Text of
Printed Hearing
The Committee on Energy and Commerce
W.J. "Billy" Tauzin, Chairman
MTBE Contamination in Groundwater: Identifying and Addressing the Problem.
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials
May 21, 2002
3:30 PM
2123 Rayburn House Office Building
<DOC>
[107th Congress House Hearings]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access]
[DOCID: f:80670.wais]
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
__________
U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
80-670 WASHINGTON : 2001
___________________________________________________________________________
For Sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800; (202) 512-1800
Fax: (202) 512-2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana, Chairman
MICHAEL BILIRAKIS, Florida JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan
JOE BARTON, Texas HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
FRED UPTON, Michigan EDWARD J. MARKEY, Massachusetts
CLIFF STEARNS, Florida RALPH M. HALL, Texas
PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio RICK BOUCHER, Virginia
JAMES C. GREENWOOD, Pennsylvania EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
CHRISTOPHER COX, California FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
NATHAN DEAL, Georgia SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
RICHARD BURR, North Carolina BART GORDON, Tennessee
ED WHITFIELD, Kentucky PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
GREG GANSKE, Iowa BOBBY L. RUSH, Illinois
CHARLIE NORWOOD, Georgia ANNA G. ESHOO, California
BARBARA CUBIN, Wyoming BART STUPAK, Michigan
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois ELIOT L. ENGEL, New York
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico TOM SAWYER, Ohio
JOHN B. SHADEGG, Arizona ALBERT R. WYNN, Maryland
CHARLES ``CHIP'' PICKERING, GENE GREEN, Texas
Mississippi KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
VITO FOSSELLA, New York TED STRICKLAND, Ohio
ROY BLUNT, Missouri DIANA DeGETTE, Colorado
TOM DAVIS, Virginia THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
ED BRYANT, Tennessee BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland LOIS CAPPS, California
STEVE BUYER, Indiana MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California CHRISTOPHER JOHN, Louisiana
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire JANE HARMAN, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania
MARY BONO, California
GREG WALDEN, Oregon
LEE TERRY, Nebraska
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky
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 FRANK PALLONE, Jr., New Jersey
GREG GANSKE, Iowa EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York
JOHN SHIMKUS, Illinois SHERROD BROWN, Ohio
HEATHER WILSON, New Mexico GENE GREEN, Texas
VITO FOSSELLA, New York KAREN McCARTHY, Missouri
(Vice Chairman) THOMAS M. BARRETT, Wisconsin
ROBERT L. EHRLICH, Jr., Maryland BILL LUTHER, Minnesota
STEVE BUYER, Indiana LOIS CAPPS, California
GEORGE RADANOVICH, California MICHAEL F. DOYLE, Pennsylvania
CHARLES F. BASS, New Hampshire JANE HARMAN, California
JOSEPH R. PITTS, Pennsylvania HENRY A. WAXMAN, California
MARY BONO, California PETER DEUTSCH, Florida
GREG WALDEN, Oregon JOHN D. DINGELL, Michigan,
LEE TERRY, Nebraska (Ex Officio)
ERNIE FLETCHER, Kentucky
W.J. ``BILLY'' TAUZIN, Louisiana
(Ex Officio)
(ii)
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)
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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.
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 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 double-lined and inspected for leaks, but,
unfortunately, many of these 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 drink- ing 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 fur- ther 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:]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.001
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 be- cause 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 addi- tional 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.
Ban- ning 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
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 lis- tening 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 per- cent, 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 mil- lions 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 inde- pendence. The way I would get
there is to use all forms of alter- native energy, not fossil
fuels, many of which are developed and produced in my State and
his State; and I think that is a recipe
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
contamina- tion of ground water.
As a representative from a state with considerable experience with
MTBE in gaso- line, 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 in- crease 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 contami- nation, 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 con- tributing 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 sta- tions 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 ef- fects 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 contami- nation
caused by failures of underground storage tank systems.
With the threat of adverse health effects, it is imperative that
EPA works aggres- sively to conduct and support studies to better
quantify the risk from ingesting water containing MTBE. Once MTBE
enters the environment, it is difficult to re- spond 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 hear- ing what type of guidance EPA will provide for states
on the assessment and reme- diation of MTBE contaminated sites.
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.
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.
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 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 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.
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.
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
Interior
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 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
ground-water 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 percent 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 ground-water 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 drinking-water 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 water-
supply 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.
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 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
cross-contamination 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
health-based 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 certain 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,<SUP>1</SUP>
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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Environmental Protection: Improved Inspections and Enforcement
Would Better Ensure the Safety of Underground Storage Tanks (GAO-01-
464, May 4, 2001).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
<bullet> 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.<SUP>2</SUP> 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,<SUP>3</SUP> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> 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. Nevertheless, 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.
<bullet> 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,<SUP>4</SUP> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Vermont Department of Environmental Conservation, A Summary of
State Fund Survey Results (May 2001). The Department conducts this
survey annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
<SUP>5</SUP> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ Washington reported that it planned to add such testing by
2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 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.<SUP>6</SUP> 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.<SUP>7</SUP> 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.<SUP>8</SUP> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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).
\8\ Occurrence 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.<SUP>9</SUP> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ National Sciences and Technology Council, Committee on
Environment and Natural Resources, Interagency Assessment of Potential
Health Risks Associated with Oxygenated Gasoline (Feb. 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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).
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, <SUP>10</SUP> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Some of the components of concern in gasoline include benzene,
toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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:
<bullet> 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.<SUP>11</SUP>
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground
Storage Tank Program, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA 510-R-
00-001, June 2000).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
<bullet> 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 not
been permanently closed, as we previously reported.
Consequently, any leaks from these tanks may not have been
identified.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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.
<bullet> 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 <SUP>12</SUP>--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 owners and operators
would be responsible for cleanup costs with no state funding support.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ In Maine, fund eligibility expired only for ``non-conforming''
tanks--those which had not been upgraded with leak detection and
prevention equipment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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.
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.002
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.003
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] T0670.004
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 open-ended 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.
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 focusing 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.
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.
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 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?
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 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, 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.
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
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.
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 important 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 exactly 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.]
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 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 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 6\1/2\ 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.]
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.
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
Resources 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 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 five-month 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. .
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 year-round, 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.
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.
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 two-stroke 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.<SUP>1</SUP> 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Maximum 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
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, tetra-chloroethylene (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).<SUP>2</SUP> 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\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)<SUP>-</SUP>\1\. OEHHA's
CSFs for benzene, TCE, and PCE are 100, 21, and 10 (mg/kg-
day)<SUP>-</SUP>\1\, respectively.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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, 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 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 rewarded 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
Senate-passed 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 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 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
residents, 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 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:
<bullet> Once released from a tank or pipeline, MtBE travels quickly
and readily dissolves in water unlike the other chemicals in
gasoline;
<bullet> 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;
<bullet> 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
<bullet> 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 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 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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
volume 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 between $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 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 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 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
pro-ethanol 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.
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 one-vote 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 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 protection 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.]
<greek-d>
The
Committee on Energy and Commerce
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
Washington, DC 20515
(202) 225-2927
Feedback |
