[Senate Hearing 111-1245]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 111-1245
PROTECTING AMERICA'S
WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JULY 28, 2010
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.fdsys.gov
________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
23-573 PDF WASHINGTON : 2017
____________________________________________________________________
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Publishing Office,
Internet:bookstore.gpo.gov. Phone:toll free (866)512-1800;DC area (202)512-1800
Fax:(202) 512-2104 Mail:Stop IDCC,Washington,DC 20402-001
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
AMY KLOBUCHAR, Minnesota CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island LAMAR ALEXANDER, Tennessee
TOM UDALL, New Mexico
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York
ARLEN SPECTER, Pennsylvania
Bettina Poirier, Staff Director
Ruth Van Mark, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
JULY 28, 2010
OPENING STATEMENTS
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 1
Inhofe, Hon. James M., U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma... 2
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 21
Udall, Hon. Tom, U.S. Senator from the State of New Mexico....... 23
WITNESSES
Dougherty, Cynthia C., Director, Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency........... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 26
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 37
Grumbles, Benjamin H., Director, Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality.......................................... 50
Prepared statement........................................... 52
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 58
Orum, Paul, Blue Green Chemical Security Coalition, Independent
Consultant to Center for American Progress..................... 59
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 74
Perea, Carlos, Chief Executive Officer, MIOX Corporation......... 79
Prepared statement........................................... 81
Response to an additional question from Senator Inhofe....... 92
Sivin, Darius D., Ph.D., Legislative Representative,
International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and
Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW)................ 94
Prepared statement........................................... 96
Responses to additional questions from Senator Inhofe........ 129
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Letter from the National Association of Clean Water Agencies to
Senators Boxer and Inhofe, August 3, 2010...................... 138
PROTECTING AMERICA'S WATER TREATMENT FACILITIES
----------
WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 2010
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Washington, DC.
The full Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 2:40 p.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Office Building, Hon. Frank R.
Lautenberg (Acting Chairman of the full Committee) presiding.
Present: Senators Lautenberg, Inhofe, Cardin, and Udall.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, everyone, for being here to
examine the security at our Nation's water treatment
facilities.
Five years ago a train crashed in South Carolina, causing a
release of chlorine gas that killed 9 people and sent 58 others
to hospitals. The fact is, chlorine gas is a deadly substance.
And yet it is currently used at about 2,600 drinking water and
wastewater treatment plants across the country. That makes
these water facilities and the trains carrying chlorine to them
attractive targets for terrorists. Yet, current law does not
provide adequate regulatory authority or resources for securing
water treatment plants and reducing their use of lethal
chemicals.
Now this morning the Senate Homeland Security Committee
reported out a bill that merely extends existing minimal
protections against attacks on chemical facilities, not water
facilities. And that leaves it up to this Committee to address
what both the EPA and the Department of Homeland Security have
called a serious gap in our country's defenses--the lack of
protections against an attack on water treatment facilities.
Millions of Americans are at risk because so many drinking
and wastewater treatment plants use chlorine gas and other
lethal chemicals. In fact, an attack on one or more of the more
than 700 facilities would put up to 100,000 people at risk. And
based on information compiled by the EPA, just a single attack
at one of the 15 highest risk plants could put more than 1
million Americans at risk. And we cannot forget the pilots who
trained Mohammed Atta, the kingpin of the September 11th
attacks, said that he had shown a keen interest in chemical
plants and water reservoirs.
So, we have to do everything possible to keep Americans
safe from future terrorist attacks. And that is why I have
introduced the Senate Secure Water Facilities Act. This bill
would require water treatment plants to assess vulnerability to
attack and make a plan to address these vulnerabilities and
develop a system for responding to an emergency. It also
requires plants to consider safer ways of doing business and in
many circumstances implement those safer alternatives.
Now, we know that many facilities could adopt safer
chemicals and processes because more than 500 drinking water
and wastewater plants across the country already stopped using
deadly substances and dangerous methods. These changes have
made more than 40 million Americans safer.
Now, my bill encourages more of our country's water plants
to join this effort. But it does not propose a one size fits
all approach. It takes into account the situation on the ground
at each plant and provides States with flexibility to make the
right choices for their specific situations. It zeros in on
plants where it is clear that switching to safer chemicals and
safer methods is cost effective and completely feasible. And it
helps facilities offset the costs of reducing these securities
by providing Federal grants.
I first introduced chemical security legislation in 1999,
before the September 11th attacks, and once again in 2005 with
then-Senator Obama. The legislation that I have introduced this
year reflects the principles of President Obama's
administration. It has also been endorsed by a diverse array of
more than 100 environmental, health, labor, and business
groups.
Now, it has been almost 9 years since the September 11th
attacks. And if we learned one thing on that fateful day it is
this: we dare not become complacent, and we cannot let our
guard down.
I look forward today to hearing from our witnesses about
the state of security at water treatment facilities and how we
can better protect Americans from a future terrorist attack.
Once again, I thank all of you for being here. And I am
pleased to introduce, to call on my Ranking Member here,
Senator Inhofe, for his opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAMES M. INHOFE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF OKLAHOMA
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Let me clarify something first. I am not blaming anyone,
but this hearing is not a hearing on your legislation. Is that
correct?
Senator Lautenberg. That is true, sir.
Senator Inhofe. OK. That is fine because, you know when I
had the notice of the hearing this is supposed to be a general
oversight hearing for water security. That sounds good to me.
And I thank you for holding the oversight hearing on the
water security and look forward to hearing from our witnesses
about the steps that the EPA and the States have been taking
since we passed the 2002 Bioterrorism Act. We both remember
that well. I know that many of our facilities are much safer as
a result of our actions here. But there is still more that can
be done. I think we can agree on that.
As I noted in our December drinking water oversight
hearing, there is one thing that everyone in this room can
agree on, and that is having clean, safe, affordable water is a
national priority. My message has always been that chemical
security and water security are issues of security, not
environmental protection.
Yet whenever we discuss these issues in this Committee, we
focus on inherently safer technology, or IST. IST is an
environmental and an engineering concept, not a security
concept. Environmental activists have been promoting the
concept of IST for years because it would allow them to
eliminate the use of chemicals that they do not like.
IST dates back more than a decade when Greenpeace and other
groups were seeking bans on chlorine, which was the chemical
used to purify water that has been hailed by the CDC as one of
the greatest public health achievements of the 20th century.
Only after 9/11 did environmental groups decide to play upon
the fears of the Nation and repackage IST as a panacea to all
of our security problems.
I would like to share with you this excellent clarification
of IST from Stephen Poorman. He was at the Homeland Security
hearing on chemical security in March. And this is a quote from
Stephen Poorman. He said `` IST is premised on the belief that
if a particular chemical process hazard can be reduced, the
overall risk associated with that process will also be reduced.
It is an elegant concept, but the reality is almost never that
simple. A reduction of hazard will reduce overall risk if and
only if that hazard is not displaced to another time or
location or result in the creation of some new hazard.'' That
was the end of the quote.
I think this is especially important to understand when it
comes to water security. Both Homeland Security and the
Government Affairs Committee and the EPW have heard again and
again from multiple security and chemical experts that IST
should not be federally mandated. And I encourage my colleagues
to revisit these hearings, including the one that was on June
21, 2006, that was focused entirely on the effectiveness of
IST.
I was pleased to see the Homeland Security Committee
approve the reauthorization of the current CFATS Program
without mandatory IST. Their willingness to find compromise and
a bipartisan path for it is something I hope we can emulate in
this Committee, such as we did with Senator Cardin's bill just
last week.
The current security bill before this Committee, S. 3598,
takes a vastly different, more controversial approach. I hope
that we will take time and work in a bipartisan way to find a
path forward on water security that would gain support from
security experts and water utilities, not just environmental
groups and unions, and have a chance of making a real
difference in securing water facilities.
Senator Lautenberg, I know our staffs have been working
together on other legislation. I hope we can do the same as we
move down this path. No matter what we do, security for water
facilities must focus first on ensuring that utilities can
effectively meet the many requirements of the Safe Drinking
Water Act and the Clean Water Act and protect the health and
the environment.
The individual utilities know their water best, and by
mandating IST the Federal Government would make it impossible
for facilities to decide for themselves what the best course of
action is to meet the health and environmental mandates of the
Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act. Nobody cares
more about the security of their communities than the people
who live there. We need to empower them to make the best
decisions, not assume--as we often do around here--that
Washington knows best.
Finally, I know, Mr. Chairman, that you share my desire to
get S. 1005, the Water Infrastructure Financing Act, to the
floor. I still believe that the most effective way to improve
our Nation's water facilities is by reauthorizing the State
Revolving Loan Fund Programs, both drinking water and
wastewater. We cannot expect our communities to continue to
provide safe and clean water if they do not have the resources
to meet those needs.
I have three documents I want to enter as a part of the
record. They would be a letter from the Association of
Metropolitan Water Agencies, a second letter from the American
Water Works Association, then a letter from 25 different
organizations expressing opposition to federally mandated IST.
I ask unanimous consent these be made a part of the record.
Senator Lautenberg. Without objection. Certainly.
[The referenced information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Senator Inhofe follows:]
Statement of Hon. James M. Inhofe,
U.S. Senator from the State of Oklahoma
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this oversight hearing
on water security. I look forward to hearing from our witnesses
about the steps that EPA and the States have taken since we
passed the 2002 Bioterrorism Act. I know that many of our
facilities are much safer as a result of our actions here, but
there is still more that can be done. As I noted in our
December drinking water oversight hearing, there is one thing
that everyone in this room can agree on--that having clean,
safe, affordable water is a national priority.
My message has always been that chemical security and water
security are issues of security, not environmental protection.
Yet whenever we discuss these issues in this Committee we focus
on ``inherently safer technology,'' or IST. IST is an
environmental and engineering concept, not a security concept.
Environmental activists have been promoting the concept of IST
for years because it would allow them to eliminate the use of
chemicals they don't like. IST dates back more than a decade to
when Greenpeace and other groups were seeking bans on
chlorine--the chemical used to purify water that has been
hailed by the CDC as one of the greatest public health
achievements of the 20th century. Only after 9/11 did
environmental groups decide to play upon the fears of the
Nation and repackage IST as a panacea to all of our security
problems.
I would like to share with you this excellent clarification
of IST from Stephen Poorman at the Homeland Security hearing on
chemical security in March. ``[IST] is premised on the belief
that, if a particular chemical process hazard can be reduced,
the overall risk associated with that process will also be
reduced . . . it is an elegant concept, but the reality is
almost never that simple. A reduction in hazard will reduce
overall risk if, and only if, that hazard is not displaced to
another time or location, or result in the creation of some new
hazard.'' I think this is especially important to understand
when it comes to water security.
Both the Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee
and EPW have heard again and again from multiple security and
chemical experts that IST should not be federally mandated, and
I encourage my colleagues to revisit these hearings including
the June 21, 2006, hearing that was focused entirely on the
effectiveness of IST.
I was pleased to see the Homeland Security Committee this
morning unanimously approve a reauthorization of the current
CFATS program without mandatory IST. Their willingness to find
compromise and a bipartisan path forward is something I hope we
can emulate in this Committee. The current security bill before
this Committee, S. 3598, takes a vastly different, more
controversial approach. I hope that we will take time and work
in a bipartisan way to find a path forward on water security
that would gain support from security experts and water
utilities, not just environmental groups and unions, and have a
chance of making a real difference in securing water
facilities. Senator Lautenberg, I know our staffs have worked
together on other legislation, and I hope that we can work
together to find a path forward here.
No matter what we do, security for water facilities must
focus first on ensuring that utilities can effectively meet the
many requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the
Clean Water Act (CWA) and protect the health and the
environment. Individual utilities know their water best, and by
mandating IST the Federal Government would make it impossible
for facilities to decide for themselves what the best course of
action is to meet the health and environmental mandates of the
SDWA and CWA.
Nobody cares more about the security of their communities
than the people who live there. We need to empower them to make
the best decisions, not assume Washington knows best.
Finally, I know Chairman Boxer shares my desire to get S.
1005, the ``Water Infrastructure Financing Act,'' on the floor.
I still believe the most effective way to improve our Nation's
water facilities is by reauthorizing the State Revolving Loan
Fund programs, both for drinking and waste water. We cannot
expect our communities to continue to provide safe and clean
water if they do not have the resources to meet their
infrastructure needs.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much.
We are joined by Senator Cardin and Senator Udall.
Senator Cardin, take 5 minutes to make your statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN L. CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. Well, Mr. Chairman, thank you very much for
holding this hearing. I think this is an extremely important
hearing.
I want to underscore the point that Senator Inhofe made,
and that is that we depend upon clean and safe water for our
way of life. And we have not paid sufficient attention to the
water infrastructure in this Nation.
Now this Committee, on a very bipartisan basis, early this
session passed legislation to reauthorize the State Revolving
Fund. And I agree with Senator Inhofe that it is critically
important that we get the reauthorization done. Many
jurisdictions are depending upon the predictability of Federal
funding in order to upgrade their water system.
The American Society of Civil Engineers has given America's
water infrastructure a D^. So, we start off with an
infrastructure that is badly out of date. In my own State of
Maryland, I refer to, frequently, the water main breaks that we
have had where River Road, not very far from here, turned into
a river. And thank goodness no one was killed due to the fast
response of the first responders. We have had major water main
breaks in Baltimore where we flooded out communities. Dundalk,
Maryland, not far from downtown Baltimore, was totally flooded
by a water main break.
The point is that our aging infrastructure is beyond its
useful life, and we need to give our local governments the
tools they need by permanently reauthorizing these Revolving
Funds to do that.
Today's hearing is dealing with another very important part
of safe water. The House has passed the Chemical and Water
Security Act which closed loopholes and provided additional
funding to change to safer technologies. I applaud Senator
Lautenberg's leadership in this area. He has introduced
legislation that would close the loopholes and provide for the
ability to change to safer technologies in our water treatment
facility plants. And I think that it is extremely important
that we consider such legislation.
Let me just point out that in Baltimore the Back River
Wastewater Treatment Facility Plant has switched from the
chlorine gas, the very dangerous technology, to liquid bleach,
relieving nearly 1.5 million people in danger of chlorine gas
exposure. The city would like to convert another facility to
liquid bleach but does not have the resources to do it.
So, I think we need to work with our local governments,
with our water managers, water treatment managers, to come up
with a strategy that not only uses safer technologies, that we
in Congress close the loopholes but that we work to
dramatically improve the water infrastructure so that the
reliability of clean and safe water that our constituents
depend upon is a reality in this Nation.
Mr. Chairman, with your consent, I will put my entire
statement in the record, and I will apologize early to the
witnesses. I have a conflict, but I am very much interested in
their testimony.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]
Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin,
U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland
Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing.
We rely on clean and safe water every day for our most
basic household needs; so do our manufacturers and our farmers,
our hospitals and our schools. The water infrastructure that
treats and delivers clean drinking water, the infrastructure
that carries away and treats our wastewater is critical to our
health and to our security. That infrastructure is at a tipping
point.
In many places--if not most places--it has long outlived
its 50-year life span. The American Society of Civil Engineers
has given America's water infrastructure a ``D^'' in its most
recent report.
We have been made painfully aware of this failure in my
home State of Maryland. There have been hundreds of water main
breaks, large and small, across Maryland over the last year
alone.
We've seen River Road in Bethesda turned into a literal
river. In October 2009 a thousand basements in Dundalk,
Maryland, were under water. On March 6, 2010, thousands more
homes and businesses along a major thoroughfare in Baltimore
County were left without water.
But the physical condition of the infrastructure is not its
only challenge. Both because of the chemicals used to treat our
water and because of the importance of this infrastructure to
our health, water infrastructure and treatment facilities make
inviting targets for terrorists.
There are steps we can take to address this vulnerability.
For instance, many treatment works do not need to use such
dangerous disinfectant processes and chemicals like chlorine
gas. And in fact, since the terrorist attacks in 2001 many
treatment plants have switched to safer disinfection
alternatives like liquid bleach or ultraviolet light.
In my own State of Maryland dozens of treatment facilities
have already converted from chlorine gas to safer alternatives.
The Back River Wastewater Treatment Facility in Baltimore, for
example, switched to liquid bleach, relieving nearly 1.5
million people from danger of chlorine gas exposure.
The city would like to convert another facility to liquid
bleach but is struggling to find the resources to make those
changes. That struggle is magnified by the demands of a
decaying infrastructure system that requires significant
investment to ensure the continued delivery of clean water.
Last year, as Chairman of the Water and Wildlife
Subcommittee, I worked with Chairman Boxer and Ranking Members
Inhofe and Crapo to introduce the Water Infrastructure
Financing Act. That bill would help address the overwhelming
needs of our Nation's drinking water and wastewater
infrastructure. It significantly increases the authorizations
for clean water and drinking water. It would also broaden the
types of projects that are eligible for funding to include
projects that increase water treatment facility security.
While funding eligibility is important, it is not enough to
address the security concerns posed by water treatment
facilities. We need better ground rules for when and where such
changes are necessary.
When Congress passed the Chemical Security Act in 2006
several classes of facilities--including drinking water and
wastewater facilities--were exempted from a chemical facility
security program rules and requirements. That exemption is a
serious gap in our security and must be fixed.
The Chemical and Water Security Act passed by the House of
Representatives last November closed this loophole and provides
additional funding to change to safer technologies. The Senate
must act to do the same. Senator Lautenberg introduced
legislation that would build on the House passed bill. I
commend him for his efforts.
We know that an increased investment in infrastructure has
benefits beyond the quality of our water and the safety of our
communities, additional benefits that are particularly
important in these economic times. With investment in water
infrastructure we can create thousands of new, desperately
needed jobs.
I look forward to hearing from our witnesses today on the
scope of the security risks and gaps left by current laws and
their ideas on current legislative proposals.
We have a lot of work ahead of us to address this serious
issue. I look forward to a healthy and open minded debate and
working together to making our water systems and Nation safer.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Senator Cardin.
Senator Udall.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I want to echo
what Senator Cardin said. This is a very important hearing. I
will try to keep my opening statement short and put most of it
in the record.
But I do want to comment on the look for safer
alternatives. I think that that is very important, and
especially when it comes to chlorine gas. It is a very toxic
and dangerous chemical. We need to find better ways. And we
have; this hearing will raise awareness that safer alternatives
to chlorine gas exist, and they may be as effective as treating
water and at a reasonable cost.
We have today a witness with us from Albuquerque, New
Mexico, Mr. Carlos Perea of MIOX, a fast growing company in
Albuquerque. MIOX uses a technology originally developed at Los
Alamos National Laboratory to purify water using salt, water,
and electric power. Utilities across the country have adopted
this technology with great success.
However, many water utilities and their workers and
communities are still vulnerable. When we consider legislation
to improve security at these facilities, we must ensure that we
focus on the root of the problem, the toxic chemicals
themselves.
Any legislation should provide a mechanism for utilities to
get informed about and consider the adoption of safer
alternatives when feasible and affordable. We should not pick
winners and losers, but instead create a technology-neutral
process that will lead to reduced risk and more security.
I also may not be able to hear all of the witnesses, but I
know that Mr. Perea will fully inform the panel. I would ask
the Chairman's permission to put my full statement in the
record and look forward to hearing from some of the witnesses.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for your leadership and
dedication in this area, too, and I know the legislation that
you have sponsored in many of these areas.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Senator Udall was not received
at time of print.]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you for being with us, even for
this short time.
The record will be kept open so that any questions that you
want to submit will be accepted, and we will look for a fast
turnaround from those from whom we make an inquiry.
I want to say to Senator Inhofe that we--this oversight
hearing is being done to get a better understanding of what the
problems are.
Senator Inhofe. And I appreciate that, Mr. Chairman. I only
wanted to say that when the notice came out we always predicate
the witnesses we have on what we think the subject is going to
be. That is why I wanted the clarification that it is not one
on your particular legislation. That is good.
Senator Lautenberg. All right.
And now we would like to hear from Ms. Cynthia Dougherty,
the Director of the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
at EPA. In that role she is in charge of EPA's program for
securing the Nation's water facilities.
Ms. Dougherty, we welcome you and ask you to begin your
testimony. We ask you to try to keep it to 5 minutes so we will
have some time for questions.
Thank you.
STATEMENT OF CYNTHIA C. DOUGHERTY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF GROUND
WATER AND DRINKING WATER, U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Ms. Dougherty. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman Lautenberg, Ranking Member Inhofe,
and Senator Udall. I am Cynthia Dougherty, the Director of the
Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water at the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. I welcome this opportunity to
discuss EPA's efforts to promote security and resiliency in the
water sector with an emphasis on our role in addressing
chemical security.
I understand that this Committee and others in Congress are
in the process of considering chemical security legislation. To
inform these deliberations the Administration has developed a
set of guiding principles.
First, the Administration supports permanent chemical
facility authorities. Second, covered facilities that use
substances of concern above threshold release levels should be
required to assess inherently safer technology. Further, the
appropriate regulatory agency should be authorized to require
the highest risk facilities to implement IST under certain
conditions and circumstances.
Third, the existing security gap for wastewater and
drinking water facilities should be closed with EPA having the
authority to regulate chemical security at such water
facilities while recognizing their essential public health and
environmental missions.
The water sector infrastructure is vulnerable to a wide
range of threats and hazards. Serious health impacts could
result from the introduction of contaminants into a drinking
water system. And any denial of drinking water or wastewater
services could have a major adverse effect on public health.
The economic impacts of a terrorist attack or natural
disaster on drinking water or wastewater utilities could be
significant for businesses and infrastructure in a community.
Simply put, the loss of water services could undermine the
viability of just about any community.
EPA has worked over the last several years to support the
water sector in improving security and resiliency, and I am
pleased to report that the sector has taken its charge
seriously. EPA has been entrusted with important
responsibilities for coordinating the protection of the water
sector through congressional authorization under the
Bioterrorism Act of 2002 and through Homeland Security
Presidential Directives.
Promoting the security and preparedness of the Nation's
water infrastructure remains a priority for the agency in a
post-9/11 and post-Hurricane Katrina world. In working with the
water sector we have emphasized a multi-layered approach to
security consisting of prevention, detection, response, and
recovery so that we can assist water facilities in avoiding
incidents, and should an incident occur, in quickly identifying
and recovering from such events.
We have worked closely with the water sector to assess and
reduce the risks associated with hazardous chemicals. To this
end, EPA and industry associations--often in partnership--have
developed tools, training, and technical assistance to help
water utilities identify and mitigate those risks. For example,
EPA has developed software tools that assist water systems with
assessing vulnerabilities, including chemical storage and
handling.
In conclusion, over the past several years we have made
progress in ensuring the security of our Nation's drinking
water and wastewater systems. We have produced a broad array of
tools, training, and other assistance that the water sector
uses to assess its vulnerabilities, reduce risk, and prepare
for emergencies including chemical theft and release.
In developing these tools we have worked effectively with
our partners within the sector and reached out to build new
relationships beyond the sector to ensure that water utilities
can be prepared to prevent, detect, respond to, and recover
from intentional incidents and natural disasters.
We look forward to continuing to work with members of the
Committee on legislation that ensures the security of drinking
water and wastewater facilities while supporting their critical
mission for public health and environmental protection.
Thank you again for the opportunity to testify about our
role in water security. I would be happy to answer any
questions you have.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Dougherty follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Ms. Dougherty.
I want to just review a couple of things. In your
testimony, you said that current chemical security laws do not
adequately address the risk of attack on water facilities. I do
not know whether you have had a chance to look at the Secure
Water Facilities Act, which we think is much more effective in
closing the gap and addressing these risks.
Are these areas of coverage taking care of the problems
that seem to be--that have remained open over a period of time?
Can we address these risks in the form that we are proposing
here?
Ms. Dougherty. Yes. I think your legislation would close
that gap, which is a priority for this Administration.
Senator Lautenberg. Some have argued that companies--and
not regulatory agencies--should decide whether a facility
should use safer technology. Which might be a better approach,
a voluntary or regulatory approach to protect the public from
the consequences of an attack?
Ms. Dougherty. The Administration supports the approach in
your bill which would provide the Government the authority to
require safer alternatives for the highest risk facilities,
balancing security, public health, and their environmental
mission. And for the drinking water and wastewater facilities,
that would be done really at the State level.
Senator Lautenberg. As I noted, over 500 water facilities
in 47 States have already replaced extremely hazardous
substances with safer and more secure chemicals in their
processes. We have heard from the opponents that moving to a
safer technology does not necessarily make sense for all
facilities, and we are not proposing a one size fits all. The
standards that we proposed, we believe can provide the latitude
as well as the coverage that we need.
Do you think that the approach that we have taken is one
that can take care of our needs without imposing heavier
burdens on those who do not have this kind of a responsibility
but have other ways of dealing with it?
Ms. Dougherty. I think the approach in your bill provides
factors for water systems and if necessary the State to assess
that allows for an understanding of the uniqueness of each
system and would allow for them to look at safer alternatives
while still making sure that they meet that public health or
environmental protection requirement.
Senator Lautenberg. Yes, we have tried to make certain that
we work to cure the problem that we know is rampant in terms of
a lack of the security for these facilities and how important
it is that we try to cover these bases. And we know that there
are lots of enemies out there that see the targets, water
supply systems, as the kind of target that brings enormous
damage.
Now, if the facility is required to switch to a safer
alternative we want to make sure that there is no risk shifting
where a plant simply moves the risk to another facility. Could
EPA work with the Department of Homeland Security to reduce
overall risk and prevent the risk from being shifted offsite?
Ms. Dougherty. Yes, EPA could, in consultation with the
Department of Homeland Security, look to make sure that there
is no offsite risk shifting in a decision that is made.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Ms. Dougherty.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Dougherty, let me start off with the vulnerability
assessments. Do you see a benefit in routinely updating these
assessments?
Ms. Dougherty. One of the things that we have done over the
past several years with the water sector is look at what the
future should be for an active and effective security program
at a water--a wastewater system. And one of the things that we
together identified in doing that was that vulnerability
assessments need to be updated over time so that the system
understands what they need to be protecting against.
Senator Inhofe. And how often do you think they should be
updated?
Ms. Dougherty. Three to 5 years, probably.
Senator Inhofe. OK.
Ms. Dougherty. Or if something major changes in terms of
the system, in terms of how, what treatment they are using or
what else might be happening around that system.
Senator Inhofe. OK. Does the EPA keep a record as to the
cost of these assessments?
Ms. Dougherty. We have not done that. No.
Senator Inhofe. Do current vulnerability assessments
require systems to examine how they handle chemicals onsite and
look at how systems can handle their chemicals more safely?
Ms. Dougherty. Yes. When the original Bioterrorism Bill was
passed in 2002 there was a requirement for systems to do one-
time vulnerability assessments, and those assessments included
chemical safety and handling.
Senator Inhofe. And do you believe that if the inherently
safer technology were to be mandated, do you have--does EPA and
the agencies have the resources to carry out that mandate?
Ms. Dougherty. I would say that when you look at the bills
that are under consideration there are authorizations for EPA
and the States to carry out the requirements, and those
authorizations would be sufficient for us to do it. But we do
not have the resources today.
Senator Inhofe. Just to help me out a little bit and for
the record, define inherently safer technology.
Ms. Dougherty. Well, I think in--we have not defined
inherently safer technology specifically, but it is defined in
both the House Bill that has been passed as well as Senator
Lautenberg's bill, and we think that definition is fine, and it
is not so prescriptive and provides the ability of systems to
look at a number of different factors.
Senator Inhofe. Well, I do want to look at that because I
see, well, first of all, Senator Lautenberg and I both want to
accomplish the same thing. I said that in my opening statement,
and I mean it. But there are some problems here. One, that term
has been so vague. In the past we have looked at that, and the
fear the people have is that it is not well enough defined so
that people have a concern that they would be, they put their
own worst case definition on it, which is just human nature.
And the other problem is just a basic difference is, and I
think that certainly Senator Lautenberg mentioned it in his
question to you or reaffirm his position and that is, in asking
the question is the bureaucracy in better shape than the
companies themselves to do this. And I think that this is
another reason why there is often disagreement on IST.
I can remember, gosh, it was about 3 or 4 years ago, we
went through this for a long period of time trying to do this,
and those are the two problems that I had at that time. I was
really watching this closely as the time goes by.
Ms. Dougherty. Yes, I would just add that the way that the
bills are set up and the way that we would envision this
happening is that the systems would do the assessment of the
methods to reduce a release of a chemical of concern and that I
would expect, given the experience that we have had with the
water sector over time, that the systems would do a fine job of
doing that and most likely reach the conclusions that they need
to reach of themselves.
But it is important to have a Government layer in terms of
oversight and consistency related to national security
decisions. And these are national security decisions when you
are looking at what to do about the chemicals of concern here.
So, it would be important to make sure that there is still
a Government check and a Government review and approval or
decision to require IST for those highest risk contaminants.
Senator Inhofe. But when you say the systems would be
responsible for making this assessment and determining what
needs to be done about it, and you do not see that this could
be, you think that--you already said that resources would be
adequate in the event that this system----
Ms. Dougherty. If it was appropriated, yes.
Senator Inhofe. If appropriated, yes. Because what I do not
want to do is be looking at another unfunded mandate.
Ms. Dougherty. Yes, I agree.
Senator Inhofe. You know, those of us who served some time
at the local government level, I used to say when I was Mayor
of Tulsa that our problems were not prostitution and crime in
the street and all that; the problems were unfunded mandates.
And that is what we are going to try to avoid.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Senator Udall.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Ms. Dougherty, your testimony discussed how EPA has been
working with water utilities since 2002 and before on security.
But most of the discussion relates to physical security. What
efforts has EPA taken to educate both large and small drinking
water utilities about the options for safer alternatives to
chlorine gas water treatment, and what has been the impact of
those efforts?
Ms. Dougherty. We have done some work over the last several
years with the water sector to develop schools and training
that help them assess and mitigate the risk from hazardous
chemicals. So, the risk assessment tools that we have developed
to address vulnerabilities include chemical storage and
handling, and we have developed a software tool which models
the dispersion and health effects of hazardous substances which
DHS actually uses in its CFATS Program.
We also have partnered with the National Association of
Clean Water Agencies and DHS to create a chlorine gas decision
tool to help utilities evaluate their disinfection methods in
light of security and public health concerns. And we have
worked with the Water Sector Coordinating Council over time
with DHS to talk about emerging threats related to hazardous
chemicals and make sure that information is available to
people.
Senator Udall. Now, on the second panel, Mr. Carlos Perea
is testifying about a technology developed in New Mexico that
is an alternative to chlorine gas and concentrated liquid
chlorine. Their process generates a diluted chlorine solution
onsite for water purification, and it is my understanding that
several other businesses offer competing technologies as well.
Does the EPA consider this a viable alternative that
eliminates the security risks caused by chlorine gas stored
under high pressure?
Ms. Dougherty. It can be if the circumstances are right for
the system to use it. And the particular approach that you are
talking about has been approved for providing disinfection
under our rules in terms of disinfection.
Senator Udall. Great.
Yesterday, our Committee received a letter from the
American Metropolitan Water Association which raised some
concerns for legislation that pushes utilities to adopt safer
alternatives. Have you had an opportunity to see that letter,
and if so do you have any response to the concerns they raised?
Ms. Dougherty. I just know that it got waved at me.
Senator Udall. OK.
Ms. Dougherty. I would have to look at it.
Senator Udall. OK. Well, we will give you an opportunity in
the subsequent questions that are submitted to respond to them.
Then your testimony notes that EPA supports the general
structure and approach of Senator Lautenberg's legislation and
the Secure Water Facilities Act which would require water
utilities to consider the viability of safer alternatives at
their facilities. Could you provide some more detail into how
EPA would participate in that process, especially in terms of
educating and informing utilities about the alternatives
available to them?
Ms. Dougherty. I think we would work with the sector in
terms of making sure that we have identified the different
alternatives that exist and provide information in terms of
approaches that they could take in terms of looking at those
different alternatives.
Senator Udall. Great. And thank you. We look forward to
your answer on the letter.
Thank you.
Ms. Dougherty. Thank you.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much, Ms. Dougherty. We
will keep the record open for approximately 10 days and ask
that if any inquiries come in that your response is prompt.
Ms. Dougherty. Certainly.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Ms. Dougherty. Thank you so much.
Senator Lautenberg. And now I would like to call Mr. Ben
Grumbles, who is the Director of the Arizona Department of
Environmental Quality, Mr. Paul Orum of the Blue Green Chemical
Security Coalition and an independent consultant to the Center
for American Progress, Mr. Carlos Perea, President and Chief
Executive Officer of the MIOX Corporation, and Mr. Darius
Sivin, International Representative of the United Automobile,
Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America.
We thank each one of your for being here, and Mr. Grumbles,
if you would please start your testimony.
STATEMENT OF BENJAMIN H. GRUMBLES, DIRECTOR, ARIZONA DEPARTMENT
OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Lautenberg, Senator Inhofe, Senator Udall, it is a
real honor to be before the Committee, to be back before the
Committee. I was a former Assistant Administrator for Water at
EPA and now am delighted to be the Director of Arizona's
Department of Environmental Quality.
And on behalf of Governor Brewer, I want to thank you for
giving us and the citizens of Arizona a chance to provide some
practical insights and thoughts about the goal we all share of
ensuring water is cleaner, safer, and more secure.
I want to highlight some of our experiences over the years,
particularly at the national level but at the State level as
well, in the post-9/11 era I had the opportunity to see a lot
of great work being done, funding through Congress, support
through Congress and EPA, vulnerability assessments, increased
tools, and technical assistance and training. And I think the
Nation--as I am sure you would agree--has made significant
progress. We are safer but not safe enough.
I want to thank you for having this hearing that brings
together water and wastewater interests together in the same
room to talk about a common goal and to raise real issues,
practical considerations, and how to get to that goal together
and as quickly as possible.
I wanted to share with you that one of the key messages I
think from an Arizona perspective, and water and wastewater
utilities, and also I know other utilities across the country,
is that bipartisan, bicameral efforts to strengthen our
Nation's water security should not get wrapped around the axle
of inherently safer technology.
Now, Mr. Chairman, I laud your efforts to force the
discussion on considering safer technologies. I think it is
very important, however, to keep in mind that how we get there
is the key question. We all support the concept, but asking how
it is going to be implemented and by whom is the key one.
I think it is important to recognize that inherently safer
is not always inherently smarter, particularly coming from the
West now, an arid area. The heat, the climatic considerations,
the realization that in every watershed the chemistry of the
water is a little bit different, means that it is at the local
level that the best decisionmaking is made.
So, one of the key points I wanted to emphasize is that the
city of Phoenix did a study in 2003 asking this key question
about what disinfectant to use. I know the American Water Works
Association has done some good work looking at different cities
across the country, weighing the costs and the benefits to
ensure that the Safe Drinking Water Act requirements are being
met, that public health is being protected, and that it is
being done safely.
The city of Phoenix determined that it made sense to change
some of its practices on the use of gaseous chlorine including
to embrace double containment--having a can within a can--and
to reconsider railcar delivery and storage in a move toward
smaller, manageable quantities.
There were significant considerations against moving away
from gaseous chlorine, including considerations about the cost,
but not just the cost, because that is not the driver when you
are talking about environmental and public health statutes. The
drivers include looking at the life cycle analysis, the ability
for chlorine residuals to remain in the system, looking at the
potential, that if you moved to hypochlorite there might be in
certain environments the production of a dangerous by-product
such as perchlorate or bromate formed that must now be managed.
These are all worth reviewing and all worth keeping in mind as
you continue to consider legislation.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to just emphasize three things.
One is please keep in mind that inherently safer technology--
that the choice of what disinfectant methodology to use--should
be primarily a local decision.
The second one is that the role of the States is critically
important. I truly understand the role, the need for a strong
presence from EPA and DHS when it comes to coordination,
national standards but neighborhood solutions. States are in a
better position not to take over the whole issue but to help
make the right decision, coordinating with local water and
wastewater utilities.
The third one, as I know you recognize, this takes money.
And an excellent role for the Federal Government, Mr. Chairman,
is to ensure that adequate funding is available to continue to
advance the technology, the science, the expertise on this
critically important issue to strengthen the security of our
water throughout the country.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate the
opportunity.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Grumbles follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Mr. Orum.
STATEMENT OF PAUL ORUM, BLUE GREEN CHEMICAL SECURITY COALITION,
INDEPENDENT CONSULTANT TO CENTER FOR AMERICAN PROGRESS
Mr. Orum. Good afternoon. I am Paul Orum, consultant to
public interest organizations on chemical safety and security.
Thank you very much for the opportunity to testify on
behalf of the Blue Green Chemical Security Coalition and to
present findings from survey reports that show leading water
utilities reducing their vulnerability to accidents and
terrorism.
I want to stress the following. First, many agencies and
organizations have warned that an intentional release of
industrial chemicals could harm thousands of Americans. The
Homeland Security Council uses 17,000 deaths in a planning
scenario; an insurance industry estimate points to $7 billion
in potential damages; EPA figures show some 800 wastewater and
drinking water facilities each with 10,000 or more people
living in its vulnerability zone. And more than 20 Federal
agencies and non-governmental organizations have warned about
the problem.
Second, there are solutions. Safer and more secure
chemicals and processes are widely used and can remove dangers
to employees and communities. Four surveys that I have
conducted through the Center for American Progress show more
than 600 chemical facilities across 20 industries already using
an option that avoids the possibility of a catastrophic
chemical release, and the water sector, in particular, has many
converted facilities.
At least 554 drinking water and wastewater facilities in 47
States have replaced extremely hazardous substances with safer
and more secure chemicals or processes, in the process taking
more than 40 million Americans out of the danger of a toxic gas
plume from those facilities.
Now, two caveats. These conversions took place over 10
years. At this rate, without legislation to push the process it
would take a half-century to convert the approximately 2,500
remaining water and wastewater plants that still report large
amounts of chlorine gas. Also, legislation is needed to
encourage converting the highest hazard facilities to set
priorities. Otherwise, these highest hazards could remain
around for half a century.
The drinking water facilities typically went from chlorine
gas to chlorine bleach, from chlorine to chlorine, whether
generated onsite or brought in in bulk. Some wastewater plants
also went to liquid bleach. Others converted to ultraviolet
light.
The third general area is the facilities that use safer and
more secure chemicals and processes avoid certain costs and
dangers and requirements. Survey respondents reported avoided
costs including regulatory compliance, personal protective
equipment they did not have to buy, chemical security they did
not have to install, emergency planning and potential
liability, among more than 20 types of avoided costs.
One-third of converted facilities anticipated saving money
as a result. And this is because gates and guards always cost
money while upgrading technology sometimes saves money by
modernizing facilities. And the avoided security costs for
those converted facilities will be roughly $3.1 billion over 10
years.
Now, it only makes sense for facilities to consider safer
options before assuming security costs that can be avoided and
before imposing costs and dangers on Government agencies and
the public. In many cases, even where facilities do not save
money alternatives to remove extremely hazardous substances are
also cost effective.
Finally, this is a mature issue. There have been bills for
10 years since your original bill in 1999. The current bills
before the Committee are the result of significant compromise
and include certain principles that we support. They build on
current laws, they protect drinking water and wastewater
standards, and they preserve State programs in collaboration
with local utilities.
Importantly, they provide each facility the flexibility to
conduct its own assessment suitable to its own circumstances.
Knowledge of solutions is dispersed, Government policy should
cultivate those solutions, and we see this proposed legislation
as a process to generate those solutions.
More than 100 labor and public interest organizations urge
the Senate and the Committee to act before the current program
expires on October 4th.
I would be happy to answer any questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Orum follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Mr. Perea.
STATEMENT OF CARLOS PEREA, CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, MIOX
CORPORATION
Mr. Perea. Senator Lautenberg, good afternoon.
My name is Carlos Perea. I am the CEO of MIOX Corporation.
We are a company that has been solving water quality issues for
approximately 20 years. Our products are used in U.S. Naval
ships as well as some of the top resorts and hotels around the
world.
But the majority of our experience has been in serving the
needs of the municipal drinking water facilities around the
country, and our systems are used by hundreds of facilities in
45 States. I actually brought a small example of the technology
and the small purifier pen which is standard issue for U.S.
Marines for drinking water.
It is an honor to be a part of this discussion regarding
the safety and security of our Nation's water treatment
facilities. I have three simple messages for this Committee and
welcome any questions.
The first is, please know there are well-tested solutions
that can virtually eliminate the safety and security issues of
concern. Second, these solutions do not have to cost more money
and do not have to add burden to the treatment facilities and
the communities. And third, without responsible legislation the
rate of change will continue to be slow, and the majority of
our communities will be vulnerable to accidents, or worse, to
deliberate acts of terrorism for years to come.
We have all read about and heard about the risks to large
urban facilities and communities, that as many as 6 times the
number of people who died in the horrific acts of 9/11 could be
affected in the event of a gaseous chlorine spill in an urban
area.
However, I want to talk more about the dangers to our small
rural communities. I believe these are the ones that we should
be concerned about, both given their numbers and the likelihood
they may not be as well resourced with the same safety and
security precautions as larger cities.
I believe the best way to deal with these risks are to
eliminate the need to store and transport these chemicals
altogether, and this is entirely possible with a well-proven
approach. As was mentioned earlier, MIOX is part of a larger
industry segment called onsite generation of disinfection
chemicals.
MIOX, along with others, has the ability to take ordinary
salt, power, and water and to convert it into a chlorine base
that is very powerful and effective but yet very dilute and
safe and can be used as a complete alternative to gas and
chlorine systems, including commercial strength bleach. The
process uses electrolysis, and the only by-product is hydrogen
gas that is easily vented.
This approach has several benefits. First, it is completely
compliant with EPA drinking water standards. Second, it
eliminates the need to store and transport chemicals
altogether. Third--and importantly--it saves money and can
often achieve 50 percent cost savings or more over the life of
the equipment. It is more environmentally responsible. It
reduces the number of truckloads of chemicals that must be
delivered. And it eliminates the need to decontaminate used
containers.
But most importantly it is very simple for the users to
adopt, and existing systems can be retrofitted with no downtime
and minimal training. This approach is used in over 5,000
installations, many of which have been in service for 10 years
or more, some of which are very small communities of 2,000 or
less.
To give you three brief examples. The city of Santa Fe has
been using MIOX systems since 1998 and has published reports of
better overall water quality and lower operational costs. In
the last several months Lakehaven Utility in Washington decided
to switch from both gas and liquid chlorine for safety
benefits. They also found they were able to save over $850,000
over the projected life of the project.
But the most compelling example that I would like to share
with you is from Apple Valley, California, that switched over
10 years ago due to safety concerns from caustic liquid bleach.
To quote one of their operators, these are the folks who
are actually working with the chemicals day in and day out;
before switching to onsite generation in Apple Valley we
literally had to employ a shower at every site. Transferring
the liquid bleach was a slippery mess--we had to get geared up
in full facials, goggles, aprons, the works every time. When we
switched to onsite and were given the proper training, the
installation was problem free, we didn't need any special
protective equipment or gear, it was easy to get the salt, it
was totally safe, and we saw huge cost savings.
So, if these systems are safer and they can save money, why
would all communities not follow these examples? And why should
we consider additional regulations? I believe there are many
reasons. Many of these communities are working hard to meet EPA
drinking water standards. However, they have no clear signal on
how much they need to focus on overall safety and risk.
Some communities have tried new approaches only after an
accident or a near miss with hazardous chemicals. Others have
adopted because they are proactive and want to save money or
want to be more environmentally responsible. But the majority
are not likely to change, at least not very quickly, unless
they are prompted. They may just be too busy with day to day
operations or other priorities.
Whatever the reasons, I believe it is time to take steps to
make our communities safe from these toxic chemicals. If we can
make them safer and reduce operational costs, why wouldn't we?
I hope it does not take a tragic accident or deliberate act of
terrorism for us to help the rest of the Nation's communities
and drinking water systems take notice.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Perea follows:]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you very much.
Dr. Sivin.
STATEMENT OF DARIUS D. SIVIN, PH.D., LEGISLATIVE
REPRESENTATIVE, INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE,
AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA (UAW)
Mr. Sivin. Senator Lautenberg, thank you for the
opportunity to testify today.
I am Dr. Darius Sivin, Legislative Representative for the
International Union UAW. We represent over 1 million active and
retired workers. Before serving as a Legislative Representative
I worked as an industrial hygienist at the UAW where one of my
responsibilities was facility visits and worker training
related to chemical safety.
Although this is not a legislative hearing I would like to
begin by urging the Committee to mark up and quickly approve S.
3598, the Secure Water Facilities Act, and to make the
improvements identified in this testimony.
The UAW appreciates the opportunity to testify at this
hearing on protecting America's water treatment facilities. We
are greatly concerned about the security of toxic inhalation
chemicals at these facilities because our members get hurt
first and worst in any attack.
We represent workers at the Detroit Wastewater Facility
which uses railcars of chlorine gas. The fact that Detroit has
recently been a terrorist target last Christmas increases our
concern for the more than 2 million people--including many of
our members--who live and work in the vulnerability zone of the
Detroit Wastewater Facility.
We are encouraged that 11 wastewater treatment facilities
in Michigan have already converted from chlorine gas to
ultraviolet or liquid chlorine bleach. It is likely that the
Detroit facility can do the same.
We believe that water facility chemical security
legislation will create jobs, and this belief is supported by a
recent report by Management Information Services. It is hard to
imagine otherwise given that the legislation requires public
facilities to invest in security, and this requirement is
accompanied by funds to help defray the costs. Moreover, water
facilities cannot be closed or moved far away without being
replaced locally. Every community needs drinking water and
wastewater treatment.
I want to emphasize that assessment and implementation of
methods to reduce the consequences of attack are important
security measures. They are security measures. Government
agencies should be able to require a facility to implement its
own plans to reduce the potential consequences of an attack.
The bipartisan Partnership for a Secure America has stated the
development of inherently safer, economically beneficial, and
efficient technology should be prioritized.
In a 2007 piece titled The Next Attack, Dr. Stephen Flynn,
President of the Center for National Policy and a former Fellow
of the Senate Foreign Relations, said the following. Public
water filtration plants use large quantities of chlorine, one
of the gases used as a weapon during World War I, lethal for
anyone caught downwind, potentially placing tens of thousands
of people at risk. This risk could be alleviated by replacing
chlorine with sodium hypochlorite, the active ingredient in
household bleach.
We fully agree with these security experts that methods to
reduce the consequences of an attack are important security
measures. We are pleased that your bill, S. 3598, provides for
assessment and appropriately conditional implementation of
methods to reduce the consequences of an attack.
We believe that vulnerability assessments and site security
plans can benefit from workers' direct and current knowledge
and experience of facility operations. Moreover, union staff
that enters multiple facilities in the course of their work can
bring the best non-proprietary ideas from one facility to
another. For that reason, we are pleased that S. 3598 provides
for including workers and their representatives in the
development of vulnerability assessments and site security
plans.
We favor a statutory requirement for facilities to provide
copies of vulnerability assessments and site security plans
submitted to Government agencies to the very employees and
representatives who participated in developing them. Without
such a requirement the minority of employers who are
unscrupulous could change the assessment prior to submitting
it.
Water facility security legislation must also include
language requiring employees to be trained in methods to reduce
the consequences of attack. In my written testimony I have
identified a number of ways in which we believe that the
information and accountability in the legislation can be
expanded. Let me just add that we do not think that there
should be criminal prosecutions for sharing what may or may not
be protected information.
In conclusion, even though this is not a legislative
hearing we urge the full Committee to mark up and quickly
approve S. 3598, the Secure Water Facilities Act, and make the
following improvements: Require employees to be trained in
methods to reduce the consequences of attack, require employers
to provide copies of vulnerability assessments and site
security plans to those who participated in development of
them, expand public disclosure of information, and eliminate
criminal penalties for disclosing information about
vulnerability in the absence of criminal penalties for non-
compliant employers.
We look forward to working with this Committee to make this
happen.
Thank you very much.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Sivin follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you to each one of you for your
testimony.
We are going to defer for the moment to Senator Udall from
New Mexico because Mr. Perea is here.
Please.
Senator Udall. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
the courtesy. It is really appreciated.
Mr. Perea, your testimony notes that your company was
founded as a spin-off from Los Alamos National Lab, which is a
great example of the jobs and technological advancements that
the labs create. I want to applaud you and the labs on that. I
do not have a question right now, but I may come back to that.
Your testimony notes that the main obstacle for municipal
utilities considering onsite disinfectant technologies is the
lack of information and reason to consider alternatives. Could
you expand on that and describe how the process in Senator
Lautenberg's legislation could inform utilities'
decisionmaking?
Mr. Perea. Thank you, Senator Udall.
The question, I believe, is how would this legislation help
promote adoptive technologies such as MIOX and inherently safer
technologies? Is that the nature of the question?
Senator Udall. That is right.
Mr. Perea. Yes. As you know, utilities are not driven by
profit motives. It is actually, ironically, much easier for us,
and as a business we have turned more of our attention to the
private sector.
Utilities are constantly dealing with shifting priorities
and compliance. Our experience--my experience personally--has
been that some of these utilities have safety of their workers
and safety of the communities at the forefront of any of their
decisionmaking, where others, they have not had an accident,
they have not had an issue, and quite frankly their focus and
attention is elsewhere in terms of water compliance.
Senator Udall. One of the objections we hear is that safer
alternatives may be more expensive. New Mexico has many rural
areas and towns that do not have a lot of financial resources,
but several of them have adopted your alternative, including
Las Vegas, New Mexico, and Bloomfield. How did these
communities end up deciding to use an onsite purification
technology, and how do the costs compare to the traditional
chlorine process?
Mr. Perea. Yes, Senator. The communities that have adopted
MIOX systems or competing alternatives typically have a longer
range horizon in mind when they consider costs. Typically they
are paying for gas chemical or liquid chemical on a monthly
basis on some type of contract. To adopt a technology like MIOX
the user will end up buying a piece of capital equipment, which
then allows them to have a much lower operational cost on the
monthly basis.
The equipment typically pays for itself, versus a liquid
system, inside of 2 years, and often over a gas system inside
of several years more than that. So, the Lakehaven example is
very common. I do not know the exact percentage in that case,
but I am sure it is 30, 40, or maybe even as much as 50 percent
cost savings over the life of the equipment.
Senator Udall. You heard me ask, I think, the EPA about the
letter received from the American Metropolitan Water
Association which raised some concerns with the legislation
that pushes utilities to adopt safer alternatives. Have you had
an opportunity to see that letter, and if so, what is your
response to any concerns they raised?
Mr. Perea. Unfortunately, I also am aware of the letter,
but have not read it in detail. Nor do I have a specific
response to it.
Senator Udall. Could you just tell us briefly about the
spin-off and how that happened, MIOX from Los Alamos?
Mr. Perea. Yes, of course. The origins of the technology in
the company pre-date my involvement, which is approximately 5
of the 20 years. But my understanding in talking to the
original founders of the company, the original contract was
specifically for this same exact issue for the U.S. military
looking to get rid of gas chlorine in the field. That was the
origin of the technology and the original SBIR. And it is
indeed used today for that specific purpose as well.
Senator Udall. Thank you. Once again, I applaud that spin-
off.
And Chairman Lautenberg, I want to thank you for your
courtesies very much, and the Ranking Member, Senator Inhofe,
for that.
Senator Lautenberg. We are happy to provide it. You are
very helpful in all matters, and we were glad to accommodate
you.
Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe. In fact, we were saying, we were talking
briefly, how much we like New Mexico and the time we have spent
there.
[Laughter.]
Senator Udall. I will stay here for that.
Senator Lautenberg. I skied in Taos.
Senator Udall. Come back. Come back.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. Well, I have a very important question--the
most important question to be asked today--of Ben Grumbles. Do
you realize how many years you and I have been working
together?
Mr. Grumbles. Yes, sir.
[Laughter.]
Senator Inhofe. No further questions.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Grumbles. And it has been a pleasure, and it dates back
decades.
Senator Inhofe. It dates back to 1987, and you were on the
Committee. You could not have been more than 15 years old then,
but that was 24 years ago. And I have enjoyed working with you
all of these years.
I thank you for coming to share your experiences on both
the national level and on the State level. And the second
question I want to ask is which do you like better, Washington,
DC, or Arizona?
Mr. Grumbles. Can I submit that for the record?
[Laughter.]
Mr. Grumbles. I love Washington, DC. Arizona is a wonderful
place to live and work and play and visit.
Senator Inhofe. Sure. It is kind of hot.
I was intrigued to hear that Arizona has incorporated
safety information into its sanitary service surveys. Are you
the only State that is doing that?
Mr. Grumbles. Absolutely not. And Senator Lautenberg, I
think it is an excellent point. Everyone should look for ways
to embed, to institutionalize security into Safe Drinking Water
Act as well as Clean Water Act practices and procedures.
The State of Arizona, like many other States, is looking
for opportunities to embed security considerations so that when
the State agency is doing its source to tap risk assessments at
individual water facilities, they look at security-related
aspects of it. And I think that is something that the Congress
should continue to encourage and EPA encourage.
Senator Inhofe. Have you learned some lessons from that
that you can share with some of the other States?
Mr. Grumbles. Well, one of the lessons that we learned is
that it is not just about the treatment methodology at the
plant. It is also looking at the entire system--the water
system, the water lines, the sewers, the whole lifeblood, and
so always one of the greatest risks of some type of act or
intentional act is not just at the plant itself but also in the
water lines, the drinking water lines or the sewer lines. And
that is an important part to keep in mind.
The other is to look at the specific pros and cons of the
different types of treatment practices and methodologies. We,
in Arizona, particularly based on the Phoenix study, really
want to be asking those questions. How well do substitutes to
gaseous chlorine work? Do they meet the Safe Drinking Water Act
or Clean Water Act requirements? Does the heat of certain areas
of the country change the dynamics? And I think those are
important that we learn in the sanitary surveys as well.
Senator Inhofe. And which is one of the arguments you would
use when doing this on a local level. Now, you are closer to
the water facilities because you are at that level. Do you
think that they would make the appropriate security upgrades if
they had the resources to do it?
Mr. Grumbles. I think that well-trained local water utility
officials are in the best positions to make those decisions.
They should be subject to oversight or regulation, absolutely.
Some of the utilities, some of the communities in the State of
Arizona, are moving away from gaseous chlorine. It is what fits
the local watershed and the local community's needs. And I
think that is a good way to go I think at the national level
and at the State level, though there should be oversight and
support to help those local experts make those decisions with
the most information available.
Senator Inhofe. Are there any other barriers other than
money that would prevent upgrades in security?
Mr. Grumbles. I think--this does not directly answer the
question--but I think particularly in the Southwest or in other
parts of the country that are looking at the water quantity,
water quality challenge, every decision about what treatment
methodology to use you should be asking not just what is the
safest methodology at the local level but also what is going to
also provide for a product that can be more effectively
reclaimed and reused.
So, ensuring that there are not unintended consequences to
changing your treatment practices, I think, is an important one
that the water security arena needs to take into account and
other environmental regulations is a change in practice at a
utility going to make it more difficult to reclaim that water
and to reuse it downstream and other approaches because water
is increasingly scarce in some parts of the country.
Senator Inhofe. Well, next time you are here in Washington
come by, and we can visit. You probably noticed a few minutes
ago Ruth Van Mark who was with me 20-some years ago when you
were still with me; she is still in probation, but she is still
with me. So, I look forward to having a chance to visit with
you.
Mr. Grumbles. Thank you very much.
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks, Senator Inhofe.
Senator Inhofe and I have an interesting relationship. It
is with respect and admiration and disagreement.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. We have overcome the disagreement side
to have, generally, a good opportunity for an exchange of views
and differences of opinion. And they are widely respected.
So, Mr. Grumbles, how tough was it to get away from Senator
Inhofe?
[Laugher.]
Senator Lautenberg. Oh, I am sorry.
[Laugher.]
Senator Lautenberg. Anyway, one of the things that we talk
about, and you note in your testimony, how scarce water is in
Arizona. So, therefore, virtually every drop has to have a
quality about it that is safe while being readily available.
Is it fair to say that if there is an inherently safer
technology that there would be an urgency to getting it in
place before a system is interrupted and dangerous, obviously,
for the communities that do tend to cluster, I think, near the
water supply?
Mr. Grumbles. Well, Senator, I think the goal of inherently
safer is right on. The key is how is that implemented and at
the local level what options are available that are safer and
also practical, affordable, and doable?
I know one of the--some of the communities across the
country--and I can say specifically in Arizona--are weighing
whether to move to alternatives to gaseous chlorine such as
onsite generation of hypochlorite. And one of the questions is
how much--what is the energy footprint of that? It can require
more energy to generate hypochlorite onsite. That does not mean
that it will not be the method chosen.
But it can be, as I am learning in Arizona, the energy-
water nexus is so important that the utilities practitioners,
the officials there, need to be asking what is safer, what
meets the Safe Drinking Water Act or Clean Water Act mandates,
and what also, what can our ratepayers afford? And energy is
increasingly expensive. So, you have to look at that part of
the equation as well.
Senator Lautenberg. Oh, I am sure that is so. But I think
wherever possible effectiveness and costs, all of these things
have to be taken into consideration. But even beyond those
factors are, what is the security? What are the protections
that we have? There, again, people in your State are so
committed to preserving water supplies that disruptions would
be----
Mr. Grumbles. Well, and the concept of vulnerability
assessments and updating those is critically important because
we, as a State, are vulnerable. Our future sustainability is at
stake if we do not have clean and safe water supplies. So, I
support you in your efforts, your goal of bringing people
together to find practical and meaningful progress.
Senator Lautenberg. We are going to try.
Mr. Perea, the Act, the bill that we have developed, gives
States authority to require utilities to implement safer
technology when it is cost effective, feasible, and allows
continued compliance with water quality standards. Might there
be jobs created by requiring these changes and making more jobs
available if they are, if the water supply is available and we
know that it is clean and safe?
Mr. Perea. Yes, Senator, I think it is a complex question
with a lot of implications. I think as community water systems
look to make upgrades, whether it be for water quality reasons
or safety and security measures, it requires a level of
training, a level of upgrading, if you will, and there is a
stimulation effect in that, including the providers of
equipment, whether it be onsite systems or other technologies
or equipment or services that are used to provide those. So, I
do believe there is a positive economic effect. It does entail
change.
Senator Lautenberg. Over 500 water facilities have switched
to safer methods, but at least 2,600 water facilities still use
large amounts of chlorine gas and other toxic gaseous
chemicals. Why have so few facilities converted to safer
technology, do you think?
Mr. Perea. I am speculating, obviously, since I have not
surveyed these. But I think that the rate of change in
utilities and public drinking water systems can be slow and is
often driven by compliance, not by innovation certainly and not
by cost savings or other motivations.
My experience has been that those that have had near
accidents--or near misses rather--with their chemicals have
been amongst the first to look seriously. And I think those who
have looked seriously have found that there are cost savings
that can be realized. And most often when communities get to
that stage there is a very high rate of conversion to safer
alternatives. But I do not think it is on most communities'
radar screens.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Orum, what do you think about that?
Mr. Orum. I have spoken with many facilities that have
converted, and almost always they are very proud of what they
have achieved and very relieved that the chlorine gas is no
longer there.
On the other side, though, sometimes facilities have used
chlorine gas for a long time without an incident. And these are
low probability-high consequence events that are very hard for
facilities to make a priority before they happen.
One facility told me that they have used chlorine gas since
1915 without an incident. They were bringing it in by rail.
Unfortunately, current regulations encourage that shifting of
risk onto the rails. There are about 35 water utilities that
still use chlorine gas by rail. And so our laws also encourage
and perpetuate hazards in cases where they really do not need
to exist.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Grumbles, in your written testimony
you say that decisions on these chemicals at individual sites
are best made by utility experts, that Congress should simply
``provide direction.' Do I understand correctly? Because that
sounds like the same voluntary approach that has allowed 2,600
facilities to continue to use lethal chlorine gas when safer
alternatives are available.
Why should States not be able to require utilities to take
reasonable, cost effective steps to protect communities who are
near water facilities?
Mr. Grumbles. Senator, I think Congress should provide
direction and support for a range of different strategies and
tactics to move beyond the status quo to increase the security
of water and wastewater systems.
When it comes to mandating inherently safer technologies I
think it should be made primarily by the utility, and I think
at the State level. I think that is preferred to the Federal
level, making a choice or review of what size fits, and I think
that it gets very difficult and complex, and there can be
tradeoffs that are lost in the mix when it is decided
ultimately at the Federal level what a particular utility
should do.
I think the key is to emphasize focus on the local level
decision, but hold them accountable and make sure that they are
looking at the range of factors.
Senator Lautenberg. At what point does risk take over other
parts of the decisionmaking? Is there a point in time, a
vulnerability age of the structure, et cetera?
Mr. Grumbles. I think these are questions that are all
about risk and risk management. I think it is important not to
be taking tools off the table necessarily from the Federal
level, but to be encouraging cleaner and safer practices and
approaches that result in cleaner and safer product, the water.
I think that the progress that has been made since the 2002
Bioterrorism Act--one of the real steps that I know you should
be proud of is that local utilities and those in the water
sector are taking it very seriously and training themselves and
getting EPA and DHS support for ways to better identify and
characterize the risks and to manage them.
And when it comes to what choice of chemicals or treatment
practices I think it needs to be very careful that it is done
on a local and regional basis.
Senator Lautenberg. But the State agencies have an
important role to play in this decision?
Mr. Grumbles. Yes, sir.
Senator Lautenberg. Mr. Orum, opponents have argued that
switching to safer alternatives could be too costly, even
though studies found the annual costs to be less than $1.50 per
customer. Now, what is a bigger threat to our society,
requiring cost effective safer alternatives or release of
chlorine gas which is so lethal?
Mr. Orum. I do not know of any macro studies comparing the
cost of prevention to response, but I think it is safe to say
that $1.50 per customer per year, which is the upper end of
converting a big city water utility off chlorine gas, is a much
better deal than $7 billion in damages, which the insurance
industry says could result from a worst case release.
Certainly, just look at the Gulf oil spill where billions are
being spent to clean up a problem that could have been
prevented for a fraction of the cost.
The Association of American Railroads always reminds us
that toxic inhalation hazard chemicals account for one-quarter
of 1 percent of their cargo, yet are the bulk of their
liability costs and potentially ruinous liability. And 35 or so
water utilities, as I noted, still use chlorine gas by the
railcar.
Dr. Sivin mentioned a report by Management Information
Services showing 8,000 jobs created as a result of the House
Bill. Clorox plans to eliminate all of its bulk chlorine use at
all of its bleach plants around the country at no loss of jobs.
In comparison New York City spent almost--said it had almost
$94 billion worth of economic cost in the first year alone
after 9/11. I think it really just boils down to an ounce of
prevention being worth a pound of cure.
Senator Lautenberg. Dr. Sivin, what, how about the people
who are manning these stations and are concerned about or
connected with the transportation of chlorine gas? What are
they saying? They do not want their jobs at risk but nor do
they want their lives at risk with their families. Can an
inherently safer technology provide the security for them and
maintain it? Is there a job shift at all that takes place with
any of these facilities, to your knowledge, that have made the
change?
Mr. Sivin. No, we do not, we have not seen one. In general,
when a facility invests, we invest in place. It tends to
protect jobs. Bringing new investment into a facility tends to
provide job security to its employees.
We also think, in the case of water treatment facilities,
as I mentioned, there is not much risk of a job loss because a
water treatment facility is attached to a community. It cannot
go elsewhere. They tend to be public facilities. They tend to
be tax supported. Where is a water treatment facility going to
go? And if one went somewhere else, that community would have
to create new jobs by bringing in a new one.
It is not--we simply do not perceive that as much of a
risk, and even if the argument is that they would have to spend
money on something else, first of all, as Mr. Orum pointed out,
in most cases it is not much less money and in some cases there
is actually a long-term savings, so there is actually more
money available to expand, hire more employees, whatever the
case may be. And there is also Federal assistance in the
various pieces of legislation out there to assist facilities.
So, we think all of that information together supports the
conclusion of MISI that it is likely to add jobs.
Senator Lautenberg. Well, I want to say thank you to each
of you for your contribution as we conduct our research on
where to go, what to add to our legislation or change, we will
come up with something that we would be happy to have your
testimony or suggestions on.
If there are questions by any member of this Committee who
have yet to ask them and they submit the question to you in
writing, we would ask for as quick a response as you can give
us. And we thank you.
This Committee is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 4 p.m., the Committee was adjourned.]
[Additional material submitted for the record follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]