than many of the components of 

traditionally formulated gasoline. These ongoing studies have important implications for predicting the future concentrations of MTBE in water, where contamination has already occurred. These results are also important for the design and selection of remediation plans. 

As part of the Toxic Substances Hydrology Program research, USGS scientists 

have demonstrated that naturally occurring microorganisms can biodegrade MTBE 

in many hydrologic environments, and in some cases, to harmless by-products. In 

some situations, however, biodegradation may be incomplete and tert-butyl alcohol 

(TBA) can be formed. Especially noteworthy are the observations that MTBE biodegrades in ground water and soil where sufficient oxygen is present and in bed 

sediments of streams, lakes, wetlands, and estuaries where MTBE-contaminated 

ground water can ultimately discharge. Essentially, these environments can be considered to be natural sinks for MTBE removal. As noted earlier, MTBE is expected 

to degrade slower in ground water than gasoline hydrocarbons of traditional gasoline formations. The length of time required to complete this removal is currently 

a topic of ongoing investigation. 

The USGS has actively participated in two previous Federal reviews of MTBE and 

other oxygenates in gasoline. A Blue Ribbon Panel was appointed by the Administrator of the USEPA to investigate the air-quality benefits and water-quality concerns associated with oxygenates in gasoline, and to provide independent advice and 

recommendations on ways to maintain air quality while protecting water quality. In 

1998-1999, Dr. John Zogorski of the USGS served as a water-quality consultant to 

the Blue Ribbon Panel and three USGS scientists testified before the Panel. An important finding of the Blue Ribbon Panel is that the major source of MTBE groundwater contamination appears to be releases from underground gasoline storage systems. Many of these tanks have been removed permanently or upgraded in the 

1990s, and thus this source is likely to diminish in the coming years. Other major 

sources of water contamination were stated to be from small and large gasoline 

spills and from recreational watercraft, especially those with older model 2-cycle motors. USGS has documented low levels of MTBE in urban air, urban precipitation, 

and urban stormwater, and these sources may cause low concentrations of MTBE 

in surface water and ground water. MTBE has also been found in spills of home 

fuel oil in Northeastern States. 

During 1995-96, at the request of the USEPA and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), the USGS co-chaired an interagency panel to summarize what 

was known and unknown about the water-quality implications of the production, 

distribution, storage, and use of fuel. Our efforts were published in 1997 as a chapter in a report entitled ‘‘Interagency Assessment of Oxygenated Fuels’’ prepared by 

the National Science and Technology Council, Committee on Environment and Natural Resources. The chapter summarizes the scientific literature and data on the 

sources, occurrences, concentrations, behavior, and the fate of fuel oxygenates in 

ground water and surface water. We also discussed the implications for drinking 

water and aquatic life, and made recommendations of information needed to better 

characterize the occurrence of MTBE and other oxygenates in the Nation’s drinkingwater supplies.Furthermore, last year, USGS and Oregon Graduate Institute scientists co-authored a feature article in the journal Environmental Science and 

Technology, a publication of the American Chemical Society. A salient part of the 

article summarized important information about MTBE including: growth in production; solubility, transport and degradation in ground water; releases from leaking 

underground fuel tanks; and the effect of select factors, such as aquifer recharge, 

the presence of low permeability stratum, and water utility pumping rates. This information helped to determine the likelihood of MTBE reaching community watersupply wells. Based on available but admittedly incomplete data for 31 States, the 

authors determined that about 9,000 community wells may have one or more leaking underground storage tanks nearby (i.e., within 1-km radius of the well). Because 

detailed information on the community wells, storage tanks, and hydrogeology were 

not available, the authors could not determine the number of wells at risk. 

21

Unfortunately, some of the press coverage of this article inaccurately stated that 

9,000 drinking-water wells were contaminated with MTBE. As stated in the journal 

publication, not all community wells with gasoline releases nearby are at risk because not all gasoline releases contain MTBE, and not all MTBE-gasoline releases 

are sufficiently large to pollute a nearby well. Also, many wells draw water from 

the deeper zones of aquifers and many wells are largely isolated from land-surface 

contamination by low permeability stratum, technically called aquitards. Based on 

these factors, data from the studies mentioned previously, and a recent survey by 

others, we would estimate that the number of community wells contaminated is far 

lower than 9,000 for 31 States. 

In summary, the USGS has not found widespread, high-level MTBE contamination in rivers, reservoirs, and ground water that are actively used as the sources 

for Community Water Systems. Furthermore, we have not found such contamination 

in public wells and domestic wells sampled in our NAWQA Program, or in the 

drinking water of Community Water Systems in 10 Northeastern and Mid-Atlantic 

States. We have, however, identified MTBE (and some other VOCs) fairly frequently 

in ground water, source water, and drinking water at concentrations below USEPA’s advisory. We also conclude that the frequency of detection of MTBE is larger in RFG 

Areas, in comparison to other areas of the Nation. Approximately 85 million people 

reside in RFG areas that use MTBE extensively, and drinking water in these areas 

is provided almost equally from surface water and ground water. 

There are multiple strategies for dealing with situations where MTBE contamination of ground water has taken place and these should include strategies that take 

maximum advantage of the natural attenuation that we observe in our research. 

Within available resources, more research would be helpful to provide guidance on 

the most cost-effective strategies for protecting drinking water sources in those 

areas that have become contaminated. 

I appreciate the opportunity to testify on the results of USGS assessments and 

research on MTBE. I am happy to try to respond to any questions of the Subcommittee.

Mr. GILLMOR. Thank you very much. 

We will go to John Stephenson, who is the Director of Environmental Issues for the U.S. General Accounting Office. 

STATEMENT OF JOHN B. STEPHENSON 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Mr. Chairman, members of the subcommittee, 

I am pleased to be here to discuss the MTBE issue. 

As you know, MTBE is a gasoline additive used primarily in 

areas of poor air quality to help limit air pollution. However, there 

are in increasing numbers reports of MTBE contamination in the 

Nation’s water supply. 

Just a few weeks ago a school in Roselawn, Indiana, discovered 

that the children had been drinking water with nearly 10 times the 

EPA recommended safe level of MTBE; and it is suspected of causing children’s nosebleeds and reported health problems in that 

area. 

Today, I would like to discuss the relationship between MTBE 

contamination and leaks, overflows and spills from underground 

storage tanks primarily at gas stations. EPA, working through the 

States is responsible for preventing such releases. However, as we 

reported last year, many tanks continue to leak. These releases 

contaminate soil and groundwater and pose health risks to those 

who live nearby or drink the water. As a result, several communities have had to close their drinking water supplies. 

How big is the MTBE problem? Currently—and I apologize for 

the small size of these graphics, but they are in my statement for 

the record—as shown in this chart, 17 States and the District of 

Columbia use gasoline containing MTBE to limit air pollution in 

specific areas. These are those 17 States. However, the majority of 

the 50 States have reported finding MTBE at contaminated tank 

22

sites and increasingly in groundwater, surface water and drinking 

water, albeit mostly in small concentrations. 

These data suggest that many more than these 17 States are 

using gasoline containing MTBE. This is possible because of crosscontamination from pipelines and trucks used to deliver gasoline 

across the country or from tanks that formerly contained MTBE 

gas. Also, many States use MTBE in smaller quantities as an octane enhancer. 

MTBE’s health affects have not been conclusively established, as 

we have heard today, but the risk can range from nausea to kidney 

or liver damage or potentially even cancer. Because the research is 

still inconclusive, EPA has chosen not to regulate MTBE but to 

simply advise people not to drink water that contains concentrations in excess of 40 parts per billion. 

However, as shown in this next chart, 14 States have gone further to partially or completely ban the use of MTBE within their 

borders. Most of these bans do not become effective until 2003 

through 2005. 

In addition, seven States have established their own healthbased drinking water standards for MTBE. Some States’ standards, 

like California and New Hampshire’s, are more stringent than 

EPA’s 40 parts per billion; and some States like, Texas, New Jersey 

and Massachusetts, are less stringent. 

We believe a large part of the MTBE problem can be addressed 

by eliminating and cleaning up releases from underground storage 

tanks, and States are making good progress toward this end. In fiscal year 2001, States reported they had completed cleanups of 64 

percent of the more than 400,000 known releases and had begun 

some type of cleanup action for another 26 percent. 

As shown in this chart, States still have a formidable cleanup 

workload. States with more than 5,000 remaining cleanups are 

shown in gray on this chart. In addition, States face a potentially 

large but unknown cleanup workload. These include unidentified 

abandoned tanks and as many as 200,000 active tanks that pose 

risk because their leak detection and prevention equipment is not 

being properly operated or maintained. 

In addition, most States do not inspect their tanks frequently 

enough, at least once every 3 years according to EPA, to conclusively determine how many tanks are still leaking. 

Finally, cleanup involving MTBE can be more expensive because 

it leaches faster and farther than other gasoline contaminants. 

Generally, the tank owner pays the cost of the cleanup, which averaged about $88,000 per site last year. However, in cases where 

ownership cannot be determined or the owner cannot pay, the Federal Government and several States operate trust funds replenished primarily through gasoline taxes to help pay for the cleanups. 

That concludes my statement, and I will be happy to answer any 

questions. 

[The prepared statement of John B. Stephenson follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JOHN B. STEPHENSON, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL

ISSUES, U.S.. GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE

Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: I am pleased to be here today 

to discuss the increasing concern that our nation’s waters are becoming contaminated with methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). About a third of the states, in cerVerDate Sep 04 2002 14:00 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081391 PO 00000 Frm 00026 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 W:\DISC\80670 80670
23

1 Environmental Protection: Improved Inspections and Enforcement Would Better Ensure the 

Safety of Underground Storage Tanks (GAO-01-464, May 4, 2001). 2 According to a recent EPA estimate, MTBE is used as an additive in about 87 percent of 

gasoline in the United States. 3 New England Interstate Water Pollution Control Commission, A survey of State Experiences 

with MTBE Contamination at LUST Sites (Dec. 15, 2000). 

tain areas, use gasoline that contains MTBE to help them limit air pollution because it burns cleaner. However, the substance could also pose risks to human 

health, especially as a contaminant in drinking water wells. One of the primary 

ways in which the contaminant has migrated into wells and groundwater is from 

leaking underground tanks used to store gasoline. The Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA) has the responsibility through the Underground Storage Tank Program and working primarily through the states to ensure the tanks do not leak, and 

if they do, that the contamination is cleaned up. However, several studies, including 

our own report on EPA’s implementation of the tank program,1 showed that many 

tanks have leaked—and continue to leak—hazardous substances, such as MTBE 

and benzene. These leaks, in turn, contaminate soil and groundwater, posing health 

risks to those who live nearby or drink the water. Such health risks can range from 

nausea to kidney or liver damage or even cancer. As a result, some communities 

have closed their drinking water wells. A recent news report illustrates the problem. 

A school in Roselawn, Indiana, discovered that the children had been using and 

drinking water with nearly 10 times the EPA-recommended safe level of MTBE. I 

understand that an investigation is trying to determine whether the MTBE came 

from a nearby tank and whether it is a factor contributing to the children’s nosebleeds and other reported health problems. 

When there is a gasoline overflow, spill, or tank leak—referred to as releases— the tank owners and operators are to report the incident to EPA if the release is 

on tribal lands, or otherwise to the state agency implementing the tank program, 

and to initiate cleanup. Most releases are not discovered, however, until the tanks 

are taken out of service, when they must be permanently closed to eliminate future 

leaks. To help states cover their program costs, the Congress annually provides the 

states with grants from a trust fund it created in 1986. In fiscal year 2001, states 

each received from $252,000 to $4.5 million, depending primarily on their cleanup 

workload, for a total of $58.7 million. States can use these resources for, among 

other things, cleaning up releases when the owner or operator is unable or unwilling 

to perform the cleanup, or cannot be identified. The fund is replenished primarily 

through a $.001/gallon federal tax on gasoline and other fuels and had a balance 

of $1.7 billion at the end of fiscal year 2001. 

Because of rising concerns about continuing releases and the resulting contamination, especially from MTBE, we determined the (1) extent to which these releases 

may contain MTBE, and whether the contaminant poses health risks or affects 

cleanups, (2) progress states have made in cleaning up releases, and (3) the party 

responsible for the cleanup costs. In summary, we found the following:

• A majority of the 50 states have reported finding MTBE when they discover gasoline contamination at their tank sites and, increasingly, in their groundwater, 

surface water, and drinking water. This widespread contamination occurs, even 

though currently only certain communities in only about one-third of the states 

use gasoline with MTBE as a fuel additive. Contamination continues because, 

among other things, MTBE has been used in the past as an octane enhancer 

and is currently transported through the same fuel pipes and trucks that deliver gasoline across the country.2 MTBE’s health effects have not been conclusively established, but the federal government has determined it to be a potential human carcinogen. Because of the health uncertainties, EPA has not regulated MTBE; instead it has simply advised people not to drink water that contains concentrations in excess of 20 to 40 parts per billion. Fourteen states have 

gone further on their own and partially or completely banned the use of MTBE 

within their borders or established other regulations on its use. According to a 

December 2000 report on a survey of state tank program managers sponsored 

by EPA,3 finding MTBE at a tank site does not typically affect the cleanup 

method but can increase the time and cost of cleanup because MTBE travels 

faster and farther than other gasoline contaminants. Several states reported 

that their cleanup costs doubled as a result of addressing MTBE. 

• States have made progress in addressing the releases they have discovered, including MTBE contamination, but face a continuing and substantial cleanup 

workload. States reported to EPA that they have completed cleanups of 64 percent of the more than 400,000 identified releases as of the end of fiscal year 

2001, and have begun some type of cleanup action for another 26 percent. NevVerDate Sep 04 2002 14:00 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081391 PO 00000 Frm 00027 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 W:\DISC\80670 80670
24

4 Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, A Summary of State Fund Survey Results (May 2001). The Department conducts this survey annually. 5Washington reported that it planned to add such testing by 2001. 

ertheless, states still have to both complete these ongoing cleanups and begin 

cleanups for almost another 40,000 releases, or determine that they do not pose 

enough risk to warrant a cleanup. In addition, states face a potentially large, 

but unknown, future workload in addressing releases from a number of sources, 

as we previously reported. These include unidentified abandoned tanks, identified but empty and inactive tanks that have not yet been removed, active tanks 

that leak because their leak detection and prevention equipment is not being 

properly operated and maintained, and unreported leaks from tanks in those 

states that do not inspect them. Some states reported that even their new tanks 

with the latest leak detection and prevention equipment are leaking, increasing 

the cleanup workload. A majority of the 13 states that we contacted—those that 

had cleaned up many releases or had a large backlog left to address—identified 

the lack of staff to oversee cleanups as a barrier affecting cleanup progress. • States typically depend on tank owners or operators to pay some portion of cleanup costs and cover the remainder with their own funding programs. The states 

depend on the relatively small federal trust fund grants to pay staff to oversee 

cleanups and administer their programs. States typically do not receive appropriations from their legislatures to cover their cleanup costs but pay for them 

out of funds supported by state gasoline tax revenues, annual tank fees, or both. 

In a May 2001 survey of state funding programs, by the Vermont Department 

of Environmental Conservation,4 36 states reported having adequate funding to 

cover their current costs while 11 reported having more costs to cover than 

funds available. In addition, 16 states have stopped accepting, or are scheduled 

to stop accepting, new claims for reimbursements, leaving it up to tank owners 

to obtain adequate insurance or other means to cover their cleanup liabilities. 

In the future, some states may seek additional federal support when and if their 

funding programs end and they turn their attention to addressing the many unidentified abandoned tanks nationwide that have no financially viable owners 

to pay for cleanup. 

MTBE HAS BEEN DETECTED NATIONWIDE BUT THE EXTENT OF ITS EFFECT ON HUMAN

HEALTH AND THE CLEANUP OF RELEASES IS UNCERTAIN

While the full extent of MTBE contamination is unknown, most states reported 

in the EPA-sponsored survey that they are finding the contaminant in groundwater 

from releases at tank sites, and some are beginning to find it in their drinking 

water sources. The extent to which the contaminant poses a health risk is uncertain, however, in part because EPA does not yet have the data necessary to determine MTBE’s health effects. Detecting MTBE from a release typically does not influence the type of cleanup method selected, but could increase the time and cost 

of the cleanup, according to a number of states. 

Most States Have Found MTBE in Groundwater from Releases at Tank Sites; Fewer 

Have Found It in Their Drinking Water 

Portions of 17 states and the District of Columbia currently use gasoline potentially containing the additive MTBE to limit air pollution (see figure 1). However, 

MTBE is being detected nationwide because, among other things, it had been used 

as an octane enhancer in gasoline in the past and because the pipes and trucks used 

to carry gasoline throughout the nation have been cross contaminated with the substance. 

Forty-four states reported in the EPA-sponsored survey that they sample groundwater at leaking tank sites and test it for MTBE. 5 Furthermore, 35 states reported 

that they find MTBE in groundwater at least 20 percent of the time they sample 

for it, and 24 states said that they find it at least 60 percent of the time. 

States are not only finding MTBE at tank sites with reported releases—half of 

the states reported finding it at tank sites even when there was no documented release, although they did not know the number of these cases. About half of the 

states also reported finding MTBE that they could not attribute to a leaking tank 

and suspected that it came from other sources, such as above-ground tanks used to 

store fuel. 

The extent of MTBE contamination may be understated because some tank releases go undetected and because only 19 states said that they are taking any extra 

steps to make sure that MTBE is not migrating further from a tank site than other 

contaminants when a release has been detected. MTBE is less likely to cling to soil 

than other gasoline components and dissolves more easily in water, allowing it to 

25

6 National Survey of MTBE, Other Ether Oxygenates, and Other VOCs in Community Drinking 

Water Sources, U.S. Geological Survey (Open-File Report 01-399, 2001). 7 Contaminants of Drinking Water Sources in 2001: Recent Findings of the U.S. Geological 

Survey, U.S. Geological Survey (Open-File Report 00-510, 2001). 8Occurrence and Distribution of Methyl tert-Butyl Ether and Other Volatile Organic Compounds in Drinking Water in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Regions of the United States, 1993-

98, U.S. Geological Survey (Water Resources Investigations Report 00-4228, 2001). 

9 National Sciences and Technology Council, Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, Interagency Assessment of Potential Health Risks Associated with Oxygenated Gasoline 

(Feb. 1996). 

travel faster, farther, and sometimes deeper. Therefore, parties might have to use 

more test wells around a leaking tank to determine if and where MTBE is present. 

If states do not conduct the extra tests, they may not detect the MTBE. 

Some of the states that have identified MTBE contamination have also found that 

it reached drinking water sources. More states may not have reported finding 

MTBE in part because only 24 states in the EPA-sponsored survey said that their 

drinking water program offices routinely analyzed drinking water sources for 

MTBE, while another 24 said that their offices were not conducting these analyses. 

Although a number of states were not sure how many public or private drinking 

water wells had been contaminated by MTBE, 11 states said that at least 10 public 

wells had been contaminated at the time of the survey, and 15 states reported that 

10 private wells had been closed. The Maryland Department of the Environment reported that MTBE was found in low concentrations in about 100 of more than 1,200 

water systems tested. In contrast, some communities in California, Kansas, and 

Maine have had more extensive problems with contaminated groundwater. For example, Santa Monica, California, closed seven wells supplying 50 percent of the 

city’s water. 

At the national level, the U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) and EPA have conducted 

some water-monitoring efforts, but have yet to find high concentrations of MTBE 

in many drinking water sources. According to a USGS study, MTBE was detected 

in generally lower concentrations in 14 percent of surface water sources.6 Another 

USGS study points out, however, that it was 10 times more likely to find MTBE 

in areas that use it as a fuel additive to reduce pollution.7 A third USGS study, done 

in cooperation with EPA and issued in 2001, examined monitoring data from over 

2,000 randomly selected community water systems in the northeast and mid-Atlantic regions and reported that MTBE was detected in about 9 percent of the systems 

that analyzed samples for MTBE.8 Finally, EPA has completed the first year of a 

3-year effort—under the recently implemented Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule—to have all large water systems (serving populations of 10,000 or 

more), as well as selected small public water systems (serving populations of 3,000 

or less), test their water for MTBE. Of the one-third of the systems required to test 

in the first year, 1 of 131 large systems and 3 of the 283 small systems detected 

the substance. 

Reviews on the Extent that MTBE in Drinking Water Poses Health Risks Are Still 

Pending 

An interagency assessment of potential health risks associated with fuel additives 

to gasoline, primarily MTBE, concluded that while available data did not fully determine risks, MTBE should be regarded as a potential carcinogenic risk to humans.9 However, the extent that MTBE may be present in high concentrations in 

drinking water and jeopardizing public health is unknown. Because MTBE has a 

bad taste and odor at relatively low concentrations, people may not be able to tolerate drinking contaminated water in large enough quantities to pose a health risk. 

On the other hand, some people may become desensitized to the taste and smell and 

could end up drinking MTBE for years in their well water, according to the EPA 

program manager. 

EPA has efforts underway to fill in some of the data gaps on the health effects 

of MTBE and its occurrence in drinking water supplies. Additional research and 

water quality monitoring must be concluded before EPA can determine whether a 

water quality standard—an enforceable limit on the concentration of MTBE allowed 

in drinking water—is warranted. EPA has issued an advisory suggesting that drinking water should not contain MTBE in concentrations greater than 20 to 40 parts 

per billion, based on taste and odor concerns. EPA is considering taking further 

steps to regulate MTBE, but notes that to establish a federally enforceable standard 

could take about 10 years.While the potential health risks of MTBE are uncertain, 

14 states—9 of which are not required to use a fuel additive to limit air pollution 

in certain areas—have partially or completely banned the use of MTBE within their 

boundaries (see figure 2). 

26

10Some of the components of concern in gasoline include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and 

xylene 11Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program, U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 510-R-00-001, June 2000). 

In addition, seven states reported in the December 2000 EPA-sponsored survey 

that they had established their own health-based primary drinking water standard 

for MTBE, as shown in figure 3. Six of these states currently use fuel additives to 

limit air pollution and the seventh state voluntarily used such additives until 1999. 

Another five states reported establishing a secondary standard to limit the allowable amount of MTBE in drinking water. These standards vary considerably, however, with concentrations ranging from 5 to 70 parts per billion. 

Discovery of MTBE Does Not Drive the Cleanup Methods Implemented, but Could 

Increase the Cleanup’s Duration and Cost 

According to the EPA-sponsored survey, 37 states said that finding gasoline, or 

its components of concern, 10 in soil or groundwater at a tank site is the primary 

driver of cleanup activities, not the presence of MTBE. In other words, the methods 

used to clean up gasoline can also be used to address MTBE contamination. These 

proven cleanup technologies include pumping and treating groundwater at its 

source, treating the water at its point of use by running it through a filter, or using 

a process known as air sparging (injecting air into the contaminated area to volatilize and extract MTBE). Letting the contaminant naturally break down over 

time—known as natural attenuation—may not be as effective as with other components of gasoline because MTBE persists longer in soil and groundwater. 

However, addressing MTBE could add time and costs to cleanups. According to 

the EPA-sponsored survey, 16 states reported cost increases as a result of MTBE 

cleanup, most less than 20 percent; 5 states reported that their costs had doubled. 

States spent, on average, about $88,000 addressing releases at each tank site in fiscal year 2001. Nineteen states indicated that it could cost more to test for MTBE 

because they take additional steps to ensure that this contaminant is not migrating 

beyond other contaminants in a release. Several states reported that their laboratories charged $10 to $50 more per sample to analyze for MTBE. In addition, many 

of the 16 states that cited higher cleanup costs for MTBE attributed these increases 

to such factors as longer plumes and increased cleanup time. Finally, the discovery 

of MTBE can increase costs because filters used to remove MTBE from water have 

to be changed more frequently. 

STATES HAVE MADE PROGRESS IN CLEANING UP TANK RELEASES, BUT STILL FACE A

POTENTIALLY LARGE CLEANUP WORKLOAD

States reported to EPA that as of the end of 2001, they had completed cleanups 

of 64 percent (267,969) of the 416,702 known releases at tank sites and had begun 

some type of cleanup action for another 26 percent (109,486), as figure 4 illustrates. 

Because states typically set priorities for their cleanups by first addressing those 

releases that pose the most risk, states may have already begun to clean up some 

of the worst releases to date. However, EPA tank program managers cautioned that 

some of the many cleanups that are underway may still be in their early stages because states have varying criteria for ‘‘underway.’’ For example, California reports 

a cleanup is underway as soon as a release is reported, even if no work has begun. 

In addition, states still have to address the remaining 39,247 known releases (9 percent) where cleanup is not underway by either ensuring it has begun or is not needed because the releases do not pose a risk. Figure 5 illustrates the remaining cleanup workload for known releases in each state and the District of Columbia. 

As the figure shows, while states have made progress, seven states still have more 

than 5,000 releases that they have not fully addressed. Most of the 13 states we 

contacted cited a lack of staff as a barrier to achieving more cleanups. For example, 

the May 2001 Vermont survey of state funding programs indicated that, on average 

across the states, each staff person was responsible for overseeing about 130 tank 

sites during that year. 

In addition to this known workload, states most likely will continue to face a potentially large but unknown future cleanup workload for a number of reasons:

• In a June 2000 report to the Congress, EPA estimated that as many as 200,000 

tanks nationwide may be unregistered, abandoned, or both, and have not been 

assessed for leaks.11

• Furthermore, even though many owners chose to close their tanks rather than upgrade them with leak detection and prevention equipment as federally required, 

tens of thousands of tanks nationwide are still empty and inactive, and have 

27

12 In Maine, fund eligibility expired only for ‘‘non-conforming’’ tanks—those which had not 

been upgraded with leak detection and prevention equipment. 

not been permanently closed, as we previously reported. Consequently, any 

leaks from these tanks may not have been identified. 

• We also reported that an estimated 200,000 or more active tanks were not being 

properly operated or maintained, increasing the chance of a spill or leak. For 

example, 15 states reported that leak detection equipment was frequently 

turned off or improperly maintained. 

• In addition, we reported that many states do not inspect their tanks frequently 

enough to ensure that they are not leaking and that known releases are reported. Only 19 states were physically inspecting all of their tanks at least once 

every 3 years—the minimum EPA considers necessary for effective tank monitoring. In addition, 22 states were not inspecting all of their tanks on any regular basis. 

• While the number of leaks should decrease in the future—because all new of active tanks should have leak detection and prevention equipment—we previously 

reported that 14 states traced newly discovered leaks to upgraded tanks and 20 

states did not know whether their upgraded tanks leaked. 

• Finally, 10 states reported in the EPA-sponsored survey that they had reopened 

a small number of completed cleanups because MTBE had been subsequently 

detected. If more states follow suit, the future cleanup workload will increase, 

although the size of this workload is unknown. In addition, states may be responsible for the costs of these reopened cleanups because tank owners and operators are not required to maintain financial responsibility for tanks that were 

properly cleaned up or closed. 

STATES RELY ON THEIR OWN PROGRAMS AND PRIVATE PARTIES TO PAY FOR CLEANUPS, 

BUT MAY REQUIRE FEDERAL FUNDING TO ACCELERATE CLEANUPS AND ADDRESS

ABANDONED TANKS

States have relied primarily on their own funding programs and private parties 

to pay for cleanups, using the relatively small federal trust fund grants they receive 

for staff, program administration, and to a lesser extent, cleanups. States’ reliance 

on private and federal funding could increase in the future if they end their funding 

programs and begin to address the problem of abandoned tanks with no financially 

viable owner. 

State Funding Programs and Private Parties Have Paid for Most Cleanups 

In creating the Underground Storage Tank program, the Congress expected tank 

owners and operators to take financial responsibility for cleaning up contamination 

from their tanks, correcting environmental damage, and compensating third parties 

for any injuries. Tank owners and operators were to demonstrate that they had the 

financial resources to cover potential cleanup liabilities. Initially, private insurers 

were hesitant to take on the risks of providing liability coverage to owners and operators of underground storage tank systems, so many states created their own financial assurance funds. These state funds could be used to cover the financial responsibilities of owners and operators for site cleanup as long as long as the state funds 

met the federal financial responsibility requirements. Forty-seven states established 

such programs most often from a gasoline tax, an annual tank fee, or both, rather 

than state appropriations. The remaining three states relied on owners and operators to locate suitable insurance, now more readily available, or other financial resources. Under many state programs, owners or operators pay for the cleanup and 

seek reimbursement for a portion of the cleanup costs from the state. Six of the 13 

states we contacted cap the amount of reimbursements and expect tank owners and 

operators to be financially liable for the remaining costs. 

In the May 2001 Vermont survey of state funding programs, states reported 

spending a cumulative $6.2 billion from their funds since their programs began (13 

states did not report their costs). The amount of private funds spent on cleanups 

is unknown. At the time of the survey, 36 states reported having adequate funding 

to cover their current costs, but 11 other states said that they were about $625 million short of the funds necessary to cover known claims. Program managers in five 

of the 13 states we contacted said that their state funds were stable. In addition, 

nine states reported that eligibility for their programs had ended 12—meaning they 

would no longer accept any reimbursement claims for new releases—and another 

seven states expected eligibility to end by 2026. Furthermore, the program fees used 

to replenish state programs had expired in 1 state and were expected to expire in 

another 12 states within the next decade. As a result of these provisions, tank ownVerDate Sep 04 2002 14:00 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081391 PO 00000 Frm 00031 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 W:\DISC\80670 80670
28

ers and operators would be responsible for cleanup costs with no state funding support. 

States Have Used Federal Funds Primarily for Cleanup Oversight 

States have been using federal grants from the Leaking Underground Storage 

Tank Trust Fund primarily to pay for staff to oversee cleanups and pursue owners 

and operators so that they clean up their sites, according to the EPA program manager. States cannot use these federal funds to clean up releases when an owner or 

operator can pay. States spent $662.5 million in federal trust fund dollars from fiscal year 1987 through fiscal year 2001, roughly 10 percent of the expenditures from 

states’ funds during the same period. States used $19.5 million, or 36 percent, of 

the $58.7 million they received in fiscal year 2001 grants on cleanup (see figure 6). 

Of the 13 states we contacted, 7 said that their programs rely on the federal 

grants. On the other hand, for example, a program manager in Florida said that 

the state’s program does not depend on federal grants because it is a small amount 

of money compared with the amount coming from the state fund. Some states use 

their federal funds for staffing costs. However, a Maryland program official pointed 

out that the size of the annual federal grants to states has not kept pace with the 

salary and other costs they must cover for staff. An Indiana program official attributed a backlog of 4,000 cleanups at one point in the state’s program to a lack of 

federal funding that could be used to pay for additional staff. States may be using 

their federal trust fund grants to pay for staff because the use of these funds is 

more restrictive than the state funds, which can be used to reimburse tank owners 

for their cleanup costs, among other things. 

Six states have used an additional funding source that receives federal support 

to cover some cleanup costs, namely, their Clean Water State Revolving Funds. 

States get federal seed money to initiate and maintain this type of fund. Eligible 

parties can apply for loans under the fund and have used them to cover a variety 

of leak prevention and cleanup projects. According to the EPA, the six states using 

this vehicle have made a total of $84 million in loans for tank cleanups through 

June 2000. Program managers in 9 of the 13 states we contacted said that they did 

not expect to use their revolving loan fund for tank cleanups. 

Some States May Seek More Federal Support for Cleanups in the Future 

In addition to the federal grants and loan funds, some states may look to the federal government in the future to help them clean up those abandoned tanks that 

pose health risks when financially viable parties cannot be identified to pay for 

cleanups. States admit that they do not often identify releases until they are closing 

or removing tanks, meaning that EPA and the states might inadvertently be underestimating the risks and cleanup workload that abandoned tanks pose. 

States may seek additional federal assistance to address abandoned tanks if state 

funding programs expire or are depleted. As of January 2002, states can access one 

new source of federal funding for abandoned tanks, made possible by the Small 

Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act. Under the act, the 

Congress authorized up to $50 million annually to clean up properties that may be 

contaminated by a petroleum release, including abandoned tanks. 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY

To respond to your questions, we primarily analyzed data (1) that states reported 

to EPA on the status of tank releases, (2) from the December 2000 report on the 

EPA-sponsored survey of state tank programs, and (3) from the May 2001 Vermont 

survey of state cleanup funding programs. In addition, we contacted 13 state tank 

program managers to discuss their cleanup workload, their concerns with MTBE, 

and their approach for funding cleanups. We selected these states because they had 

addressed the largest number of releases, had the largest backlog, or both. We also 

met with EPA tank program managers to discuss cleanup efforts. We performed our 

work from April to May 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. 

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I would be pleased to respond to any 

question you or Members of the Committee may have.

29


g:\graphics\80670.002
30


g:\graphics\80670.003
31


g:\graphics\80670.004
32

Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Stephenson, let me follow up on one question 

regarding the leaching qualities of MTBE. Compared to other substances, how fast, how far would it go into the groundwater? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I don’t know the specifics. My understanding 

is that it leaches very fast in soil. Therefore, it reaches groundwater more readily than, say, benzene or other contaminants in 

gasoline. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Can you give us a ballpark figure? Take your typical tank with a leak, what kind of area are we talking about that 

we are going to find MTBE? And I am going to direct that openended question to anybody. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I don’t have a specific answer on that. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Are we talking a football field? Badminton court? 

Mr. MILLER. That depends upon the amount of fuel leaked and 

the geohydrology. It varies all over. 

Mr. GILLMOR. When you get to cleanup, what is necessary physically to necessitate what you would consider a cleanup? How much 

dirt are you going to have to move? What are you going to have 

to do? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. My understanding is that you actually aerate 

the soil and hope that most of the MTBE will evaporate. Again, 

that depends on the size of the area of contamination that you have 

to clean up as to how long that takes and how expensive that becomes. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Grumbles, we heard testimony here and in the 

past to what extent MTBE is a health issue and to what extent it 

is a taste and odor issue. How would you answer that question? Is 

it both? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Mr. Chairman, I think it has the potential to be 

both. Our preliminary recommendations in 1997 in the consumer 

advisory was that levels of MTBE that were unlikely to cause taste 

or odor problems would be less than 20 parts per billion. They were 

also likely to be safe from a public health standpoint. 

EPA is continuing to research health issues associated with 

MTBE. We hope to have more definitive information on that in 

draft form in the coming months and in final health assessment report next year. 

But I think the answer is that, clearly, there are taste and odor 

problems, and there may very well be health problems, but it depends on what the level is. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Based on your statement which the benchmark 

was 20 parts per billion, although that is not scientifically established but kind of a figure that is being used, if we take the fact 

that most sites are found to be 5 parts per billion or less, that 

hopefully would help us confine the problem to fewer areas. Do we 

have any idea of all the sites that are out there, which there are 

over 400,000 of them, how many of them would be in the 20 parts 

per billion or above? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. My sense is that it is a very small number, at 

least based upon our current findings and data. 

I know also, and Mr. Miller may have some data as well, basically what we have been finding is that those instances where 

there is MTBE it is generally below the 20 parts per billion. 

33

Mr. MILLER. Mr. Chairman, the estimate is perhaps 1 percent of 

those sites might fit that category. 

Mr. GILLMOR. That is very helpful. Thank you. 

Mr. Grumbles, the Leaking Underground Storage Tank regulations became effective in 1998. In your opinion, have those regulations helped in addressing concerns about MTBE contamination? 

I would also ask the other members of the panel if they have a 

view on that. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. From the perspective of cleaning up the problem, 

it has helped. The underground storage tank program which has 

been in place since 1988 has also helped. EPA has given States 

about $800 million in Leaking Underground Storage Trust Fund 

funding to help in terms of State assessment and cleanup for petroleum contamination, including MTBE releases. Since 1988, EPA 

has provided over $230 million to States in LUST funding. 

Also, through the authorities under that program, EPA has been 

funding some MTBE pilot programs in various places throughout 

the country; and through that program and statutory authorities as 

well, it has been providing some technical support such as to South 

Lake Tahoe. 

My figures, Mr. Chairman, indicate that, through the funding, 

States together with EPA have cleaned up about 370,000 petroleum releases, averaging about 19,000 cleanups a year since 1988. 

Some of these cleanups have clearly helped to address the MTBE 

contamination, but we do not have data at this point on exactly 

how many. 

Mr. GILLMOR. My time has expired. 

I recognize the ranking member, Mr. Pallone. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

This question is to Mr. Grumbles. A number of States have established drinking water guidelines and action levels for MTBE. I 

know that EPA has established a drinking water advisory and a 

monitoring rule that does not have an enforceable health-based 

standard. 

You said in your testimony, Mr. Grumbles, that you are committed to making a decision as to whether or not health-based regulations for MTBE is appropriate, and you say you plan to issue 

a final health assessment next spring, which I guess would be a 

year from now. It seems to me, though, that you are kind of moving 

slowly, given the action that some of the States have taken, almost 

as if the States see this as a lot more serious in terms of the health 

impact than you do. I wonder why is that the case, or am I missing 

something? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I think you are missing something, Congressman. 

Mr. PALLONE. I know that you say you are going to get to it by 

next year. That seems like a long time. What information does EPA 

feel it needs to establish a standard? Why the wait? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I appreciate the opportunity to elaborate on that. 

It is not that you are missing something, but EPA has been taking 

a multi-statutory, multi-media, combined effort to look at MTBE 

problems. 

I work in the Office of Water, and one focus that we have in the 

Office of Water is on Safe Drinking Water Act authorities and foVerDate Sep 04 2002 14:00 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081391 PO 00000 Frm 00037 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\80670 80670
34

cusing in on risk assessments and whether or not to establish a 

primary or secondary standard MCL for MTBE. 

One of the things that we are doing is working closely with the 

Office of Research and Development on this risk assessment. I 

know that they have been working to try to get the right data to 

make sure that this is a scientifically sound decision in terms of 

the health assessment. 

Mr. PALLONE. What is the information that is lacking that is 

going to take a year? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. One of the things that is lacking is gathering 

data from all areas across the country and also translating that 

into relevant end points as to what is the right type of health 

standard. 

Mr. PALLONE. Going back to what I said in the beginning, the 

States are having these guidelines and action levels, but you are 

telling us you don’t feel that there is really a problem or that there 

may not be a problem and you need another year before you come 

out with some kind of health assessment. It seems to me that there 

is a difference there between these State guidelines, which obviously concern people, versus your statement today. I know you do 

not think that it is inconsistent, but why is it that the States seem 

to be more concerned about this at this point? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I don’t know that the States seem to be more 

concerned. I know that some of the States have taken very specific 

actions in terms of phaseouts or established health-based standards or parts per billion regulatory requirements. 

What I would try to communicate is, while EPA is going through 

the data to make sure that it is a risk-based approach to the most 

pressing problems and whether or not there should be a secondary 

standard or a primary standard in addition to the consumer advisory we have established, the Office of Air and Radiation is looking 

specifically at the authorities under TSCA in terms of the phaseout 

and whether or not that is appropriate. 

One of the things that I want to convey is, under the statutory 

framework of the Safe Drinking Water Act, one of the things that 

is important to EPA is to gather through the unregulated monitoring rule the data from the large public water supply systems 

from throughout the country to try to get a better picture. 

Mr. PALLONE. Shouldn’t we be requiring monitoring of all drinking water systems, especially those that rely on limited groundwater sources? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I would say that it would probably be prudent. 

I don’t know if it would require a Federal mandate, but it would 

be prudent for any public water supply system to be looking for 

contaminants in the groundwater or surface water or source water 

that they use for drinking water purposes. 

I think the basic principle where we start from is based on all 

of the debate regarding the Safe Drinking Water Act over the 

years, particularly the 1996 amendments, is to make sure that 

when we do impose a monitoring requirement or a regulatory provision that it is very clear that it is the best use of everyone’s resources and from a risk-based standpoint it is a targeted good effort to get at particular contaminants. 

Mr. PALLONE. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

35

Mr. GILLMOR. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple of quick questions. In December 1997 the EPA issued a drinking water advisory 

for MTBE. The question I had, based upon responses to other questions, is how long did that advisory—how long did it take you to 

get to the point in 1997 where you made an advisory for MTBE? 

The reason I am asking that question is now we are 5 years after 

that. We are still asking questions. And the response, Mr. Grumbles, is, well, next year we are going to issue another finding based 

upon this. Regardless of who is in charge of the administration, we 

get constantly frustrated by saying, well, when are we going to 

make a decision? What is the time line? 

So there must have been 5 years prior to 1997 that you probably 

researched it to say we are going to do this advisory. I may not be 

right. But maybe it took 5 years to develop that advisory. That is 

the question. How long did it take? Now we are 5 years after. 

Because we are talking about 40 parts per billion. That is what 

you all recommend. And then out of the conversations we hear 20 

parts per billion. No wonder we are kind of confused as to what is 

safe and what is not safe. And that is a very scattered array of 

buckshot that I just fired at you. So you pick which little piece of 

shot you want to respond to, and please do. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, thank you, Congressman. In terms of the 

up-front analysis process and how long it took before EPA provided 

the 1997 consumer advisory, I don’t know exactly whether it was 

2 years or a couple of years. It was a couple of years. Part of that 

was based on, in part, waiting to get some data, such as from 

USGS in 1995, some monitoring USGS was doing. 

We were also working in terms of a blue ribbon panel to also get 

their views and their recommendations. But I believe that it was 

a couple of years before we finalized that consumer advisory. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. You understand the concern we have? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I do understand that. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That would be helpful for us to at least get to a 

point, because we do also know that MTBE is proven to cause cancer in animals at extremely high doses; is that correct? Like rats 

or animals? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I have to say that from my own personal knowledge, I am not sure of the precise way to answer that question. I 

know from the data that I have had in preparations for the hearing 

that there have been some studies that have shown that at certain 

levels in laboratory animals there has been some cancer-causing affects. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I think that is correct. Our concern will be what 

is the effect of MTBE on humans at low doses? I think that is what 

this debate is. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congressman, one of the reasons why we are 

working, and it is going to take more time before we issue the report on the health assessment, is the whole issue of dealing with 

the fact that there is already inhalation data, but there isn’t much 

data in terms of ingestion of MTBE. So one of the areas, the gaps 

that we are trying to fill that is taking some time is to be able to 

translate and to extract data. 

36

Mr. SHIMKUS. I am glad you mentioned that. Inhalation would 

mean breathing it in, correct? Which would not concern us on the 

LUST issue, would it, the underground storage tank issue unless 

you are a mole? We have moles in Illinois, a lot of them. 

But the only follow-up is there are other ways for MTBE to enter 

into the atmosphere than just underground storage systems. 

I am a guy now. I have got my chain saw. If I make the mistake 

of not getting gas that has 10 percent ethanol, I never hardly make 

that mistake, but if I am in a hurry and I unfortunately get some 

that is using MTBE as the oxygenate, and I overspill my little 

chain saw, that, in essence, could seep and be a contaminate if it 

runs down into the system. Or jet skis. I mean Lake Michigan for 

boaters. There is a lot of ways other than the underground storage 

tanks in which MTBE can enter into the environment? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. As my colleagues would point out, there are 

other sources beyond underground storage tanks for MTBE releases. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. I yield back my time. Thank you. 

Mr. GILLMOR. We will go to a second round. I beg your pardon. 

Snuck back in on me. The gentlelady from California, Mrs. Capps. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And thank you for your 

testimony, each of you. I have a couple of topics, so if I could address the first the one to you, Mr. Grumbles, and ask you about 

the LUST trust fund. 

I understand that the surplus in this fund is expected to grow to over $2 billion by the end of fiscal year 2002. There is a surplus 

almost of $2 billion right now, and it keeps climbing. And so my 

question to the administration is: With the evidence that has been 

described today, why did this administration’s budget cut the LUST funding by $68,700? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congresswoman, I appreciate very much your 

strong interest in this issue. I would have to say at the outset I 

am not—I am really not the best person to be able to respond to 

the question, partly because of the responsibilities in terms of EPA, 

where Assistant Administrator Marianne Horinko is the one who 

works most on the LUST fund. But I would just want to say that 

in the overall context of putting together the budget request, as I 

have observed, there has been some fairly standard requests in 

terms of the LUST program over the years. 

I am not the best person to be able to explain exactly what the 

dollar amount was and why it was chosen. I can certainly, and I 

will, relay your question and your concerns about the funding level 

in the President’s budget request. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I would like to follow up with a request that we have this information for our committee as part of 

our decisionmaking process, because, you know, the budget request 

is less than half of the interest this trust fund is going to earn this 

year. At the same time we have a huge backlog of contaminated 

sites, and I would assume that for whatever purposes, if it is even 

to assess the situation further, that we need access to this funding 

because safe drinking water is something we want our citizens to 

be absolutely confident of. 

People are saying they don’t know the extent of the risk. We 

know it smells bad and it tastes bad. But that is bad enough. But 

37

if it is really dangerous and we have young children drinking it, 

what is going to be the effect on their overall lifespan and what 

kind of problems are we running into? This is something we should 

be addressing with every bit of urgency. So I was assuming that 

we would have someone here who could tell us why there was a 

cut in the funding for something that we need to bring attention 

to. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. We certainly do recognize that MTBE contamination, or any kind of groundwater contamination or surface water 

contamination, does present a significant problem. It can present 

a public health problem. It clearly presents a problem to the utilities that may have to go with alternative water supplies. There are 

various mechanisms, authorities under the Federal environmental 

statutes beyond just the LUST fund that may offer some assistance 

for utilities or for States. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Well, I know there are several lawsuits going on. 

But to me, if we have a fund that people are paying into from their 

gasoline costs, every time you fill up your tank you are paying into 

this fund for the direct purpose of remediating a situation just like 

we have before us, it would seem to me to be common sense to put 

those moneys to use. 

If the tanks are leaking, who knows what else they are leaking, 

if we can clearly tell that they are leaking. But I want to talk about 

one other issue. I don’t want to pick on you the whole time either. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Thank you. 

Mrs. CAPPS. But I want to make sure that somehow we get the 

information about how comprehensive this problem is, what is the 

extent of it. And we need some comprehensive assessments. And, 

again, if we are talking about drinking water, and here I am from 

a State where we have asked for a waiver from MTBE. We can purify our gasoline to meet the air requirements without either ethanol or MTBE, and yet we have been denied a waiver because 

MTBE is the solution that the U.S. Government has set forth. And 

yet we have hundreds and thousands of problems arising because 

of it. I think it is time for us to address this with all due haste, 

and I am wondering what efforts there are in our government 

agencies to provide the comprehensive assessment of the extent of 

this problem. 

Mr. Miller, if you would. 

Mr. MILLER. The study that I mentioned earlier, Congresswoman, that we are collaborating with the American Water Works 

Association and the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, that is a random statistical sample, includes almost a thousand community water systems across the country, and it is both 

groundwater and surface water. That will provide at least a statistical portrayal of the community water systems, large and small, 

in terms of what we find in MTBE presence. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Can you get me an estimate of when that study will 

be completed? 

Mr. MILLER. By the end of this year. It is a 4-year study. We are 

almost complete now. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Excellent. Any other studies going on that you wish 

to comment on? 

38

Mr. STEPHENSON. I would just suggest that we recommended last 

year opening up the trust fund to not only more rapid cleanups, 

but greater inspections. We are concerned that while there is 

400,000 reported releases, that there may be many more out there 

because the States don’t inspect their tanks often enough to find 

such leaks, and even the requirements of putting on equipment to 

monitor leaks and detect for leaks, if that equipment isn’t working 

properly, as we reported, that is a potential for active tanks to continue to leak. And we estimated there may be up to 200,000 of 

those. So that is where we were last year. That is where we are 

this year. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I know that I have used 

my time. But if I can just make one statement, that I really feel 

it is reprehensible that we have a huge surplus of taxpayers’ money, of people contributing when they buy their gasoline, setting 

aside some of that funding to be used for mitigation of problems 

just as we are addressing today, and that we are salting that 

money away and we clearly have a problem that we should be 

doing something about. I think this committee needs to act on this. 

Thank you. I yield back. 

Mr. GILLMOR. The gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And let me first ask all 

three panelists. Mrs. Capps brings up a good point about the 

amount of contamination, and it seems like from the testimony the 

average detection is less than 1 part per billion nationwide. Could 

each of you comment on that? Is that statement correct, that the 

tests done nationwide, the average is less than 1 part per billion. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Yes, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. That is something that all three panelists agree on. 

California has a standard of more than 5 parts per billion. Is that 

correct? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I believe it is 13 parts. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. 13 for the primary and 5 parts per billion for the 

secondary standard. 

Mr. GREEN. But the EPA standard is 20 to 40 parts per billion? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. It is not a standard technically. It is an advisory 

level. 

Mr. GREEN. The advisory then is 20 to 40 parts per billion. So 

well above, 40 times what the average has been found in the studies; is that correct? If 1 part per billion has been found average and 

the EPA advisory is 20 to 40, so at least 20 times is the EPA advisory? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Based on what we know right now, the 20 to 40 

parts per billion guidance seems to be protective and responsive to 

the concerns about odor and taste. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. So below that the odor and taste is not detectable? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. It is not that it is not detectable, it does not 

present a problem. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. Let me ask another general question. And I 

know each of you, although the GAO, it seems like in other panels 

that we have had in our committee for a number of years, the ban 

on MTBE, if it was nationwide, and the suggestion by my colleagues, the effect on the gasoline supply, and I have—again 

39

through testimony, and would it affect about 5 percent of our gasoline supplies? Or do you have any idea from the GAO studies or 

EPA? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I think that reformulated gas is in about 30 

percent of all of the gas, and MTBE is the predominant oxygenator 

in that 30 percent. 

Mr. GREEN. So it could be even more than 5 percent of the gasoline that we use in our country? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Probably, if my math is correct. 

Mr. GREEN. I know. My wife is an algebra teacher, but I am not. 

That is why I serve on this committee and not appropriations. So 

it is well above 5 percent. 

Mr. Stephenson, let me ask you, because in your testimony, and 

in your oral testimony you skipped over a part that I wanted to go 

back and point out, because in the discussion from some of my colleagues about MTBE being a carcinogen, in your written testimony, 

and in the middle of the first paragraph, EPA’s implementation of 

the tanks program showed that many tanks have leaked and continue to leak hazardous substances such as MTBE and benzene. 

These leaks in turn contaminate soil and are imposing health risks. 

Such health risks include nausea, kidney, liver damage, and even 

cancer. 

In your oral testimony you left out benzene. That is my point. 

Benzene, toluene, xylene, everything else in gasoline is a known 

carcinogen; is that correct? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I don’t know if that is a known carcinogen, but 

it is not something, as you put it, you would want in your drinking 

water. 

Mr. GREEN. Well, that is true. But I think, let me ask,—those 

substances are found by the EPA, I think they are on the list of 

known carcinogens. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Benzene certainly is. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay, benzene. I notice in your written testimony—

but like I said, in your oral testimony you just mention MTBE and 

not benzene. I differentiate between benzene and these other, toluene, xylene—again I don’t want to drink because they are known 

carcinogens—whereas MTBE—and I know this issue has been 

around for at least 4 years, I have been on the committee 5 now, 

and we have had similar hearings, and yet we have not gone further than saying that MTBE is a possibility. 

In fact, in your testimony, you—the first time I have seen GAO 

quote the National Science and Technology Council says, MTBE, 

and concluded the available data has not fully determined the 

risk—this is on page 7 and 8—MTBE should be regarded as a potential carcinogen risk to humans. Is that—I haven’t noticed this 

testimony in past GAO testimony on their studies. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. That is based on other studies. That is not 

original GAO work. 

Mr. GREEN. I know it is based on other studies. It is the first 

time that I have noticed that GAO has provided this information 

to the committee. Because I have—you know, I don’t know what it 

does. My colleague from Illinois talks about how in high parts per 

billion I guess anything could kill someone. But I know benzene, 

40

toluene and xylene would. But so far we do not know that MTBE 

is a known carcinogen? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. That is right. My understanding is there is not 

enough health-based research yet. 

Mr. GREEN. I know I have only been looking at it for 4 years, and 

we are not scientists, so I hope—I join my colleagues in saying we 

need to do the studies to look at it. And obviously 4 years is too 

long. 

Mr. Grumbles, banning MTBE, do you believe if we substantially 

improve our drinking water supply around the country, given that 

the average detections is less than 1 part per billion, if we banned 

MTBE today, would that substantially improve our drinking water 

supply, even from your testimony that the average is less than 1 

part per billion? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Congressman, I guess the response to that question is if we ban MTBE we certainly are taking one step, a very 

strong step to address an odor and taste issue. I really am not sure 

what the position is, if we do have a position, on the banning of 

MTBE and whether it is a necessary step based on the potential 

health effects. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, are we going to have a second round? 

Mr. GILLMOR. Yeah, we will. 

Mr. GREEN. Let me say that the banning of MTBE, as suggested 

by my colleagues, we haven’t banned benzene, toluene, or xylene in 

gasoline, and yet we are talking about banning something that is 

not a known carcinogen. With that, I will be glad to wait for our 

second round. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Yeah. I do want to get to the second panel. But 

I know members have some more questions. So we will try to get 

through those as quickly as we can. 

Mr. Stephenson and Mr. Miller, GAO found MTBE contamination in States that did not mandate the use of RFG. What is the 

explanation and why have the releases been so widespread? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Our understanding, it is both cross-contamination from pipelines and trucks or in a State that might have used 

MTBE in the past but no longer uses it, or some States still use 

MTBE in low, very low doses as not an oxygenator, but as an octane enhancer. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Okay. And then could you explain or expand on 

the information GAO received from the States regarding lack of 

tools and resources for tank inspection and other enforcement responsibilities? Did you find evidence that that situation is improving? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. We took a snapshot in time. Unfortunately, 

that report was issued last year. And we found that many States 

don’t have enough resources to do all of the inspections that EPA 

would mandate as the minimum to enforce the tank program, and 

that many times you have turnover at gas stations and you can’t 

keep the folks trained well enough and often cases there were reports of actually turning the equipment off. So we think maintenance and operation of the equipment—while the equipment is a 

good idea, maintenance and operation is equally important. And if 

it is allowed to go into disrepair, then essentially you have defeated 

the purposes of putting the equipment on in the first place. 

41

Mr. GILLMOR. Could you update us on the overall progress that 

EPA, the States and private entities are making in cleaning up underground storage tanks? I understand that EPA reports that 

newly discovered releases from tanks are declining, which would 

seem to make sense as the program matures. What do you think 

is driving the reduction in releases from tanks and do you expect 

that to continue? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I think the equipment and the education of the 

operators has gone a long way toward reducing the leaks. However, 

as I mentioned, we are concerned that if the tanks aren’t being inspected often enough you may not be finding leaks because you are 

not looking for them. So that is why I keep emphasizing that concern. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Miller, in your view what is the greatest single 

contributor or source of MTBE contamination in groundwater? 

Mr. MILLER. Based on our research, Mr. Congressman, the leaking underground storage tanks are where we find the highest concentrations. But other fuel spills, either through pipeline ruptures, 

refueling facilities, those also have significant contamination of 

groundwater as a potential. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Thank you very much. 

Mr. Pallone. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I wanted to go back to 

Mr. Grumbles again when I asked about the monitoring of drinking 

water systems. I know that there is this EPA Blue Ribbon Panel 

on Oxygenates report that was issued on September 15, 1999. It 

says, EPA has proposed a revised unregulated contaminant monitoring rule which would require large water systems serving more 

than 10,000 persons and a representative sample of small and medium-sized water systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons to 

monitor and report MTBE levels. 

This started, I guess, in January of 2001. But under this regulation, the majority of the public—and this is the report—the majority of the public groundwater supply wells will not be monitored for 

MTBE. The majority, in other words. 

So, again, going back, Mr. Grumbles, to what I said before, you 

know, shouldn’t we be requiring monitoring of all drinking water 

systems, especially those that rely on limited groundwater sources? 

I mean this report seems to be that—we are not even getting to 

most of them because of this rule in terms of large versus medium 

or small. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, Congressman, I will double check. But I 

don’t believe we have gotten a lot of the data in from the unregulated contaminant monitoring rule. One of the goals here is to get 

as much of the data in from the systems that are above 10,000 and 

also that representative sample below 10,000, and then to assess 

how much more we need to get a good picture of whether or not 

to require monitoring. 

Mr. PALLONE. Could you get back to us on exactly where that is, 

what the data shows, where you are in terms of that? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Sure. 

[EPA had failed to respond at the time of printing.] 

Mr. PALLONE. And this Blue Ribbon Panel that I mentioned 

made a number of recommendations to enhance water protections 

42

from MTBE, and if I could just go through them. They included, 

or I have selected some here: Seeking to prohibit full delivery to 

all non-upgraded tanks in every State; developing and implementing an integrated fuel research program into the groundwater 

behavior of gasoline and MTBE; accelerating testing for and reporting of MTBE in public drinking water supplies at all UST release 

sites; working with States to enhance their efforts to protect surface waters that serve as drinking water supplies, particularly in 

regard to older recreational watercraft; working with State and 

Federal partners to implement and expand programs to protect private water supplies; expanding programs to train and license UST 

installers and maintenance personnel. 

I mean, I can go through these, and you can respond to each of 

them. But what has been done with regard to these recommendations? Do you want to comment on them? Do you want me to start 

over again and you go one by one? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I am not going to be able to respond to each one 

of them. But I think that I would be happy to work with your staff 

and provide directly to the committee a response to each one of 

them. 

Mr. PALLONE. I would appreciate that, with the indulgence of the 

chairman, if we could have that. Thank you. But go ahead. 

[EPA had failed to respond at the time of printing.] 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I was going to say, in terms of the results and 

the recommendations of the blue ribbon panel, that one of the 

things that—I mean, that has done a variety of things. One is over 

the last couple of years it has certainly elevated within EPA the 

importance of looking at pollution prevention, source water protection under existing authorities under the Safe Drinking Water Act. 

That applies to both groundwater supplies and surface water supplies. 

Additionally, it is concepts like that that in knowing of the widespread presence of MTBE at low levels throughout the country, 

various watersheds in particular, it is one of the things that this 

administration is looking at as one of the beneficiaries of a watershed initiative through EPA assistance at targeted watersheds to 

look at a wide range of sources of contamination and trying to have 

partnerships to prevent that contamination, or to have public and 

private entities working on that front. 

There are several other things. One, based on the blue ribbon 

panel, I think that also is shared with various offices within EPA, 

such as the Office of Air and Radiation which is the looking at 

TSCA as a possible tool to restrict or limit the manufacturing use 

of MTBE, as something that continues to be looked at very seriously. 

In terms of some of the other recommendations, I would just say 

that in the Office of Water, which is where I work, we are in the 

process of coordinating with the Office of Research and Development on looking at remediation, better technologies, monitored natural attenuation, learning more about granular activated carbon or 

air stripping in terms of some of the treatment technologies, but 

also recognizing that prevention rather than remediation is a preferred approach generally. 

Mr. PALLONE. Okay. Thank you. 

43

Mr. GILLMOR. The gentleman from Illinois, Mr. Shimkus. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Prevention rather than 

remediation. You struck a cord, Mr. Grumbles. In your testimony, 

your written testimony, you indicate that there is emerging evidence that vapor releases from new and upgraded tanks are common, and that such releases can find their way into the groundwater, which is certainly surprising for the normal person. If you 

are going to have upgraded new tanks, you would think that they 

would be designed to prohibit any of that. 

On what evidence and information is that statement based? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. My colleagues from USGS and GAO will, I am 

sure, add if I am misstating the situation, or anyway to be able to 

elaborate on it. But some of the data that we have gathered and 

the studies we have conducted with other partners at the State 

level as well as the Federal level have indicated that vapor releases 

occur, because MTBE is—the precise chemical and physical features of it, make it subject to—I mean it may be causing contamination more than just through a leak, but through vapor releases. 

Now, I think some of the studies, there is an ongoing study, my 

notes indicate some new and upgraded tanks in California found 

only one liquid release, but they found vapor releases at two-thirds 

of the tank sites. I think this was in Sacramento and Yellow County, California. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. That really follows up on my next question to Mr. 

Stephenson. According to the GAO survey, can you update us on 

the latest number regarding States that have traced newly discovered leaks or releases from regulated tanks and States that have 

seldom or never detected such leaks? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. Not specifically. I mean, we included that 

question in our survey and several reported that even upgraded 

tanks do continue to leak. They still had reports of leaks. But as 

the chairman pointed out, the number being reported has fallen off 

greatly, in large part because there has been over a million tanks 

closed. So a lot of the problematic tanks have been closed. So that 

may be an explanation. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. So you don’t think that there is an adequate and 

full data set that readily supports researching the scientific conclusions about the scope of the new regulated tanks versus the old underground storage tank issue? 

Mr. STEPHENSON. I think there is room to look at mandatory 

tank requirements. I mean, even the minimal equipment that we 

put on so far, if it is not being operated and maintained properly, 

is going to not do any good. So you can continue to have leaks. We 

are finding that even with abandoned tanks, once they dig them 

up, you can find a contamination problem. My understanding is 

that MTBE stays in the soil for a very long time. 

Mr. SHIMKUS. Let me just, because of my friend from Texas, 

MTBE evaporation has no effect on the ozone layer, does it? 

Just a joke. I yield back my time. 

Mr. GILLMOR. The gentleman yields back. The gentlelady from 

California. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Yes. Again, thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling 

this hearing on what I would arguably say is one of the more imVerDate Sep 04 2002 14:00 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081391 PO 00000 Frm 00047 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\80670 80670
44

portant topics that we need to have on our agenda here on this 

subcommittee and in our Committee on Energy and Commerce. 

Thinking of the accountability, as more information, more data 

is gathered, of even small communities like the little town of 

Cambria, the public becomes knowledgeable about this topic. And 

I don’t want us to be caught asleep at the wheel, to have the means 

with which to address a problem and then be found holding onto 

the resources when we shouldn’t be. I am eager for us to get to the 

second panelists because I think they will give us some more practical light on this as well as you folks have. 

But if I could follow up, Mr. Grumbles, I was a little taken 

aback. I asked an initial question of you and you said that wasn’t 

really your expertise, but really it was the Deputy Administrator 

of Underground Storage Tank Programs. That person is Marianne 

Horinko, and she is in charge of the budget aspect of that; am I 

correct? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, she as the Assistant Administrator for the 

Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response which has authority 

over the programmatic aspects of the——

Mrs. CAPPS. The LUST fund? I thought this hearing was on that. 

I am just wondering why she is not here. That was my only question. 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I think I was invited to focus primarily on the 

water contamination issues, and we certainly recognize—I mean 

this is an example of an issue that is multimedia, bringing together 

various offices and agencies because it involves groundwater, surface water, different types of programs. But it was my opportunity 

to be before the committee to try to talk about some of the underground storage issues, but really to focus on my area, and that is 

some of the activities being carried out under the Safe Drinking 

Water Act and the overall question of the extent of contamination 

of MTBE throughout the country of the Nation’s water supplies. 

Mrs. CAPPS. I yield back. 

Mr. GILLMOR. The gentleman from Texas. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My colleague from California brought up talking about international data. Have the agencies, EPA, GAO, looked at international data on MTBE? I know in 

Europe MTBE is fairly prevalent as an additive for clean air problems. 

Mr. STEPHENSON. We have not at GAO. 

Mr. MILLER. No, sir. 

Mr. GREEN. It might be good to look at what another industrialized country is doing and how they are addressing the potential 

for MTBE contamination, because I assume Europe sometimes has 

even tougher environmental lays than we do. 

Mr. Grumbles, again I will go back to the 1 percent. Since the 

national detection average for MTBE is less than 1 part per billion, 

do you believe the health benefits great enough, or the concern 

great enough to ban MTBE at this time? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. Well, Congressman, I would hesitate to make a 

judgment on that question right now, because we are finding that 

that is at a low level. What we are concerned about is making sure 

that we have the most up-to-date information, the research on exVerDate Sep 04 2002 14:00 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081391 PO 00000 Frm 00048 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\80670 80670
45

actly what the level is that could trigger health effects, adverse 

health effects. 

So I am a little hesitant to make—to state a position since I 

know there is—I believe there is not an official position of the 

agency on the banning of MTBE, and I do know that we are very 

aggressively working to try to get as much data as we can on the 

inhalation and ingestion components of MTBE and whether it presents a human health risk. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. And my colleague from Illinois talked about 

the inhalation concern, and it seemed like inhalation would mainly 

be when I am filling up my car; is that correct? If I am using 

MTBE as reformulated gasoline, I am inhaling it while I am putting gas in my car? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. There could be many other pathways of exposure. If the MTBE is in the water supply and the water is entering 

into someone’s home, there might be routes of exposure, inhalation 

exposure. 

Mr. GREEN. That would be well above the 20 to 40 parts per billion, though, that the EPA has talked about? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I am talking about various routes. 

Mr. GREEN. I was just wondering, because I know you are dealing with clean water. But MTBE was designed to help us with 

clean air. And when we do fill up our vehicles we have—where we 

catch those vapors now, in most of our updated fueling stations. So 

whether it is MTBE, benzene, like I said, any of the other—anything else that may be there, if MTBE is phased out—and this is 

for all. The chairman asked a similar question—other additives will 

undoubtedly be used to increase octane and reduce air pollution. 

What are we doing to study these other additives to ensure that 

they do not have the same or similar problems in the terms of 

groundwater? 

The blue ribbon panel recommended that EPA should conduct a 

full multimedia assessment of any major new additive to gasoline 

prior to introduction. What is the EPA doing in this regard now? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. If I could, Mr. Chairman, I would like to provide 

a detailed response on the record in terms of what EPA is doing 

with respect to research on alternatives to MTBE. 

[EPA had failed to respond at the time of printing.] 

Mr. GREEN. Great. If you could make sure you include ethanol, 

because it seemed like there was some concern about ethanol and 

clean air concerns. For instance, what about groundwater contamination from ethanol? Isn’t ethanol extremely volatile in groundwater as well? Doesn’t ethanol have the same capacity to extend 

the plumes of other dangerous contaminants such as benzene, toluene, xylene due to the preference of microbes to metabolize in ethanol? Is there or will there be a national monitoring for ethanol in 

groundwater? Is there a national monitoring? 

For example, my colleague, Mr. Ganske, said that they don’t use 

MTBE but they use ethanol in Iowa. Is there a detection? Is anybody detecting ethanol contamination in Iowa? 

Mr. GRUMBLES. I personally don’t know the answer to that question. But someone in the gallery behind me is saying it is hard to 

analyze. I can also commit to provide an answer for the record. 

[EPA had failed to respond at the time of printing.] 

46

Mr. GREEN. Well, I know ethanol also evaporates, because just 

the properties. But so does MTBE over a longer period of time, if 

it is surface. But if it is in the groundwater, that evaporation is not 

available, so we could have ethanol contamination in the groundwater. And so I would appreciate, when you respond to that question, if you all would look at that also. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Very good. The gentleman’s time has expired. 

I do want to thank our panelists for your excellent testimony. 

And we will move straight to the second panel, because we will 

want to give as much opportunity to hear from them as possible, 

because we are being told we may have a series of votes going off 

here pretty soon. But thank you very much. 

Well, I appreciate the second panel coming. I am sorry you had 

to wait so long until we got to this point. But we will start right 

out, first with Ms. Patricia Ellis, Hydrologist with Delaware Underground Storage Tank. 

STATEMENTS OF PATRICIA ELLIS, HYDROLOGIST, DELAWARE 

UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK; PAMELA R.D. WILLIAMS, 

EXPONENT; JAMES R. JONES, PRESIDENT, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SOUTH TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT; AND CRAIG 

PERKINS, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC 

WORKS MANAGEMENT, CITY OF SANTA MONICA 

Ms. ELLIS. Good afternoon, Chairman Gillmor and members of 

the subcommittee. I am Patricia Ellis. I am a hydrologist with 

Delaware’s Underground Storage Tank Program. I am pleased to 

appear here today on behalf of the National Groundwater Association, which is a nonprofit professional society and trade organization for the groundwater industry that promotes the responsible 

production, utilization and cleanup of our Nation’s groundwater. 

Our membership includes both public and private sector groundwater scientists, engineers and hydrologists across the country. I 

am here today to present an overview of the extent of MTBE 

groundwater contamination in the U.S., and I present this data as 

a scientist employed by the State of Delaware as well as my experiences as having been one of the blue ribbon panelists. 

The Federal Reformulated Gasoline Program was established in 

the Clean Air Act of 1990, and it was meant to provide reductions 

in the emissions of air pollutants from motor vehicles. The importance to us is in dealing with MTBE contamination in groundwater, and there are three main aspects. 

First, MTBE is highly water soluble, and it absorbs less on soils, 

which means it tends to migrate faster and farther than any of the 

other components of gasoline. 

Second, while the health risks are still being debated due to 

MTBE, contamination at low levels does cause taste and odor problems and can render the water undrinkable. 

And last, I am looking at the large number of studies demonstrating that the water systems are being impacted by MTBE. 

By 1998, MTBE had become the fourth highest produced organic 

chemical in the United States. And you will see the impact of contamination when we hear from South Lake Tahoe, which was 

forced to shut down about half of their water supply wells due to 

47

impacts or imminent threats to their wells, and they are facing 

clean-up costs of about $50 million. 

But there is also a growing number of studies that demonstrate 

on a local and regional scale the extent of MTBE contamination. 

One of the USGS studies looked at shallow monitoring wells in 

newly developed areas of Boston. This is not in the metropolitan— it was out in the newly developed residential area, not in the city 

center. And they looked at sand and gravel aquifers and found 

MTBE in 52 percent of the wells that they looked at. 

Another study that we have heard brief mention of looked at existing data in public water systems in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic States. They looked at about 20 percent of the community 

systems and found MTBE in detectable quantities in 8.9 percent of 

those, and 1 percent of those exceeded the 20 part per billion lower 

limit of EPA’s drinking water advisory. 

A more recent study has just come out, and it was done as part 

of the NAWQA, or National Ambient Water Quality Assessment 

program, of USGS. They collected studies in Delaware between August and November 2000 from 30 randomly selected drinking water 

supply wells that were screened in the unconfined aquifer, and 

they were trying to assess the currents and distribution of pesticides, volatile organic compounds, other inorganic ions, and nutrients. They found volatile organic compounds in all 30 wells, generally at less than a part per billion. The big three were chloroform, tetrachloroethane, and MTBE, most frequently detected, and 

they were found in at least half of the samples. Seventeen of the 

30 samples had MTBE. Six of these were between 1 and 10 parts 

per billion, and one was over our newly established 10 part per billion drinking water standard for MTBE, which became effective on 

May 10, which I believe is the lowest in the country. 

We can’t always blame tanks. In 1998, a car accident in Maine 

resulted in the spill of less than 20 gallons of gasoline, which would 

be maybe two gallons of MTBE. The incident resulted in contamination of 24 domestic wells located within 2,200 feet of the spill 

and 10 of those wells exceeded 100 parts per billion. 

In response to this and several other incidents that happened at 

about the same time, the Governor of Maine directed State and 

local—State health and environmental agencies to look at all of the 

drinking water supplies in Maine. They sampled about a thousand 

private wells and almost all of their regulated public water supplies. MTBE was found in 16 percent of the private water supplies, 

about 1 percent exceeding their State standard of 35 parts per billion. And the questionnaire that accompanied the survey found 

that the wells were not necessarily anywhere near underground 

storage tanks or gasoline tanks or any known gasoline spills. 

MTBE was also detected in 16 percent of the public water supplies, 

but none exceeded their 35 part per billion standard. 

Pascoag, Rhode Island is an village in northwest Rhode Island. 

Their water supply came from a wellfield that served about 4,000 

people. And they had recently added an additional well to their 

wellfield, which when first tested contained no MTBE last spring. 

After that initial testing, the MTBE levels began to rise and it 

began a 5-month ordeal for this town. On Labor Day a multiagency 

response started to try to find out where the problem was. It was 

48

eventually traced to a gas station about 1,700 feet from the 

wellfield. They initiated an enforcement action and an investigation 

got started and limited targeted remediation began. By the end of 

October, the contamination had climbed to 1,700 parts per billion. 

The Rhode Island Department of Health issued advisories. First, 

don’t drink the water, don’t cook with the water, and don’t let your 

small children bathe in the water. A little later they also added 

other advisories: To limit your showering time; to open the windows to ventilate to keep the exposure to vapors reduced; and to 

reduce the overall usage of water to minimize the amount of pumping that was drawing on those wells which would draw MTBE into 

the wellfield more. 

By November the operators of the station had filed for bankruptcy. By mid-November, they got carbon filters on the water system. That did reduce the contamination to between 40 and 100 

parts per billion. An adjoining town, Harrisville, had been planning 

to install a new wellfield about 2 years down the line. They accelerated the installation of their new wellfield. After a few disputes 

over how you merge two water districts, clean drinking water 

began reaching the residents in January, mid-January this year. 

And they are still looking at determining the cause of the release, 

and they are working on remediation in the source area. But the 

contamination in this town has been a very public issue and seriously impacted all of the people who lived in that area. 

Another hot spot was in New York. The Greenbush area in Hyde 

Park has had as of last August 77 homes that have carbon filters 

on their wells, and a total of 123 wells so far that have been impacted. Three or four different gas stations were the sources of this 

contamination, and some of the contamination of MTBE was 

known about as long as 15 years ago. The New York Department 

of Environmental Conservation is planning on contributing $1.9 

million toward the $3.1 million cost of bringing in water from 

Poughkeepsie. 

Another hot spot recently was Montgomery County area in Pennsylvania. I will detail one of sites in a little more detail. It was a 

gasoline station in the town of Bluebell reported a release in May 

1998, 2 days after an explosion of a nearby building. They reported 

a release of a few gallons, 1 to 2 gallons, he said. But it turned out 

to be a leak of about 13,000 gallons that resulted in the explosion 

nearby and evacuation of a number of families from their homes 

due to vapors. Fourteen families have had to be connected to public 

water because their wells were contaminated. And it was a faulty 

leak detection device that failed to alert the operator. They anticipate cleanup is going to cost about $5 million, and it will come 

from a State fund since the operator really has no assets. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Ms. Ellis, we are going to have to take a recess 

now. We have 61⁄2 minutes to make this vote. We have a total of 

7 votes. And although they shorten some of those votes up, we are 

realistically looking at almost an hour before we get back here. 

So, Mr. Pallone and I and hopefully some others will be back as 

soon as the votes are terminated, and so I guess you are free for 

about an hour. Thank you very much. 

[Brief recess.] 

49

Mr. GILLMOR. The committee will come to order. I very much appreciate your patience. Apologize for the delay. It was all Mr. 

Pallone’s fault. It was beyond the control of any of us. We were—

Ms. Ellis was wrapping up her statement. So if you want to finish 

then we will move to the other members of the panel. 

Ms. ELLIS. I will pick up where I stopped off. To continue a little 

bit on the impacts in New Hampshire, 16 percent of the public 

water supplies had MTBE detected and 27 percent of the private 

supplies that were tested. New Jersey, 15 percent of the wells had 

detectable MTBE. And in the northern area called the Highlands 

area had up to 43 percent detections. Around an area called Cranberry Lake which is heavily used for boating, there are a lot of private wells surrounding the lake that draw water from the lake, 93 

percent of them had MTBE in them. 

We heard mentioned the unregulated contaminant monitoring 

rule that started in January 2001 that requires sampling of the 

larger systems. The State of Delaware has five larger systems that 

are year round, two more that serve over 10,000 people in the summertime. I am told that we require also a representative sample of 

the smaller systems. Well, we have 575 smaller systems in the 

State of Delaware. And the representative statistical sampling I 

was told we need to do was one of those systems. If you hit the one 

with MTBE, maybe we have got a bad problem. If you happen to 

miss it, I guess we have no problem. But there are 575 small systems in the State of Delaware. 

When public health started sampling in June 2000, of the first 

210 samples they collected, 38 had MTBE in them, which is 18 percent detection, and two of them exceeded our recently enacted 

drinking water standard of 10 parts per billion. 

Last summer, the Department of Natural Resources and Public 

Health tried a different sampling protocol. They sampled all of the 

shallow drinking water wells within a mile radius of hazardous 

substance sites. This is the State level Superfund sites. Of these 

shallow wells, we have about 400 shallow public drinking water 

supply wells that are unconfined and at risk. They sampled 39 

wells and four surface water intakes, both raw and treated water. 

They did 58 samples. From my notes you can see they analyzed for 

almost 200 and some different substances. MTBE and chloroform 

tied for first place with 21 detects out of these 58 samplings. And 

MTBE was the only thing that triggered either an EPA drinking 

water standard, which doesn’t exist, or the Delaware standard. We 

had 12 and 16 parts per billion and one of those jumped up immediately to 30. 

Normally, domestic wells are not sampled in many States. The 

only ones we bother doing are the ones that are near LUST sites 

because they are part of the investigation. But where we have sampled we have turned up about 60 domestic wells that have MTBE 

impacts. The earliest one we discovered was in 1989, well before 

we were using RFG in the state. 

We have had hits as deep as 260 feet for the depth of a well that 

has been impacted by MTBE, although most of these have been 

less than 50 feet. We have got two individual LUST sites that have 

managed to impact between 15 and 18 domestic wells. 

50

Normally our first response is get the carbon filters out there 

that day. We are doing it now at about 5 parts per billion. Then 

we will monitor for a while, decide whether to put in a deeper replacement well, or try to extend a water line. We will spend $3,000 

to $5,000 a year for every site where we have carbon filters, more 

if it is at higher levels of contamination. If we drill a deeper replacement well that is 200 or 300 feet deep, that is going to cost 

us $8,000 to $10,000. 

We recently ran a water line about 1,000 feet because of two impacted wells that had five different connections, houses and business to it, and the State, out of our money, paid $450,000 for that. 

It was quite an expense. 

As more studies are completed across our State and the rest of 

the Nation we are getting a handle on the extent of the problem. 

We have further concerns as the 1998 deadline we were told would 

take care of everything. ‘‘1998 compliant tanks could not leak,’’ and 

they do. We see it every day. We have trouble separating out why 

they leak. We don’t know if it is in the design, the construction, or 

the poor training that is really hard to identify what the problem 

is that is causing the leaks. 

I do commend the panel for taking time to evaluate and focus on 

the extent of contamination for our water supplies in this country. 

I would be happy to respond to any questions you might have. 

[The prepared statement of Patricia Ellis follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PATRICIA ELLIS, DELAWARE DEPARTMENT OF NATURAL RE- SOURCES AND ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL GROUND

WATER ASSOCIATION

Good afternoon Chairman Gillmor and members of the Subcommittee, I am Patricia Ellis, a hydrologist with Delaware’s Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Underground Storage Tank Branch. I am pleased to appear 

today on behalf of the National Ground Water Association, a non-profit professional 

society and trade association for the ground water industry that promotes the responsible protection, utilization and cleanup of our nation’s ground water. Our membership includes both public and private sector ground water scientists, engineers, 

and hydrologists across the country. 

I am here today to present an overview of the extent of MTBE (methyl tertiary 

butyl ether) ground water contamination in the United States. I present this data 

as scientist employed by the State of Delaware as well as my experience from being 

a member of the EPA’s Blue Ribbon Panel on MTBE. 

BACKGROUND

The Federal Reformulated Gasoline Program was established in the Clean Air Act 

of 1990 as a means to provide reductions in the emissions of air pollutants from 

motor vehicles. The importance of dealing with MTBE contamination is three-fold. 

First, the fact that MTBE is highly water-soluble and absorbs less on soils, relative 

to other components of gasoline means that following a spill or leak it tends to migrate faster and further than other components of gasoline. Secondly, while health 

risks due to MTBE water contamination are still being investigated, contamination 

at low levels does cause taste and odor problems thus rendering the water 

undrinkable. And lastly, the number of studies demonstrating that water systems 

are currently impacted by MTBE. 

By 1998 MTBE had become the 4th highest organic chemical produced in the 

United States. The impact of contamination becomes clear when one looks at the 

situation in South Lake Tahoe, California, which was forced to shut down more than 

half of its supply wells due to impacts or imminent impacts to its wells and is facing 

cleanup costs estimated around $50 million. 

There are also a growing number of studies that demonstrate the local and regional scale of MTBE contamination. For example, one USGS study looked at shallow monitoring wells in newly developed areas of the Boston, Massachusetts metropolitan area which has sand and gravel aquifers and found MTBE in 52% of the 

51

wells. Another USGS study evaluated the occurrence and distribution of MTBE in 

drinking water in northeast and Mid-Atlantic States that involved the collection of 

existing information from 20% of community water systems in the area. MTBE was 

found in detectable quantities in 8.9% of the samples with 1% exceeding 20 ppb (the 

lower limit of EPA’s drinking water advisory). The USGS, as part of the NAWQA 

(National Ambient Water Quality Assessment) Program collected samples between 

August and November 2000 from 30 randomly selected drinking water supply wells 

screened in the unconfined aquifer to assess occurrence and distribution of selected 

pesticides, volatile organic compounds, major inorganic ions, and nutrients. Volatile 

organic chemicals were present in all wells, generally at less than 1 microgram/liter 

(roughly <1 ppb). Chloroform, tetrachloroethene and MTBE were most frequently 

detected VOCs, and were found in at least half of the samples. 17 of 30 samples 

had MTBE detected. 6 samples were between 1 and 10 ppb, 1 sample above the 10 

ppb drinking water standard. 

EXAMPLES OF MTBE CONTAMINATION ACROSS THE U.S. 

In 1998, a car accident in Maine resulted in a spill of less than 20 gallons of gasoline, or less than 2 gallons of MTBE. The incident resulted in the contamination 

of 24 domestic wells located within 2200 feet of the spill. Ten of the wells exceeded 

100 ppb. In response to this and several other incidents, the Governor of Maine directed state health and environmental agencies to undertake a study of the occurrence and concentrations of MTBE in Maine’s drinking water supplies by sampling 

1000 private wells and nearly all regulated public water supplies. MTBE was detected in 16% of the private water supplies, with slightly more than 1% exceeding 

the state drinking water standard of 35 ppb. The questionnaire that accompanied 

the survey found that the wells were not necessarily located near gasoline storage 

tanks or known gasoline spills. MTBE was detected in 16% of the public water supplies tested, but no samples exceeded the 35 ppb. 

Pascoag, Rhode Island is a village on northwest Rhode Island. Pascoag’s water 

supply came from a well field that served about 4000 people. They had added an 

additional well in the spring of 2001, and when first tested, the well contained no 

MTBE. After initial testing MTBE levels began and signaled the beginning of a fivemonth ordeal for the residents of the village. On Labor Day weekend, a multiagency 

response began. The release was traced to a gas station about 1700 feet from the 

well field. In response to an enforcement action by the state, an investigation was 

initiated, and limited targeted remediation began. By the end of October, concentrations had risen to about 1700 ppb. The Rhode Island Department of Health issued 

advisories asking residents to limit showering time, ventilate to reduce exposure to 

MTBE vapors, and reduce overall water use to minimize the pumping of the wells, 

which was drawing MTBE to the well field. By November, the station operators had 

filed for bankruptcy. In mid-November, carbon filters were installed on the water 

system, which reduced contamination to between 40 and 100 ppb. An adjoining 

town, Harrisville, that had been planning a new well field has provided a long-term 

solution. They accelerated installation of the new well field and after initial disputes 

as to the administration of the two water districts; clean drinking water began 

reaching residents on January 19th. The investigation to determine the cause of release continues and remediation in the source area is progressing. The contamination of the Pascoag well field has been a very public issue that seriously impacted 

all the people who live and work in Pascoag. 

The Greenbush area of Hyde Park, New York is another area impacted by MTBE 

contamination. As of last August, the neighborhood had 77 homes with carbon filters on wells, and at least 123 wells had been impacted. Three or four gas stations 

were identified sources of the contamination. Contamination was detected as much 

as 15 years ago at some of the sites. The New York Department of Environmental 

Conservation will contribute $1.9 million of the cost toward the town’s $3.1 million 

system to bring water from Poughkeepsie. 

Bucks and Montgomery Counties, Pennsylvania, have also been dealing with 

MTBE contamination of their water resources. A gasoline station in the town of 

Blue reported a release in May 1998 two days after an explosion occurred at a nearby building. The reported release of a ‘‘few gallons,’’ turned out to be a leak of as 

much as 13,000 gallons, which resulted in the explosion, and evacuation of several 

families from their homes due to gasoline vapors. Fourteen families have been connected to public water because their wells were contaminated. A faulty leak detection device failed to alert the operator about the release. Cleanup is expected to cost 

$5 million, which will likely come from a state fund, since the operator has no assets. . 

52

In New Hampshire, slightly over 16% of public water supplies have MTBE at 0.5 

ppb or higher. Of the private water supplies sampled, 27% had MTBE detected. 

In New Jersey, 15% of community water systems had detectable MTBE (>0.5 

ppb), in one area in the northern part of the state, up to 43% of the domestic wells 

had detectable MTBE. MTBE has been detected in 93% of private wells in Cranberry Lake area where gasoline-powered boats are used, and the wells draw their 

water from the lake. 

Beginning in January 2001, the EPA Office of Drinking Water, as part of the Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, now requires that public water supplies 

serving more than 10,000 people include MTBE sampling. This sampling is to collect 

information on occurrence of MTBE in drinking water, to determine whether the 

problem is serious enough to warrant developing a drinking water standard. They 

also require sampling of a ‘‘representative number’’ of small systems (serving 

<10,000 people) which is crucial in gaining a complete picture of MTBE contamination. For example, Delaware has 5 systems serving more than 10,000 people yearround, while approximately 575 systems serve less than 10,000 people. When the 

State of Delaware started testing for MTBE in June 2000, of the 210 samples collected in the first few months of testing, 38 samples or 18% had detections of 

MTBE, two exceeded the 10 ppb Delaware MTBE drinking water standard that became official on May 10, 2002. 

Last summer and early fall, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and 

Environmental Control and Public Health sampled public wells and surface water 

intakes within a 1-mile radius of known hazardous waste sites in unconfined 

aquifers. Delaware has over 400 public drinking water supply wells that are 

screened in unconfined parts of the shallow aquifer alone. 39 wells and 4 surface 

water intakes were sampled, both raw and treated water, for a total of 58 samples. 

The samples were analyzed for 69 regulated chemicals, 10 chemicals with secondary 

standards, and 108 other chemicals. Of the 58 samples, MTBE and chloroform were 

detected in 21 samples. MTBE was the only chemical that exceeded a Delaware or 

EPA maximum contaminant level (MCL). These included two wells with MTBE at 

12 and 16 ppb, and one of those wells has more recently increased to 30 ppb. 

In Delaware, as in most other states, domestic wells are normally only sampled 

for MTBE near Leaking Underground Storage Tanks (LUST) sites, where potential 

for impact is suspected. Approximately 60 domestic wells have been impacted, with 

the earliest discovered in 1989, well before reformulated gasoline was used. Wells 

screened as deep as 260 feet have had detects for MTBE, although most wells impacted were shallower than 50 feet. Two LUST sites have impacted 15-18 wells 

each. When a well is impacted, the first response is normally carbon filters on the 

well, monitoring, followed by deep replacement well, or extension of a waterline. It 

costs from $3000-$5000/well/year for filters, and $8-10,000 to drill deeper replacement well. We recently extended a water line approximately 1000 feet, due to two 

impacted wells that served 5 connections. The cost was $450,000. Initially, a deeper 

well was drilled to replace one well, but the ground water at 100 feet also contained 

MTBE. 

As more studies on MTBE contamination are being completed across the nation 

the extent of the problem is becoming fairly well known. Further concerns are being 

raise by indications that upgraded tanks that meet the 1998 standards are still 

leaking. Although there is difficulty in separating problems with design and construction of underground storage tank systems from operator errors or lack of training this issue still needs to be addressed. 

I commend the Subcommittee for taking the time to evaluate and focus on the 

extent of MTBE contamination in our nation’s water supplies. I would be happy to 

respond to any questions you might have regarding my testimony. 

References 

Occurrence and Distribution of Methyl tert-Butyl Ether and Other Volatile Organic Compounds in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic Regions of the United States (1993-1998). US Geological Survey Water Resources Investigation 00-4228. 

Occurrence and Distribution of Selected Contaminants in Public Drinking-Water Supplies in 

the Surficial Aquifer in Delaware. USGS Open-File Report 00-327. 

Source Drinking Water for Selected Public Drinking Water System: Report of Findings. May 

2002. Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control and Department of Health 

and Human Services.

Mr. GILLMOR. Thank you very much. We will go to Dr. Williams. 

53

STATEMENT OF PAMELA WILLIAMS 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of 

the subcommittee. I am a senior scientist with Exponent, which is 

a consulting firm headquartered in Menlo Park, California. I would 

like to thank you for the opportunity to present some of my research findings related to MTBE in drinking water, particularly in 

the State of California. And most of this research has been published in the literature as well as presented at various technical 

conferences over the last few years. 

The first issue that I would like to address relates to the common 

perception that MTBE contamination of drinking water supplies is 

widespread and growing. A review of the available water monitoring data in California, however, does not support these claims 

and, in fact, of all the public drinking water supplies that have 

been monitored for and reported for MTBE, only about 1 percent 

or less of all of those sources have been found to contain MTBE at 

any level over the last 6 years. 

In addition, contrary to some of the projections that were made 

a couple of years ago, MTBE detections have not increased over 

time and, in fact, the number of new sources that have been found 

to contain MTBE has actually decreased in recent years. And this 

is most likely a result of the new tank upgrade program that has 

been implemented in California as well as the ban on two-stroke 

engines in certain waterways. 

As noted earlier today and in previous testimony by USGS, even 

when MTBE is detected, it tends to be found at very low concentration levels, and these are levels that are typically below California’s 

secondary and primary standards for MTBE, both of which, I might 

add, are very conservative estimates to begin with and are far 

below the U.S. EPA’s advisory level of 20 to 40 parts per billion. 

I have a background in public health and what I find to be of 

even greater interest is the finding that other chemicals, such as 

TCE and PCE tend to be found more often and at greater concentration levels than MTBE in California’s drinking water. I think 

that these findings help to illustrate how our current focus and energy directed toward MTBE may be misguided if our real intent 

here is to protect public health and the environment and reduce 

risks. 

The second issue that I would like to comment on relates to the 

frequent misrepresentation of MTBE as a human carcinogen. In reality, there is no national or international regulatory body or agency that has classified MTBE as a human carcinogen. Furthermore, 

the U.S. EPA states that its advisory level for MTBE is about 

100,000 times below exposure levels found to cause any adverse effect in animals. 

I think it is, therefore, very unlikely that MTBE, at current environmental exposure levels, would cause any risk to public health. 

The final issue that I would like to discuss relates to the risks 

and benefits of MTBE. While the risks—while the perceived risks 

of MTBE, such as significant and widespread water contamination, 

are not supported by the current available data, the benefits of 

MTBE and, I mean, in particular the air quality benefits, have 

been well documented. 

54

1Maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) are enforceable and represent the maximum permissible level of a contaminant in water delivered to users of a public water system. In California, 

the primary MCL (13 ppb) was established to be protective of cancer effects, while the secondary 

MCL (5 ppb) was established to address taste and odor concerns 

On the other hand, very little is known about the alternatives to 

MTBE such as ethanol, which may end up resulting in greater 

risks to human health or the environment. 

It will ultimately be up to decisionmakers, such as yourselves, to 

weigh the risks and benefits of MTBE as well as for the alternative 

to ensure the greatest benefits and the fewest risks to society. 

In closing, although MTBE has certainly impacted some drinking 

water sources in California, the most notable being those in Santa 

Monica and South Lake Tahoe, the productions about widespread 

and high-level contamination of MTBE have just not materialized. 

The risks and benefits of MTBE need to be evaluated in a fair, 

comprehensive and quantitative manner, and the risks and benefits of the alternative need to undergo the same thoroughness and 

scientific scrutiny as that for MTBE. I thank you for your time and 

I will take any questions. 

[The prepared statement of Pamela Williams follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF PAMELA WILLIAMS, SENIOR SCIENTIST, EXPONENT

Thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee for the invitation 

to appear here today. I appreciate the opportunity to discuss the impact of MTBE 

on drinking water supplies, particularly in California, and the potential threat to 

public health from exposure to MTBE in drinking water. Over the past few years, 

I have conducted extensive research on MTBE and other volatile organic compounds 

(VOCs). I have presented my findings in approximately 7 published manuscripts 

and 12 presentations at various conferences nationwide. During this period, I have 

found that much misinformation has been circulated, and many misperceptions 

exist, about MTBE. I hope to help clarify some of these issues for you in my testimony today. 

MTBE IN DRINKING WATER

A common perception is that there is widespread contamination of drinking water 

supplies in the U.S. due to MTBE, particularly in California, and that the degree 

of contamination is increasing over time. It is also believed that ground water 

sources are at greater risk of MTBE contamination than surface water sources. 

Analysis of the available drinking water data, however, does not support these 

claims. In fact, MTBE was detected in 1% or less of all sampled drinking water 

sources in California from 1996 to 2001, and MTBE was detected approximately 5 

to 10 times more often in surface water sources than ground water sources during 

this period. Furthermore, detections of MTBE in California surface water sources 

decreased by about 50% from 1998 to 2001, most likely due to a ban on the use of 

two-stroke engines in selected surface water bodies. Contrary to prior claims and 

projections, detections of MTBE in California drinking water have not increased 

over time, and the annual rate of new MTBE detections has actually decreased in 

recent years for both ground water and surface water sources (likely due to the implementation of a new underground tank program in California and the ban on twostroke engines). 

Even when MTBE is detected in drinking water, the concentrations are typically 

very low. For example, approximately 87% of detected MTBE concentrations were 

below California’s primary (health-based) standard of 13 parts per billion (ppb), and 

about 72% were below the State secondary (aesthetic-based) standard of 5 ppb from 

1995 to 2001.1 The average concentration of MTBE detected in California drinking 

water sources was less than 8 ppb from 1997 to 2001. The average concentration 

of MTBE in water sources where it was detected was higher before 1997; the average was made higher due to the sampling of the Arcadia and Charnock wells in 

Santa Monica, which had been affected by a nearby leaking underground storage 

tank. It should be noted that California’s drinking water standards are very conservative, and the secondary standard in particular is 4 to 8—times lower than the 

USEPA advisory level of 20-40 ppb, which is based on taste and odor effects. These 

55

2 Cancer potencies (often expressed as a cancer slope factor or CSF) are defined as an upper 

bound, approximating a 95% confidence limit, on the increased cancer risk from a lifetime exposure to an agent. OEHHA’s CSF for MTBE is 1.8 (mg/kg-day)-1. OEHHA’s CSFs for benzene, 

TCE, and PCE are 100, 21, and 10 (mg/kg-day)-1, respectively. 

findings suggest that current levels of MTBE in drinking water are unlikely to pose 

a health or, in most cases, even an aesthetic concern. In our own independent analyses, we have found that current levels of MTBE in California drinking water pose 

a negligible health risk to water consumers. 

According to recent statements made by the U.S. Geological Survey, similar findings for MTBE have been observed in other regions (see Statement by Robert M. 

Hirsh to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on November 1, 2001). Specifically, various national assessments by USGS have indicated that MTBE levels 

do not appear to be increasing over time, that MTBE is typically present at very 

low concentrations in shallow ground water within areas where MTBE is used, and 

that MTBE levels are almost always below those of concern from aesthetic and public health standpoints. Recent findings from USGS, based on an evaluation of 954 

randomly selected community water systems nationwide, also found that the median 

concentration of MTBE detected was only 0.54 ppb. 

Perhaps of greater interest is that, besides MTBE, many other VOCs have been 

detected in California’s drinking water. For example, chloroform, tetrachloroethylene (PCE), and trichloroethylene (TCE) were found in approximately 10-

14% of sampled drinking water sources in California from 1996 to 2001. In addition, 

many of the drinking water sources in which PCE and TCE were detected (i.e., 

about 18-22% of sources from 1995 to 2001) had concentrations that exceeded California’s primary standard of 5 ppb for these chemicals. These findings suggest that 

the intense efforts to regulate or decrease exposures to certain chemicals, such as 

MTBE, may be misguided from a public health perspective, given the presence of 

other chemicals in drinking water that may pose a greater risk. 

TOXICITY OF MTBE

Another common perception—one that is often fueled by the media—is that 

MTBE is a human carcinogen. This belief stems from reports that MTBE has been 

found to be carcinogenic to laboratory animals at very high doses. However, these 

animal studies have several important limitations with respect to understanding the 

carcinogenic potential of MTBE in humans, and do not provide any clear evidence 

of human cancer potential. In fact, no national or international regulatory agency 

has classified MTBE as a known human carcinogen. Although few national (or international) regulatory guidelines exist for MTBE, the USEPA believes that its aesthetic standard (20-40 ppb) is at least 20,000 to 100,000 (or more) times lower than 

the range of exposure levels in which cancer or non-cancer effects have been observed in rodent tests. 

In California, the Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) 

considers MTBE to be an animal carcinogen and a possible human carcinogen. 

OEHHA is the only state or national agency in the country that has derived a cancer potency value for MTBE. A comparison of their value for MTBE with those for 

benzene, TCE, and PCE indicates that OEHHA considers the latter three to be 

about 5 to 50 times more potent than MTBE (when considering oral exposures).2

Several aspects of OEHHA’s approach for evaluating MTBE’s cancer potential in humans have been criticized, including their use of unvalidated non-human models 

and reliance on animal tumor data that may not be relevant to humans. 

In short, the USEPA has not conducted a cancer risk assessment for MTBE. The 

analysis by OEHHA, which is very controversial, is the only one that is currently 

available. 

RISKS AND BENEFITS OF MTBE

Despite perceptions to the contrary, developing and using any material or technology entails some degree of risk. Decision makers are therefore faced with the 

challenge of a ‘‘risk/benefit balancing act,’’ in which they must decide whether the 

benefits achieved by a particular technology or material are greater than the associated risks. The risks and benefits of alternative technologies or materials must also 

be evaluated, with the same level of thoroughness, to ensure that decisions ultimately provide the greatest benefits (and fewest risks) to society. 

In the case of MTBE, the tradeoff is clearly between air quality benefits and potential threats to water quality. While the air quality benefits of gasoline containing 

MTBE have been documented in California and elsewhere, claims of widespread 

MTBE contamination of drinking water supplies have not been proven. In addition, 

56

preliminary data suggest that alternatives to MTBE, such as ethanol, may result 

in increased health risks to the public, while providing few additional benefits. Of 

particular concern is the potential for increased air emissions and greater water 

contamination by other gasoline constituents (e.g., benzene) if ethanol is substituted 

for MTBE. Other life-cycle impacts may occur from the production and transportation of alternative fuels. 

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

The decision about whether or not to ban or diminish the use of MTBE, or to require a specific replacement for MTBE, requires the consideration of many factors. 

Although public perceptions are certainly important to policy makers, decisions 

about whether a chemical poses a significant threat to human health or the environment should be based on a review of the scientific data. 

MTBE has clearly impacted a few drinking water sources in the U.S. (most notably the Santa Monica wells in the mid-1990’s), and these incidents have raised legitimate concerns about the longer-term use of this oxygenate in gasoline. However, 

the assertion that there is widespread or growing contamination of MTBE in drinking is not supported by either historical or more recent drinking water data. In most 

cases, detected concentrations of MTBE are also significantly below the USEPA advisory level for MTBE. The benefits from banning or diminishing the use of MTBE 

are therefore likely to be inconsequential in terms of reducing human exposures or 

health risk, particularly when evaluated in the broader context of other drinking 

water contaminants. A more comprehensive (life-cycle) analysis of alternative 

oxygenates or fuels is required to better inform decision makers about the potential 

risks, costs, and benefits of these alternatives. 

I hope that the information I have presented here today helps clarify some of the 

common misperceptions and factual data about MTBE. Again, I appreciate the opportunity to testify about my knowledge and research on MTBE. I would be pleased 

to respond to any questions that you may have.

Mr. GILLMOR. Thank you very much, Dr. Williams. 

Mr. Jones. 

STATEMENT OF JAMES R. JONES 

Mr. JONES. Thank you. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, I am James R. Jones, President of the Board of Directors in South Tahoe Public Utility District. On behalf the District, 

I am honored to be here today to address one of the most serious 

drinking water challenges that we have encountered in recent 

memory: The MTBE contamination. I will summarize my remarks 

and request that my written statement be included in the record. 

The District provides regional waste water treatment and supplies domestic water to the South Shore of Lake Tahoe. We serve 

approximately 17,000 permanent residents and more than 1.8 million citizens who visit the Tahoe region annually. Our source of 

drinking water is exclusively from the groundwater aquifer in that 

area. 

H.R. 4, section 504 as passed by the House, authorizes the U.S. 

EPA administrator to use $200 million of the Leaking Underground 

Storage Trust fund revenues to respond to the MTBE-related 

needs. Similarly, the Senate passed version of H.R. 4 contains authority to conduct inspections, actions against violators of the underground storage tank program. The Committee, the House, and 

the Senate are to be commended for this action. I especially want 

to recognize the efforts of Representative Capps and Waxman and 

our Congressman John Doolittle. 

It is a good start. However, the costs associated with the MTBE 

cleanup are tremendous. Assessments, corrective actions and inspections are an important tool to prevent further contamination. 

We need to do more for the communities that today are suffering 

57

the consequences of MTBE. The LUST trust must be used to its 

maximum, including providing clean-up assistance to communities. 

I want to draw your attention to a number of important points. 

First, MTBE contamination is a potential health issue. Once contamination occurs, the potential for health consequences of ingesting MTBE may exist for a long periods because of the MTBE’s slow 

breakdown in the groundwater aquifer. 

Second, MTBE contamination is a consumer confidence issue. 

The turpentine-like quality of the contamination makes drinking 

water impossible even at low—to drink even at the low concentrations, very low concentrations. Third, the MTBE contamination is 

a technological challenge. One of the biggest problems we have experienced is responding to this contamination. Quite simply it is 

difficult and expensive to remove MTBE from the water supply. 

The contamination will remain in our water supply for decades. 

Fourth, the use of MTBE, we believe, was an ill-advised decision 

that has potentially created tens of billions of dollars of cleanup 

needed across the country that could have been avoided. It is important that we do not ask the innocent ratepayers to pay for the 

cost of this cleanup. 

Since 1997, 15 of our wells have been shut down or suffered limited pumping to contain the contamination. This translates to over 

a third of our wells. As a result of this situation, in 1998, the District filed a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court against 31 defendants. To this date, the District has settled with 26 of the defendants for approximately—this is settled out of court, with 26 of 

the defendants for approximately $34 million. This action was 

taken to recover the costs incurred to the water system as a result 

of the MTBE. 

How did this happen? The origin of the contamination was from 

14 different gas stations of the 17 we have in our community. Our 

area’s geography is a confined basin with high groundwater 

aquifers and poor soils that are highly susceptible to the fast moving MTBE. 

When the District sought assistance, the very State and local 

agencies that were charged with protecting the public health and 

environment were slow to react to our problem. The responsible 

parties refused to lend a hand and the regulators informed us that 

there were no programs or resources available to address the situation. The District was forced to initiate the lawsuit to address our 

needs. 

The suit found that the MTBE—the suit found that the industry 

knew that MTBE would reach groundwater, pollute public water 

supplies and threaten the public health. We learned a number of 

things about MTBE. Once the MTBE enters the environment, there 

is no easy solution to respond to the impaired water supply. The 

solution is expensive from a treatment as well as a staff resource 

perspective. You need to respond without delay to reduce the 

spread of that MTBE plume. 

How can we avoid creating future MTBE situations? First, avoid 

any effort to provide refiners and distributors of MTBE or other 

fuel additives liability protection. Our experience demonstrates 

that the consequences of using MTBE were well-known. The decision to proceed armed with the knowledge should never be reVerDate Sep 04 2002 14:00 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081391 PO 00000 Frm 00061 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\80670 80670
58

warded with a get-out-of-jail free card. Simply stated, water agencies should have the freedom to secure remedies from the responsible parties. 

Second, the current regulatory program governing underground 

storage tanks fails to address the problems that have contributed 

to the crisis. The program should reformed to provide meaningful, 

financial and technical support to the communities. 

Third, spend the money. The current appropriation request for the LUST fund program is $73 million. The trust fund has now 

more than $1.7 billion in receipts. If ever there was a time that we 

should use our resources, it is now. I urge you to work with your 

colleagues on the committee on appropriations to leverage the trust 

fund to its maximum potential. 

In closing, the District believes that a mix of aggressive enforcement, Federal cleanup assistance and an effective regulatory program that alerts the communities to potential problems before they 

get out of control we can avoid the serious public health and environmental threat that our district has had to address. 

Again, thank you for the privilege to appear here today. I look 

forward to responding to any of your questions. 

[The prepared statement of James R. Jones follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF JAMES R. JONES, MEMBER, BOARD OF DIRECTORS, SOUTH

TAHOE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT

Mr. Chairman, members of the Subcommittee, I am James R. Jones, a Director 

of the Board of Directors of the South Tahoe Public Utility District (District). On 

behalf of the District, I am honored to be here today to address one of the most serious drinking water quality challenges that we, as public officials, have had to encounter in recent memory—MTBE contamination. 

I also appear before you today as a former U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

and U.S. Bureau of Reclamation employee. My educational training is as a Professional Civil Engineer. And in the instance of MTBE, former California Governor 

Pete Wilson appointed me to sit on the Advisory Panel on Leaking Underground 

Fuel Tanks and MTBE. 

As background, the District provides regional water treatment and supply and 

wastewater treatment services. Our service area comprises the Counties of Alpine 

and El Dorado, California covering more than 380 square miles. We serve approximately 17,000 permanent residents and more than 1.8 million citizens who visit the 

Tahoe region annually. Our source of drinking water is exclusively groundwater and 

annual production is 2.4 billion gallons 

For more than 28 years, the District has prided itself in delivering the highest 

quality drinking water supplies while protecting what has become one of the world’s 

most valuable ecosystems, Lake Tahoe. In 1997, our mission changed overnight from 

a water supplier and wastewater treatment operator to an organization trying to 

grapple with the problems created by MTBE contamination. Over the past several 

years, the District has been on the front lines of the MTBE battle. 

I have been requested as part of this hearing to comment on provisions of H.R. 

4, the energy bill, currently pending before Congress that address MTBE and the 

underground storage tank program. H.R. 4 as passed by the House contains section 

504. Section 504 would authorize the U.S. EPA Administrator to use not more than 

$200 million of the Leaking Underground Storage Trust fund revenues to respond 

to MTBE-related investigations and corrective action needs. Similarly, the Senatepassed version of H.R. 4 contains section 832, which would direct the use of the 

trust fund’s revenues in a manner similar to the House version except that it appears the funding is phased over five years rather than being made available as necessary. We would encourage the House language be accepted during conference committee negotiations. The Committee and the House are to be commended for this 

action. It is a good start to ensure that future MTBE catastrophes are avoided or 

mitigated without delay. However, the costs associated with MTBE cleanups are tremendous and estimated to cost in the tens of billions of dollars. As I will note later 

in my statement, the LUST trust fund’s resources must be used to their maximum 

utility. The point I want to emphasize with you is that the estimated cost to respond 

59

to MTBE contaminated groundwater supplies ranges from $29 to $40 billion dollars. 

The provisions of H.R. 4 will only begin the process; we should not anticipate that 

these resources would adequately address our local communities’ needs. 

Our communities have experienced the closure of a substantial portion of our 

water supply because of MTBE contamination. This has created a serious potential 

for water shortages should we experience any serious drought conditions. So, as we 

consider the implications of MTBE contamination, I want to draw your attention to 

a few important points that we have encountered over the past several years. 

First, MTBE contamination is a potential health issue. Once contamination occurs, the potential for health consequences of ingesting MTBE may exist for a long 

period because of MTBE’s slow breakdown in the environment. 

Second, MTBE contamination is a consumer confidence issue. The turpentine-like 

quality of the contamination makes drinking the water impossible, even at very low 

concentrations. The secondary MCL in California illustrates this fact. It was set at 

5 parts per billion. 

Third, MTBE contamination is a technological challenge. One of the bigger problems we have experienced is responding to the contamination. Quite simply, it is 

difficult and expensive to remove MTBE from a water supply. The contamination 

can remain in our water supplies for decades. 

Fourth, MTBE contamination is an economic issue. For an area like Lake Tahoe, 

tourism is vital to our local economy’s health. A water shortage created by MTBE 

contamination has devastating effects to the vibrancy of the local economy. 

Fifth, MTBE contamination cleanup is an equity issue. The use of MTBE, we believe, was an ill advised if not pernicious decision that has potentially created tens 

of billions of dollars in cleanup needs across the country that could have been avoided. It is important that we do not ask innocent ratepayers to pay the cost of cleanup. This contamination occurred because of a blatant disregard for the known hazards of MTBE use. 

Each of these points leads us to a conclusion that Congress must take decisive 

action to remedy the threats generated by MTBE use. Equally important, Congress 

must take action to ensure that we do not repeat the steps that led to MTBE contamination. 

With these points in mind, I would like to turn attention to how the District and 

our ratepayers found ourselves in the position of becoming the first victim of MTBE 

contamination, the lessons we learned, and our recommendations on how we should 

proceed to address local communities’ cleanup needs. 

In 1997, the first of 8 wells were contaminated. As of today, 15 wells have been 

shutdown or suffered limited pumping to contain the contamination. This translates 

into over a third of our wells. As a result of this situation, in 1998 the District filed 

a lawsuit in San Francisco Superior Court against 31 defendants including refiner, 

distributor, and local retailers. These included Exxon, Shell, TOSCO, Atlantic Richfield, Lyondell (formerly ARCO Chemical), Chevron, BP, and Ultramar. 

To date, the District has settled with twenty-six of the defendants for approximately $34 million. This action was taken to recover the costs incurred to the water 

system as a result of MTBE contamination. 

In 2002, the District learned that it had received a verdict in its case, finding the 

defendants guilty. At this stage, the case is proceeding with the penalty phase. Because of a court order that prohibits comment on any aspects of the pending litigation, I can only say that the District is hopeful that once the case is closed our ratepayers will be fully compensated for the tragic and avoidable circumstances we have 

had to deal with for the past several years. 

In 1999, Governor Davis issued an Executive Order to phase out MTBE in California gasoline by December 2002, and to provide Lake Tahoe with special consideration to secure MTBE free gasoline without delay. (This has been extended for an 

additional year.) In addition, the District adopted a non-detection policy for MTBE 

in its drinking water. Because of the contamination, the District was also forced to 

enact a water shortage contingency plan. In 2000, El Dorado County followed with 

its own ordinance banning the use of MTBE. 

The question that comes to mind is: How did this happen? The answer is not a 

simple one. The origin of the contamination was from 14 different gas stations’

tanks. Second, our area’s geography is a confined basin with a high groundwater 

aquifer and porous soils that were highly susceptible to the fast spreading MTBE. 

From a different perspective, when the District sought assistance, the very state 

and local agencies that were charged with protecting public health and the environment were slow to react to the problem. So, as contamination continued to spread 

and authorities failed to react, we were forced to initiate actions in this vacuum. 

We conducted a series of investigations to identify the problem. We organized a 

Potential Responsible Parties meeting to determine if we could work together to 

60

solve the problem. Working closely with the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) we encouraged strong state and county enforcement of regulations. We 

imposed water conservation measures to anticipate the possibility of losing more 

wells. We sought federal and state assistance. And, we enacted a groundwater management plan ordinance that would provide the necessary teeth to protect our limited resource. 

As a result of these activities, we discovered the nature, extent and impact of the 

problem for our community. Unfortunately, the costs of the response were dramatic. 

Estimates of the cleanup exceed $45 million. To date, we have expended more than 

$9 million for cleanup and modifications to the system. This is for a water purveyor 

with an annual budget of approximately $11 million. The District was in no position 

to initiate the cleanup because of the cost, and because our ratepayers and we were 

not responsible for the problem. 

When we turned for help, we found ourselves in a no-win situation. The responsible parties refused to lend a hand and the regulators informed us that there was 

no program or resources available to address this situation. Effectively we were told 

go away. The District was forced to initiate the lawsuit I mentioned earlier to address our needs. 

The suit found the industry knew that MTBE would reach groundwater, pollute 

public water supplies, and threaten public health. As I mentioned, we are now in 

the penalty phase of that trial. 

After years of struggling with a public health and environmental threat, we 

learned a number of lessons. 

Once MTBE enters the environment, there is no easy solution to respond to the 

impaired water supply. The solution is expensive from a treatment point of view as 

well as local staff resources and finance perspectives. You need to respond without 

delay to reduce the movement, spread and dilution of the MTBE plume. And last, 

the current regulatory agency framework is unable to provide timely assistance. 

Let me now turn attention to how we can avoid creating future MTBE-like situations. 

First and foremost, avoid any effort to provide refiners and distributors of MTBE 

or other fuel additives liability protections. Our experiences demonstrate that the 

consequences of using MTBE were well known. The decision to proceed armed with 

this knowledge should never be rewarded with a get out of jail card. Simply stated 

local, state and federal governments should have the freedom to secure remedies 

from the responsible parties. 

Second, the current regulatory program governing underground tanks fails to address the problems that have contributed to the MTBE crisis. We have had very 

good relations with U.S. EPA’s Office of Underground Storage Tanks, but the resource base and authorities to respond to MTBE are stretched. The program should 

be reformed to provide meaningful assistance (financial and technical) support to 

communities that are grappling with this fast moving contaminant. 

Third, the existing underground storage tank program needs a thorough top to 

bottom review. Clearly, the circumstances surrounding the contaminations origin in 

Lake Tahoe illustrates that there are cracks in the regulatory program that allow 

leaks such as those experienced by the District to endanger public health and the 

environment. 

Fourth, spend the money. The current appropriation for the LUST program is $77 million dollars. The trust fund has more than $1.7 billion in receipts. If ever there 

was a time that we should use our resources it is now. I urge you to work with your 

colleagues on the Committee on Appropriations to leverage the trust fund to its 

maximum potential. 

In closing, the District believes that with a mix of aggressive enforcement, federal 

cleanup assistance and an effective regulatory program that alerts communities to 

potential problems before they get out of control, we can avoid a repetition of the 

serious public health and environmental threats that the District has had to address. 

Again, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I look forward 

to responding to any questions you may have.

Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Perkins. 

STATEMENT OF CRAIG PERKINS 

Mr. PERKINS. Thank you, Chairman. I would like to share with 

you today the key lessons we have learned from our painful experience in Santa Monica with underground fuel storage tanks and 

MTBE. Santa Monica is a city of nearly 90,000 permanent resiVerDate Sep 04 2002 14:00 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081391 PO 00000 Frm 00064 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\80670 80670
61

dents, and over 200,000 daily visitors. The city depends heavily on 

its groundwater for its drinking water supply. After many years of 

effort by 1995 we had become 70 percent water self-sufficient. This 

was an extraordinary accomplishment for southern California. By 

using our sustainable local water supplies we were therefore able 

to reduce our reliance on outside sources of water, increasingly 

scarce from northern California and the Colorado River. 

This all changed in 1996 when Santa Monica was hit with our 

drinking water catastrophe caused by MTBE. Within a 6-month period in 1996, MTBE forced Santa Monica to shut down most of its 

water wells. These wells had accounted for one-half of the total 

daily water supply in Santa Monica, and we must now import over 

80 percent of our drinking water, putting further strain on California’s already fragile water supply system. 

The effects of MTBE can be very devastating. As you have heard, 

it travels quickly and readily dissolves in water, and it has an uncanny ability to find its way into drinking water wells. Although 

gasoline has been around for decades and we have been producing 

oil since 1922, it was only relatively recently with MTBE that we 

ever found any gasoline contaminants. MTBE attacks swiftly. Once 

it is discovered, the levels in our wells rose very quickly, more 

quickly than any other contaminant that we had ever encountered. 

At the time our first well was shut down, the level had risen to 610 

parts per billion, which is nearly 50 times the current State standard. As has been mentioned by Mr. Jones, MTBE strikes at the 

level of public confidence in the safety of drinking water supplies. 

People will not drink water that tastes or smells like turpentine, 

nor should they have to. 

With hard work and perseverance, Santa Monica will eventually 

overcome our MTBE crisis, but the price will be steep. The projected cost to just clean up Santa Monica’s main well field runs in 

the hundreds of millions of dollars. Current estimates for the total 

cost of nationwide MTBE cleanup exceed $30 billion and counting. 

Clearly the costs of remediation for MTBE and other water contamination must ultimately be paid for by the polluter but, unfortunately, those companies responsible for causing the MTBE pollution in Santa Monica and other communities have not yet stepped 

forward to do the right thing. So until they do, the significant financial burden for MTBE cleanup rests unfairly on the backs of 

our water customers. 

We need to make sure that we are doing everything that we can 

to keep underground storage tanks from leaking in the first place, 

even the newest underground storage tank systems leak and the 

leaks are often not in the tanks themselves, but in the piping that 

connects the tanks to the fuel dispensers. A primary focus needs 

to be placed on underground storage tank inspection and training 

and enforcement. 

Too often in the past, operators of underground fuel tanks have 

been able to act irresponsibly because the threat of enforcement 

was remote or even non existent. Let’s make sure that the tools 

and resources are in place so the noncompliant tanks can’t be used. 

Most importantly, we need to stop using MTBE as quickly as 

possible. The longer we continue to widely distribute, store, and 

dispense it, the worst water contamination problem will become not 

62

only in California, but in the rest of the country. And how can we 

concentrate our resources on cleaning up the problem when we 

have to respond to the plague of new tank releases causing MTBE 

contamination. 

In conclusion, our two irrefutable facts that have emerged from 

our odyssey as the poster child for MTBE, if you will, are that underground storage tanks leak, a leak-proof tank is one of the greatest oxymorons of history, and it is extremely difficult to get polluters to pay for the cleanup once their pollution is identified. We 

must change our current policies with respect to MTBE and underground storage tank management if we hope to have a better 

chance of not repeating the mistakes of the past. I thank you very 

much for the privilege of testifying today. 

[The prepared statement of Craig Perkins follows:]

PREPARED STATEMENT OF CRAIG PERKINS, DIRECTOR OF ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC

WORKS, CITY OF SANTA MONICA, CALIFORNIA

On behalf of the Mayor and City Council of the City of Santa Monica I want to 

thank you for the opportunity to give testimony before this subcommittee. I am the 

Director of Environment and Public Works for Santa Monica and one of my major 

areas of responsibility is management of the City’s drinking water production and 

distribution system. I would like to share with you today the key lessons we have 

learned from our painful experiences with underground fuel storage tanks and 

MtBE in Santa Monica. Santa Monica is a city of nearly 90,000 permanent residents 

and over 200,000 daily visitors. The City depends heavily on groundwater for its 

drinking water supply. After many years of effort, by 1995 we had been able to 

maximize the use of local groundwater supplies and achieve 70% water self-sufficiency. This was an extraordinary accomplishment in arid Southern California. By 

using our sustainable local water resources we were therefore able to reduce our reliance on increasingly scarce water imported from Northern California and the Colorado River. This all changed in 1996 when Santa Monica was hit with a drinking 

water catastrophe caused by MtBE. Within a six month period in 1996 MtBE forced 

Santa Monica to shut down most of its water wells. These wells had accounted for 

one-half of the total daily water supply in Santa Monica. We must now import more 

than 80 percent of our drinking water, putting further strain on California’s already 

fragile water supply system. The effects of MtBE can be devastating:

• Once released from a tank or pipeline, MtBE travels quickly and readily dissolves 

in water unlike the other chemicals in gasoline; 

• MtBE has an uncanny ability to find its way into drinking water wells. Although 

gasoline has been around for decades, it is only the relatively recent addition 

of MtBE that has caused widespread water contamination in Santa Monica and 

elsewhere; 

• MtBE attacks swiftly. Once discovered, MtBE levels in the City’s wells rose more 

quickly than any other water contaminant we had ever encountered. At the 

time that one of our first wells was shut down, the MtBE contamination had 

soared to 610 parts per billion, nearly fifty times the current state standard; 

and 

• MtBE strikes at the heart of public confidence in the safety of drinking water supplies. People will not drink water that smells and tastes like turpentine, nor 

should they be expected to. 

With hard work and perseverance, Santa Monica will eventually overcome this 

MtBE crisis, but the price will be steep. The projected cost to just clean up Santa 

Monica’s main well field is well over several hundred million dollars. Current estimates for the total cost of nationwide MtBE clean-up are $30 billion and counting. 

Clearly, the costs for remediation of MtBE and other water contamination must ultimately be paid for by the polluter. But, unfortunately, those companies responsible 

for causing the MtBE pollution in Santa Monica and many other communities have 

not yet stepped forward to do what’s right. Until they do, the significant financial 

burden to start the MtBE clean-up process is placed unfairly on the backs of our 

water customers. 

We need to make sure that we are doing everything that we can to keep underground storage tanks from leaking in the first place. Even the newest underground 

storage tank systems leak and the leaks are often not in the tanks themselves but 

63

in the piping that connects the tanks to the fuel dispensers. A primary focus needs 

to be placed on underground storage tank inspection, training and enforcement. Too 

often in the past, operators of underground fuel tanks have been able to act irresponsibly because the threat of enforcement was remote or even nonexistent. Let’s 

make sure that the tools and resources are in place so that non-compliant tanks are 

taken out of service and the public and environment are better protected. 

Most importantly, we need to stop using MtBE as quickly as possible. The longer 

we continue to widely distribute, store and dispense MtBE the worse the water contamination problem will become not only in California but throughout the country. 

It is extremely difficult to concentrate our efforts and resources on cleaning up the 

widespread MtBE pollution that has already occurred while we continue to be 

plagued by new MtBE leaks. 

In conclusion, the two irrefutable facts that have emerged from Santa Monica’s 

odyssey as the ‘‘poster child’’ for MtBE water contamination are: 1) underground 

storage tanks leak; and 2) it is extremely difficult to get polluters to pay for the 

clean-up of their pollution. We must change our current policies with respect to 

MtBE and underground storage tank management if we hope to have a better 

chance of not repeating the mistakes of the past. Thank you for the privilege of testifying before the Subcommittee today.

Mr. GILLMOR. Thank you, Mr. Perkins. 

Kind of a general question directed to Mr. Jones, and Mr. Perkins, we have heard conflicting testimony here, probably most of 

which is that MTBE, either there is no evidence it does have these 

horrible effects, at least it hasn’t been established as a carcinogen, 

and we have had MTBE and gasoline since 1979 in California and 

the thrust of your testimony, I take it, this is something that we 

suddenly discovered that horrible polluters are causing to happen. 

I mean, isn’t it a fact that California, I mean, has done nothing 

to stop MTBE and these facts were known? It would seem to me 

at least, at the very least, the State of California is an aider and 

abettor, if not a polluter. So I mean, why are we trying to look for 

somebody behind the tree instead of accepting some responsibility 

yourselves? 

Mr. PERKINS. Well, I will respond first. There certainly are a lot 

of suspects that can be rounded up in terms of the MTBE debacle. 

However, one thing I can tell you very clearly is that the responsible parties are not my customers in Santa Monica. We are the 

victims of bad decisions and gross negligence which was exercised 

by other parties. And so all I am saying——

Mr. GILLMOR. Basically governmental parties. 

Mr. PERKINS. No, we are talking about private companies as well 

as governmental agencies that should have known better. And in 

fact did know better and chose not to act upon that knowledge. So 

I think what I am saying is that clearly the major part of the responsibility lies with the companies that manufacture, distribute it, 

and sold the MTBE gasoline as well as these watchdog agencies 

which really weren’t watching very much at all. 

Mr. JONES. Maybe just add to that yes it has been used since the 

late 1970’s, early 1980’s, but it was in much smaller levels, perhaps 

about 2 percent as an antiknock agent and not in very many of the 

gases. It wasn’t used on the level that we are seeing now until the 

mid 1990’s, I believe. 

The State of California—the University of California did a very 

in-depth study, and they did find that there were some evidences 

that it could be a carcinogenic agent, and with that as well as a 

lot of other information that was provided in that report, Governor 

64

Davis, in 1999, mandated the ban of MTBE by December of this 

year. 

And because of the infrastructure for providing ethanol as a replacement not being in place, he had to put that off for another 

year. It is just not feasible to meet the deadline. 

Mr. GILLMOR. So take another year of cancer. Okay. 

Mr. JONES. That is one the things we are working on. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Let me go to Ms. Ellis. As a State employee of the 

State’s Underground Storage Tank Program, former member of the 

Blue Ribbon Panel, what experience, what recommendations do you 

think are important for us to know regarding reducing the instances of MTBE in groundwater? 

Ms. ELLIS. I would like to comment a little bit about tank standards. The Federal Government has set certain minimums and the 

States must be as stringent or can be more stringent than those 

Federal regulations. Some States have chosen to double-wall their 

entire systems, some haven’t. I also would do leak detection. Leak 

detection is kind of a tricky thing. There are certain allowable leak 

rates depending on the methods that is used. And one of the methods allows a tenth of a gallon per hour a leak rate. That is all the 

system has to be able to pick up. That is 1,700 gallons a year from 

a single allowable leak. 

The State programs are kind of strapped. Right now we are 

shorthanded. We are down hydrologists. We are down inspectors. 

I remember that I think a figure in one of the Government Accounting Offices that our inspectors should be able to inspect 200 

sites per year. I guarantee they would have a tough time doing a 

good job doing maybe 30 or 40 per year if you include all the paperwork and follow-up that goes along with that. They are out in the 

field for a few hours at a site. They are back in the office, you 

know, making phone calls, writing letters, dealing with the Attorney General’s office for sometimes five or 10 times that. So, for us 

to do a more effective job to get the inspections done we need larger 

staffs. 

As a hydrologist, I deal with a hundred different LUST projects, 

a hundred different sites, plus I do a lot of related things. Some 

States, the caseload is 2 or 300 projects per hydrologist. If you consider the number of working days in a year, there are, if I have 

got a few projects that are eating up my time where I am spending 

days and days on them, there are other projects that are going to 

get 10 minutes here and there. 

So staffing for us is very important. Being very shorthanded 

right now I don’t think we probably are allowed to hire anyone 

being in a freeze. We also need money. I know when I first started 

with the State 12 years ago, I don’t remember what the figure was 

that we got in annual trust money, you know, part for staffing and 

part for annual cleanups. But over the years, I do know it has 

dwindled down so we are getting somewhere around $10- or 

$20,000 a year that we are actually able to go out and spend on 

cleanups when you consider staffing and the overhead and everything else for supervising the works. So definitely funding would 

help us. 

We do have some additional State money that we haven’t had in 

the past for orphan tanks that we haven’t been able to address and 

65

some other funding. We did get a LUST fields grant to deal with 

a LUST fields project. But if you look at the staffing in the States 

definitely money is an issue. 

And State programs are quite variable in how they will fund 

cleanup. Some States have the money to move right in and take 

over. We are an RP-led State. Our RPs pay for the cleanups. There 

are very limited number of sites that are reimbursed by the State. 

Some States it is entirely State-funded through their funds. Some 

are insurance driven. So there is a wide variety of ways that cleanups are funded and, you know, money straight to a State may or 

may not do the entire job. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Let me ask you, you mentioned that health risks 

due to MTBE water contamination are still being investigated. 

Could you give us some indication of who might be doing those 

studies and also how many water systems would you estimate are 

taking proactive steps to protect their citizens from drinking water 

problems? 

Ms. ELLIS. Other than the testing that they are doing, I don’t 

know how they really can be proactive. Some communities have different requirements. We require double-wall tank systems and well 

head protection areas and excellent recharge areas. We have a few 

areas that said no double—no single wall tanks anywhere. If you 

are going to be in a wellhead area, it has to be double-wall. There 

are different local regulations on it. But to be proactive, evidently 

they are sample now, our public health department is doing all of 

the systems for volatiles, at least on a one-shot basis, not just those 

few larger systems that we have. 

Mr. GILLMOR. My time is running down, but let me ask you one 

more question. You referenced the incident in the Greenbush area 

of Hyde Park, New York, and some of the contamination referenced 

here has roots extending back before the beginning of the reformulated fuels program. In your experience, would you say that it is 

common to have contamination dating that far back? 

Ms. ELLIS. I think it was very common to have contamination, 

it is just nobody was analyzing for it. I have collected some case 

histories as part of EPA’s task effort and for a few other people, 

and I do have a few sites I can track back and find that I had contamination in the early 1980’s in the groundwater. I did have, I 

think it was the 1989 public well that was impacted. It is just nobody was looking for it. We had a few people that were looking 

back then and mysteriously, MTBE dropped off their list and didn’t 

come around again until we started requiring it. 

So we can go back and pull old lab reports and they will look for 

a peak on a lab report, yes, that is where MTBE is. If we asked 

for—if they had asked for it, we would have told them it was there. 

But we are finding it way back when. And we require analysis for 

it on all the sites now. But in the past nobody did. 

There are still States out there that are not requiring MTBE 

analyses at LUST sites. There are a heck of a lot of other States 

that are not looking for other oxygenates. And they are out there, 

I guarantee it. Because the States that are looking are finding 

DIPE and TAME and TBA. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Pallone. 

66

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I am leaving it to my 

colleague from California to address the California comments that 

were made by the chairman. We will see. 

I wanted to ask Dr. Williams because he was very—I am kind 

of upset by your testimony because you say that current levels of 

MTBE in California pose a negligible health risk toward consumers 

that national assessments by USGS indicated that MTBE levels do 

not appear to be increasing over time, and that intense efforts to 

regulate or decrease exposures to MTBE may be misguided. 

I guess my concern is, I don’t know why you think that the available evidence is sufficient to be so sure that MTBE contamination 

is actually decreasing. Won’t it be some time before we know the 

full extent of the problem once we ban MTBE? And what comfort 

can local areas take from this sort of national perspective that I 

think you are giving to it? It seems like you are suggesting subjecting that the problem is one that we don’t have to address. Even 

the EPA representative when he spoke before, although I thought 

he wasn’t doing enough, certainly suggested that we need to do a 

lot more investigation and they may actually find that there are 

major health problems. 

So why do you feel that the problem is negligible and perhaps 

doesn’t even have to be addressed? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I would like to clarify that I haven’t said—I do 

think that we should continue to do the research on this issue. 

However, the available data that is collected by California, this is, 

their drinking water quality monitoring data base does not show 

that there is widespread MTBE contamination. And as I have said, 

in fact, the detection frequency is low. It has not increased over 

time. As was just mentioned a moment ago, the MTBE has probably been there for many years, it is just that no one was sampling 

for it. It wasn’t a crisis then, it doesn’t appear to be a crisis now. 

The crux of the comment that you are getting at that I mentioned is, it is important to put this in context. We are talking 

about broad public health exposures and risk in drinking water. If 

you really want to go after what is causing,—you know, what is 

causing the greatest risk from drinking water you have to expand 

your search beyond MTBE. We have just submitted a paper for 

publication in ES and T which we have looked at five other VOCs 

in California drinking water. The USGS has just put out some of 

their data where they——

Mr. PALLONE. We heard a lot of that in the previous panel. You 

are not suggesting that this is a problem that we don’t need address, right? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I guess I am taking issue with the fact that calling it a ‘‘problem’’ if you look at it relative to other drinking water 

contaminants. 

Mr. PALLONE. We have—Ms. Capps has talked about this $2 million in the trust fund that is available right now. Would you support spending that money or any of that money now on testing and 

cleanups? Do you think we should be doing that? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I am not familiar with how this money is supposed to be spent. 

Mr. PALLONE. We have the money available for this purpose if 

we want to use it. 

67

Ms. WILLIAMS. I think we should continue the water quality 

monitoring data not only in California, but also in other States. 

Mr. PALLONE. What about cleanup? You wouldn’t support doing 

cleanups? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I guess it depends on the level. 

Mr. PALLONE. Well, I guess I am just trying to get at—you seem 

to be subjecting that this is so negligible that maybe we don’t even 

have to do anything. I think now you are saying that is not the 

case and I am misunderstanding. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. What I am saying is there are a lot of contaminants in drinking water. We don’t have zero levels of many contaminants in drinking water. So when you say do you want to 

clean MTBE, in my mind, I have to ask where we can get the biggest bang for our buck. Are there other contaminants that perhaps 

we might want to spend our resources on where we would get better public health benefits from reducing exposures to those. 

Mr. PALLONE. Not necessarily that we shouldn’t spend some 

money on testing and cleanup, it is just that you feel there may 

be other priorities. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Exactly. 

Mr. PALLONE. Okay. Even if it doesn’t turn out to be a health 

problem, doesn’t the very presence of MTBE cause the water supplies to becoming undrinkable? And isn’t that a major problem 

itself with both potential health and environmental consequences, 

just the fact that you can’t drink it? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I am glad you asked that question actually. The 

U.S. EPA advisory level which is based on odor and taste effects 

of 20 to 40 parts per billion was based on a number of studies that 

have attempted to quantify at what level people can actually sense 

and taste MTBE. They found that that tended to encompass the 

range including folks that are particularly sensitive to taste and 

odor for MTBE. 

So, yes, if you are finding detections in your drinking water 

above those levels that may cause concern based on esthetic reasons. However, in most cases, we are finding that the detections 

are far below that 20 to 40 standard. 

Mr. PALLONE. So you are saying that at some point, it may be 

become undrinkable, but people are making too much of that because in a lot of cases it is drinkable. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. I am saying that there is wide variability in people’s ability to sense and taste and smell MTBE and that probably 

very few people are able to sense this at very low levels that we 

are currently finding in water based on the available taste and 

odor studies that are currently published and available. 

Mr. PALLONE. Okay. I would ask maybe the other panelists similar questions, but let’s move on. I don’t want to monopolize. Thank 

you. 

Mr. GILLMOR. The gentlelady from California. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I am aligning myself 

with our two representatives in the trenches. As a public health 

nurse, I am working right where the people are who consume our 

water supply. Although I am tempted to ask Ms. Ellis, you know, 

there are some States that don’t even gather data on this. 

Ms. ELLIS. There are still some that don’t. 

68

Mrs. CAPPS. I think we have tremendous work to do on all 

oxygenates and what we are trying to do to our water supply in 

order to have air to breathe. We really do need as much research 

as we can. 

But I am going to ask Mr. Perkins and Mr. Jones, if you would 

help me explain to our chairman the plight of the California citizen, the water drinker, if you will. And correct me, I am going to 

lay out a very sketchy scenario. California, early on, was in the 

area that was designated polluting and mandated by EPA to do 

something about it in the form of oxygenates. Am I correct so far? 

So before many other States were even getting into this arena of 

adding things to gasoline to purify the air, we were out there partly 

on our own initiative as a State with the heavy pollution index, but 

also because of mandates by the Federal Government. 

So it is the Federal Government who encouraged this, but we 

have where—you are the pioneers both in Santa Monica and South 

Lake Tahoe, for having been in this so long. So we have seen the 

downside to this whole scenario, both with the additive itself and 

the problems that may result from it, of oxygenates, in this case, 

MTBE, but also the leaks in the underground tanks. 

MTBE is called the canary in the mine, right? It is so permeable. 

This is where I would like you to help pick up the story and explain why I was so frustrated when our colleague Mr. Bilbray a 

good Republican on our committee in the last session led the 

charge to see if we could get a waiver for the State since we had 

come up with levels of protected gasoline non polluting gasoline 

without even using oxygenates, yet we were denied by this Congress for seeking to protect our citizens. 

Mr. PERKINS. I will start. Our city council strongly supported a 

Federal oxygen waiver for California. We were very disappointed at 

the decision that was made and what essentially has been the result is MTBE will continue to be used throughout California for at 

least an additional year. There will be subsequent releases from 

those tanks and fuel systems and it will cause further water contamination. So it is a bad situation and we think that the right decision would have been the waiver. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. We are being held hostage by so-called 

environmental protections when we can provide gasoline that is 

every bit as non invasive of the air quality. At the same time we 

can’t get our hands on enough of the LUST fund to do something 

about the problem. 

Mr. JONES. I totally agree with you and just ditto the comments 

from Mr. Perkins. Luckily in our county, our county supervisors 

passed an ordinance which banned the sale of MTBE gasoline in 

the Lake Tahoe basin. So unless we have an automobile accident 

and a car rolls over like we know of instances where it has, we 

shouldn’t have any more pollution. But this is something that our 

community is going to have to live with for certainly decades. We 

have done quite extensive studies. We had to do it because we were 

going to court over this issue. And we have done some very extensive hydro geological studies that show how the plumes will move 

and how they will be there for many years. And we know what the 

treatment costs may be because they are changing. 

69

We are coming up with some new technologies, or at least refining some of the existing technologies that have been used in other 

areas for water quality treatment to specifically treat MTBE. But 

we are talking about talking about $45 million to clean up the 

problem that we have and we have already expended, our district 

has already expended about $9 million, and this is for a water district whose annual budget is only around $10 or $11 million a year. 

So that is a major cost to us. 

Mrs. CAPPS. It seems unconscionable to me that we are shifting 

the burden of responsibility to consumers and to their local elected 

officials when we are the body that, in the first place, mandated 

the use of oxygenates. And are turning our back on the very people 

who took them seriously, even before it was mandated in many instances and now need some assistance and have the right to come 

and ask for our help. I strongly suggest to our Chair that we move 

forward with good legislation to address the situation at the earliest possible date. 

Mr. GILLMOR. The gentlelady’s time has expired, but we will proceed with another round, so you have another opportunity. Let me 

ask Ms. Williams. Oh, you know what, it is very difficult to overlook Texas. And I apologize. 

Mr. GREEN. In fact, I don’t mind being beat but I never want to 

be overlooked. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate—I will stay 

around for a second round too. 

Dr. Williams, the gentleman just mentioned that Lake Tahoe 

was going to be cleaning their groundwater for decades. Could you 

comment to that in your experience, and is that really going to be 

a problem, the cleanup of groundwater for decades? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Remediation is not my area, but certainly MTBE 

if it is not being remediated, is persistent and may be there for a 

couple of years. I don’t know what the conditions are of their aquifer. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. Let me ask Mr. Jones. Ms. Ellis said that 

wells, at least in her testimony—and I will ask some questions of 

her in a minute—said wells were impacted by lake contamination. 

Is that true of Lake Tahoe that the groundwater that people pump 

out of the wells is impacted by Lake Tahoe? You said you had high 

water tables. 

Mr. JONES. Hydrologically there may be some impact by the gradient from the mountains toward the lake for the most part. And 

the plumes are being moved by that gradients and it is being 

moved through some of our areas that we have wells in. 

Mr. GREEN. Okay. When were two-cycle engines banned on Lake 

Tahoe? 

Mr. JONES. It has been staged over the last about 4 years. The 

jet skis were banned about 3 or 4 years ago. I am not sure of the 

exact dates. I know I have a small sailboat with an auxiliary engine which wasn’t required to be taken off until this season. I only 

use about a gallon a year just getting out of the marina. 

So those types of engines were exempted because of the small 

use. But most of the pollution is coming from underground storage 

tanks. We have seen a significant reduction in the lake itself of 

MTBE after the bans of both the sale of MTBE within the basin 

and the elimination of the two-stroke engines. 

70

Mr. GREEN. The two-stroke engine, I understand, was banned 

and we have had a number of hearings in our committee over the 

last 6 years, and actually one before the two-cycle ban and would 

you say the ban on two cycle engines on Lake Tahoe contributed 

to the cleaning up of MTBE and whatever else may have been leaking out of that, whether they you know, out of the tanks of the jet 

skis or your sailboat or anywhere else? 

Mr. JONES. Only in the lake itself and not in the groundwater 

aquifer, which is—— Mr. GREEN. And the groundwater aquifer you said was from the 

leaky storage tanks. What is the enforcement in the basin, and is 

it your responsibility or is it someone else’s responsibility for those 

leaky storage tanks in the basin? Is it the State’s? 

Mr. JONES. It was the State’s authority. Because we felt that 

they were slow in responding, we set about in State law in California that allowed districts to set up a groundwater management 

plan. We have done that. We will be—the idea of our program is 

to put in some more monitoring wells at gas stations and make 

these monitoring wells large enough so if we do detect any leaks 

that we can immediately respond and put in pumps that can start 

pumping and treating immediately. 

And let me say a couple more things about some of the data that 

is available. And I know you say the average is a 1 part per billion. 

We have a lot of wells and the data that Dr. Williams—— Mr. GREEN. I only have 5 minutes and you had plenty of time 

for your testimony, though. When you were testing, did you test 

anything other than for MTBE? 

Mr. JONES. Oh, yes. 

Mr. GREEN. Did you test for any benzine? Was there—did you 

find benzine along with MTBE? 

Mr. JONES. We do find all of those things. But what we were 

finding was that the MTBE plume is spreading so much faster because it is so much more soluble. It is spreading a lot faster than 

the BTEX components are spreading. Those tend to spread a small 

distance and then dilute and break down. The MTBE travels with 

the speed of the groundwater. 

Mr. GREEN. You mentioned that the problem in Lake Tahoe 

started about 1995 when they started to use a great deal of reformulated gasoline, and MTBE use was the product of that, not ethanol. Ms. Ellis talked about that she has evidence of the 1980’s, 

there was problems with MTBE. And I guess, you know, there 

wasn’t a reformulated requirement until 1990. Was there anything 

that you can trace back in the Tahoe basin that was to the 1980’s 

for MTBE? 

Mr. JONES. We did not know anything about MTBE until I went 

to a meeting where Mr. Perkins spoke and was talking about the 

problem that they were having in Santa Monica. I went backed 

back and talked to our water manager and asked him about MTBE 

and he just had this glossy look and like what are you talking 

about. We started then testing and we started then finding it. This 

would have been in 1997. 

Mr. GREEN. Did you start testing in 1997, but did you test before 

that for any of the known carcinogens? I know your testimony was 

the MTBE may be a carcinogen. 

71

Mr. JONES. We test for all of the things that are required by the 

State Department of Health and the benzines and some of these 

other things are required. 

Mr. GREEN. Benzine, toluene, xylene. 

Mr. JONES. I am not sure about all of those, but I know we are 

testing for the things that are required by the California Department of Health Services. 

Mr. GREEN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GILLMOR. I am looking closely to be sure I didn’t overlook 

anybody else. Let me go to Ms. Williams. Are you aware of any, or 

Dr. Williams, any test samples or studies reports that would evaluate the effects from the ingestion of MTBE and if you are where— do you have who authored them and what the findings were? 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Are you talking about toxicity studies? 

Mr. GILLMOR. Yes, I think. 

Ms. WILLIAMS. Currently I am aware of only studies that have 

looked at animals that have been injected straight into the—oral 

gavage studies. As far as I know, there have been no oral drinking 

water chronic studies conducted to date. Although I think the EPA 

may be considering conducting such studies. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Thank you. Let me go to Mr. Jones. In your testimony, you mentioned responding to remediation of MTBE contamination has presented a complex set of challenges. I guess what my 

question is what are the common technologies that you use for 

cleanup and what would be the general time line that you had be 

looking at for completion of a cleanup at an MTBE site? 

Mr. JONES. First of all, we are not looking at cleaning up an 

MTBE plume as such. We feel responsible parties should be doing 

that. We need to go ahead and provide water to our customers now 

so we don’t have time to do that. What we are doing is to solve our 

problem is, in some places, we are going to develop some new wells 

and in other place where is we have lower concentrations of MTBE 

in the water we are use some of the existing technology that has 

been modified to treat with the MTBE. 

That can be aeration, it can be activated carbon. It could be advanced oxidation process. And there are several others that are out 

there that are being tested at this point. But we think the advanced oxidation process and the activated carbon are probably 

best for our district in the concentrations that we are looking at 

and the wells we want to be able to treat at the wellhead. 

Mr. GILLMOR. You talked about the fact of delay in treating 

MTBE contamination is increasing the cost. Can you quantify that 

in any way as to what your—how much delay increases cost by 

what factor or some kind of——

Mr. JONES. I know what you are asking. I am not sure I can really answer that. What happens in the delaying, the going in and 

treating immediately is that it allows the plume to spread and dilute. If it dilutes enough, that may have solved part of the problem. 

But as it spreads, you just have a much larger aquifer that becomes contaminated, and therefore, you have more wells that 

could, you know, be knocked out of operation. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Would you take a crack at that, Ms. Ellis. 

Ms. ELLIS. There are differences in technology. I clean up primarily LUST sites. We may be dealing with a much smaller volVerDate Sep 04 2002 14:00 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081391 PO 00000 Frm 00075 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 W:\DISC\80670 80670
72

ume of water at a much higher concentration. We have sites where 

we have hundreds of parts per million of MTBE and the technologies are different than treating very large volumes of water in 

a public system with very low quantities. If we can catch them 

quickly, they are treatable, particularly in our down State areas, 

very sandy aquifer. If we have a small plume, if I can pump it out 

of the ground, I can remediate a site. 

Now, removing the MTBE from the water once it is pumped out 

of the ground can be extremely costly, and part of it is based on 

the fact we are very stringent on our air emissions for treatment 

systems. In other parts of the State, there is almost no way to 

pump groundwater out of the ground. You may get half a gallon 

a minute yield, or something from a well and it is going to be very 

difficult to clean up the MTBE on those sites. And the treatment 

costs are extremely dependent on how long it has gone. 

If we have got a 2,000-foot long plume, there is no way I can 

pump enough groundwater out of there to treat that site. We will 

kind of write off the wells. We will do replacement wells or try and 

bring in public water from somewhere else. What we will address 

on those sites is try and hit the source area and knock the high 

contaminant levels down in the source area, so this thing won’t 

continue to grow for years and years. But if I pump groundwater 

out of a long plume, I haven’t place to put it, and I can’t afford to 

treat it. But the costs are extremely variable. We have a number 

of million dollar cleanups going right now, I guarantee they can’t 

afford to do them. 

Mr. GILLMOR. The gentleman from New Jersey. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to go 

back basically to some of the things I asked Dr. Williams and see 

if the other panelists wanted to comment on it. If I could ask the 

panelists to comment, we have almost $2 billion in the trust fund 

now. Do you support spending all or part of that money on testing 

and cleanups? Are you—not that you are looking to attack Dr. Williams here, but if you would maybe like to comment in that context 

about some of the things she said. Because it does—I am concerned 

that she is saying, you know, we don’t have much of a problem, 

even though she said we do have a problem. 

Mr. JONES. We support the $200 million. It is a good step. Our cleanup cost was about $45 million. Santa Monica’s is on the order 

of $200 million; $200 million in your bill is not going to go very far. 

The costs, the study that was done by Comex, a consulting firm, 

had a range—and there a lot of variables—but had a range be- tween $29 billion and $90 billion to clean up what is existing. I believe there is a typo in my paper that says $40 billion. It should 

be $90 billion. Those costs we think should be borne by the responsible party. That is why we have sued the 31 defendants that we 

did sue. 

As far as your question on the data that is available and what 

was used by Dr. Williams, she was using what was available. The 

system that the California Department of Health Services has set 

up does not have all of the data. In many cases it is misleading. 

I have looked at the data which our district has or has been put 

into the system. On many wells we are showing zero, and that is 

just for our production wells. We have monitoring wells that are 

73

around the zone of influence of those wells, and in some of those 

we have very high concentrations of MTBE, sometimes at 100 or 

1,000, and in some cases over 10,000 parts per billion. We have 

shut those wells off so we do not pull the rest of that plume into 

that zone of influence and totally destroy the well, hoping that 

someday we may clean up the existing plume and start those wells 

again. So that a lot of that data does not show up in the Department of Health Services’ data base. 

Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Perkins. 

Mr. PERKINS. I guess it does not make me or my customers feel 

any better to hear that we are just really unlucky that we found 

so many places in Santa Monica. I think that the data is very misleading, that MTBE is not only very prevalent now, but it is going 

to be more prevalent as a drinking water well contaminant. 

Just to respond to the issue of money and time for cleanup, we 

are looking at hundreds of millions of dollars. Our estimate in 

terms of the time that it is going to take to get to a treatment facility that is operating is around 5 years from today, and we estimate 

that that treatment facility will need to operate from between 10 

to 30 years, depending on how optimistic you want to be about the 

level of contamination that we are going to find. 

It does not do any of us any good to talk about averages of less 

than 1 part per billion and not so many communities have been impacted. More communities are impacted each year, and it is something that has to be addressed now, when we can prevent it earlier 

in the process, than if we ignore it and try to deal with it later on. 

Mr. JONES. I think that that money could be used for increasing 

the inspection rate. If the inspector is going to get out there once 

in 3 years, that means 1 day out of 1,000 you are not leaking. We 

are finding a lot of them have not even been inspected up to this 

point. Some of that money could be used for training or certification of the operators and owners. Right now there is no certification program. We require our barbers to get some sort of certification, but we do not require the operators of gas stations that are 

operating highly technical operations as well as volatile fluid and 

something that can pollute the groundwater. I think that some sort 

of certification program would be very helpful. 

Mr. PALLONE. Ms. Ellis? 

Ms. ELLIS. I will comment on the health studies. The World 

Health Organization and the California Board, the Center for Disease Control, these people that decide whether some things are carcinogens or not, are basically saying there is not enough evidence 

to prove it is a carcinogen. There has been a limited number of 

studies. They are short term, high dose, usually inhalation, rats 

and mice, and we are supposed to translate what that means to humans. Most boards which vote have been within a vote one way or 

the other. It has not been flat-out no, this stuff is not going to hurt 

you. It has been 5-to-4 and 3-to-7. All of those boards have been 

pretty close, and mostly they are stating there is not enough evidence, we need more evidence to decide one way or the other. 

With regards to California not having a very high number of well 

impacts, their geology is different and they rely primarily on deeper aquifers. In Delaware, we do not have a whole lot of really deep 

74

wells; 200 or 300 feet is deep in Delaware. We have shown we can 

impact a 200-foot well. 

Most of our community systems are serving the day care centers 

and schools downstate, it is rare to get more than 75 feet deep, and 

some are 50. And Murphy’s law will always put those guys directly 

down gradient of a gas station. They will not be up gradient where 

they are a little bit safer. We may have Santa Monicas and Lake 

Tahoes, but in Delaware we have Lincoln and Campton, we have 

little towns that—and it is just as important to those few hundred 

people in a town that their water supply has hundreds of parts per 

billion MTBE; and in one case we had a domestic well with 25 

parts per billion. 

They may not be 50 percent of the wells being impacted, but it 

is their well or their well system or their domestic wells. Whenever 

we go to a public meeting with our people, an impacted party, we 

try to get out there right away to explain the process and what the 

State is going to be doing and what the timetable is. You have to 

picture yourself sitting on the other side of that desk, sit yourself 

in the audience and see what you would feel like if you were told, 

we do not know what it means about health. Yes, it smells and 

tastes bad; it may take a year to do an investigation. If you were 

sitting out there, you would not want to hear that. 

Mr. PALLONE. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 

Mr. GILLMOR. The gentlewoman from California. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That hit hard to me, Ms. 

Ellis. 

I am going to turn our attention to the California representatives. The groundwater pollution that is in my district are in little 

communities, over 100 in Santa Barbara County, but the beautiful 

village of Cambria has to use their secondary water system now. 

And they are in a high fire district. If they have a forest fire, they 

do not know what they will do. I have had to ask for some funding 

for desalination for them. 

It seems very tragic to me that we are putting our citizens in 

such a vulnerable position. I am going to go back to the two people 

from California and start with Mr. Perkins. What should we be 

doing here? Particularly with the idea that there is a fund established and that every time someone fills up their car at a gas station, they set aside a little money for this LUST fund, and we have 

a huge amount of that, $2 billion plus in a reserve, what would you 

like to see that money used for? 

Mr. PERKINS. It is there to deal with urgent situations. If this is 

not an urgent situation, I don’t know what is. It needs to be spent 

and not kept sitting unused and unproductive, money both for direct cleanup, investigation and cleanup as well as training enforcement, all of those issues related to underground storage tank management. 

The other thing that I think needs to be done is grant the oxygenate waiver just to remove MTBE from the stream of commerce 

as a precaution, which has proven to be a reasonable precaution 

based on what has happened. 

Finally, if ethanol is mandated to be used, no waivers, no immunities for ethanol. If it is a safe product, then the people that make 

75

it and sell it should be willing to be responsible for its safety. That 

is the three elements that I would point to. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Thank you. 

Mr. JONES. I agree, so I will not discuss those things. I agree 

with what Mr. Perkins has said. I talked earlier about some program for training owners and operators and maybe some sort of 

certification program. Increased inspection is important and we 

need to train those inspectors better. 

Another thing is that we need to look at the design of gas stations, and have a paradigm shift on the design of gas stations. 

Right now we are putting the tanks over here and the dispensers 

here. If we do something like what they do in Europe, there are 

countries there that require the dispensers to be directly over the 

tanks, and those are contained. And in some countries, they have 

very little leakage of MTBE or gasoline into their systems. 

There are people that have done that here in the United States, 

I know Sunoco has done that, and there are some others that have 

been built around the country and they do not have the leaks. It 

is not so much in the tanks. Everybody says it is the tanks that 

are leaking. No, it is more in the plumbing. When you have hundreds of feet of plumbing between tanks and the dispensers, that 

is where you are going to get a lot of leaks. 

In California with earthquakes, shifting can cause leaks. Also, 

we have a lot of stupid human error, mistakes that were done by 

people, such as disconnecting systems, driving away from dispensers. That is going back to the certification and training so people understand what is happening. Education would be a big help. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Just a quick question. There is a very strong proethanol group here, both on our committee and in Congress. I have 

no quibble about ethanol, but it is a huge issue for us in California 

where it would have to be imported, I understand. So the Governor 

has extended the time to have to come to terms with this. 

Mr. Perkins, did you say something about ethanol? What do we 

need to make certain if that is what we are faced with? 

Mr. PERKINS. There has been a lot of talk about creating a safe 

harbor, an immunity from liability for the manufacturers of ethanol. I think that is a big mistake. One thing that MTBE teaches 

us is the law of unintended consequences, particularly as it pertains to field additives. If it is safe, let us make sure that there is 

no immunity from liability. Or if there is information that is not 

being divulged now about ethanol, that may call that into question. 

Mrs. CAPPS. Am I right in supposing that methods of removing 

harmful products of gasoline have been developed that are not 

oxygenates that would not fall into any of these categories? This is 

not your field either, I understand. 

Mr. PERKINS. There is a lot of very legitimate questioning of the 

benefits from oxygenate at all in gasoline and what truly does it 

result in, improved air quality. That aside, there are some refiners 

that claim that they will be able to create a gasoline formula that 

has the same air quality profile as oxygenated fuel without using 

the oxygenates. I am not sure whether they have been able to 

make that commercially available or how long it would take to do 

that. 

76

Mr. JONES. I have heard from the experts that they can make a 

gasoline with no backsliding on air quality. In California we do not 

have the infrastructure for production of ethanol. We can do it in 

a few years, but to put us in a position where that is going to have 

to come from the Midwest at greatly increased cost, there is a big 

question whether we have enough tank cars or barges to get the 

material to California. 

I think it can be phased in over a period of time if we find that 

ethanol is not an environmental problem. The University of California study, one of their last conclusions in that report was let us 

not jump in and put in another oxygenate to replace MTBE without thoroughly studying it. And I don’t think it has been thoroughly studied. When people say all you have to do is put an olive 

in it and a couple of ice cubes, I would ask them if they would really drink denatured alcohol. The reason it is denatured is to keep 

people from drinking industrial-grade alcohol. 

Mr. GILLMOR. We will close with the never-to-be-overlooked man 

from Texas. 

Mr. GREEN. Mr. Chairman, this last panel has been so interesting. I have heard a lot of analogies about science and causing 

cancer. I would hope that our committee would go to the CDC on 

the various health issues and not just depend on analogy testimony. I do support use of sound science to determine whether 

something is harmful to the public health. 

I will mention, as I did earlier, we are talking about banning 

MTBE, but you are not going to ban benzene or any of the other 

things that make the cars in California run. But because you can 

smell and taste it, and it is not a known carcinogen, you want to 

ban it. It makes no sense. 

The first panel, EPA and the GAO, in their statements and 

under questioning, talked about it is not a known carcinogen. We 

have had hearings in this committee for at least 4 years, so maybe 

more studies are needed. And why haven’t they been done in the 

last 4 years by the States of Delaware or California? It could bring 

us actual scientific testimony instead of saying I know it is a onevote majority vote, whatever it is. That is not substantive enough 

to say what we would do with banning MTBE, and the high cost 

to the California resident, and every resident; at least 5 percent of 

the gasoline is MTBE, maybe as high as 30 percent according to 

the first panel. 

You can ban MTBE, but we have to replace it, and it may cost 

50 percent to 100 percent more per gallon. I hope to fix the leaky 

storage tank problem. 

Mr. Perkins, you talk about a strong argument for local standards. And it seems California, because of the earthquakes, and Ms. 

Ellis said Delaware has developed and established local standards 

for underground storage tanks; has that been discussed in California? 

Mr. PERKINS. Yes, it is discussed a lot. We are responsible for the 

management and enforcement of storage tank standards within our 

city limits. We have actually required double systems not only for 

the tanks, but also for the piping, a containment system for the 

piping. That is for a number of years, and I think we are the only 

77

community in California doing that, and we have tried to encourage the State to look at that. 

However, our problem is a number of our water wells that were 

impacted are outside of our city limits, actually in the city of Los 

Angeles, and so we were subject to just the routine standards 

which were, quite frankly, not very well enforced. That is where 

our problems are occurring. 

Mr. GREEN. I understand we have the Governor banning it and 

yet not enforcing some of the standards. 

Ms. Ellis, I have an April 12 issue of the World Fuels Today that 

the USGS survey completed last August in Delaware, found that 

the contamination rate is on the average of less than a half part 

per billion. I know you have some examples that you shared of individual communities. And I was wondering if—and, again, there 

may be a particular problem in other communities—but is that report from the World Fuels Today pretty accurate? I think you annotated it in your testimony. 

Ms. ELLIS. They did detect MTBE in 17 of the 30 wells at local 

levels. There were a number in the 1 to 10 parts per billion range; 

and in that study, there was 1 over the 10 parts per billion. 

Mr. GREEN. Should all chemicals showing up in concentrations of 

less than a half part per billion be banned or phased out? 

Ms. ELLIS. No, not in my opinion. One thing that is very difficult 

to look at is cumulative risk. If you have a half part per billion of 

this, and 5 parts per billion of this, and 2 of that, and they are all 

under the maximum contaminant levels, if there is a level that has 

been established, you have to add those together somehow, and 

that may trigger your cancer risk so it is over the acceptable level. 

Mr. GREEN. Wait a minute. You are a hydrologist and not a scientist. 

Ms. ELLIS. I think a hydrologist is a scientist. 

Mr. GREEN. But to give us testimony on cancer, and I would love 

to have it, I want somebody who is a scientist from the CDC giving 

that kind of testimony. Again, it is anecdotal and it is interesting; 

but I would rather have maybe less than 5 parts per billion of 

MTBE than 1 part per billion of benzene. That is again the relationship. 

Mr. Chairman, I would like to submit this copy of the World 

Fuels Today from April 12, 2002, that talks about the Delaware 

public water wells in its entirety for the record. 

Mr. GILLMOR. Without objection. 

[The information referred to follows:]

WORLD FUELS TODAY

APRIL 12, 2002

Regulatory Activity: 

A recent survey of 30 randomly-sampled Delaware public water wells revealed 

that all of the wells had at least one VOC detection and MTBE was among the three 

most frequently detected compounds, although its levels were relatively low. The 

survey, conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) between August and November 2000, found MTBE in 17 of the 30 sampled wells, with median levels of 0.2 

parts per billion (ppb). None of the MTBE samples were above EPA’s non-enforceable 

Consumer Acceptability Advisory for odor and taste of 20-40 ppb, the Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control (DNREC) pointed out, 

although the report shows that the state’s water resources are vulnerable to contamination. ‘‘The USGS report shows the need to continue our groundwater protecVerDate Sep 04 2002 14:00 Sep 25, 2002 Jkt 081391 PO 00000 Frm 00081 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6621 W:\DISC\80670 80670
78

tion efforts for a resource that is clearly vulnerable,’’ said John Barndt, program 

manager in the Water Supply Section, Division of Water Resources. ‘‘The good news 

is that the levels of chemicals that have been found are extremely low, which indicates that efforts at using best management practices will work. The USGS will be 

doing further assessment work with this data, which will help the state DNREC refine our protection efforts,’’ he added. Specifically on MTBE contamination, Barndt 

said the agency ‘‘wasn’t concerned about any specific wells, but was concerned that 

MTBE was present in so many wells.’’ But don’t look for the state to introduce an 

MTBE ban any time in the near future. Delaware would like to see MTBE out of 

its gasoline, but the state is concerned about the legality of trying to remove the 

chemical, according to Patricia Ellis with DNREC’s underground storage tank division. Ellis, who sat on EPA’s Blue Ribbon Panel on MTBE, said the state is looking 

to the U.S. Congress for a solution to the issue, to allow the state out of the 2% 

oxygenate standard. The state opted into the RFG program and is therefore required to meet the 2% standard. Chloroform and tetrachloroethylene were the other 

two most frequent VOC detections in the study. This study is part of two larger 

projects: the USGS’s National Water Quality Assessment project for the Delmarva 

Peninsula and Delaware’s Source Water Assessment and Protection Program. To obtain a copy of the study, call USGS at (302) 734-2506.

Mr. GREEN. I yield back. 

Mr. GILLMOR. The gentleman yields back and that concludes our 

hearing. 

I would ask the witnesses if they would be willing to submit to 

questions in writing after the hearing if members have some further questions, which I expect they may have. I want to thank you 

once again for coming. It has been a long day, and you have been 

not only informative but very patient and we appreciate it. 

[Whereupon, at 8:12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]

Æ