[Senate Hearing 113-747]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 113-747
EXAMINATION OF THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES
FOLLOWING THE CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA DRINKING WATER CRISIS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER AND WILDLIFE
of the
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 4, 2014
__________
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.gpo.gov/fdsys
______
U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE
97-583 PDF WASHINGTON : 2016
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 20402-0001
__________
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
ONE HUNDRED THIRTEENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
BARBARA BOXER, California, Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana DAVID VITTER, Louisiana
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
BERNARD SANDERS, Vermont JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island MIKE CRAPO, Idaho
TOM UDALL, New Mexico ROGER WICKER, Mississippi
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
CORY A. BOOKER, New Jersey
Bettina Poirier, Majority Staff Director
Zak Baig, Republican Staff Director
----------
Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife
BENJAMIN L. CARDIN, Maryland, Chairman
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas
SHELDON WHITEHOUSE, Rhode Island JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JEFF MERKLEY, Oregon JOHN BARRASSO, Wyoming
KIRSTEN GILLIBRAND, New York JEFF SESSIONS, Alabama
CORY A. BOOKER DEB FISCHER, Nebraska
BARBARA BOXER, California (ex DAVID VITTER, Louisiana (ex
officio) officio)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
FEBRUARY 4, 2014
OPENING STATEMENTS
Cardin, Hon. Benjamin L., U.S. Senator from the State of Maryland 1
Vitter, Hon. David, U.S. Senator from the State of Louisiana..... 4
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 6
Udall, Hon. Thomas, U.S. Senator from New Mexico................. 9
Rockefeller, Hon. Jay, U.S. Senator from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 11
Manchin, Hon. Joe, U.S. Senator from the State of West Virginia.. 12
Rahall, Hon. Nick, U.S. Representative from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 14
Capito, Hon. Shelley, U.S. Representative from the State of West
Virginia....................................................... 15
WITNESSES
Tennant, Natalie E., Secretary of State, West Virginia........... 17
Prepared statement........................................... 19
Responses to additional questions from Senator Boxer......... 25
Response to an additional question from Senator Vitter....... 26
Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin........ 26
Huffman, Randy C., Cabinet Secretary, West Virginia Department of
Environmental Protection....................................... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 30
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer................................................ 35
Senator Cardin............................................... 36
Senator Vitter............................................... 38
Olson, Erik D., Senior Strategic Director for Health and Food,
Natural Resources Defense Council.............................. 39
Prepared statement........................................... 41
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer................................................ 51
Senator Cardin............................................... 53
Fewell, Brent, Vice President of Environmental Compliance on
Behalf of United Water......................................... 59
Prepared statement........................................... 61
Response to an additional question from Senator Boxer........ 69
Responses to additional questions from Senator Cardin........ 69
McNulty, Michael W., General Manager, Putnam Public Service
District, West Virginia........................................ 74
Prepared statement........................................... 76
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer................................................ 83
Senator Vitter............................................... 83
Faulk, Richard O., Partner, Hollingsworth, LLP................... 86
Prepared statement........................................... 88
Responses to additional questions from Senator Vitter........ 96
Weaver, R. Peter, Vice President, Government Affairs,
International Liquid Terminals Association..................... 99
Prepared statement........................................... 101
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Cardin............................................... 108
Senator Vitter............................................... 110
ADDITIONAL MATERIAL
Statements:
American Water Works Association............................. 123
West Virginia American Water................................. 125
Clean Water Action........................................... 133
EXAMINATION OF THE SAFETY AND SECURITY OF DRINKING WATER SUPPLIES
FOLLOWING THE CENTRAL WEST VIRGINIA DRINKING WATER CRISIS
----------
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2014
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 10 a.m. in
room 406, Dirksen Senate Building, Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Cardin, Carper, Boxer, Udall, Vitter and
Boozman.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BENJAMIN CARDIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF MARYLAND
Senator Cardin. The Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife will
convene.
I want to thank Senator Boxer for her cooperation in
allowing us to expedite this hearing. Senator Vitter, I want to
also thank you for the manner in which the leadership of the
EPW Committee facilitated a very quick and early hearing on
what happened in West Virginia.
Americans have a right to expect that when they turn on
their tap, the water they get is safe and is safe to drink. It
is our responsibility to make sure that expectation is, in
fact, carried out, both at the Federal, State and local
government levels. It is a primary responsibility of government
to protect the public safety of the people of our community.
The system did not work on January 9th in West Virginia.
The system failed. Yes, the reckless conduct of a private
company, Freedom Industries, was responsible for the spill and
the failure to properly report but our system needs to be
adequate to protect against all contingencies and it was not in
this instance.
I think we need to look at how we can strengthen our laws
to make sure the public indeed has safe drinking water.
I want to congratulate and thank Senators Boxer, Manchin
and Senator Rockefeller in the Senate for quickly introducing
legislation that deals with some of the fundamental issues with
which we have to be concerned.
The current law requires a risk assessment of chemicals
that may be in the area that could jeopardize safe drinking
water but does not require an update of that information, nor
does it require that there be a plan for using that information
to protect the safety of the people of our community. Our laws
are just not strong enough to deal with the current situation.
Yes, we can take a look at the fact that there has been a
risk assessment. However, the last risk assessment done in this
area in West Virginia was done in 2002 and was done because of
9/11. We asked all communities to reassess their chemical
vulnerabilities. In West Virginia, the State proper did a risk
assessment in 2002.
There was a different owner of the company at that time and
it did not list the risk of the chemical involved in this
particular episode, so risk assessments need to be updated in a
more timely way.
How do we use this information? First and foremost, we want
to mitigate the risk factors to safe drinking water. In West
Virginia, there would have been ways in which we could have had
better retaining walls, better setbacks and a lot of different
things could have been done if that information was available
and if we acted on that information.
We want to be prepared for all contingencies. The public
expects us to be able to act quickly.
I will put my full statement in the record because we will
be holding people to time limits because we have a large panel
here today.
[The prepared statement of Senator Cardin follows:]
Statement of Hon. Benjamin L. Cardin, U.S. Senator
from the State of Maryland
I want to thank our guest colleagues for coming before the
subcommittee today to share their experiences and ideas. While
I know this crisis in your State has been very trying for your
constituents, my hope is that we may learn from this experience
and find policy solutions to ensure that an incident like this
never happens again in West Virginia or in any other state.
The Central West Virginia Water Crisis has shined a
spotlight on the vulnerabilities and threats to the safety and
security of our drinking water sources. The rapid response to
the crisis, especially the speedy relief efforts delivered to
the affected communities by FEMA and the National Guard are to
be commended and we thank those who were there during the
victims' times of need.
The gross negligence of Freedom Industries, the company
operating the chemical storage and terminal facility on the
banks of the Elk River on the North-Eastside of Charleston,
should give us all pause about the potential threats to our
water resources across the country.
Because the plain facts are: We don't know the extent of
the contamination risks to our drinking water sources. Federal
law requires the states to conduct risk assessments within the
watersheds or boundaries of known drinking water sources.
Federal law does not, however, require these surveys to be
updated or provide any guidance on how this information is to
be used. What we have is a patchwork of State data with varying
degrees of reliability. This creates uncertainty of risks for
water providers.
One of the most frightening, albeit fortunate, revelations
about the West Virginia water crisis centers around one very
distinct property of the chemical that spilled into Elk River
infiltrating the West Virginia American Water works facility.
Methyl-Cycl-Oh-Hex-ane, commonly referred to as MCHM, has a
very distinct odor that is described as smelling like black
licorice. Residents across West Virginia America's service
district noticed this unmistakable odor in their tap water on
the morning of January 9th and immediately began reporting
their discoveries to State environmental protection officials
and the Water Works.
These calls to the authorities touched off the
investigation and discovery of the spill at the Freedom
Industries tank farm located one and half miles upriver from
West Virginia American's intake pipe. Freedom Industries made
no effort to report the spill, even though environmental
investigators at the scene found that the Company had made a
rudimentary attempt at containing the spill.
It was the odor of the MCHM that kept this crisis from
being an all out public health catastrophe. But many chemicals
are odorless, and would pass a literal ``sniff test'' while
posing a serious threat to human health if they entered the
water supply.
Another chemical, PPH, is reported to also have spilled
from the Freedom Industries facility. While officials believe
that West Virginia American's water treatment works may have
removed the PPH from the drinking water supply, it went
undetected for more than 2 weeks after the spill was reported.
The only reason authorities knew to start looking for PPH is
because, Freedom Industries admitted, 2 weeks later, that PPH
also spilled.
EPA has only written Safe Drinking Water Act regulations
for 90 contaminants. MCHM an PPH are not one of the 90. In fact
there is very little known at all about the safety of these
chemicals.
While the lack of information of the safety of these
chemicals is concerning, what troubles me in my capacity as
chairman of the Water of Subcommittee is the lack of
information downstream drinking water provider had of these
chemicals' presence being stored on the banks of the Elk River
just 1.5 miles upstream.
The responsibility to provide safe drinking water to
thousands of customers is enormous. There are standard industry
procedures used to treat for common microbial contaminants and
turbidity but not most chemicals. Treatment for chemicals, on
the other hand, can be very complex. With more than 80,000
manufactured chemicals in commerce we can't expect every water
provider to test and treat their water for every known
chemical.
We can and should expect drinking water providers to test
and treat for known potential contaminants within their
watershed boundaries. But they need to know what potential
threats are out there to do so effectively.
Section 1453 of the Safe Drinking Water Act required EPA to
publish guidance for states to implement source water
assessment programs that delineate boundaries of the areas from
which systems receive water, and identify the origins of
contaminants within those areas to determine systems'
susceptibility to contamination. These assessments can be
incredibly helpful if they are kept up to date. The law,
however, has no update requirement.
If West Virginia American had accurate and up to date
information on the chemicals being stored in the watershed it
would have been better prepared to detect and treat for MCHM
and the crisis could have been avoided or at least very least
mitigated.
But the responsibility for preventing a health crisis
resulting from an individual's or corporation's irresponsible
actions that foul a source waters should not fall squarely on
the shoulders on the water service provider at the expense of
individual ratepayers. The law needs to place greater
responsibility on the entities creating the risk and emphasize
prevention at the potential source of contamination. It is
entirely unfair to socialize the expense of recovering for the
mistakes of a single entity.
We're seeing this playing out right now in West Virginia.
West Virginia American continues to spend thousands if not
millions of dollars to recover from this spill. These expenses
will ultimately be passed along to their 300,000 customers.
Some of these customers will likely to have to make personal
investments to repair or replace damaged hardware and
appliances caused by the spill. Meanwhile, Freedom Industries
has filed for bankruptcy to protect their financial liability
for damages from a incident that they are responsible for.
I want to believe that most companies that produce, store,
ship and sell potentially hazardous chemicals are responsible
actors. Its situations like this that clearly demonstrate that
even if most actors are good, one bad actor can put at risk the
health and safety of hundreds of thousands of people and that
there is a very appropriate and essential role for government
to play to protect those people from the potential negligence
of others.
The Safe Drinking Water Act does not provide specific risk
prevention enforcement measures for the State to implement on
identified risks in the watershed assessment. That's not to say
states can't pass such laws, but it is entirely appropriate,
given how waters flow across State lines and in many instances
establish State borders, for there to be better Federal
enforcement mechanisms.
The West Virginia Senate recently passed legislation, with
unanimous bi-partisan support, to improve the monitoring and
spill prevention requirements of chemical facilities in the
state.
I would like to think that there would be bi-partisan
support in the U.S. Congress to make similar amendments to our
Federal laws to better ensure the safety of all communities.
The Federal role is clear. We need only look at the source
of water for the U.S. Capitol to underscore this point. Our
water in this building comes from high up in the Potomac River
Watershed from an Army Corps reservoir, named after U.S.
Senator Jennings Randolph from West Virginia. That reservoir
straddles the West Virginia and Maryland border, yet it
provides water to DC and suburban Maryland. This is just one
example of a clear interest we have in improving Federal
statute.
I look forward to working with colleagues on these issues
so that we may prevent the next crisis from occurring in each
other's state.
Senator Cardin. I want to thank the responders, the people
at FEMA, the National Guard and many others who did incredible
work to provide safety and information to the people of West
Virginia and minimized the otherwise catastrophic impact of
this episode.
I also want to point out that we need to look at the cost
issues. The company involved has filed bankruptcy, trying to
avoid the full financial impact, which means the ratepayers of
West Virginia and many homeowners are going to be suffering.
What do we do about that?
I also want to look at the issue of federalism. I know the
Senate in West Virginia has acted on legislation. I know it is
under consideration in both the House and the Senate in the
State, but this is an issue of federalism.
The water we drink here, this tap water that came from the
tap we hope is safe, comes from the Potomac River Watershed
named after U.S. Senator Randolph Jennings from West Virginia.
It comes from West Virginia and Maryland into D.C., so yes,
federalism says the States need to act but the Federal
Government also needs to act to make sure we have safe drinking
water for all the people of our country.
I am very pleased to have our colleagues here from both the
House and the Senate. We have many people on the next panel who
are experts in this area. I hope we can move forward together.
Like the legislature in West Virginia, I hope that the Congress
can move forward in a bipartisan. My understanding in the
Senate, it was a unanimous vote. I hope we can move forward in
a bipartisan manner to change our laws and oversight to make
sure we keep our people safe.
With that, let me turn to Senator Vitter.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. DAVID VITTER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF LOUISIANA
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Chairman Cardin and Chairman
Boxer for convening this really important subcommittee hearing
today on the West Virginia chemical spill.
My thoughts go out to the more than 300,000 individuals
directly affected by this accident. I hope today's panel can
better help us understand the circumstances surrounding this
spill to enhance response and prevention in the future.
I certainly want to commend Senator Manchin,
Representatives Capito and Rahall, and all those who have
worked tirelessly in the wake of this unfortunate spill. On the
Senate side, Senator Manchin, with others, has introduced
legislation in response to the spill. While I have specific
issues with it that we are working through, I am completely
supportive of the effort and hope to come to a positive
resolution of those specific issues very soon.
A crucial part of the legislative process is undertaken at
the committee level where traditionally bills are brought to
markup for an open and transparent discussion. Members from
both sides of the aisle are allowed to voice their opinions and
offer amendments to be voted on.
I want to thank Chairman Boxer for agreeing to a markup
later this week. I fully support that process, but I also want
to encourage more of that, more markups where there is
significant bipartisan work going on.
Senator Manchin's bill, along with other important pieces
of legislation, like our Chemical Safety and Improvement Act,
should be brought before this committee in a markup to allow
the legislative process to play out. In an age where compromise
is so rare, it is unfortunate that any bill which has
significant support throughout the Senate would not move
expeditiously. Multiple bipartisan bills in addition to the
Chemical Safety and Improvement Act continue to wait for markup
and I certainly support action in all of those areas.
In this instance, it is clear that important information
was not readily available on certain chemicals which got into
the Elk River, further highlighting the need for reforming our
Nation's outdated law that assesses chemical risks, the 38 year
old Toxic Substances Control Act.
I am certainly proud to have introduced the first ever
bipartisan TSCA reform bill with the late Senator Lautenberg.
As many of you know, that is currently sponsored by 25 Senators
from both parties spanning the entire political spectrum.
For the last 6 months, Senator Udall and I, along with
other members of the Senate, including Senator Manchin, have
worked tirelessly to improve that already bipartisan agreement
and have made significant strides in this regard. The bill we
have now is not the bill we initially introduced because we
have carefully listened to stakeholders and made significant
and measurable improvements.
A vast majority of States, West Virginia included, have
resource constraints and need the certainty of a strong Federal
program that develops risk assessments and regulations based on
sound science. It is important to quickly explain how CSIA
would unequivocally help States and the American people with
greater access to information aiding in the understanding and
response to such an incident as this.
I guess the bottom line in that regard is that the lack of
health and safety data on any of the chemical compounds which
spilled in West Virginia would have been enough under our bill
for EPA to have classified them as high priority, requiring a
full and robust safety assessment and determination.
Our bill would have granted greater authority to EPA to
ensure assessment and determination be informed by new studies
ordered by EPA without having to go through the formal
rulemaking process or find that the chemical may pose an
unreasonable risk.
The bill would also reduce barriers for the agency that
exist now and would also allow for greater sharing of
confidential information between EPA, State and local
governments, as well as first responders and health
practitioners.
Finally, I want to welcome all of our witnesses today, in
particular the members that I recognized, as we look to what
happened in their State of West Virginia. I look forward to an
important discussion.
Thank you.
Senator Cardin. Senator Boxer.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. BARBARA BOXER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Senator Boxer. Thank you, Senator Cardin, for your great
leadership. Thank you, Senators Vitter and Boozman for agreeing
this and welcome to all.
I want to make a statement about TSCA but most of my
statement will not be about TSCA. I want to enter into the
record an article entitled, The Chemical Safety Improvement Act
Will Not Solve the Problems Illustrated by the West Virginia
Chemical Spill.
Senator Cardin. Without objection.
[The referenced information follows:]
The Chemical Safety Improvement Act will not solve the problems
illustrated by the West Virginia chemical spill
posted january 15, 2014
Daniel Rosenberg, Senior Attorney, Washington DC
In the wake of the recent chemical spill into the Elk River and the
drinking water supply of several hundred thousand West Virginians, a
new call has been raised to quickly move bi-partisan legislation
introduced in May 2013 to reform the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA). Unfortunately, it would be compounding one environmental
disaster with another to move forward with that legislation, the
Chemical Safety Improvement Act (S 1009), in its introduced form. While
some individual provisions of S. 1009 are potential improvements over
TSCA, other provisions would mute or erase their impact and the bill as
a whole would leave the public with even less protection. That bill, as
is, would leave EPA hamstrung and prevent states from taking action.
TSCA, first passed in 1976 (and never updated) has largely been a
failure. Intended to give EPA the authority to regulate the
manufacture, use, distribution and disposal of chemicals ``from the
cradle to the grave'' it has yielded virtually no meaningful regulation
or protection, particularly from the tens of thousands of chemicals
that were in commerce at the time the law was enacted. The law
``grandfathered'' in chemicals like the one that leaked in West
Virginia, 4-methyl-cyclohexane-methanol(MCHM), meaning that they
remained on the market unregulated even though virtually no information
was available on any risks they might pose. The law ``grandfathered''
some 62,000 chemicals, and did not require that EPA test them for
safety or ensure that they met a standard of safety.
The law also contained provisions making it difficult for EPA to
require testing of chemicals, and saddled the agency with a requirement
to prove that it had examined and done detailed analysis on virtually
any possible means to regulate a chemical before settling on the
appropriate set of restrictions. The impact of these provisions was
fully revealed in 1991 when a Federal court overturned EPA's attempt to
ban most uses of asbestos, which is known to cause disease, including
cancer, after a 10-year effort. Since that time EPA has not regulated
another chemical substance under TSCA. In total, the agency has
regulated only six of the original 62,000 substances under the law.
Health, science, labor, consumer, justice and environmental
organizations from across the country have been working toward reform
of TSCA for years in an effort to ensure the existence of a strong
Federal program for assessing the safety and regulating chemicals.
Unfortunately, the Chemical Safety Improvement Act (CSIA), as
introduced, would fail to ensure such a program, and at the same time
would prevent State and local governments from taking action to protect
their citizens--which is what has taken place in the absence of Federal
action under TSCA. On balance, the CSIA would actually be worse than
current law.
In the wake of the West Virginia spill, the outcry has been to
ensure that information is available about risky chemicals and that
those risk be limited. But the CSIA in its current form would require
EPA to go through as much as a decade of preliminary steps before it
could start regulating additional chemicals. Even after analysis began,
it would continue to make it hard to get information on existing
chemicals and to use that information. The bill makes it easy, though,
for the agency to decide that a chemical is a ``low priority'' and to
never regulate it. And the bill blocks states from taking action on
chemicals even if EPA has not acted or will never act.
Here are just a few of the many problems with the introduced
version of the Chemical Safety Improvement Act:
The safety standard in the legislation is not protective of public
health. It would not ensure the protection of vulnerable populations,
including those more heavily exposed to toxic chemicals and those--like
pregnant women, children and the elderly--more vulnerable to the toxic
effects of chemicals. And the safety standard could still allow
consideration of cost as a factor in determining whether a chemical was
safe and could be regulated by the EPA, the same failure as under the
existing law.
The bill contains no enforceable deadlines for EPA to take action
to assess or regulate chemicals, and establishes no minimum number of
chemicals for the agency to assess each year. With thousands of
chemicals never assessed for safety, and with industry and
congressional opposition to most steps taken by EPA to assess or
regulate chemicals to date, a failure to include enforceable deadlines
and minimum requirements ensures that nothing would happen under this
new ``improved'' TSCA.
In addition to the lack of enforceable deadlines, the bill contains
pages of provisions that would tie the agency up in red tape, delaying
potentially for years any effort by EPA to prioritize, test, assess and
regulate chemicals. In addition, the bill is laced with provisions that
would further hamper EPA, and put a thumb on the scale in favor of
chemical industry-preferred methodologies for assessing chemicals over
methods endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences.
The bill would prevent EPA from requiring testing of a chemical
unless it has been classified as ``high priority'' which in many cases
may be difficult without some additional testing--due to the lack of
available health for thousands of chemicals in commerce--including
MCHM. This is one of many provisions designed to ensure that ultimately
the number of chemicals assessed and actually regulated are very low.
As far as the lack of available health data for most chemicals in
commerce, one of the reasons for that is the excessive protection for
claims of Confidential Business Information (CBI) which have been
abused over the years and resulted in protection of information that is
not actually CBI. The bill would grandfather in all previous CBI
claims, including the identity of some 16,000 chemicals.
Another problematic provision would allow EPA to designate a
chemical as ``low-priority'' meaning ``likely to meet the
[unprotective] safety standard''--even when data to make an informed
decision is lacking. In addition, once EPA made such a low-priority
designation, states would be pre-empted from ever taking any action on
the substance. Hundreds or thousands of substances could easily
disappear down this memory hole, never to be thought of again unless
perhaps they spill into somebody's drinking water supply.
As noted above, the bill would also widely preempt states from
taking action on chemicals, including high-priority chemicals, even
when action by EPA may be years away, or may never occur at all. The
bill would also take away states' existing authority to enforce Federal
provisions of the law within their state. And the bill would eliminate
existing authority for EPA to take quick action to protect the public
from dangerous chemicals when such a need arises.
Finally, the bill contains no provision to ensure that EPA has
sufficient funding to run the type of program necessary to assess the
safety of chemicals and ensure that those that remain in commerce are
manufactured, processed, distributed, stored, used and disposed of with
sufficient safety controls in place.
In short, the problems with TSCA that are illustrated by the
chemical spill in West Virginia would not be fixed by the Chemical
Safety Improvement Act, as introduced, and in some respects they would
be made worse. The bill as currently written would provide the public
with the illusion of an effective Federal program to regulate
chemicals, while tying the EPA in knots and taking away existing State
authorities. The chemical spill in West Virginia is an illustration why
we need to strengthen the Toxic Substances Control Act (and certain
other environmental laws); it is not a justification for enacting a
flawed CSIA.
Senator Boxer. I wanted to note that TSCA is not designed
to address inspection of chemical storage tanks. It deals with
classifying 80,000 chemicals. I look forward to a strong TSCA
bill.
The current bill, this is so important, my scientific
experts say this particular chemical would be classified as low
priority. Under the bill we have before us, the Vitter bill,
the one we are working on, Senator Vitter, we will be giving
you our response next week to that bill, there would be no
ability for the State to act once a chemical is classified low
priority.
They would be precluded from acting and there would be no
lawsuits allowed for the constituents of Senator Manchin and my
colleagues here. Under the TSCA bill, no citizen could ever sue
and the State would be preempted. We are going to work on a
tough TSCA bill, one that is worthy of the name.
Here is where we are. We are going to focus on what
happened in West Virginia and what we can do now, not some long
classification time and preemption of State laws and preemption
of lawsuits for those injured. We are not dealing with that
today. We set that aside today and we are going to act on how
to fix the problem.
I so appreciate all the electeds who are here today and
those who have come today from the State because you have
suffered from this. The impacts are ongoing. Residents are
still concerned whether the water is safe to drink and
businesses continue to feel the pain of the spill. You will
tell me about the real impacts your families have been going
through so I will not stress those here.
We know that the CDC has advised pregnant women to avoid
drinking tap water until there are no longer detectible levels
in the system. Some businesses closed forcing employees to go
without paychecks for days and some restaurants are still
buying bottled water according to my information.
Here is the situation. We had a tank filled with a chemical
right near a drinking water supply. Because the risk assessment
in the Safe Drinking Water Act was not used, no one knew what
to do. The Manchin bill, which I am so proud to be a part of
along with Senator Rockefeller, in the Senate what we say is
this. If there is any type of storage facility that has a
chemical in it which is near a drinking water supply, that
particular tank, that facility must be inspected and we must
know everything there is to know about the chemical regardless
of any other laws which may be in place to help us.
We need to focus on what the real problems are. Remember,
there are 80,000 chemicals out there. There are just a few in
this tank and we need to know what they are. The sadness is, as
Senator Cardin so rightly pointed out, there haven't been
inspections since the early 2000's and we really missed this.
I am so sorry about that. I am unhappy about that. I want
to work with my colleagues to fix it. This legislation, which
we and our staffs worked hours on, puts in one place the tools
necessary to protect our drinking water from chemical spills.
It establishes State programs which parties from both sides
support that will provide for regular inspections of these
facilities, set design standards for the tanks, establish
emergency response plans and provide information and tools to
drinking water utilities to respond to future disasters.
Senator Cardin, you are right. The current Clean Water Act
does contain authority to deal with this but it is very loosey
goosey. It is not clear and too much is left to the
individuals. We need to make sure that in all of our States, if
we have a chemical that could leak into a drinking water
supply, we know everything about that chemical, we know what to
do if something happens, we have the standards in place to make
sure it is safely stored.
I am very happy you did this. We will have a further
hearing with the Chemical Safety Board to continue to focus on
this. This is not a 1-day approach. This is the first day
approach.
I thank you all for being here.
Senator Cardin. Senator Udall.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. TOM UDALL,
U.S. SENATOR FROM NEW MEXICO
Senator Udall. Thank you, Senator Cardin.
Let me welcome everyone from West Virginia here today and
in particular, my colleagues in the Senate and my former
colleagues in the House, both of whom I very much enjoyed
serving with. I am looking forward to hearing from you today.
Americans expect modern water services to be always
available and if they are not, there are serious public health
consequences. The West Virginia spill clearly highlights the
huge impacts accidental releases of chemicals can have on our
health and well being.
Our hearts go out to the citizens of West Virginia who have
suffered enormous anxiety for weeks now in the face of
uncertainties about the risks posed by contact with MCHM and
the additional chemicals impacting the State.
All of us around the country should be paying close
attention to this accident because it raises some key
questions. How did a chemical storage company's accident manage
to pollute drinking water for hundreds of thousands of people?
I understand the State of West Virginia is increasing
standards for this type of storage. That should be a reminder
to all of us that reasonable environmental standards are not
about burdens on the industry, they are protections for people
and for taxpayers.
This company has now declared bankruptcy. According to
Business Week, the bankruptcy judge called it one of the most
unusual cases he has seen and ownership changed hands 9 days
before the spill. Are we assured this company will assume the
liability here or will taxpayers, through Superfund, be forced
to pick up the tab? We must be vigilant to ensure that these
cleanup costs are met by the company. Corporate shell games
should not be able to avoid responsibility.
Finally, why is the information about the chemicals leaked
so limited and so secretive? OSHA says MCHM is hazardous. Why
hasn't more testing been done about this chemical so that we
know about its likely health effects from a spill like this? To
me, this seems to be a key failure of our Nation's current
chemical law, the Toxic Substances Control Act.
Americans should, but cannot under this old law, feel
confident that the government is reviewing and regulating all
chemicals. These chemicals are not only in industry but also in
products that all of us, including children and pregnant women,
come into contact with every day.
Members of this committee are well aware that the late
Senator Lautenberg and Senator Vitter introduced the Chemical
Safety Improvement Act. This is the first bipartisan bill to
reform TSCA ever. I believe we should capitalize on that key
development and finalize the bill that can have broad support
in the Senate, including our chairman, Chairman Boxer.
Several Senators have been working earnestly with
stakeholders have been engaged in serious discussions over the
past 8 months to strengthen and improve this key bipartisan
bill. I would like to take a moment to clear the air and say to
everyone that regardless of where you stand on that bill, there
are significant changes happening to it.
I believe that we are succeeding improvements, although we
still have a ways to go. In particular, we need to understand
in what ways TSCA reform could have lessened the impact of
events like the spill in West Virginia. First and foremost, we
need to ensure that reform addresses chemicals that lack
sufficient information to determine their safety.
Furthermore, we need to ensure that safety and health
officials have quick and easy access to any existing and
available information when such tragedies as this happen.
These are all solvable and I think the solutions are near
to us. I am not going to speak for anyone else besides myself
but soon I hope we can publicly circulate an updated version
addressing many of these issues so that we can move beyond
talking about an outdated bill as introduced.
We need to remind ourselves that every American comes in
contact with chemicals on a daily basis, not just during times
of accidents. I am confident that the ongoing discussions on
TSCA reform are headed in a positive direction and can allow
Americans to know that consumer products they invite into their
homes on a daily basis are safe.
If we can do that and help protect communities at risk from
spills like this, I think all of our constituents will thank
you very much.
Thank you, Senator Cardin. I appreciate you and Chairman
Boxer doing this.
Senator Cardin. Let me thank my colleagues who are here for
their participation.
This is the Subcommittee on Water and Wildlife. We are
going to concentrate on the Safe Drinking Water Act. That is
the responsibility of this committee, to make sure that we have
safe drinking water.
Obviously it affects how we handle chemicals in America but
I would hope that we will focus on the adequacy of the Safety
Drinking Water Act, particularly legislation that has been
suggested by our colleagues.
Also, just as a matter of reference, my staff has a chart
that shows the aerial view just so we know the Elk River and
where the West Virginia Intake Facility is located there on the
left. Freedom Industries, where the spill occurred, is an hour
and a half upstream from the intake. You can see how close all
this is to the areas involved. I thought that would be helpful
so we have a visual of the two particular areas involved.
With that, I am going to turn to our colleagues. I want to
than our two Senate colleagues, Senator Rockefeller and Senator
Manchin for their extraordinary leadership on this issue, for
their help to this committee and working with us to get today's
hearing.
It is nice to have Congressmen Rahall and Capito here with
us, two of my former colleagues with whom I served in the House
of Representatives. When I got to the House, I was appointed to
the Transportation Committee and there was Congressman Rahall
to help me understand the importance of what we do in the
Congress as it relates to the infrastructure of this country.
It is a pleasure to have all four of our colleagues here.
Your full statements will be made a part of the record. We will
start with Senator Rockefeller.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JAY ROCKEFELLER,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Rockefeller. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and
Chairman Boxer.
We have just referred to this as drinking water. Drinking
is just one very small part of what this toxic water does. It
causes people who have money enough to have a vacation home
somewhere to get out of that nine county area and go there so
they can take a bath.
I know several people who commute on a daily basis just to
be able to do that. Those people do not have those second
homes, so they are left to deal with the horror of what this
is.
I can tell you, Mr. Chairman, there are a number of people
I could but will not name to you who have said they are
considering moving out of West Virginia because they have young
children and have no confidence in the future, no confidence in
our regulatory scheme either at the State or Federal level, and
they are not taking any chances because they don't know what
that water is going to be like in the future, and neither do I.
West Virginians want to know four things. How did this
happen? Is the water now safe? There are various views on that.
What are the long term health consequences? Senator Udall
mentioned that and it is enormously important. If cancer goes
into remission, does that mean it is gone? No. You wake up
every day thinking it might come back, not being sure. That is
a horrible feeling for bringing up a family and settling in.
Finally, how do we make sure this never happens again?
Right after this happened, I called the Chemical Safety
Board and they are investigating this bill. They are very good
at it. In addition, the State is addressing this and criminal
investigation is going on. Senator Udall mentioned the fact
that Freedom had taken bankruptcy. That certainly was
convenient for them, wasn't it? They want to get out of paying
any kind of fine.
Senator Schatz and I have a bill, which will no doubt be
beaten by corporate interests in this Congress, saying they
should be fined and pay every single nickel to clean up the
mess they made, not just in peoples' lives but literally in
situ. It is a good bill. Will it pass in this money trumps all
world that we live in? I am not sure.
Despite the government's insurance that the water is safe,
doubt does linger. It is in the nature of people. There are too
many unanswered questions. State and Federal officials are
working very hard but deficiencies are replete in our
regulatory structure.
A word here. I happen to be something called a Democrat. I
believe in spending money on infrastructure. I think it is
important that we do that. That is not the mood of this
Congress or at least enough of the Congress to stop anything
from happening.
Invest in schools, invest in clean water, invest in roads,
invest in all of those things which are part of safety for
either imbibing of water or anything else you might do, that
costs money. There might be some user taxes or a little bit
more taxes. No, that will never happen. This has never been a
part of the 30 years I have been in the Senate but it sure is
now.
People say let the industry take care of it. That is an
Appalachian myth. I came from that side of Appalachia so
sometimes I see Appalachian ways that are different than others
but the idea that somehow God has it in his plan to make sure
that industry is going to make life safe for you, not true.
Industry does everything they can and gets away with it
almost all the time, whether it is the coal industry, not the
subject of your hearing, or water or whatever. They will cut
corners and they will get away with it. Regulation is soft in
West Virginia. It has always been soft, frankly, when you put
that together with sequestration and government shutdowns and
the whole theology of don't cause anybody to do anything in
this country which would cause water to be cleaner, bridges to
be safer and all the rest of that.
That is the story as I see right now. I am astounded,
Senator Udall, that Freedom, as you say, timely 9 days before,
is getting away with this unusual bankruptcy. All they want to
do is say we don't want to pay, somebody else has to pay.
Appalachian culture, a little bit of it, I am sorry to say
that. Scotch-Irish culture, a little bit, I am sorry to say.
Fatalism, the world is as it is, we accept the world as it is
and the point is, no, you don't accept the world as it is. You
accept the world as it should be and then you make it conform
to that posture.
I am here angry, upset, shocked, embarrassed that this
would happen to 300,000 absolutely wonderful people who work in
coal mines--don't get me into that subject. They are depending
on the fruit of the land wherever it may be for survival. They
are making it but barely.
I think I will stop there for my own good.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Senator Rockefeller. We always
appreciate your passion on these issues.
Senator Manchin.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOE MANCHIN,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Senator Manchin. Thank you, Chairman Cardin and Ranking
Member Boozman, for holding the hearing today. I really
appreciate your finally bringing national attention to this
issue as only we here in Congress can do.
I want to thank Chairman Boxer who has worked tirelessly.
She jumped right in there with me in the immediate aftermath of
this spill. She never hesitated, never blinked and her staff
went around the clock until we had a piece of legislation we
thought would not only help cure the problem in West Virginia,
would have prevented the problem in West Virginia, and would
definitely prevent this from happening anywhere in the country.
That is our goal.
On January 9, less than 4 weeks ago, thousands of gallon
crude, MCHM, leaked from a storage tank into the Elk River. We
all know that. It contaminated the drinking water of 300,000
West Virginia residents, which is unconscionable.
In our State, we have always worked hard. We have really
worked hard to produce the energy and chemicals we use every
day and take for granted. We are proud of the work we have done
for this great country. That cannot come at a cost of access to
safe and clean drinking water or to the safety and confidence
of the people of West Virginia.
This spill should never have happened and it is our
responsibility in Congress, working with the States to do
everything we can to keep it from happening again, not just in
West Virginia but anywhere in America.
That is why I worked with Chairwoman Boxer to develop the
Chemical Safety and Drinking Water Protection Act. I thank
Senator Rockefeller, my colleague from West Virginia, for being
so instrumental in this. I appreciate that.
Our bill would require State inspections of all above
ground chemical storage facilities and more frequent
inspections of those facilities located near drinking water
sources. It sets minimum Federal standards that chemical
facilities must meet including construction and leak detection
requirements, failsafe containment standards, the development
of emergency response plans and financial responsibility
requirements which we see all too lax.
Additionally, companies must inform the State, the Federal
EPA and local water systems of chemicals they store. That
information is only so helpful when we don't have adequate
health and safety data on these chemicals. That is why I am
also a co-sponsor and totally committed to the Chemical Safety
Improvement Act, which I know everyone is working in the best
interest they can. I appreciate that.
Under the Chemical Safety and Improvement Act, states could
request that the EPA prioritize the testing of specific
chemicals even if they aren't detected or determined to be of
high concern, including those held near waterways which
specifically we should know everything near a waterway that is
anything other than drinking water.
For chemicals like MCHM, the overwhelming lack of health
and safety data is one of the criteria for designing and
designating a chemical as a high priority.
The bottom line is that no West Virginian or American
should have to worry about the contamination of their water
supply from a chemical spill and I will do everything in my
power to enact legislation to protect safe drinking water.
These two bills will go a long way to ensure that every
American has access to safe drinking water and that, God
forbid, if an incident like this occurs again, we have the
tools to respond as quickly and effectively as possible.
Today, I am asking all West Virginians, the EPA, the CDC,
the West Virginia DEP, and all those involved to join me in
pledging to make sure the water in the Kanawha Valley is the
cleanest and safest in America. That should be our goal here
today.
I want to also thank the CDC and EPA. As I understand, they
are in our State today working with all of our State officials
and basically restoring confidence in the water we have, making
sure we are all on the same page and that it is safe for human
consumption.
I just pray to God that no one goes through this. If it is
wake-up call for all of us, then let it be a wake-up call and
let us act.
Thank you for having me.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Senator Manchin.
Congressman Rahall.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. NICK RAHALL,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. Rahall. Thank you, Chairman Cardin. I appreciate your
having this hearing and allowing myself and our colleagues to
speak to you and to full committee Chairman Boxer about the
recent events in West Virginia.
I am going to be very brief because I know you have a panel
of experts following our panel. I want to thank both Senators
Rockefeller and Manchin, along with Chairman Boxer and Chairman
Cardin for the tremendous work you have done on legislation to
bring forward to the Congress.
I want to particularly thank Senator Rockefeller. He
mentioned, while not from Appalachia, this gentleman has
dedicated his entire career to the public health and safety of
the people of Appalachia. Words would never be adequate enough
to say thank you to our senior Senator for what he has done for
the people of West Virginia. I want to publicly express that
appreciation today.
The recent chemical spill in our State has caused not only
much well founded concern but also deeply felt anxiety. You
have already heard that today. There is certainly a great deal
of mistrust in the air as much as suspicion about what is in
the water.
Factual information in the wake of that spill is critical
to all of us. There are too many unanswered questions for which
we all need answers. The recent information that has come to
light after the spill has only exacerbated the tremendous
mistrust people already had for government. That certainly has
gotten worse since this spill.
I think it is proper that Congress conduct these hearings
to understand the facts as well as the limits of congressional
action before rushing headlong into something that we won't
regret but is going to need much work later on.
On the day of the spill when State authorities arrived at
the Freedom Industries site, they encountered a company that
was either unaware of the leaking chemical or unwilling to
admit they had a problem. When told to follow protocol and
report the leak, the company dragged its feet and when it
finally did report it, company officials mischaracterized the
seriousness of the situation and the threat it posed to our
people.
Certainly Congress can require a better understanding of
the risks of chemicals, it can help states improve emergency
response and preparedness but I am not sure that Congress can
ever completely legislate away the irresponsibility and the
disregard for public welfare recently exhibited by Freedom
Industries and whatever other shell operations were set up.
West Virginians do care about the health and safety of our
families and neighbors. Our State legislature, as you
referenced, Mr. Chairman, is working on bills to fix the legal
loopholes and regulate chemical storage tanks but legislation
alone will not repair the damage done to the public's trust,
mistrust of government and the public's trust in the policies
that emanate from this city and oversight at all levels where
they feel they have been let down.
To so many in my State, for example, the EPA has become the
agency of no, an agency that only tells us what cannot be done
rather than helping us to discern how we can do those things we
need to do better. We are poorly served as a result.
My hope is that the Federal Government, rather than acting
from on high and imposing broad solutions will listen to our
concerns as you will hear today from this panel and tailor the
response accordingly.
As I conclude, Mr. Chairman, I again thank you for this
hearing. I ask that this committee work with myself and our
committee on the House side, the Transportation and
Infrastructure Committee that will be conducting a hearing in
Charleston, West Virginia next Monday and together we hope to
find a better way to protect or people and keep this from
happening again.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Representative Rahall.
Representative Capito.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. SHELLEY CAPITO,
U.S. REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
Ms. Capito. Thank you, Chairman Cardin, Chairman Boxer,
Senator Vitter and Senator Udall. It is wonderful to be on a
panel with my colleagues.
I think it is important for you to know that in West
Virginia we have always been very proud of our water. It is one
of our stars in our quiver. This has really rocked us.
I live in the Kanawha Valley. I represent the Kanawha
Valley and this affects my home and my family as well. It
affects restaurants like Mr. Huey in Hurricane. It affects
people who work for him who were not able to work during this
time and the long term health effects of the January 9 spill I
think are still under question.
As Senator Rockefeller said, I think we want people to be
held accountable for what has happened here. We want to prevent
such accidents from happening again. At the baseline, we want
to know that the water we are drinking is safe.
Many questions about the spill still linger. We are having
a hearing on Monday in Charleston to try to help answer some of
these questions and examine not just State but most
importantly, the Federal laws and strengthening our laws.
One of the things that really rocked me is when the CDC
came in, they had an all clear, you can drink water and then 2
days later, the CDC says if you are a pregnant woman, we
recommend that you probably don't drink the water. What kind of
signal does that send to anybody, particularly young families?
Senator Manchin and I wrote a letter to the CDC asking for
their testing protocols, how they were making decisions and
what involvement might be tightened and made better so if you
give assurances you can drink water that you actually are
assured that it is safe.
The other thing is the slow bleed of misinformation. It
first comes out that you can drink the water, maybe not. Then a
week later, it might have been more than a week later, it comes
out there was not just one chemical in the water of MCHM, there
was another chemical in the water at the same time that was
leaked into the Kanawha Valley.
That does nothing for the confidence of anybody living
there, any family living there that this situation is under
control. It is very disheartening.
The company obviously did not accurately report. They did
not report in timely fashion. We had to wait for somebody to
smell something close by before they called emergency officials
and then and only then did the company say something is
leaking. Then it comes out later that maybe it has been leaking
for 10 hours before anyone was actually notified as to what was
going on.
It has rocked our confidence. It absolutely unacceptable
that freedom did not immediately notify and there was not
better information with our first responders.
As has been said, the State legislature is moving quickly
toward passing a new law. I congratulate them and I support
State level efforts but I think we need to continue to examine
changes we have talked about today at the Federal level.
I am a mother and a grandmother. I live in the Kanawha
Valley. I understand the fear and trepidation and anger the
people feel because I feel it too. We have to get to the bottom
of this where people are trusting that their tap water is safe
and it will not happen again.
We have this responsibility. I congratulate the Senate
committee and look forward to our House hearing next week in
Charleston.
I thank you for your interest in the impact of this bill.
Thank you.
Senator Cardin. Let me thank all four of our colleagues.
I particularly want to underscore the point that
Congressman Rahall made about our colleague, Senator
Rockefeller. He has been a real treasure for us in the U.S.
Senate. We know we still have him for another year. We are not
rushing his term but he has been an incredible voice on behalf
of the people of our country not just West Virginia. I
appreciate your comments.
We are going to move on to our second panel.
Let me welcome our second panel. We are pleased to have the
experts from West Virginia today who can help us sort out what
happened earlier this year.
We welcome: Hon. Natalie E. Tennant, Secretary of State of
West Virginia; Hon. Randy C. Huffman, Cabinet Secretary, West
Virginia Department of Environmental Protection; Erik D. Olson,
Senior Strategic Director for Health and Food, Natural
Resources Defense Council; Mr. Brent Fewell, Vice President of
Environmental Compliance, United Water; Mr. Michael W. McNulty,
General Manager, Putnam Public Service District, West Virginia;
Mr. Richard O. Faulk, Partner, Hollingworth, LLP; and Mr. R.
Peter Weaver, Vice President of Government Affairs,
International Liquid Terminals Association.
We will start with Hon. Natalie Tennant.
Senator Carper. Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cardin. Senator Carper.
Senator Carper. Could I ask a favor? I am a native West
Virginian. I have a lot of family and relatives in West
Virginia, some of whom have been adversely affected by this
tragedy.
I just want to say I am going to be in and out of the
hearing but I want to say when I leave, please do not think I
am not interested. It is especially great to see the Secretary
of State who is not an old friend but a friend of long
standing. I am delighted you could be here with us to speak.
We look forward to hearing from all these witnesses.
Thank you.
Senator Cardin. As I think is obvious to members of the
Senate, there are many committee hearings going on. Senator
Carper has responsibility as Chair of one of the most important
committees in the Senate. We certainly understand that.
For our witnesses, all of your testimony will be made a
part of our record. Your written testimony will be made a part
of the record. You may proceed as you wish. Because we have
such a large panel, we would ask you try to keep your comments
to the 5-minutes that is allotted.
With that, we will start with Hon. Natalie Tennant.
STATEMENT OF NATALIE E. TENNANT,
SECRETARY OF STATE, WEST VIRGINIA
Ms. Tennant. Thank you so much, Chairman Cardin, Ranking
Member Vitter, Chairman Boxer, Senator Carper, it is good to
see you again, also, and to all the members of the committee
who will be reading this report.
Thank you for holding this hearing. Thank you for inviting
me to share the challenges that West Virginia families and
businesses have been facing and continue to face.
I also want to especially thank you, Madam Chair, and our
West Virginia Senators who so much was said about Jay
Rockefeller and Joe Manchin for introducing the Chemical Safety
and Drinking Water Protection Act of 2014.
Lack of information has been our greatest challenge in West
Virginia. That piece of legislation will go a long way toward
providing the much needed transparency that we will have in the
future.
I must say now, Senator, at this time, West Virginians need
answers now. The water ban has been lifted but too many West
Virginians are still wondering if their water is really safe.
First, we hear it is one chemical. Then we hear it is two
chemicals. First, we hear it is 7,500 gallons. Then we hear it
is 10,000 gallons. One day we are told the water is safe. The
next day we hear that pregnant women should not drink it.
It does not add up. Either it is safe or it is not safe.
Quite frankly, people are fed up, they are angry and they are
scared. I have families telling me that they are melting snow
just to be able to give their children baths. As the mother of
an 11 year old daughter, living in Kanawha County, I share
those same concerns.
As Secretary of State for them, I demand answers. I ask
this committee to help me get those answers. I have called on
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention to explain to
West Virginians how they determined what levels of MCHM are
safe. On Friday, I launched a petition for West Virginians to
join in my call for those answers. As of this morning, we had
1,264 people who have signed on to that.
Each of these signatures is a mom, is a dad, is a friend,
is a neighbor and they deserve to know what is coming out of
their faucets isn't going to hurt their families.
Just this weekend I met with Dr. Rahul Gupta of the
Kanawha-Charleston Health Department. Dr. Gupta is proposing a
10-year study to monitor the long term health impact to the
people who have been exposed to MCHM. I am asking this
committee to work with us to provide those resources we need to
begin that study right away.
As one father wrote to me last week, ``We are accountable
to our children's health and future.'` I agree. We owe it to
our children to start this study today.
As Secretary of State, my office is on the front lines with
businesses every day in West Virginia, businesses like Bridge
Road Bistro, which is famous in Charleston for its Sunday
breakfast buffet. Bridge Road's manager, Sandy Call, told my
office that they lost $40,000 during the do not use ban. They
are continuing to spend an extra $500 a day to bring in bottled
water because customers don't trust what is coming out of the
tap.
This mistrust is costing our restaurants money and time and
they should be spending that time and money growing their
business and hiring new employees and new workers. It is also
jeopardizing our tourism industry. We cannot attract new
businesses to create jobs in West Virginia if people don't
believe that our water is safe.
Our economy cannot fully recover until we regain the public
confidence in our water supply. Quite simply, we need answers
that we can trust.
On behalf of all West Virginians, I thank you for holding
this hearing and again ask your help in getting this
information and resources that we need to restore the public
confidence in our water and to protect against long term health
risks.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to be here
and to speak for West Virginia.
[The prepared statement of Ms. Tennant follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much for your leadership on
this issue.
Secretary Huffman.
STATEMENT OF RANDY C. HUFFMAN, CABINET SECRETARY, WEST VIRGINIA
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
Mr. Huffman. Thank you, Chairman Cardin and Chairman Boxer.
The State of West Virginia and its Department of
Environmental Protection appreciate and welcome the opportunity
to address this committee.
I am hopeful that by sharing West Virginia's experience
from the perspective of an environmental regulator and not as a
public health official, I can provide insight to you and other
States as we week to provide a more comprehensive regulation of
the pollutants stored in above ground storage tanks so as to
better protect human health and the environment and minimize
the risks associated with this industrial activity.
On January 9, 2014, DEP received a complaint concerning an
odor around a tank farm owned by Freedom Industries. At 12:05
p.m., a Freedom Industries employee reported the spill to DEP's
Emergency Response Spill Hotline and stated that the facility
had discovered a hole in one of the tanks containing 4-
Methylcyclohexane Methanol, MCHM.
DEP officials shut down the site and instructed Freedom to
immediately take all necessary measures to contain, recover and
remediate the material that had escaped from the above ground
storage tank and the secondary containment structure.
This incident highlights an issue that exists not only in
just West Virginia but all over the country. While all states
have substantially similar regulations for underground storage
tanks based on regulations promulgated by the EPA, the same is
not true for their surface situated counterparts.
EPA does not have regulations pertaining to all above
ground storage tanks. The states that do regulate them do so in
a myriad of different ways. One similarity is most states that
have above ground storage tank regulations have them as a
result of an event similar to what has just happened in West
Virginia.
Also, most states focus primarily on tanks containing
petroleum products or hazardous waste or materials regulated by
CERCLA. This leaves virtually unregulated an entire universe of
pollutants stored in above ground tanks. With hindsight, it is
easy to see a potential threat existed on the Elk River and
that clarity sharpens our focus looking forward.
According to the EPA TSCA Chemical Inventory, there are
approximately 84,000 known industrial chemicals being used in
this country today. About 20,000 of those have been added to
the list in the last 30 years with little change in the list of
regulated chemicals.
While most of these materials are not currently classified
as hazardous, the truth is, we simply do not know enough about
them. The material that leaked into the Elk River on January 9
is one of those chemicals.
The West Virginia legislature is considering legislation
that would help to fill the void that currently exists in the
regulation of above ground storage tanks. The bill being
discussed in the legislature today requires some things that
are very important from DEP's perspective.
One of the most important is to have a registered
professional engineer or other qualified individual inspect and
test the tanks and secondary containment annually and certify
their integrity.
On the Federal side, we also support the Manchin-Boxer
proposed legislation to tighten the standards in the Safe
Drinking Water Act. By requiring EPA to establish minimum
acceptable standards by which the states will be held
accountable, we can significantly reduce the risk of similar
problems in the future.
West Virginia's proposed above ground storage tank program
has been modeled after the very successful underground storage
tank program DEP has operated for more than two decades. The
UST program was developed in the late 1980's because
environmental regulators recognized that over 2 million UST
systems, estimated to be located at over 700,000 facilities
nationwide, existed with little or no oversight and that over
75 percent of the existing systems were made of unprotected
steel, a type of tank system proven to be the most likely to
leak and thus, create the greatest potential for health and
environmental damage. The success of this program nationally is
indisputable.
The above ground storage tank universe is not nearly as
well known. Many of these facilities are regulated by
registering under a general NPDES stormwater permit, because
the only environmental impact these tanks were thought to have
was stormwater runoff. Above ground storage tanks can also be
found at facilities covered by individual permits but that
permit does not require integrity testing or leak detection
monitoring either.
The registration requirement in the current legislation is
the key to our getting a handle on the universal structures
that are currently under regulated. We are optimistic that the
legislation currently pending in West Virginia will greatly
reduce the risk that we will suffer a repeat of this type of
incident and that we can serve as an example to other states to
be more proactive in their regulation of these structures so
they do not find themselves in the situation with which we are
currently dealing.
Thank you for the opportunity to be here and speak to you
about the water crisis in West Virginia. This crisis reminds us
of how basic and fundamental clean water is to a stable society
and how vulnerable our water supplies are, not only in West
Virginia, but across the Country.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Huffman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Secretary Huffman, for that very
thorough presentation.
Mr. Olson.
STATEMENT OF ERIK D. OLSON, SENIOR STRATEGIC DIRECTOR FOR
HEALTH AND FOOD, NATURAL RESOURCES DEFENSE COUNCIL
Mr. Olson. Thank you, Chairman Cardin, Chairman Boxer and
Ranking Member Vitter, for the opportunity to testify today.
As we have heard, shock waves went throughout Charleston as
a result of this order to not only not drink the water but not
even bathe in it. Toxicity data that existed for these two
chemicals, MCHM, and we learned 12 days later, a second
chemical, PPH, was sparse. Officials trying to find a safe
level really had very little information to deal with.
CDC announced a 1 ppm supposedly safe level but, as we have
heard, within a couple of days, basically retracted that, at
least with respect to pregnant women saying, ``CDC recommends,
out of an abundance of caution, that pregnant women drink
bottled water until there are no longer detectable levels.'`
This is yet another fundamental reason that residents
across Charleston were wondering whether it really was safe for
kids, for pregnant moms, for anyone in their family. As my
colleague, Dr. Sass has highlighted and I discuss in my written
testimony, the supposedly safe level really was not protective
of vulnerable populations.
Last weekend, I had the opportunity to visit with a lot of
folks in Charleston and appreciated the courtesy of West
Virginia American Water Company who gave me a tour of their
drinking water facility. I will say the residents with whom I
spoke remain deeply dismayed about the safety of their water
and very skeptical about reassurances that the water is safe.
I heard about parents and pregnant moms who really wonder
about the long term effects of bathing or drinking this water.
Across the city, stores still advertise bottled water and some
restaurant signs still proclaim they cook with bottled water.
I met a couple who own a small Indian restaurant and a
store within sight of the dome of the capital. They told me
they had shuttered their restaurant for 5 days and that they
had to toss a huge amount of food. They had to borrow money to
meet their payroll, had to ask people to hold checks and spent
a lot of money on professional cleaning and replacement food.
Their store also lost quite a bit of money because people
stopped cooking and as a result perishable commodities had to
be tossed.
I heard people drove as far away as Kentucky to get bottled
water during the crisis and families stayed with friends or
relatives and drove as far as 60 miles just to shower. Parents
really are angry especially that some of the recent tests, some
came in as recently as Friday, showed the chemicals in schools
were higher than expected.
I want to say that this is not an isolated situation. The
water intake at Charleston simply cannot be shut off. They
cannot just shut off the water when a spill occurs. This is
true not only in Charleston, but I am learning in many water
utilities across the country where they do not have the
capacity to simply shut off when there is a spill because they
need to continue pumping water.
Charleston's treatment technology also, as I learned, was
unable to deal with a spill of this magnitude. It was simply
overwhelmed and could not deal with it. As my testimony
highlights, there were likely hundreds of other water utilities
across the country, large and small, using surface water that
simply cannot deal with a spill like this.
We all remember back in 1988 a huge spill of oil into the
Monongahela that contaminated the drinking water of a million
people in three states. At least some communities are doing
something about it.
Cincinnati, Ohio installed state-of-the-art treatment,
basically granular activated carbon in deep beds like that in
your fish tank that removes virtually all these organic
contaminants. The cost is just $20 per household per year. This
is the direction which things need to go. I understand Northern
Kentucky Utility has just made that same switch. You have to do
this if you have this situation.
We absolutely need to fix the Safe Drinking Water Act. We
heard the source water assessments were done, yet nothing was
done about them after they flagged major risks. In this
particular situation, just for Charleston, 53 potentially
significant contamination sources were identified in the early
2000's, 26 so close that they were in the zone of critical
concern, yet it appears nothing was done about that or specific
recommendations to take action.
I wanted to briefly address the Manchin-Boxer bill
referenced earlier. We feel that is an important step forward.
I mention in my testimony a few tweaks that we would recommend
including one item which might be to move the inspections to
annually similar to what the West Virginia Senate just passed.
Although this hearing is about drinking water, I want to
briefly mention the Toxic Substances Control Act and the need
to reform it. We certainly agree that TSCA is broken and needs
to be fixed. However, we need real reform of that law. I would
as that some of the attachments to my testimony be entered into
the record.
The bill that is pending, the USIA, although it is
bipartisan, would not fix this problem. As I highlight in my
testimony, it is unlikely that this particular chemical would
have been flagged as a high priority. It is quite likely that
State action would have been preempted if this had actually
been enacted.
Although we do support reform of TSCA, we believe that
reform needs to be strong, needs to fix the problem and we
stand ready to work with the members of this committee, with
Senator Boxer, Senator Vitter, Senator Udall and others to
reform the law in a meaningful and real way.
In conclusion, we strongly support moving forward with
legislation for real source water protection and drinking
water, we support the Manchin-Boxer-Rockefeller bill with the
tweaks I mentioned and ultimately, we think we need
comprehensive solutions to source water protection across the
country.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Olson follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Mr. Olson. We appreciate it very
much.
Mr. Fewell.
STATEMENT OF BRENT FEWELL
ON BEHALF OF UNITED WATER
Mr. Fewell. Thank you, Chairman Cardin, Chairman Boxer and
Senator Vitter, for holding this important meeting this
morning. I appreciate the opportunity to testify this morning.
I am currently employed with the law firm of Troutman
Sanders but until last week, I served for the last 4 years as a
senior executive for United Water with the responsibility for
overseeing the provision of safe, clean drinking water for over
5 million people.
Although I am testifying today on behalf of United Water, I
also offer supporting statements and recommendations by the
National Association of Water Companies which are appended to
my written testimony.
As a former EPA water regulator and a chief compliance
officer of a major water company, I can assure you, Mr.
Chairman, this is an issue United Water takes very seriously,
as do other public water suppliers. While new regulations may
not stop accidents like this from happening, I do believe there
are a few targeted, commonsense things we can do to ensure the
continued protection of our drinking water sources.
Overall, we as a Nation need a more integrated, sustainable
approach to managing water and watersheds, a concept my good
friend Ben Grumbles, President of the U.S. Water Alliance,
often refers to as a one water management approach.
First, this is about keeping harmful chemicals out of our
Nation's drinking water. There are tens of thousands of
chemicals, as we have heard this morning, currently in
commerce, each of which has the potential to impact a drinking
water source for someone, some community, somewhere at some
time.
The best thing we can do, and where I believe the greatest
focus needs to be placed, is keeping these harmful chemicals
out of our drinking water sources. Truly, in this case, an
ounce of prevention would have been worth a pound of cure.
It is abundantly clear that we would not be here today had
the storage facility in this particular incidence provided
adequate storage and secondary containment. In light of this
catastrophic release, there have been many calls for robust
inspections and controls at bulk chemical storage facilities,
particularly those located close to waters that serve as
drinking water sources. United Water joins with those calling
for additional measures for additional support.
Second, prompt notification of a spill that threatens a
water supply is absolutely critical. Surface water systems are
often at the mercy of those located upstream from the water
intake structures. Advance warning and timely notification are
critical in any kind of emergency response. Receiving timely
notification about a spill can make a bad situation less bad
and help to mitigate the most significant risk to the public.
Without prompt notification, the water provider may have no
way to detect and respond to the presence of a contaminant
until it is too late and already in the distribution system.
For these systems, having 2 hours, 1 hour or even a half hour,
for that matter, can make a big difference preparing for a slug
of chemicals that may be headed toward its water intake
structure.
Simply closing a water intake structure, as we have heard,
and waiting until a threat has passed by is not always possible
and such decisions must be balanced with other needs and
threats to the community, including fire suppression. These can
be difficult decisions to make, often made with imperfect data
and in the midst of an emergency situation.
Third and my final point, water systems need better and
more specific data to identify and prepare for these types of
risks. Public water systems currently use a number of tools to
identify and prepare for risks, but most of these tools assess
broad, general categories of risks. Rarely, if ever, are public
water providers provided specific data about chemicals upstream
that if released could affect that water system. This is a
commonsense change I think needs to be made.
The Federal Emergency Planning and Community Right to Know
Act requires facilities to store hazardous substances in excess
of threshold planning quantities to provide data annually to
local emergency responders but there is no requirement that
such data be provided to nearby water systems.
Similarly, the EPCRA, the Clean Water Act and CERCLA
require any facility that experiences a release in excess of
reportable quantities to immediately notify the National
Response Center and local emergency responders. Yet again,
there is no requirement that a nearby water provider be
provided similar notice.
Last, I offer a cautionary note. Our water systems welcome
the additional support. It will do no good to simply dump reams
of paper and data on these systems and expect the problem to go
away. Rigorous assessment of these risks for multiple upstream
sources can be a complex process, requiring significant
resources and expertise which many systems simply do not
possess.
The most effective solution will necessarily involve
greater public education, collaboration, communication with EPA
and states and all stakeholders within a watershed about the
importance of source water protection, an important concept I
mentioned earlier and a one water approach.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Fewell follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much.
Mr. McNulty.
STATEMENT OF MICHAEL W. MCNULTY, GENERAL MANAGER, PUTNAM PUBLIC
SERVICE DISTRICT, WEST VIRGINIA
Mr. McNulty. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the
subcommittee.
Putnam Public Service District is a drinking water supplier
near Charleston, West Virginia. I live I Charleston and my
family and 300,000 residents of greater Charleston have been
dealing with contamination of our drinking water for past 26
days.
I am here to talk about source water protection and
preventing drinking water contamination from the perspective of
Putnam PSD and on behalf of the West Virginia Rural Water
Association and the 30,000 member systems of the National Rural
Water Association.
I want to thank Senators Rockefeller and Manchin,
Congressmen Rahall, Capito and Governor Earl Ray Tomblin for
their assistance during this crisis.
For the sake of time, I will summarize the six essential
policy principles included in my written testimony needed to
promote effective protection plans.
The best plan is one that is developed by local officials
who know their particular vulnerabilities and is implemented
with constant vigilance. Consider my water supply. We can treat
up to 4 million gallons of water each day gathered from streams
that are vulnerable to contamination similar to the recent Elk
River spill.
We have completed an extensive contamination prevention
plan, an emergency contingency plan and a contamination
detection plan to protect our population. However, for a plan
to work, it cannot just set on the shelf. The local officials
who implement it must believe in it and let it influence their
daily conduct and attitude.
Our delineated watershed map with potential sources of
contamination is displayed here. Our notable points of concern
include truck stops and interState, railroad and commercial
enterprises like gas stations. It is not feasible to remove all
the threats to our watershed, so we have implemented a number
of policies to quickly detect and minimize the effect of a
potential spill and establish emergency contingencies,
including interconnections with neighboring water supplies.
One of the most important elements of our plan is constant
monitoring of our presource water to detect contaminants,
including any similar to those that were in Charleston's water.
If we do find contamination, we can keep a large reservoir
sequestered with approximately 4 months of treatable water.
None of the presource water tests are federally mandated. I
point this out to illustrate how difficult it is to have a
Federal regulatory solution to this issue. All 51,651 U.S.
drinking water supplies have unique challenges. This is why
rural water associations have been advocating for local
communities to adopt protection measures for decades. They
directly assist communities like mine with technical resources
to implement a protection plan.
Over 1,000 communities have completed the rural water
process and are actively protecting their source water.
Consider how many contamination events may have been prevented
in these communities.
I will close with this suggestion for a Federal response in
the aftermath of the Charleston crisis that allows for
immediate protection and does not require any grand spending
program or expansion of unfunded mandates on local governments.
A few years ago, Congress provided a small package of
funding to the State agencies that protect groundwater to
design and publish online a public disclosure data base of all
chemicals used in hydraulic fracturing. This experiment proved
to be widely successful. For a small Federal investment, this
system could also publicly disclose all watersheds and
potential threats within, a list of communities that have
adopted protection plans and copies of each protection plan.
Such an enterprise would empower the people who benefit from a
clean and safe environment to take responsibility for securing
it.
While every State and locality believes that it is doing
the best job possible, this system would allow the public to
make sure their claims are accurate.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On behalf of the small and rural
communities, we are grateful for your attention and assistance.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McNulty follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Thank you for your testimony.
Mr. Faulk.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD O. FAULK, HOLLINGSWORTH, LLP
Mr. Faulk. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am a lawyer practicing here in Washington, DC. I want to
make it very clear that I am not representing a client or any
organization here today. I am not being compensated for
anything I am saying here today. I have simply responded to the
committee's invitation as a concerned citizen.
I want to rise to speak to the Chairman's concern of
federalism and to sound a note of caution amongst the interests
and the intensity of the work being done here in this committee
and indeed, I suspect throughout the entire Nation, within the
Nation's chemical industry as they intensely look at the
concerns this situation has raised.
There are a great many factors in addition to regulations
that influence what America's chemical industry does. There are
a great many factors other than laws that do so. There are
human factors, investigations that they have undertaken. There
are trade association issues that have been raised I am sure
regarding this situation.
There are other matters that this committee may or may not
have been briefed on here, certainly I do not necessarily know
the extent of, that should influence some caution before
rushing into Federal legislation.
With the focus that is being placed under the magnifying
glass of this committee's inquiries, as well as other
activities surely going on in the country, should we really
rush immediately into Federal legislation?
I think we should be cautious. Complex accidents generate a
fog of some kind, simply burdened by the sheer weight of
information mixed with all the shock and alarm and confusion.
Sometimes that can obscure clear deliberations.
In dealing with incidents like this, it is important, as
this committee is doing today, to give the State and local
authorities a full opportunity to fully investigate, to
deliberate and to decide what their future actions should be.
Sometimes when that fog clears, Federal intervention may be
unnecessary.
For example, we all know from the discussions today, the
West Virginia legislature is actively considering bills and
laws to deal with the situation. Once those are passed, our
Nation states our laboratories of democracy may decide to
develop solutions for their own unique operations which may be
very different from West Virginia's. Those solutions may be
complemented by voluntary programs developed by industry.
A top down management situation of Federal solutions may
actually displace some protective systems of State and local
laws, regulations and voluntary industry practices that already
exist. For those reasons, I think we should be cautious.
Stated another way, the presence of a Federal regulatory
gap does not necessarily mean that a hazard exists uniformly
across the Nation. Some of those hazards may be dealt with by
other restraints. A one size fits all Federal approach may
sometimes even reduce safety by preempting broader, more
effective or carefully tailored solutions that are already
working.
Again, it calls for cautious consideration and
deliberation. I know this committee is doing it. I simply rise
to suggest that they continue to do so and keep these factors
in mind.
Spill prevention is a recurring concern regarding chemicals
and all sorts of substances that are stored. West Virginia and
other states, as well as the EPA, have issued guidance
documents on this subject. They provide commonsense information
and advice that could have prevented the tragedy in West
Virginia.
For example, if we simply look at West Virginia's guidance
documents regarding above ground storage tanks, they suggest
and refer to existing regulatory standards which, if obeyed
regarding groundwater protection, would have prevented the
spills into the surface water here through effective secondary
containment according to their specifications.
Like many tragedies, this failure cannot necessarily be
blamed on the absence of the law. It can be blamed, however, on
human error. We need to be cautious as we walk into this
situation and we work through these issues. Not every problem
requires Federal legislation, but every problem, especially
serious ones, deserves the careful consideration, the empowered
intervention, the educated assistance of responsible and
politically accountable community members, the closest people
to the problem.
I applaud the communities' efforts, I applaud the efforts
of West Virginia in cooperating with the committee, and I
applaud this committee's work as it delves into these difficult
problems and simply suggest restraint and caution as we move
forward.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Faulk follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Mr. Faulk, we thank you very much for your
testimony.
Mr. Weaver.
STATEMENT OF R. PETER WEAVER, VICE PRESIDENT, GOVERNMENT
AFFAIRS, INTERNATIONAL LIQUID TERMINALS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Weaver. Thank you, Chairman Cardin, Chairwoman Boxer,
Senator Vitter and the entire committee.
Good morning. My name is Peter Weaver. I am Vice President
of Government Affairs at the International Liquid Terminals
Association. I have been with ILTA since 2006 representing the
interests of the owners and operators of bulk liquid storage
terminals.
Our 80 corporate members, with approximately 800 domestic
terminal facilities, operate in all 50 States, handling all
manner of liquid commodities from chemicals and petroleum
products to biofuels and vegetable oils. Freedom Industries is
not an ILTA member.
Before joining ILTA, I held positions in product
development and marketing for one of our Nation's largest
chemical manufacturers. I have also served as an officer in the
Merchant Marine. I began my career with the Engineering
Department of an ILTA founding member company back home along
the Mississippi River.
I should note that my wife and I now have a sailboat on the
Chesapeake Bay next to our dog's favorite swimming beach and
thus, assurance that no one is harming our Nation's waterways
is a very personal priority for me, my family and our closest
friends. The liquid terminal industry is committed to the safe
and environmentally sound operation of our facilities and I
consider it a privilege to participate today.
Like the vast majority of bulk storage tank operators, ILTA
members are regulated by a comprehensive and rigorously
enforced series of laws and regulations. At the Federal level,
rules for environmental protection are promulgated in response
to numerous laws, including the Clean Water Act, OPA 1990, the
Clean Air Act, CERCLA, RCRA, the Safe Drinking Water Act, TSCA,
SARA, and EPCRA.
All ILTA members are subject to regulations requiring tank
inspections and secondary containment to prevent spills from
migrating should a tank fail. Some State laws carry additional
requirements. Terminals also follow industry standards and best
practices for maintaining the integrity of their equipment and
operations.
From among the many Federal regulations that apply to above
ground storage tanks, I will reference two. First, EPA's spill
prevention control and countermeasure rule, SPCC, applies to
every facility possessing at least 1,300 gallons of oil in
aggregate or chemicals exhibiting similar properties.
It incorporates robust standards for tanks and pipeline
integrity testing such as the API 653 standard for large, field
directed tanks. SPCC also strictly regulates secondary
containment and requires financial responsibility and plants
must be certified by a professional engineer.
Second, EPA regulations stemming from the Emergency
Planning and Community Right to Know Act , EPCRA, or SARA,
Title 3, requires facilities to inform their local emergency
planning committee, the State Emergency Response Committee and
local the fire local fire department of all hazardous materials
in their possession. I should add, the newly revised 2012 OSHA
Hazardous Communications Standard requires documentation and
communication of all hazardous properties of all chemicals.
In West Virginia, State regulations require secondary
containment for above ground chemical and petroleum storage
tanks that can protect groundwater for at least 72 hours.
We understand that State and Federal agencies and the
Chemical Safety Board are all investigating the Freedom
Industries accident. Given the impact, there is no question
that these will be extensive investigations and we expect that
resulting incident reports will cite factors contributing to
the release, applicable regulatory programs and possible
violations of those regulations. ILTA is very interested in
these findings, in particular, how the chemical escaped
containment.
Even with an expansive regulatory net, anomalous
circumstances exist where an incident such as this could occur.
ILTA contends that a proper oversight response would begin with
understanding those circumstances. ILTA also contends that a
Federal legislative response at this moment would be premature.
Once final investigation reports are released, specific
reasons for these tank and secondary containment failures will
be better understood and then measures to prevent recurrence in
another community can be determined and implemented through
refinement and simplification of existing regulations.
If Freedom Industries disregarded applicable regulations,
industry standards or its own operating procedures, then the
most effective response would be through more consistent
enforcement rather than administrative burden and frankly, the
confusion of another layer of legislation and regulation.
With regard to the Safe Drinking Water Act, measures have
been proposed to require good design and construction
standards, leak detection, spill protection, inventory control,
emergency response, training, integrity inspections and
financial responsibility.
Within the terminal industry, and in my experience,
regulations requiring strict adherence to all of these
provisions are already well established and would seem directly
applicable to Freedom Industries.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide this testimony. I
am certainly happy to respond to questions.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Weaver follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Senator Cardin. Let me thank all seven of our panelists. I
thought it was very helpful to us, the information you
supplied.
To Messrs. Olson and Fewell, I could not agree with you
more about the need for infrastructure. The State revolving
fund is inadequate to deal with the challenges of modern water
treatment. We need to get adequate funding. This committee has
worked very hard to try to increase the funding under the
revolving funds and to reauthorize with more updated needs of
the different states in our country.
We need to find creative ways because in today's difficult
environment, it is tough to get the type of resources
necessary. That is part of prevention, part of having the
capacity to deal with the day's challenges.
There is a common theme I hear from you all. Mr. Fewell,
you said you need better and more specific data which is
absolutely accurate. You have to have accurate information to
be able to respond. That is certainly not available today in
too many of the watersheds.
It is interesting that the TSCA law is aimed at the proper
classification of the 80,000 plus chemicals we have in America.
That number grows every day. The Safe Drinking Water Act is
aimed at making sure we have delivery of safe drinking water in
our communities through a variety of methods.
Mr. Faulk, I want to agree with you on federalism. I think
federalism does say we believe in the states, we believe the
government closest to the people is the most responsive, but we
also need to recognize that safe drinking water is an inner
State problem.
Maryland could do everything that is reasonable, the
District could do everything that is reasonable, but if the
water is coming from West Virginia and West Virginia doesn't do
what is reasonable, the people I represent in Maryland are at
risk. The people in the Nation's capital who depend upon us at
the national level are at risk.
I think there is the proper balance on federalism but I
couldn't agree with you more and that is why we are always
reluctant to preempt local government. I know that issue is
being debated in TSCA today. We are always reluctant because
things change quickly. Chemicals change quickly. The government
closest to the people needs to be able to respond. That is why
we are very reluctant to ever take away that authority from the
states.
On the other hand, we do need to have national guidelines.
As you said, guidelines on getting better and more specific
information is an area where the Federal Government needs to
fill in the blanks better than we have today.
I want to get to Ms. Tennant for one moment because you
raised the point about the damages people are sustaining. Our
first objective is to make sure we minimize the risk
particularly here where you had storage facilities so close to
the Elk River. There should have been a red flag. Obviously the
information was not known and the response was very difficult
because first of all, just think if this chemical didn't have a
unique smell what would have happened.
Because of the fact it had a unique smell, the public was
able to determine something was wrong. If it did not have that
unique smell and had the same types of damage, it would have
been several days before the source would have been determined
and more people would have been put at risk.
A lot of people were damaged, their health was damaged,
their shops were damaged, their homes were damaged and the
company is in bankruptcy.
I hope during your work you do in West Virginia you will
come forward with suggestions to us as to how we can minimize
the cost to the taxpayers, the rate payers, the individuals and
find ways to hold those who are responsible accountable for the
damage they have caused. Do you have any thoughts on that?
Ms. Tennant. Yes, Senator. There have been efforts made
already. As I discussed how devastating this is, our confidence
has been shattered. When I receive letters from a father whose
wife is pregnant, this is supposed to be a joyful time and now
has turned into a fearful time for them. Certainly anyone who
has children understands what they are going through in this
situation.
As I talk about being on the front lines, it was those
businesses that we are trying to help, 96 percent of our
economy in West Virginia is from small businesses. I made
reference to a specific business. Think about what is behind
those businesses. It is people. It is those employees.
I was on those water lines as folks were waiting to receive
water, to get their water jugs filled. That is where I met so
many of these people who are minimum wage employees who were
off the job to whom missing a shift means perhaps missing a
payment on your car or missing utilities.
I have worked hand in hand through the Secretary of State's
office with the West Virginia legislature to have a piece of
legislation called the Small Business Emergency Relief Fund
where the Governor, along with several of his agencies would
have the ability to promulgate emergency rules that would aid
those businesses, those employees and those workers who lost
their wages.
Senator Cardin. Thank you very much.
Senator Vitter?
Senator Vitter. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Secretary Tennant, I also wanted to go to you. In your
opening statement, you raised a number of frustrations in the
aftermath of the spill about lack of clear guidance and
information, ``lack of consistent, trustworthy information.'`
On January 24, a group of 24 West Virginia scientists sent
a letter to EPA and CDC raising similar concerns, saying, among
other things, ``If the government had been more forthcoming
about what is not known about the leaked chemicals, citizens
and local officials would have been able to make better choices
about the actions needed to protect their families and
communities.'`
Do you share those concerns and if so, what would you like
EPA and CDC to do now, immediately, as soon as possible to try
to rectify that uncertainty and lack of trust?
Ms. Tennant. Certainly, Senator, I share those concerns.
That is why I have taken action on many different levels. I
have taken action in directly writing to the CDC and saying
tell us what you know so West Virginians will know how you are
doing your tests, at what level you think is safe for the
water, and how did you get to that level? Be open and
forthright with the citizens.
As I said, I have sent a letter and now have petitions with
West Virginians. We are working from within the Secretary of
State's office hand in hand as we register many of these
businesses and added oversight for the Secretary of State to
have indicated whether a particular company holds and stores
chemicals and how we might be able to indicate that in our data
base.
We have a very transparent agency within the Secretary of
State's office and I pride myself in the efficiency and
transparency. We would continue that if we had the requirement
through our State code.
Senator Vitter. Thank you.
Mr. Huffman, thanks for your comments about our TSCA reform
that Senator Manchin is so involved in. Also pass along my
thanks to your colleague, Michael Dorsey, who in July voiced
similar strong support and comments.
I want to highlight some important things in that work. I
assume you agree, if you want to comment, that EPA should not
have to affirmatively find unreasonable risk as they do now
under current law in order to move forward. Would that be
important, in your mind?
Mr. Huffman. Yes, Senator. One of thing that created more
confusion in a time of uncertainty in those first 24 to 48
hours was simply the lack of information about this particular
chemical. It was very frustrating to try to explain to a
concerned public who has just been informed they cannot use
their water what you do not know.
They want to know what we do know and that was very little
about this particular chemical and it somewhat degraded from
there. Having that information about this chemical or any
chemical that is within a zone or range of impacting a public
water supply is information we absolutely must have.
Senator Vitter. Also, it seems to me, it should be a big
priority, it is with me and our efforts, first of all, that the
State have a clear role in dealing with EPA and telling them
what they think, what you think should be of high priority;
second, that lack of safety and health information, as in this
case, the criteria for prioritizing; and third, that we use a
risk-based system so that, for instance, a factor like
proximity to drinking water supply can be a clear factor in
prioritization.
Those would seem to me to be lessons from this incident.
Would you agree with that or do you want to expand on that?
Mr. Huffman. Absolutely, Senator, you have said it all.
That is absolutely true.
Senator Vitter. Thank you all very much.
Senator Cardin. Senator Boxer.
Senator Boxer. I agree. I think as we look at the TSCA
bill, we should say if these chemicals are stored by drinking
water supplies, Senator Vitter, I would support your point. If
a chemical is stored by a drinking water supply and could get
into the water, I think we should prioritize it. That is
absolutely critical. As the law is currently proposed, that is
not the case.
Mr. Olson, I wanted to say I am going to read from your
testimony if you don't mind and say how much I agree with this.
``The problems with TSCA that are illustrated by the
chemical spill in West Virginia would not be fixed by the
current Chemical Safety Improvement Act as introduced and in
some respects, would be made worse. The bill as currently
written would provide the public with the illusion of an
effective Federal program to regulate chemicals while tying EPA
in knots and taking away existing State authorities. The
chemical spill in West Virginia is an illustration of why we
need to strengthen the TSCA bill. It is not a justification for
enacting a flawed bill.'`
I wanted to say that in my view, this says it all to me.
The last thing I want to do is give people the illusion of
protection. That is why I think as we go forward with TSCA,
Senator Vitter, Senator Cardin, Senator Udall and others, this
particular spill should give us a lot more urgency to get that
right and not pass a bill that is a phone deal. I feel very
strongly about it.
I was very taken, Ms. Tennant, with what you said about
your ability, I want to make sure I got this right, through
your good offices because you deal with small businesses and
the business community. Do you license them or what do you do?
Do you create a data base of all the businesses?
Ms. Tennant. We register businesses, corporations and
limited liability companies. Yearly they file an annual report
to keep up to date.
Senator Boxer. I thought I heard you say you would look at
trying to find out which of these companies store chemicals, is
that what I heard you say?
Ms. Tennant. It is under the jurisdiction of the DEP to
monitor and have oversight over those companies, but in an
attempt for added transparency, for added information.
Senator Boxer. Information is what I am getting at.
Ms. Tennant. Yes, to have that because as I said, we have a
wonderful data base and the more information you put into it,
the better it is for the public to be able to see. That is one
step I am looking into as a result of this crisis.
Senator Boxer. We have 80,000 chemicals out there. We know
very little about these chemicals. When we know we have certain
of these chemicals along a drinking water path, this is a red
flag.
Mr. Weaver, despite your point about regulations, the truth
of the matter is there is no regulation except for the above
ground oil storage. We have not moved forward with regulation.
I think Senator Cardin pointed out there is a law but there is
no regulation. That is why Senator Manchin's bill I think is so
critical.
Mr. Faulk, I love lawyers. I am married to one, my father
was one, my son is one. You are eloquent and your philosophy is
interesting but it doesn't get to the point of where we are
which is we have people suffering at this time.
It seems to me, without getting into an argument about
federalism although I do agree with you, states should have
absolute flexibility to move on this, I would rather see, first
of all, if we can help you solve the problem which I think
since you have the responsibility under current law, states
have the responsibility to declare whether water is safe, it
sounds like you need some help in monitoring and measuring.
I want to get to that in a minute but also, we want to make
sure in the future with these 80,000 chemicals out there. Mr.
Weaver, do you have any idea how many chemicals might be stored
all over this great nation near water supplies?
Mr. Weaver. I can speak to our member facilities which I do
know about. Honestly, we look at the concern as being the
product leaving the property. As far as the terminal industry
is concerned, the harm is done if the product gets offsite. If
the product reaches private property or otherwise, we consider
that to be a concern for us.
Senator Boxer. I am asking if you know--then I will ask Mr.
Olson if he knows--do you have any clue as to how many above
ground storage tanks--let us put it in simple terms--have
chemicals in them? We know some of them have salad oil. We are
talking about chemicals. How many are located along water
supplies?
Mr. Weaver. I don't know the number.
Senator Boxer. Do you have a guess, Erik?
Mr. Olson. As we said in our testimony, it is basically
impossible to know that right now. We have reviewed literally
scores of these source water assessments and virtually every
one has some storage tanks near the surface water which is
often done because it is convenient.
Senator Boxer. OK. I will close with this point. We have a
massive problem and do not know how massive it is. We know
because of the people of West Virginia--my heart is out to them
and we are going to do everything we can to help you get the
information you need--so after this please let us know how I
can help.
I know Senators Manchin and Rockefeller are doing a great
job. If you need more help in ascertaining the safety of that
water supply, I want to help you.
We need to have an assessment. I think the quickest way is
the Manchin bill because it says that every State has to look
at it because it is such a huge problem. Mr. Weaver, who is in
this business, has no clue. Mr. Olson, who is an advocate for
the folks, doesn't really have a clue of how many of these
Freedom Industries operations are out there waiting to cause
havoc.
As was pointed out I think by our Chairman, if there had
not been a smell to this, we still might not know.
The Manchin bill, which I hope we will mark up soon, would
basically say every State, you make an assessment. We will help
you. Let's have a plan for inspection that is carried out by
the State for emergency plans, for standards for these tanks.
Mr. Weaver was eloquent about how seriously that is taken in
his industry.
You have a rogue operator which is an absolute coward.
Running away and leaving the people is an outrage, an absolute
outrage. People are frustrated and upset. They always turn to
the government, oh, why didn't you do more. How about having
some corporate responsibility and making sure that you as a
good corporate citizen ensure the safety of the people and not
hold a press conference and say, I have to go now--I saw that
one--I have to go now; I can't really talk to you and then file
for bankruptcy.
It is a violation of basic human decency what they did. We
have to protect the people. That is our job now. I am so
grateful to Chairman Cardin, Senators Boozman and Vitter for
cooperating with us and we are going to move forward and push
this legislation which, Mr. Faulk, will give the responsibility
to the states to make sure they have the resources and we have
their backs as they move to protect the people from the most
basic right, to be able to take a glass of water and not worry
that your kid is going to get cancer. Let's put it that way.
I want to say to the people of West Virginia through Mr.
Huffman, Mr. McNulty, and their great Secretary of State, how
much I want to do to stand by you in this crisis.
I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cardin. Thank you, Senator Boxer.
Senator Boozman, earlier I mentioned your help in
accommodating the fast turnaround time for this hearing. I
thank you very much for that. As acknowledged, you had a
conflict earlier but it is nice to have you sitting next to me
at the committee. Let me acknowledge and give an opportunity to
Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I do appreciate you holding this hearing about such an
important topic. I apologize for being late. The prayer
breakfast is going on this week and we have people literally
from all over the world. I actually had some heads of State I
had to visit with, so again, thank you very much for putting up
with me.
I would like to follow along the same lines as Senator
Boxer in the sense that Mr. McNulty, you mentioned the
importance of public disclosure of all potential sources of
contamination to allow the public and government regulate them,
which I agree. I am very much in favor of doing that.
Do you or any of the other witnesses have any thoughts
about how we can balance that, the value of public disclosure
with the need to protect the sites in a post-9/11 world? In
other words, we do not want to create a situation where we
somehow publicize the sites that are perhaps potential targets
for terrorists or whoever would cause us harm.
Mr. McNulty. I certainly understand there needs to be a
balance with the post-9/11 era that we live in now. I think in
reality, this information is out there now. You can comb the
Web and find information on most every drinking water utility
in the United States and find information about where there
treatment plants are located and so forth.
How we would go about keeping information confidential but
yet engaging the public and making them a part of the solution
in protecting their source water, I really don't have the full
answer to that.
Senator Boozman. Does anyone else want to comment?
Mr. Fewell. Senator Boozman, I have some thoughts. Some
states have online systems for the management of hazardous
substances for which companies under EPCRA are required to
file. That information is maintained in confidential data bases
at the State and local levels.
It seems to me perhaps that information could also be made
available to water companies in proximity to those facilities
in the same type of confidential data base that exists for
EPCRA.
Senator Boozman. You explained in your testimony, while
more data is necessary for response and preparation, it is
important to use the information effectively rather than just
dumping massive amounts of data on small water systems. Can you
explain what you envision in that regard, especially with
improved notification to our small water system operators?
Mr. Fewell. One of my concerns is obviously some of these
watersheds are very large. We are talking hundreds, perhaps
thousands of square miles with many industrialized facilities.
Where there is a requirement that these public water systems be
provided emergency response and information related to hundreds
of facilities, that is a lot of information for any public
water system whether large or small to digest, understand and
figure out of to respond.
I think what we heard here this morning about prioritizing,
those facilities in close proximity to water intake structures
or drinking water supplies are the ones that it is absolutely
critical for that information to be in the hands of water
provides downstream.
Senator Boozman. Yes, sir?
Mr. Olson. I agree with that. I would say, in fact, as
highlighted a bit earlier today, a lot of these assessments
have already been done, so a lot of the facilities have already
been flagged. The water utilities have some information
available. The key is to get the more detailed information to
them.
I think that the bill recently introduced by Senators
Manchin, Boxer and Rockefeller would take a major step in that
direction to force somebody to deal with that situation at the
State level. I think that would be a significant step forward
to actually get action taken to deal with these immediate
threats.
Senator Boozman. I do appreciate your leadership, Mr.
Chairman, and enjoy working with you on these issues. This is
really an important topic which we hopefully can deal with.
Senator Cardin. Thank you. I appreciate the cooperation we
have in this committee. We try to do everything we can in a
non-partisan manner because it involves the public health of
the people of this Nation.
I want to give each of you an opportunity to respond to the
following. You have heard during the course of this hearing
information that would have been very helpful, you heard of the
failure to exercise reasonable caution by the private property
owner and the manner in which it dealt with its above ground
storage.
EPA currently publishes only 90 contaminants as far as
regulations on how to deal with that. Chemicals are one aspect
of contaminants. There can be other sources than chemicals but
90 is a small number compared to the total risk factors that
could enter our water system. As was pointed out, if you ask
for too much information, none of the information is going to
be terribly useful.
We have before us a specific bill, the bill authored by
Senators Manchin, Rockefeller and Boxer. I would like to get
your specific views as to whether that bill represents the
right priority as you see it for Federal action or whether
there are other areas you would like to see us look at? We will
start first with Mr. Huffman.
Mr. Huffman. As with most successful environmental laws,
rules and policies in this country, establishing minimum
Federal standards which the states must meet is vitally
important. We do not want too much disparity across the country
in how anything is regulated or we simply see various
industries moving around the country to find the areas that may
be least regulated.
The Manchin-Boxer bill does that, of course, but the other
thing it does is the prevention piece of it. We talked a lot
about TSCA and understanding the chemical, emergency response,
planning and all of that. The key to this is prevention. That
is what this bill does.
It does other things, of course, but looking at it as an
environmental regulator in the State of West Virginia, we have
to keep this stuff in the tanks. If it leaves the tanks, we
have to keep it in the secondary containment. That can be done.
We can absolutely do that.
The other thing is we have to stop looking at chemicals in
the form of whether it is oil-based or a hazardous
classification. We have learned that anything that has the
potential to negatively impact a public water supply, however
innocuous it may seem on the surface, we need to be able to
regulate that.
In the State of West Virginia, we have 3,500 tanks
regulated or not the way the Freedom tanks are regulated; 1,000
of those are within the zone of critical concern over water
intake. The only way to get that kind of certainty that we can
keep this material in the tanks and in the secondary
containment is to have annual or some other frequency of
testing, inspection and certification. If we can do that, we
can minimize the risk of this happening anywhere in the
country.
Senator Cardin. Let me go to Mr. Weaver and try to get the
different stakeholders.
Mr. Weaver. With regard to the proposed bill, as I have
observed, all of the proposed measures are currently addressed
to various degrees with existing regulations as they
consistently apply to the vast majority of storage tank
operators.
With regard to this particular incident, it very well may
be that exemptions or otherwise could have enabled them to
escape that collections of regulations. It is also possible
that there may have been violations of those regulations.
Once we know the results from the investigation reports, I
think we will have a much better basis upon which to begin
acting. Specific reasons will be understood for the containment
failures and for how the product got offsite.
At that point, that is when measures to prevent recurrence
in another community can most effectively be identified,
addressed and implemented I believe for greatest effectiveness
through the refinement and simplification of existing
regulations, many of which are a web to navigate. Ultimately
our objective is to keep the product contained as opposed to
adding layers of administrative effort.
Senator Cardin. It's my understanding we do have authority
on petroleum-based above the ground storage but for some of the
other contaminants and chemicals, we do not at the current
time.
Mr. Weaver. There are some exemptions for many chemicals.
Some chemicals are included and others are not. Certainly
within the ILTA membership, the facility gets brought into the
regulation at a very low threshold, the petroleum products.
Within my sphere, there are very few facilities actually that
do hold these chemicals that are fully exempt because petroleum
products or electrical transformers are fairly pervasive. That
could be a way to utilize those existing regulations.
Senator Cardin. In West Virginia, it was not a petroleum-
based product that caused the problem; it was a cleaning
product?
Mr. Weaver. Right.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Olson?
Mr. Olson. Yes, the problem is that although petroleum-
based products are regulated under the Clean Water Act, Section
311, unfortunately EPA apparently has not issued standards for
hazardous materials for spill prevention, control and counter
measures. That is a big, gapping loophole as I mentioned in my
testimony.
The Manchin bill definitely would move things forward at
least for those tanks near drinking water supplies.
The other point worth mentioning is the one you mentioned
which is the State revolving fund. We really need an investment
in our infrastructure. This is another reason to highlight that
this treatment plant simply did not have the resources or the
technology to deal with this type of spill. There are a lot of
others across the country that do not.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Faulk?
Mr. Faulk. One of the things I haven't heard about the Act
that I think is important, at least in this hearing we haven't
talked about it, is the Community Right to Know Act passed by
this Congress in response to the Bhopal incident many, many
years ago. That involves notification and procedures by which
persons in the community can become aware and know how to
respond to particular situations by virtue of notification.
Although I will hasten to say I am not a thorough expert on
that Act, I will say it would be worth comparing those systems
so that there is not a significant amount of duplication of
effort and burden imposed on the communities if this bill is,
in fact, passed.
Senator Cardin. Thank you for that point.
Ms. Tennant?
Ms. Tennant. I would echo that. I that is important for not
just the citizens of West Virginia but across the country that
these guidelines be made public, whether it is what the
chemical is, the emergency plan put in place for these storage
tanks and companies that hold these storage tanks to be made on
a transparent data base easily accessible to the public.
I would also mention particularly for West Virginia as we
tackle this crisis, how do we make sure it does not happen
again for us. I want to emphasize once again the proposal to
have the 10-year study, the long term study for the health care
and health of the people of West Virginia, that we might be
able to put in place that we need to start today, so that
confidence starts today and we have an understanding of what
might happen over this 10 year period.
Senator Cardin. Thank you for that.
Mr. McNulty?
Mr. McNulty. I concur with Mr. Huffman's comments. I think
Senator Manchin has crafted a good commonsense approach to help
solve these problems.
Senator Cardin. Mr. Fewell?
Mr. Fewell. I want to reinforce a couple of things that
have been said related to EPCRA. Whenever there is a spill in
excess of reportable quantity established, there are three
touch points: an immediate call to the National Response
Center; the local emergency planning commission, the first
responders and the State Emergency Response Commission.
I think it would be reasonable to expect one more call to a
local water facility downstream. I think one of the benefits
with making bulk chemical storage facilities understand the
risks may also be having them understand where the closest
water intake structure is. If they are aware of that and there
is a requirement that local water providers downstream be
notified, I think that will go a long way.
Senator Cardin. Thank you.
Senator Boozman.
Senator Boozman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I really do not have anything else. I was going to followup
the way that you did. I was really curious about existing
regulations and the loopholes but I think you all covered that
well. We have some protections in place but we have some
problems we need to address in the future.
Hopefully we can work together and work with you all. This
stuff does need to come from the ground up. We all worry about
unfunded liabilities put on people who simply do not have any
resources now. As you mentioned, Mr. Olson, most of our
municipalities, most of these treatment plants are struggling
with the funding the have now.
Again, as I said, hopefully we can work together and come
up with a good solution.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Cardin. Once again, I want to thank all seven of
our witnesses. As Senator Boxer pointed out, we really do want
to work with you and figure out how we can be helpful. Our
first priority is to do what we can to prevent these types of
episodes from happening again in our country.
I think we can learn from what happened in West Virginia
and take steps at the private sector level as well as the
governmental level. We also want to make sure that we have
knowledge so we know what information is out there.
Last, when a company fails to perform, they should be held
accountable. We are very concerned about the business aspect of
this company and the steps it has taken to avoid its
responsibilities as Senator Boxer and many of you here pointed
out.
I hope we can work together to minimize these risks. There
are always risks, we know that. We need to minimize the risks
and clearly do it in a way that is cost effective and really
works. We don't want to do things that are going to cause
additional burdens without benefits.
I am glad to see that working together is being done by the
West Virginia legislature. I expect the same type of response
here in Congress and that we can be a constructive partner to
the efforts of the people of West Virginia.
Again, thank you all very much for your testimony.
With that, the hearing stands adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
[all]