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