In the i-iatter  of:
                                  Proposed  regulations for the
                                  control of  organic chemicals
                                  in drinking water
                  Los Angeles Convention Center

                     Tuesday, April 11, 1973

BEFORE:     Lorraine Chang/ Hearing Officer

           Dr. Joseph Cotruvo

           Randi Pearl
                                         Director of Criteria  &
                                         Standards Division

                                         Water Supply
                                         Representative  '
                                2535 WEST TEMPLE, LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90026

                                        Carcifiad Shorthand
OUR FILE NO.  ]-*3C-ฃi

    	J'. 7 f. ^ 3    	
                                • IPOซ-(ซซ





























Representative of the Contra Costa
  Water District

Visiting Research Associate
  Environmental Quality Laboratory
  California Institute of Technology

Representative of the Southern California
  Water Company

Chief Engineer
  Division of Colorado River Resources
  Nevada State Department of Energy

Representative of the Coalition of State
  Drinking Water

Representative of the East Bay Municipal
  Utility District

Senior Sanitation Engineer
  California Department of Health

Executive Assistant to the
  Chief Engineer of Water Works
  Los Angeles Department of Water and

Water Quality Engineer
  Metropolitan Water District of
  Southern California

Representative of the California/Nevada
  Section of the American Water Works  ,
  Engineer of Water Quality
  California Water Service Company
                       Certified Shorthand Reporters i

                            TELE, 388-3233

             TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1978; 9:45 A.M.


          HEARING OFFICER:  Good morning.  My name is

Lorraine Chang.  I'm an attorney with the Environmental

Protection Agency, and I'm going to be the Hearing Officer

this morning at this public hearing.  The other people with

me today are Dr. Joseph Cotruvo, Director of Criteria and

Standards, and on my left is Randi Pearl who is the County

Water Supply Representative from our regional office in

San Francisco.  I'd also like  to introduce Sue Laufman, who  is

a member of our National Advisory Water  Council who is here

representing the council.

                   The purpose of this hearing here today

is to receive  comments and statements from the public on

EPA's proposed regulations for the control of organic chemicals

in drinking water.

                   This hearing in Los Angeles is  the fourth

of a series of seven public hearings that we're holding around

the country.   We've had hearings-in Miami, New Orleans and

Boston, so far.  We'll be going to St. Louis and Washington.

The final hearing will be in Washington  on May 6.   There  has

also been a regional hearing in Dallas.   I'd like  to outline

the procedures that we'll be following.   First of  all, I  hope

that you  all  have registered at our  registration desk in  the

lobby.  I have the cards  from  those  people who have asked to

make statements,and  I'd  like to  just read off  the  order of

the speakers  as  I have  them now  so  you'll know when your  turn

is  coming.   Donald E.  Vanderkar,  Contra Costa County Water
                                  Certified Shorthand

                                       TELE. 388-3233

District; Frank Kostas, sanitary engineer  for  the  Southern

California Water Supply;  Duane R. Sudweeks  from the  Southern

Nevada Division from the State of Nevada;  Alexander Grendon

from the Coalition of State Drinking Water;  Donald Larkin from

the East Bay Municipal  Utility District  in Oakland, and

David Spath from the California State  Department of Health.

In addition, we're holding an  evening  hearing  tonight at

7:30 for those people who weren't able to  come this morning,

and to give the public  an opportunity  to bring their  views.

                   If you do wish to make  a  statement, you

could talk with Randi Pearl right after  I  finish.   I'd like

to keep the statements  as short as possible.   In light of the

few people that have come today, we  could  probably say 10

minutes would be a good amount of time,  and  if you would, if

you brought written  statements with  you, as  we suggested, we'd

appreciate it if you gave a copy  to  myself and also to the

court reporter  so that  he can  enter  your statement in the

record.  When you come  up to the  podium  to make your  comments,

I'd appreciate  it if you would identify  yourself and  your

affiliations, and speak loudly and  clearly so that everyone

can hear you.   The entire hearing is being transcribed by the

court reporter,  and  if  anyone  wishes to  obtain a copy of the

.transcript,  they should contact Mr.  Fisher who is the court

reporter  today.

                    Lastly,  I want to say that the whole  idea

of holding these public hearings  has been to encourage public

participation in the final  adoption of these regulations,

 and we  encourage people to  present their.views and give
                                  Certified Shorthand Raporcars •

                                       TELE. 398-3233

                                                           . 4
whatever  comments  that  they  have  on the various issues that

we've  just  begun to  outline  to  you this horning.   With that,

I guess I'd like to  begin with  the first speaker, Mr. Vanderkar,

from the  Contra Costa Water  District.

          MR.  VANDERKAR:  I'm Don Vanderkar representing the

Contra Costa Water District.  The water district is located

in  the San  Francisco Bay Area.  We provide water to

approximately 250,000 persons in  Costra Costa County.  We

serve  the cities of  Concord,  Pittsburg, Markennas, Pleasant Hiljl,

and portions, of other cities.  The district takes its source

of  water  from the  Sacramento River Delta.  We are here today,

and our comments are submitted  not in opposition, but mostly

to  be  supportive of  the regulations and the intent to assist

in  developing regulations  that  are reasonable and workable.

The district has reviewed  the proposed regulations, and we

offer  these only comments.

                   The  district has experienced recent

elevated  levels  of trihalomethane concentrations.  We have

experienced these  levels as a result of the drought which  •

occurred  in Northern California,  and the result of the sea

water  intrusions.   These levels did reach as high  as  300 parts
per billion total  trihalomethanes.  We have conducted extensive

• research, although preliminary,  on trihalomethane removal,

 and we also monitored for THM and synthetic organics.

                    Our second comment has to do with  the

 75,000 population criteria as a benchmark for  initial treatment

 requirements.  These, requirements present a unique situation

 for the district and for the water users.  We  have one water
                   CLARK  fmmmmmm^  ' Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                           S-^|,  -       TSLS. 383-32S3

system in this district that serves more than 75,000 persons.

We have six other systems that serve less than 75,000 each.

The requirement, therefore, potentially could allow

approximately 100,000 persons with the district to be served

by water containing contaminants exceeding the MCL's of  the

regulation, while the other approximately 160,000 persons  in

the district would be required to meet the regulations,  and

all these people will be served from the same basic source of

water, so this presents a unique problem for us.  There  has

already been critical press in our area because of this

requirement/ and we will be submitting copies of these

newspaper articles with our comments.  If the 75,000 population

criteria remains,'we do feel that all people served water  with

contaminants that do exceed a maximum contaminant level  should

be notified.

                   We have these recommendations based on  the

fact  that ever  if there are contaminants that exceed, we feel

there are reasonable alternatives.  One would be boiling to

remove trihalomethane.  So we feel even though  the basis may

not be present, there are  reasonable alternatives, and the

people should be notified.

                   Our  third comment is related to the  .10

milligrams  per  liter THM requirement, and  the  fact that  that

is an initial requirement, and  the indication goes that  it

may be lower  in the  future.  Our research  indicates  that in

our water  and removal of trihalomethanes with our  source of

water, particularly  during droughts and the  seawater intrusion

it is feasible  to  reduce THM's  to  below  .10  milligrams  per
                   CLARK  ^••••^   Certified Shorel-iand Reporeซrป •


    liter.  We  are  concerned  because  we  feel this drought-type

    condition may occur  in  the  future as a normal condition

    because of  proposed  water operations in the Central Valley

    Project.  Our research  on the  water  condition indicates that

    it  is possible  to  reduce  the trihalomethanes below the .10

    milligrams  per  liter.   However, we question the practicality

    of  reducing THM's  much  below  .10  milligrams per liter, and

 8  still maintain  adequate disinfection with chlorine, chloride

    dioxide or  a combination  of the  two  without installation of

10  GAG columns, or the  equivalent.

11                     We  question the wisdom of- replacing filter

12  media with  GAG  as  an interim step in synthetic organic removal.

13  For the district's treated, water division, our existing

14  treatment process  with dual media filtration at the Ralph

15  D.  EbUinan Treatment Plant  produces excellent quality water.

16  Turbidities are reduced from 50-100  NTU levels to  0.03-0.1

17  NTU (average equals  .05 NTU)  with filtration rates as high  as

18  10  gallons  per  square foot per minute.   If we are required to

19  remove  our  media and replace the media with GAG, our  filtration

20  rate,  to  provide adequate exposure  time, would have to reduce

21  drastically to  a slow rate, and at  that rate, we could not

22  provide adequate quantities of water to provide our customers.

23   So we're  concerned about that.  We  therefore recommend that

24   any decision to replace  filter media with GAG on an interim

25   basis be based upon the  following:

26                      First, that the  overall quality of treatment

27   considering all the significant  parameters,  not be reduced,

28   and secondly,  a major  expansion  of  filter basins not  be
                       ft A aw  ^——ป  Caf*ci'iป<3 Shorettana Raoomars •
                       ^^^A^rn 1^  f  IMMHiav

                                           T=|_ฃ. 388-3283


                    That  concludes  our comments.   Are there any


          DR.  COTRUVO:   I  would  comment a bit on your last

bit.   There  are,  as currently written, the regulations

include  a considerable amount of flexibility on the point of

whether  or not replacement of existing media would be required,

and  of course, it would  only be  considered in those cases

where  the treatment requirement  would ultimately have to "take

effect,  where  .a carbon system would have to be installed,and

it is  considered as a stopgap measure, an immediate measure,

that could  result in improved water quality while more

extensive modifications  are being made.  In that circumstance,

even the proposal- is that the judgment ultimately would be  •

in the hands of the State as to  whether or not it would be

 feasible to  do that, and including some of the provisions

mentioned such as the flow-rate  considerations, and whether

or not there would be any modifying of the existing filter

 structure.   So those factors are intended to be taken into

 account in making that ultimate  decision.

           MR.  VANDERKAR: So if I understand, we rely on  the

 State to make this judgment, but if it is determined that if

 we do have a  synthetic organic problem, the requirement  could

 still be imposed, even though we are  developing the ultimate


           DR. COTRUVO:  But with the  idea that  the  feasibility

 of making that adjustment be taken into consideration,  so if,

 for example.,  extensive modification of the  filter would  be
                                  Certified ShortMand Reporters •

                                       T51_E. 388-3233

    required, that would be  an  element  to  consider as to whether

 2  or not to make the change in  a  short term.
              MR. VANDERKAR: So if  we can  demonstrate it's not

 4  feasible —


















          HEARING OFFICER:  I have a couple comments.

                   On the 75,000 population cutoff,  I would

like to just note that although our requirement right now

applies to systems with populations of 75,000, that  does not

preclude any treatment that anyone wishes to provide for water

serving customers which would fall under that population

cutoff.  Our feelings have been on population cutoff that,

as an initial step towards getting the granular activated

carbon introduced, that it's most feasible, and this applies

to both the granular activated carbon as well as  the THM.

          MR. VANDERKAR:  But I believe the regulations do

not provide for any of the small communities or modification

of the medium-size communities if they do  find high  levels-of
          HEARING OFFICER:   Public  notification is not
required because  that would  be  the  function of having the

MCL  imposed,  but  there  is  nothing that would stop anyone from

going out with  public notification,  anyway, and that's

obviously a  good  measure to  take.

                    I have  one other- question.  You say in

your testimony  you have been able to bring the THM level

down to the  MCL level,  and I want to know what research you're
           MR.  VANDERKAR:   Our research is at bench scale.
                       CLARK         certified Shorthand Reporters •

                                           T5LE. 388-3293

 T_  We're gearing up  to do  that.  We  do  have  the  report  on our

 2  work which will be presented  in Palo Alto at  the State AWA

 3  meeting  tomorrow, and we'll make  a copy of that available.

 4  The basic system  has to do with pH control, maintain a low

 5  pH during chlorene disinfection.  Then using  ammonia to

 5  generate chloramines prior to increasing  the  pH.  That's the

 7  basic system, and it utilizes all the other plans for treatment]

 8            HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you.

 9                     I understand that Dr.  Talbot Page from the

10  California Institute of Technology wishes to  make a statement

11  because  he has  to leave, and  if everybody doesn't mind, I'd

12  like  to  put  him on next.

13            DR. PAGE:  Good morning.   My  name is Dr. Talbot Page.

14  I  am  currently  a  visiting research  associate  in the

15  environmental quality  laboratory  at  the  California Institute

16  of Technology  in  Pasadena, California.   My background and

17  training are in economics and mathematical statistics, with

18  research experience  in the epidemiology of diseases, including

19  cancer  associated with air and  water pollution.  I'm not

20  going to read  all these comments.  I'm just going to summarize

21  a  few things.   I  want  to make a few comments on the scientific

22  background  underlying  this,  so  this  will become a part of the

23  hearing record.

24                      There are  really two sources of scientific

25   evidence that have budgeted  these regulations.  One, is to  do

26   a study of  the particular chemicals found in the water.   So

27   far,  perhaps 600  or 700 synthetic organic chemicals or other

28   organic chemicals have been  found in the water  nationwide,
                                      Certified Shorenand Raporcara •

                                           TELS. 333-3233

     and  it  increases  every year.   Of that number, only a small

     fraction  have  been tested for carcinogenic*.ty,  and of the

     total  fraction organic content of the water, this 600 chemicals,

     represents  only a small fraction of that.   So we've only

     scratched the  surface in terms of knowing what is in the water.

                        Now, this  first approach takes the chemicals

     that have been identified, these few chemicals, and these

 8   few  chemicals  that have been  analyzed, tested on rats and mice

     for  their abusive carcinogenic powers, and extrapolates them

10   on the  basis of estimated human exposure.   The chemical that

11   has  gotten  the most consideration is chloroform, and there's

12   been evidence  as to how many  excess deaths could be associated

13   with chloroform.

14                      Now, when  cost benefit studies are done

15   with chloroform,  the balance  — well, I'm referring to studies

16   by Jack Kumberland of the University of Maryland for the

17   National Acadamy of Sciences  — when you take this one

18   chemical singly, it may not be enough.  It's a balancing of

19  _ cost ratios under conventional assumptions towards treatment

20   by carbon.   However, when you add other chemicals — the one

21   that comes  to  mind is  .2 dichloroethane — it appears the

22   cost ratio  benefit-.goes up significantly.  Now, the point I'm

23   trying to stress is, if the cost benefit studies were done

24   only on the basis of chloroform, you would be lucky to get

25   one answer.  If it's done on many chemicals, the answer is

26   likely to come out the other way.  So I want to emphasize that

27   it's important to take a more comprehensive view as to the

28   hazards in the water,  and not just limit yourself to
                       CLARK /•"•"•'••'*  Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                                           TSLS. 38a-i233




























chloroform which has been done in the past to a certain


                   Now, the second point I want to make is

that there's a whole other strand of evidence which has been,

in part, brought into consideration, but not sufficiently

in my mind.  That is the formula that's associated with the

epidemilogical studies.  Now, there have been some epidemi-

logical studies of which I've participated  in two.  These

studies have definite  limitations because of data problems.

People move, and there  are many  different sources of  cancer,

and  drinking water  is  only one,  and  as  one, when  you  do  the

studies,  it turns out  to be  a  fairly  small contributor  —

perhaps  5  or  10  percent of  the  background rate  which  means

it's particularly hard at  that  time.   So  the  direct analysis

by epidemical  studies  is  going  to problematical,  because there

 are a number of studies you rather draw for pattern as a part

 of the background.

                    Now, 11 of these 12 studies show a

 reasonably consistent pattern revealing a cancer to

 gastrointestinal tracts in drinking water.   The  first of these

 studies was the one in Louisiana sponsored by the Environmental

 Defense Fund.  I performed a statistical analysis of this

 study which was published by Science in 1976.  The results

 of  the study indicated a statistically significant association

 between cancer mortality rates  and populations which receive

 drinking  water  from the Mississippi River.  This relationship

 persisted even  when Orleans  Parish was exluded  from  the

 analysis  (to eliminate the  possible effect on  death  rates
                                       d Shorchand Reporters <

                                       TELE. 388-3233

     of cancer patients who are attracted to New Orleans in

 2   search of medical facilities); and when thป analysis was

 3   confined only to the southern 29 parishes proposed as

 4   different in dietary and other living habits, compared with

 g   north Louisiana parishes.

-~6                      Subsequent to the EPF study, Drs. Tarone

 7   and Gart of the National Cancer Institute reanalyzed and

 Q   extended EDF's study to include additional race/sex groups

 9   and other exposure variables.  They found the same pattern

10   in all four pppulation groups except for White  female.

11                      At the same time, Dr. De Rouen and Diem

12   conducted epidemologic investigations in Louisiana in which

13   they proposed that the differences in the dietary patterns

14   between north and south Louisiana might account for the

15   relatively higher cancer rates in southern Louisiana.  In

16   comparing the results with the EOF study, the author stated,

17   "There is agreement in the finding that colon and rectal

18   cancer or cancer of the gastrointestinal organs are elevated

19   in parishes served by the Mississippi River as  compared  to

20   other parishes."

21                      Dr. Ralph Buncher of the University of

22   Cincinnatti reanalyzed the EOF da-ta using a different

23   statistical approach.  The results were virtually identical

24   with the original study.

25                      Subsequently, an addition eight  studies

26   have been completed in other parts of the country.

27                      One of the notes I have here is  a  case

28   control  study that was done  in New York State by

                       CLARK ^———^  Certified Shorthand Pซooreซr* •

    Dr. Michael Alavanja  of  Columbia  University where he

    observed  that  for males  and  females  combined,  there was a

    nearly  threefold excess  risk of GI  and urinary tract cancer

 4  among urban populations  drinking  chlorinated water when he

    compared  with  urban populations consuming unchlorinated water.

    For rural populations,  the excess risk was nearly twofold.

                       In a  review of six of these epidemologic

 8  studies,  Dr. Kenneth  Cantor  at the  National Cancer Institute

    made the  following observation:

10                           "Given the  diversity of the

11                     study populations, water quality

12                     measures, and  statistical methods

13                     used  in these  six investigations,

14                     the similarity of result is note-

15                     worthy.   Bladder and colon/rectal

16                     cancer mortality were observed in

17                     several to be  associated with

18                     water quality."

19                     Also, it  should be mentioned that Dr. Cantor

20  has  conducted  an  epidemiologic study using data from EPA's

    NORS  survey,  and  has  observed an  association between
22  chlorination  of drinking water and cancer of the bladder.

23                     Now,  one  point I want to emphasize in

24  this,  is  that what I've already  said which is, that these

25  studies not only  deal with  statistical association, but they

26  give estimates of how large  the  effect is, and the estimates

27   come out in the order of 5  to 10  percent of the background

28   rate.   -These are  rough figures,  but they're the best we have
                       CLARK ^""•"'•i  Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                                           TELS 388•

    to go on from the study.  The interesting  thing  about
    this figure  is that if you analyzed  the epidemological
    techniques, it suggests that a  5  to 10  percent excess risk
    is at the  limit of the  sensitivity of the  epidemological
    techniques.  Therefore, it  is indeed  surprising  that there
    has been a substantial  amount of	consistency from study to
    study, because it's  a question  of borderline.
 8                     If chloroform  were the  only chemical
    concerned,  and if the risk  estimate  had come out in the order
10  of  200 extra'deaths  per 360,000' deaths  of  cancer per year,
11  that this excess risk which is  a  fraction of a tenth of
12  1 percent  would  never be  observed with  the kind of statistical
13  heaviness  we  have in epidemiology.   So, in order to get this
14  pattern  and results  we  see in the epidemiology, we have to
15   assume  that the  effect  is substantially larger which makes
16   sense,  because when you do risk extrapolation from other
17   carcinogenics, it appears that chloroform is just one  of  the
18   many chemicals that are important to look at.   I have  here  a
19   discussion of some of the technical  aspects of  the  study  which
20   i think I'll just leave here since our time is  short.
21                      Let me just close down,  and  if  there are
     any questions, I'll be happy to  answer them,  and this  will
     be on the  record so it can be  read.
                DR. COTRUVO:   Dr. Page, is there  anything in the
      studies that everybody conducts  in  the epidemological studies
      that have been conducted — many of  which dealt with either
      chlorination  per 'se, or  chloroform  —  has there been any
      extension into  having  evaluated  other  chemicals such as
                       CLARK  r       certified Shorthand Reporters •
                       •tซปซ--ie  ซ-""_ T  >       TSLS. 388- 3233

bromoform, chemicals that have been found consistently

with chloroform.

          DR. PAGE:  The early studies which I participated

on were really too crude to get at this problem.  Basically,

we had to aggregate over large processes of chemicals, and

use such variables as the percent of population drinking water

from the surface water sources versus the percent of

populations drinking water from ground water sources, and

consider the contrast between the organics in the surface and

in the ground.  However, I believe in the EDA survey, there

was a much better  identification of what the actual chemicals

were.                                        *

                   Nancy Rush did a Ph.D. on the epidemiology

and looked at some particular chemicals, and also, I  believe,

Ken Cantor in his  study looked at some particular chemicals

as well.

          DR. COTRUVO:  You don't recall any conclusions

that were made?

          DR. PAGE:  I really don't.  My feeling  is  that  it's

very hard to distangle the particular type of particular

chemicals.   I think one point needs strong emphasis,  and  that

is, that  the interaction among chemicals may be very important,

so  that  it is difficult in setting one chemical in  isolation

and trying to compare  the results of a rodent  study,  at  this

point, with  the chemical, to  epidemiology.   Where there  is

a variation  in  chemicals  from city to city,  it  is going  to  be

hard  to  do,  partly because of the  interaction  of  the chemicals,

 and there's  difficulties  in  diagnosing  the  fact that the same
                   CLARK jป—^_  Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                                                              . 16

-,    chemical  may  be  associated with many forms of cancer.

              DR.  COTRUVO:   One of the problems, of course, in a

    study  such as  that would have to do with making a determination

    of human  exposure over  long periods of time.  What kind of

    assumptions were you able to take into account in dealing with

    latency periods  and the length of exposure to these various

    substances?  What kind  of problems do you run into there?


















              DR.  PAGE:   Well,  I think the biggest single problem

    is that,  what you really want to have is a characterization

    of what the water looked like 30 years ago, and this is   •  .

    something you don't have.  Although, in dealing with the study

    and the higher based seniority, Mississippi and New Orleans,

    you do know something about the character of your water.  You

    don't know the particularities, so that's one problems.

                       The second problem is that people migrate,

    and the basic data that you are dealing with in the

    epidemological study doesn't tell you how long a person lived

    in a particular place.  Now, to a certain extent, these

    migration problems is a nonsymptomatic one, because people

    are moving in and out, so there is still hope of seeing an

    effect, even though it's a diluted one.  It just strains the

    method even further toward consensus of the study.

              DR. COTRUVO:  You stated that the studies that have

    been conducted so far were preliminary-type studies.  They

    went a certain distance.  They're are perhaps more refined

    studies that could be refined  in the future.  Do you have a

    feeling, given the fact  that you're presuming that drinking

    water .apparently as a contributor to cancer rates is a  small
                       CLARK         Certified Shorthand

                                             .ฃ. 388-3233

one, and that the problems of determining specifically what

that contribution would be are compounded by the fact that

5 to 10 percent number that you gave us is close to the

sensitivity level of the technique, are there more refined

studies that would be able to give a more precise conclusion.

          DR. PAGE:  Yes, I believe so.  The technique that

people talk about the most is the case-controlled one, where

you start with people who have cancer, and you go back and

you try to match them with similar exposures in other things

except drinking water, where that would be a different

exposure, and you see if you can observe differences that way.

It's interesting to note that of all the results, Dr. Alavanja1

results are the ones that come up with the highest estimates

of  that risk, and his are most solid in the sense of using

the case-controlled method.

                   There's another point to mention.  First of

all, when I mention this 5 to 10 percent, as we both know,

it's just the best guess, but it's also a guess that's

developed from the analysis  of data that's 30  years old.

We're  talking about exposures that were 30 years  ago,  and

discussing the pros and  cons, or the cost in benefits  of  these

drinking water regulations.  What we're really concerned with

today  is the exposures  to chemicals and the amount  of  cancer

we'll  have 30 years  from now, since in many cases,  the

chemicals grow tenfold  in the same  river basin over a  period

of  30  years.   I  don't want  to suggest  that the 5  to 10  percent

 figure is cast in  iron.   It  could  be  substantially  changed

 in  the next- few  years,  and  it's  what  we  think  it  may  become
                                  Certified SnortHend Reporters •

                                       TELE. 3SB-3283

 - \  that's really relevant to how much  precautionary expenditures
    we should have today.
 3            DR. COTRUVO:  Given  the  12  studies mentioned, and
    given the certainties you mentioned also,  what would be your
    overall  assessment of  the  possibility that those studies might
    be misleading?   Essentially, what  level of assurance do you
    have in  the  conclusions that could be drawn from the present
studies, and are there other factors that could be  on  the
horizon that would be more sophisticated studies  that  might
explain away the effects they found so  far in  those 12 studies?
          DR. PAGE:  In a sense, there's no  answer  to  it.
There's also a possibility that  something will come along  and
clear the air, and it will all become apparent, but that's
not the way  things have gone.  The way  things  have  gone is,
in the  late  50's, early '60's, people like Dr. Hoop•were.
concerned about extracts of water along the  Ohio  River, and
fed mice that developed a few symptoms and  cancers,' suggestive
evidence, and then crude preliminary  studies-in  neurolenes
which I did  some other statistical- analysis  for  — what
happened to  males, and that  led  to certain studies, and the
next study came along, and that  confirmed  the earlier one.
It was  done  three  times .over,  so tlie  pattern development
appears much stronger  to confirm the  earlier work rather than
to explain away the  earlier  work.  The  pattern has strengthene
over the past three  or four  years as  opposed to weakened.
I would be very  surprised  if,  when  the  case-controlled studies
are  done  that they do  not  clear up  many of the ambiguities
of  the  earlier  studies,  and  at the  same time  strengthen the
                        C|_AR ^
                                       Certified Shorthand Raoarwrs •
                        "'•"•-J.V  ^--K-' '-''       TELE. 338-3233

results.   It would be unlikely for anything else to happen

just from what we know of the unusual chemicals in the chemical

extrapolation.  That point, I think, is important to make.

We have these two strands of evidence:  one, the extrapolation

from animal studies with a particular chemical, and the other,

the epidemiology, and when we bring them together and consider

many chemicals, the size of chloroform and the possible

interactions, then we're talking about roughly the same border,

the same sized effect on both strands.  So it would be


          HEARING OFFICER:  Well, I heard you say that in

addition to some direct effect that it could be attributable

to drinking water.  One also needs to consider the possibility

that contamination of drinking water and exposure to that  in

conjunction with other environmental factors or genetic factors

or whatever might be — what might produce an effect, which

alone, might  not be so discernible.  One factor versus the

other  factor.

         ' DR. PAGE:  Not only within the water, but between

the water and the roots of exposure.  That point has to be

expressed over and over again.   Here in Los Angeles, it's  an

air problem.  It appears we have certain chemicals that turn

out carcinogenics.  Not carcinogenic by themselves, but

potentially.  So you make  them not  only within  the water,

which  makes  the  kind of risk  extrapolations that has been  done

in  syntho-auspensus  studies  focusing only on chloroform,  but

you also need to pay attention to the fact that  we're getting

chemicals  from different  roots,  not only in the water, but
                   CLARK     	.   Careifiad Shorthand Reporters •

                                      TSLS. 388-32S3

uhe air and so on.

          HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you very much.

                   Frank Kostas of Southern California Water


          MR. KOSTAS:  That's Water Company.

                   Good morning.  I'm Frank Kostas  from the

Southern California Water Company,and I'm here this morning to

comment on the proposed regulations.

                   Southern California Water Company  is an

investor-owned utility serving around 800,000 people  and

operating under the jurisdiction of the California  Public

Utilities Commission.

                   Getting down to  the regulations,  we find

the amendment consists of two parts.  The first  sets  a

numerical standard of .10 milligrams per liter — or  100

parts per billion — for chloroform and other trihalomethanes

formed during the disinfection process.  The second part

required the application of special treatment technique,

filtration by granular activated carbon, to the  treatment

plants of the systems whose water sources are polluted.

                   Getting down to specifics, on page 5761  of

the proposed rules as presented in the Federal Register dated

February 9,  1978, it is stated that EPA has requested the

National Academy of Sciences to provide an independent

assessment of these epidemiology studies.

                   We believe MCL limits should  not be

considered until the Academy's assessment has been  made, and

then should  be recommended only as a goal, not as a mandated
                                 Certified Shorthand Recorders •

                                      TELE. 333-3223


                   We believe the monitoring period should be

extended from 18 months to at least three years in order to

give ample time to analyze the results of sampling, and to

study optional methods of compliance.

                   The monitoring for synthetic organics other

than THM's should be performed by EPA with costs underwritten

by the Government.

                   Since the cost data on the use of granular

activated carbon as a treatment technique seems to be very low

compared to estimates made by water utilities, it is recommended

that EPA carry out their own plant-size research project to

gather more definitive financial and operating cost data.

                   In regard to containing synthetic organics,

the California State Water Resources Control Board has been

charged with protecting beneficial uses of waters in this

State.  Under the provisions of the Porter-Cologne Water

Quality Control Act, no discharger has a vested right to begin

or continue a pollution.  At the same time, this discharger

must clean up the effects of this pollution.  Also, the Water

Resources Control Board has instigated a program of source

control wherein they have taken inventory of point and

nonpoint  discharges so as to control and eliminate all such

discharges.  It is reasonable to believe that the effects of

upstream pollution can and will be controlled by the Water

Resources Control Board, and that synthetic organics in water

should not be a problem in water for the water utility in

                  CLARK ^"•*"™"*>  Careifiad Shorthand Reporters •

                   We believe that variances would be more

readily justified for systems with raw wattSr resources  such

as deep ground water and protected surface waters, and

hopefully that they would be granted with a modicum of

reasonable data.

                   Microbiological monitoring  should be done

by the presently used coliform method rather than by Standard

Plate Count for systems modifying existing treatment.   The

long-established coliform testing procedure has  already

provided us wi-th a historical data base  for comparing

disinfection effectiveness.

                   This is the end of my comments.

                   Any questions?

          DR. COTRUVO:  We are particularly interested  in any

cost data that anyone has, and I neglected to  ask Mr. Vanderkar

if he had any cost data he might be able to supply the  record

on the impacts of various activities that you  have underway,

or are considering to deal with the trihaloiriethanes.  If  you

do have something, would you please provide it for the  record.

          HEARING OFFICER:  I had a couple of  questions

relative to a number of your statements  for clarification.

                   In your first statement, where you mentioned

the  fact that the Academy has been asked to review the

epidemiology studies thus far and make  recommendations  to the

EPA, that is correct.  The groups have  been meeting and

having discussions.  We do not have your report as yet.  The

next statement you made was that MCL limits, and I presume

other regulations as well as MCL limits, should not be
                                  Certified Shorchand Raoortars <

                                       TฃLฃ. 383-3233


considered until the Academy's assessment has been  made,

and then should be recommended only as a goal, not  as  a

mandate limit.  Would you mean that would be the  case  even

in the case where the Academy determined there was  indeed

sufficient evidence to indicate that there were water-quality-

related human health risks involved, even in those             j

circumstances; we should only deal with these as  a  goal, and   \

not as a mandated regulation?

          MR. KOSTAS:  That's a hard question to  answer because

I -- the previous speaker mentioned that different  areas of

the country are affected in different ways by the organic mix

in the water, and our thoughts were that it would be very

hard to set one limit for the whole country.  That  basically

is the thinking behind that statement.

          DR. COTRUVO:  Well, is this an unusual  circumstance,

that we really have the same problem with any other water-

quality parameter that we want to attempt to set, and  of

course, national standards are intended to be minimum

protective standards, and that certain local situations would

be dealt with perhaps more restrictively based on whatever

factors existed there?

          MR. KOSTAS:  Well, when you go to a high  level to

begin with, which I assume is the case in the Mississippi

River Delta, I imagine it would be harder to bring  it  down

to one particular number that you set for the whole country.

I'm not suggesting that theirs should be higher and ours

should be lower, but this may be a practical way  to approach

it.  When you take into consideration the costs involved you
                  Q1_AR [^ ^m—^mi  Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                  •ซ•:•• ป-, C-_i__J       TELE. 338-3233

!                                                              2.4
  could probably bring into play consumer notification,  and

  try to litigate the rest of the people.   *

            DR. COTRUVO:  But what would you think would be  the

  results of your notification informing them  that there is

  something wrong with the quality of their drinking water,  but

  then at the same time not taking steps to alleviate  the

  problem?  Doesn't that leave a void somewhere?  What does  the

  consumer do at that point?

            MR. KOSTAS:  Well, the consumer should be  notified

  tnat there are- steps being taken on it.  I'm sorry.  I

  misconstrued the statement.  Everyone is going to be doing

  something.  The water utilities, I think, has shown  a  good

  track record of cooperating, being concerned, and we certainly

  do share your concern.  By setting a target, we're not saying

  that we're discarding the whole thing, a mandated limit and

  the target — I guess there's a fine line — one would have to

  analyze what is involved, with MCL.  What if  they don't meet

  the MCL, and they're doing the best that they can?

            DR. COTRUVO:  There are provisions in the  law to

  deal with that.

                     Your next statement refers to the monitoring
 <•                                   **
  period, and you're asking for an extension from 18 months  up

  to three years for time to analyze results of sampling, and

  study optional methods.  Does that refer to  both aspects of

  the regulations, the monitoring, the initial 18 months  period

  should be extended to three years, or only for the THM's,  or -


            MR. KOSTAS:  I'd like to say for both.  It's
                    |—i_APK ^"*"""*"^  Certified Shortt-iand neooreara •

                                        TELฃ. 383-32=3

 T   IS months for the THM's.  As far as  the  synthetic  chemicals,

 2   as far as the rates address themselves towards  it,  it  really

 3   wasn't clear in my mind who would be doing  the  sampling?  EPA

 4   or the affected utility.  Could you  clarify that?

 5             DR. COTRUVO:  It's as all  the  regulations  are

 6   written.  The presumption is that the affected  utility would

 7   be responsible for the data.  Whether or not they  would perforit

 8   the analysis themselves, they would  ultimately  be  responsible

 9   for the data.  It just adds to the other regulation.

10    '         MR. KOSTAS:  So you're talking about  when  a  utility

11   has to apply for a grievance, he's responsible  for the THM,

12   but also for synthetic findings?

13             HEARING' OFFICER:  Yes.

14             MR. KOSTAS:  Do you have a cost figure  for the
15   synthetics?

16            'DR. COTRUVO:  Yes, we do.  That is a  function by

17   which chemicals would have to be monitored  for  sensitivity,

18   and at what frequency, and the current list is  approximately

19   60 chemicals which we listed as indicator chemicals, indicators

20   of industrial contamination.  We have heard various  estimates.

21   There are those that accept approximately $500  per sample.
22   There are those who accept more than that.   The trihalomethane

23   analysis is considerably less expensive.

24                      Miss Chang just stated for clarification

25   that the monitoring that would be required  for  this  treatment

26   requirement is not with the intent of establishing specific

27   contamination, but not with the intent of establishing a

28   specific maximum contaminant level.  It's with  the intent of
                       C1_AHK /""~^^^3  Certified Shorchand Peooreers •

                                           TSLE. 388-3253

   !                                                              26
 i  I  exploring the contamination of that particular water supply.

 2                      Item three, you mentioned the cost

 3   situation and the fact that there are different economical

 4   fees that have been performed, and we recognize that, and      |

 5   of course, we're very interested for the record in any data    !
 5   that anyone has that would help to clarify.

 7                      Now, the other point is, that EPA is

 8   indeed carrying out studies.  We do have full-scale

 9   demonstrations which are in various stages of undertaking.

10   They include,-in some cases, replacement of existing filter

11   media with carbon.  They include post-filtration contaction

12   cludosenation.  Reactivation of facilities requires time.

13   There are studies underway that are more planned.

14             MR. KOSTAS:  Regarding this point where EPA studies

15   were done in the cost of GAG, did they address themselves to

16   strictly removing the rabid stand filtration medial and

17   replacing a granular activated carbon, or did they address

18   themselves to the possibility of having granular activated

19   carbon after filtration, too.  This would mean that the

20   people that went this route would have to purchase property,

21   and expand in order to have the facility.  I just wondered
    *                                  ซM
22   what the EPA's studies were based on.

23             DR. COTRUVO:  The cost estimates, as well as the

24   demonstration project includes both approaches.  For example,

25   the Japanese in the Paris Project involves on one hand

26   replacement of filter media in a 30-inch bag, and comparing

27  _ that to a situation where filtration is added on after the

28   existing.  There are other studies going on in Cincinnatti
                                      Carsifiad Shorthand Paoortera •

                                           TSLE. 388-3293

 1   right now, where ultimately, there will be construction of

 2   post-filtration contactors as well as filter media replacements

 3   So, various comparisons are being made, and we're interested,

 4   of course, in those results.  What the cost study shows, if

 5   you haven't seen them yet, is that the choice of one or the

 6   other approach is really the function of the cost effectiveness;

 7   in a given circumstance, and also, the function of the ability

 8   to absorb a certain frequency of reactivation.  One could

 9   trade off more frequent reactivation with smaller capital

10   costs.  In certain cases replacing filter media with carbon

11   is one of the factors.

12                      In regard to your next point where you refer

13   to the California State Resources Control Board and protection

14   of water quality, at the source we are wholeheartedly in

15   support of that,  and that indeed is the essence of the

16   synthetic portion of the relation idea of identifying those

17   situations where contamination is occurring, and therefore

18   raising the level of consciousness in that community that

19   contamination is occurring,  and that that contamination

20   cannot be alleviated,  then changes in water treatment will

21   have to be made.   So we certainly hope that partly as a result
22   of this regulation,  and partly as a result of the overall

23   activities in relation to pollution control that source water

24   protection will be very much in the forefront, and therefore,

25   it would relieve the need for additional treatment at the

26   water plant,  and it's  those  situations where that can't be

27   handled where the granular activated carbon would have to be

28   installed..  So we fully support that point.
                                      Certified Shorthand Recorders •

                                           TฃLฃ. 338-3293

  T                      In your next point in the regulation,

  2   we did state that we expected that there ftould be  certain

  3   categories both of water sources that would be less  likely  to

  4   be contaminated, and therefore, the requirements for obtaining

  5   a variance would be less, and there would be a greater amount

  5   of flexibility as to making that determination as  to the amount

  7   of data and so forth.  So we agree with point five.

  Q                      On the microbiological monitoring where  you

  9   state that the coliform approach is sufficient for making a

 10   determination, of whether or not microbiological qualities

 11   remain, do you see any serious problems in augmenting that

 12   with Standard Plate Counts in water systems?

 13             iMR. KOSTAS:  Not in large systems, but in  a small

 14   system, basically they've been using one primer, and that's

 15   chloroform to get Plate Count on the basis of a one-month data

 16   base, and project from then on and trying to correlate actually

 17   what they're doing with the disinfection on that.  I think

 18   that's putting the small system a little bit in double-

 19   jeopardy.  They're trying to comply, and then they turn around

 20   and get hit with another parameter to test their integrity  —

 21   I mean their bad-faith integrity.

 22 *           DR. COTRUVO:  You think it does not provide useful

 23   information?

24             MR. KOSTAS:  I think it does,  but according to

25   regulations, they say one month.

26             HEARING OFFICER:   You have six months.

27             MR. KOSTAS:  Six months  after, but until you get

28   around to that,  you may or may not have  something valid
                                      Carei/iad Shorซ-iand Reoorters •

                                           T = LS. 389-3233


















  correlated until you get a background on that.   In other

  words, you have a one-month historical period.

            HEARING OFFICER:  So you're saying that that period

  should be longer.  We should have a different time period on
               MR. KOSTAS:   It  should  be  longer  than a month,  but
  you're — in other words, if that's going to be lowering, then

  they're going to change their point of application.

            HEARING OFFICER:  But in terms of economic impact,

  let's say, do you see any significant effect?

            MR. KOSTAS:  No, I think it costs $500, $600.  I

  don't know what it costs back East.

            DR. COTRUVO:  It does provide useful information.

            MR. KOSTAS:  I can't really answer that.  I'm not

  a great proponent.   I drink milk that has a Plate Count of

  49,000.  It's raw milk.   Why can't I drink water that has —

            HEARING OFFICER:  Mr.  Kostas, you raised a point

  that a lot of other speakers offered in our hearings, and

  it's been said that EPA should make recommendations to the

  public as to what should be done to clean up their drinking

  water and require installation of carbon.  I'd just like to

'  say that I think the issue comes QTown to how long the MCL will

  wait to regulate.   I think it should be understood that under

  the law,  the Drinking Act that we're working under,  the

  Agency has mandated two  regulations where it perceives that

  a particular contaminant may have an adverse effect on

  women's health.   Based on the evidence that we've presented

  with the  health  effects  data, as well as  the current data
                       r*i ARK  ^""""— ^  Certified Shorthand Reooreers •
                                           TSLE. 383-3233

                                                                . 30
  i    that's  been  generated  through our extensive monitoring,  we

  2   found that there  is  a  problem,  and becaule of that the APC has

  3   made a  deliberate effort  to  go slowly and to develop as much

  4   information  as  we can  before actually coming out with the

  5   regulation,  and as evidence  of that,  it couldn't be forgotten

  5    that in July of '76  we issued an  advance notice to solicit

  7    accounts  from the public, which was almost two years ago, as

  8    to what they thought the  agencies should be doing with respect

  9    to controls  of  organics.  I  don't think that the Agency is

 10    acting  hastily.   It  has been working  for a number of years.

 11    It's also an issue that's been  around since'the passage  of

 12    the State Drinking Water  Act itself.   Congress themselves were

 13    very much concerned  with  the organic  chemicals,  and that's

 14    your problem.

 15             MR. KOSTAS:  I  agree  with you.f  Again,  let me  tell

 16    you that Southern  California   Water Company shares  your concern

 17    as do the other people that  represent the countywide

 18    facilities.  We're going to  have  fierce  competition for  our

 19    funds.   I know you understand this, and  where  there is a

 20   problem of feasibility let me bring up  the  consumer

 21   notification, and  the  idea of giving  the  consumer some way of
 22   a prerogative as to whether  or  not  he elects to have to  pay

 23   for this water instead of putting  something under the  sink

 24   like a  filter.

25             HEARING OFFICER:  Well,   I think it's one  of  the

26   things  we're concerned about.   I  understand we're dealing

27   with resources,  and you have just  taken  for granted  that

28   people  are entitled to get drinking water from their taxes,
                                      Certified Shorehand Heooreers •

                                          'TSUS. 383-3233

  T_   and there is a certain amount of an equitable question as

  2   to  whether those people who can afford to buy bottled water,

  3   or  to buy their filtration equipment — should be somehow

  4   penalized.   I have to say, that in making that kind of choice,

  5   that maybe some people will support to make that choice, and

  5   others do not	

  7             MR.  KOSTAS:  Well,  they're going to see it on their

  8   water bill,  or paying it for  their own particular device.  I

  9   don't quite  follow you on that.

 10             HEARING OFFICER:  One  of the things I'm saying is

 11   our  cost  estimates indicate that the increase in the water

 12   bill  would be  substantially less than the individual amount

 13   that  consumers  pay by using their own filtration equipment,

 14   and buying bottled water.

 15            MR. KOSTAS:   I  can't answer that,  because  we haven't

 16   really made  any studies  on  that.

 17             HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you very much,  Mr.  Kostas.

 18                       Next  is  Duane Sudweeks  from the Nevada

 19    Division of  Colorado  River  Resources.

 20             MR. SUDWEEKS:   I  appreciate  this opportunity to

 21    comment on these  proposed regulations.  My name  is
 22 '   Duane R. Sudweeks,  and I am chief  engineer of  the Division

 23    of Colorado  River  Resources of the Nevada  State  Department of

 24   Energy.

25                       Among other statutory duties  the  Division

26   has  the basic responsibilities for financing,  design,

27   construction, operation and maintenance of the Alfred  Merritt

28   Smith Water Treatment Facility.  First stage of  this
                       r^i A a ix  ^^^~^"n  Certified Shorthand Reporters*
                       ^™     C"  vmmmJ

                                           TฃLฃ. 389-3233

   !                                                              32
 -. I  treatment facility at a capacity of 200 million gallons per

 2   day was placed into operation in 1971.  Current plans call

 3   for the enlargment of this facility to an operational capacity

 4   of 400 million gallons per day on or before 1981.

 g                      This central treatment facility services

 5   the metropolitan Las Vegas area and provides treated Colorado

 7   River water to the Las Vegas Valley Water District, the cities

 8   of North Las Vegas, Henderson, Boulder City and Nellis Air

 9   Force Base for their distribution to residential, commercial

10   and industrial users.

11                      The water quality objectives of the

12   Division for the Alfred Merrittr' Smith Water Treatment Facility

13   have been and continue to be more stringent than those

14   established under the National Interim Drinking Water

15   Regulations effective June 24, 1977.  These more stringent

16   objectives, which we believe are in the interest of the public

17   served, have been met.

13                      In assistance to EPA, the treatment

19   facility staff provided information to and cooperated with

20   the National Organics Reconnaissance Survey.  We also have

21   made some limited and preliminary investigation relating to

22   organic compounds in raw Colorado~River water, and alternative

23   treatment methods to reduce trihalomethane levels.  The

24   results of our preliminary and limited investigations parallel

25   those of the EPA in that they are inconclusive.  To enhance

26   the flexibility to address THM,  we plan to use chlorine dioxide

27   in the future as the primary disinfectant.  The complete

28   change from our current cost-effective chlorine process will
                                      Certified Shorthand Recorders •

                                           TELE. 389-3233

j  be accomplished with additional capital and operating cost,
  by modifications to the current facility and the construction
  of the enlargement.
                     We currently use powdered activated carbon
  for taste and odor control as required during limited periods.
  However,  we do not consider our current PAC capability-even
  partially applicable to that required in the proposed
                     Our review of the proposed regulations to
  control organic chemicals,  indicates that if such regulations
  were  promulgated they would have dramatic operational and
  cost  impacts on our current and planned enlargement treatment
  facility.   We have estimated that the inclusion of the
  granular activated carbon treatment technique at our plant
  with  a capacity'of 400 million gallons per day would increase
  the construction cost between 60 to 100 million dollars'.
  Considering operation, maintenance, and capital recovery,
  we estimated the additional cost to be  12 to 27 per month
  per household,  or $.12 to $.27 per thousand gallons.  These
  costs  are  based on the contact time and regeneration cycle
  ranges as  presented by EPA.   The potential impact of these
"  estimated  increased costs should be viewed in light of our
  current residential rates of between $.30 to $.40 per thousand
  gallons and additionally,  considered in view of the statements
  in the preamble to the proposed regulations of the uncertainties
  of the cost-effectiveness of the proposed initial maximum
  contaminant level or total  trihalomethanes.and the installation
  of GAG.  At. best,  it appears that the proposed program is in
                       ฃiApK  •*___.   Certified Shorthand
                                           TSLS. 389-3293

  1   reality a massive research and development  project.   The

  2   results of this research and development  effort  will  be  later

  3   used to modify the proposed regulation which may require

  4   additional large capital and operational  costs.
  5                      We believe there is an alternative approach

  6   in which we would be pleased to'participate with EPA  both       \
  7   financially and operationally.  This alternative approach will

  8   provide a more cost-effective plan for generating additional

  9   factual data relating to the control of organic  chemicals in

10   all water supplies.

11                      In concept our suggested alternative

12   approach is as follows:

13                        a)  Establish a recommended level of

14                            trihalomethane at  100 gallons per

15                            second, our secondary standard, and

16                            monitoring program.

17                        b)  With water systems in selected areas,

18                            establish a program of  intensive

19                            sampling'and testing of organic

20                            chemicals in parallel with evaluation

21                            of alternative treatment techniques.
22 "                           This program should be  for a period

23                            of not less than two years in order

24                            to provide a more reliable data base

25                            than now exists.

26                        c)   With water systems in selected areas,

27                        .    EPA should fund several pilot GAC

28                            facilities of varying capacities to
                                      Certified Shorthand Peoorcars •

                                           T5LE. 383-3233

   !                                                              35
  i I                           develop definitive  design  and
  2                            treatment criteria.   This  program

  3                            should be for a minimum  of two  years

  4                            and this should follow at  the later

  5                            stages of the investigations of

  6                            alternative treatment techniques  and

  7                            data collection.

  Q                      Essentially, we are urging  that  EPA develop

  9   a definable and cost-effective research-and-development  progran

10   that should allow EPA and/or the States to effectively address

11   organic chemical control in all the nation's drinking water

12   supplies.  We believe this approach is fully consistent  with

13   the congressional intent contained in the Safe Drinking  Water

14   Act.

15         '             To demonstrate our willingness to support

16   this approach, if accepted by EPA, we would  commit  to the

17   following:

18                        !•  Conversion of our primary  disinfectior

19                            process to chlorine dioxide.

20                        2.  Intensify sampling  and testing

21                            frequency during the  research-and-

22  '                          development phase to monthly rather

23                            than the proposed quarterly period.

24                        3.  Develop and implement a pilot program

25                            of alternative treatment processes

26                            excluding the granular activated

27                            carbon.

28                        4.  Provide assistance  to an EPA-funded
                       CLARK '    *  Certified Shorthand Raoorrara •

                           "= l            TELE. 368-3233

                                                           . 36
                         GAG pilot plant  at  our  facility.

                   We will fund the disinfection conversion,

item 1 above, and will also fund items  2  and 3  for  a  period of

two years which we estimate to cost in  excess of $500,000.

We would also anticipate some costs related  to  item 4,  but

I believe the primary costs should be borne  by  the  EPA.

                   The plan proposed above illustrates  the

cooperative attitude toward problem solving  long prevalent in

the American water works industry.  Water  purveyors  and  EPA

should be partners, not adversaries in  striving  to  meet the

goals of the Safe Drinking Water program.

                   We strongly urge your  consideration  and

adoption of our recommended approach toward  control of  organic

chemicals in drinking water.

                   Thank you.

          HEARING OFFICER:  We appreciate your  offer  of joint

projects.  I'll certainly pass that on  to various elements

in EPA who are involved in developing those  activities.

                   Did I understand you have determined to

go ahead with the chlorine dioxide use?

          MR. SUDWEEKS:  Yes.  We have  made  that decision
based on early promulgation of what we  felt  would be  necessary

in order to meet the 100 micrograms per liter regulation you


          HEARING OFFICER:  You've already conducted  some

pilot studies and so forth?

          MR. SUDWEEKS:  We have found  that  we  can  accomplish

the objective, yes.
                                 Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                                      TELE. 333-3233


          DR. COTRUVO:  One question on the  statement in

your paper.  Referring to statements in the  preamble to the

regulation of the uncertainties of the cost-effectiveness of

the proposed maximum contamination level.  I'm not sure what

you are referring to as the uncertainties as to  the cost-      [

effectiveness.  Do you mean relative to water quality, changes,!

cost of treatment or relative to human health effects?


          MR. SUDWEEKS:  I'm referring to the inclusive

evidence that we now have which suggests that we expend

extremely high amounts of money in order to  treat the problem

that we're not sure exists.  I refer to statements which

appear on pages 5761 and begins in the third full paragraph

on the right-hand 'side that indicates that your  tests and

evidence relating to trihalomethane concentrations of other-

drinking waters are not conclusive.  They're only suggestive

that there might be some health risks.

          HEARING OFFICER:  That is not the  only basis.  The

only data that we've —

          MR. SUDWEEKS:  I'm aware of other  items in here as

well, and you speak to them.  However, I find, from at  least

what I can search out, that in most cases they seem to be

somewhat inconclusive.

          HEARING OFFICER:  Well, your term  of approach

recommends a research-and-development program.   Basically,

how do you characterize it?

          MR. SUDWEEKS:  As it relates to granular activated

carbon, because I don't think we have the data base developed

at this time to know what is really going to be  accomplished
                                 Certified Shorcnand Recorders •

                                      TELE. 3S3-3ZS3

and how successful that program is going to be.  Now, we

use your contact times and regeneration cycles that you

suggested.  There is other literature that suggests they

might be extremely optimistic, so we're actually going to

encounter, at this time — I hesitate, and I would be somewhat

reluctant if I was in the EPA's shoes, to recommend that we

go about this on a big scale until we have the necessary

backup operational data to know that this will be an effective

way to handle the problem.

          DR. COTRUVO:  Are you referring to those questions

relative to the quality of your water, or are you saying on

a national level?

          MR. SUDWEEKS:  I'm more concerned about our water

than anyone else's.  Obviously, it has an impact on us, and

what is there — I'm sure our national basis the same concern

would be shared by others that we obviously share.

          DR. COTRUVO:  Well, of course, as written, the

regulations allow for or, in fact, require a period of study

and so forth to test out the controlled approaches of various

parameters, using carbon in advance of expenditure of funds

for actual application.
          MR. SUDWEEKS:  If I read this correctly, you're

requiring us to do certain things if, in fact, we find they

cannot meet that standard very shortly.  In other words, we're

required to make certain modifications and plans to do certain

things, and then if these things as I point out don't have

a good data base to work on, you want to implement these on

a full-scale program.
                                 Certified Shorchend Reporters •

                                      TEL=  333-3233

          DR. COTRUVO:  Well, as to whether or not the

interim requirement, the interim replacement media in existing

carbon would occur is very much based on factors relating the

States' participation of the feasibility of making those

changes in the short term, and the benefits incurred from that.

The overall regulations basically is a five-year time period,

during which the studies would be conducted where decisions

would be made on the precise treatment configuration using

granular activated carbon, and that ultimately based on that

data that's collected over a period of time, the optimal

system would be designed, constructed and be in place in five

years.  So the only point being, that there is still the

interim regulations, just that one concept of performing those

studies to determine specific approach that would be applied

in a given case and, of course, the same thing applies to

every other water system, those which do not receive variances.

          MR. SUDWEEKS:  I am somewhat bothered by the

statement about the fact that we're going to conduct during

this time frame all these tests.  There again, I'm scared

that we might be lucky enough to hit small scale.  Sometimes

the scale size is of an extreme concern when we're developing

something we talk about at a full-scale operation.  With the

huge quantities of water we're talking about, our operational

problems may not be the same, and I just don't think we have

the proper data base at this point in time to justify the

issue.  As you related the variances, I did have one other

question on the variance procedure.  In reading the regulations

it appears.that in order to obtain a variance, where almost
                  CLARK ^—~^  Certified Sl-iorenand Reoorrars •

                                      TSUS. 33S-32S3

all the water purveyors  are presumed  to  be  guilty  before

they start.  In other words,  they  have no"basis  with  their

whole system where  their water could  be  contaminated,  and

where other things  might enter the water source  where  we

could have the result of not  finding  chemicals.  In other

words, we think, in reading it over,  the variance  procedure

should serve the needs in more definitive terms.

          DR. COTRUVO:   Do you have any  comment  on the

operating requirements,  the use of total organic carbon or

the use of biologinated  chemicals  and the numerical amounts

suggested as the operating criteria for  the  carbon filter?

          MR. SUDWEEKS:  I just don't have  enough  background

to address that, and trying to transpose that  into what it

would mean in water treatment has  kind of left us  a little in

the dark, but we did the best job  we could  in developing cost

data as we present  it.

          HEARING OFFICER:  You mention  in here  an alternative

treatment method that should be researched.  Do  you have

any particular alternative treatment technology  in mind, and

on that same subject, I'd just like to note  that there is a

provision in the law that applies  to the variance  to apply

an alternative treatment technology other than granular

activated carbon if it can be shown that that treatment is

ineffective in removing  the —

          MR.  SUDWEEKS:  Of course, the  first thing we're

looking toward is a means to reduce the  trihalomethane level

in our water.   That's the first thing we're  looking at.  I

don't know what some of  the other  alternatives might be, and
                                 Certified SHorchand

                                      "ELS. 383-3223

 T I  I don't think any of us barely have a good handle on it,

 2   but I think it would definitely need some more work, more

 3   research, and I'm convinced there probably is an alternative

 4   method if we could identify it.

 5             HEARING OFFICER:  One thing I think you are confusing

 5   with it is the granular activated carbon requirement is not

 7   specifically addressed to the removal of chloroform, and the

 8   THM's.  We have supplied a maximum level.  You can use any method

 9   that is just as safe as carbon.  We're encouraging people to

10  'do that, and with alternative treatment so far as that does

11   not affect adversely the disinfection of the system.  The

12   granular activated carbon requirement is addressed specifically

13   to the controlled organics, the industrial pollution and

14   run-off p.roblem, and for those chemicals it's been the

15   Agency's finding that granular activated carbon is the best

16   present treatment that we have for removing all these

17   chemicals and taking them away.

18             MR. SUDWEEKS:  The prescribed method of EPA would

19   recommend not only to remove the organic chemicals, but

20   synthetic chemicals as well, and that's the way I interpreted

21   it.  If I was wrong, I apparently didn't get the same meaning

22   that you related here.  In other words, granular activated

23   carbon — you're referring only to the synthetic organic.

24   I have some misunderstanding even in the standards, because

25   I certainly don't get that meaning out of it.

26             HEARING OFFICER:  There has been confusion.  We

27   have in the preamble to the regulation that the supplier might

28   want to install granular activated carbon on their own since
                                      Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                                           TSLE. 363-3233

that would remove trihalomethane along with other  contaminants

that may be in the water, but that is ncrt the requirement

for meeting the MCL requirements for trihalomethanes.

          MR. SUDWEEKS:  I'm suggesting that these synthetics

be identified so that alternative options can be developed.

          MS. PEARL:  At what level are you using  the  chlorine

dioxide to both reduce the trihalomethane level, provide

adequate disinfection, and are you using it in conjunction  —

          MR. SUDWEEKS:  We're not using it yet.   We intend

to incorporate it in our treatment process.  The levels have

to be developed.  We'll have to do some additional research.

We have made the decision to go that way, but as far as

quantity and application rates —

          MS. PEARL:  You said that there is also  a maximum


          MR. SUDWEEKS:  I don't totally understand why,.but

I understand that they've put a maximum level on chlorine


          DR. COTRUVO:  The reason there's a suggested limit

on the use of chlorine dioxide at this time is because the

byproducts of chlorine dioxide that are produced,  they include

chloride, chlorate/ for which there is some toxicology

indicating that a higher level be made to certain  kinds of

anemias.  So although all the information wasn't in yet, it

was appropriate to be cautious in the introduction of  that

and other disinfectants until more data is collected,  and we

are in the process of studies, and also looking at populations

which are now exposed to higher levels of chlorine dioxide  to
                  CLARK /~™~—^  Certified Shortnand Reporters •

                                      TฃLS. 336-3233

   I                                                              43
 I  I  look  to typical tests.  We expect to have  that data in the
 2   next  few months.
               MR. SUDWEEKS:  I understood  somewhat why you felt
     the  need to establish the maximum level.   I  didn't understand
 5   exactly why you chose a particular number  based on the data
 5   without even being seen.
 7             HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you  very much.
 3                      Next is Alexander Grendon.
                                      Certified Shorthand Reporters •
                                           TSL = . 399-3233

                              }"  * •-•-•i TIT   " n 7 •">
                              ^/ , ; •.. j_ IX X -L /  ^ . / v,

 4               MR. GRE1TDOIJ:  I'n Alexander Grendon,  a  resident
 5   of Sacrap.snto.  I an a consultant biophysicist  at Donner
 ฐ   Laboratory, University of California at Berkley.  I am here
     to represent the coalition for  safe drinking v;atsr, and
     association of water companies,  both investor-owned and
     niinicipally. owned, who are convinced that  the proposed
     regulation is not in public interest.
                 The basis of that contention is'that  there has
     been no balancing of costs against benefits; that the costs
     of introducing this requirement are enormous while  the
     theoretical benefits are trivial.  I shall direct my remarks
     to the latter point since that  is the  area of my  expertise.
                 Individually, and with my  colleague,  the late
T 7
     Professor Hardin B. Jones, I have published several papers
     on cost-benefit analyses of the health effects  of
     environmental carcinogens and the counter measures  against
     them.  Hardin Jones v/as  probably the first, more  than 20 years
     ago to quantify the long-delayed effects of insults to human
22"                                    ~
     health, particularly in  the induction  of cancer.  Like all
     other investigators, we  were faced with the dilema  that the
     yield of tumors from the experimental  application of the
     carcinogenic agent, whether radiation  or chemically
     inhaled, ingested, or superficially applied could be measured
     only at high dosage.of the agent.
                 Mankind's exposure,  except in  certain occupational
                                      Certified ShorcHand Pซpoi~cer-s •

                                           TฃLE. 388-3293

     circumstances  is so far below the experimentally testable     '

     range that the estimation of hum.an risk depends on the

     theoretical methods of extrapolation, and the various theories

     that have been proposed.

                 The most conservative theory has always turned

     out to be the so-called linear hypothesis:  Trv to fit the
     known data points to the straight line passing through the
     origin,  the point of zero dose and hence zero effect; then,
     estimate the effects of doses near zero from the corresDonding
10                                                          •
     coordinates of that line.  In many cases, the data clearly

     suggests that the zero effect occurs at small doses well

     above zero — in pthsr vrards, that there is a threshold of

     affect — but the generally accepted view was that prudence

     dictates the use of linear hypothesis in setting standards

     for public health.

                 About four years ago we began to analyze another

     aspect of the problem.   We had long wondered why, with

     increasing presence of carcinogenic contaminants in the

     environment,  there was no greater increase in the incident

     of cancer than we could account for by the improvements in

     the health and in medical care. JTo explain the latter point,

     note that cancer is primarily a disease of old age;  the

     cancer death rate at ages above,  say, 75 is about 300 times

     the corresponding rate at age ten,  for example.  About 80

     percent  of the cancer deaths in the Unites-States occur at

     ages above 55,  even though less than 20 percent of the

     population is in that age bracket.   If,  then,  health
                      CLARK ^•*"™"™*  Certified Shoretiand Reporters •

    improvements will reduce  the  infectious  diseases and other


    known cancerous causes of death, more  people survive to the

    cancer-prone ages and the incident  of  cancer rises.   But,  in

    fact, mortality for  several kinds of cancer has been declining

    over the  last  25 years.

                In a paper we published two  years ago to

    estimate  human risk  from  ingested nitrosamines, which are


 0  known to  produce cancer in animal experiments,  we tabulated


 *  the relative mortality from neoplasms  of digestive organs

    and peritoneu'm for every  five-year  ago bracket, comparing

11  1951, 1961, and 1971 data.  In  every one of those 54

    comparison pairs except one,  the ratio of mortality in the
    cancer  declined.
     later year  to  the  earlier  year  was  less than one;  that is,








                 Incidentally,  the  one exception was insignificant;
     cancer  of  the  digestive  organs  at ages 15  to 19 rose one

     percent from 1961 to 1971,  but  the overall change from 1951

     to  1971 was  a  decrease of 43  percent.   I have sited this

     example because it relates  to an organ system clearly exposed

     to  ingested  contaminants such as the nitrosamines or those

     contaminants that might  occur in the drinking water.

                 We considered various possible explanations of

     the unexpected failure of cancer incidents to respond to

     increases  in environmental  carcinogens.  In our analysis of

     the latent period between application of a carcinogen and

     death from cancer in many animal experiments, we found a

     clue.  'In  every published study we examined, the latent period

     varied  inversely as a fractional power of the dose within
                                      Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                                           Tฃ'_E. 383-3233

very close limits, and the fraction was generaly close to
one-third.  This would mean that, if a dose known to cause.a
cancer death in, say, one-tenth of the life span of the
animal were reduced by a factor of 1,000, the theoretically
predicted cancer death would occur at the end of the life
A further reduction of dose would mean that the theoretical
number of cancer deaths in a given population predicted  from
the linear hypothesis would occur, in theory, beyond the
life span of that species.   There are, of course, a
distribution of life spans among the members of a given
population and a distribution of the latent periods; but if
the dose reduction is great enough to lead to a prediction
that the average cancer death would occur very far beyond
the maximum known life span, the conclusion is that no cancer
deaths attributable to that agent would ever occur.
            This situation has been designated as a "practical
threshold."  The concept of "practical threshold" had been  •
advanced some years ago by Robley Evans and his associates
who conducted a long-term study of persons exposed to bone-
seeking, long-lived naturally radioactive materials used in
painting luminous dials.  They formed their conclusion that
such a threshold  existed because they found no cancers among
workers whose body burdens of these materials were below
0.1 microcurie  pure radium equivalent.  Not finding cases
could be attributed, however, to having too small a study
population.  We approached the problem by analyzing the
relation  of dose  to  latent period and found that here,  too,
the inverse fractional power relationship existed.  The
                                 Certified Shorthand Reoercera •
                                      TELE. 339-3233

fractional power, 1/r. proved to be 1/2,2 rather than  1/3,

but this was not exceptional.  We recognized that variations

in the value of n were to be expected because of the  many

possible biological modifying factors.  The surprising  fact    !

v:as that, for all species and all agents studied, we  found

suck-marked consistency.        •                               :
            We tested the only other set of human data  we      j

could find that gave a basis for estimating the dose-latent

period relationship, namely, the incidents of lukemia among

persons exposed in the atomic bomb attack on Japan.   Although

only two points could be roughly approximated — the  peak

incidents for the low-dose and high-dose categories —  the

line between them indicates that the value of n is probably


            In an invited paper presented at the AAAS meeting
in 1974 and subsequently published in expanded form,  we

showed this relation held for a variety of chemical

carcinogens (benzopyrene, methylcholanthrene ,

dibenzanthracene, and diethylstilbestrol) in rats and mice

and for various bone-seeking radionuclidles (radium-226 and

228, thorium, and plutonium) in mice and dogs, in addition
to the human data.  Druekrey had shown some years before

that this relation held for a series of nitrosamines  tested

on rats.  The generality of occurrence of this relationship

implied that some common process was present, and we  developed

a biological model, discussed • in the paper I have sited, that

may account for the phenomenon.  I have tested our hypothesis

in the case of chloroform because of its special interest in
                                 Certified Shorthand R

                  ป:.;::.;:  SIS        "LE- 338-3233


ccr.r.ection v.'ith tl;e proposed regulation.   In  a  review  of  •?.

1976 National Cancer Institute study,  Robert Tardiff  gave  son

data on the latency of malignant kidney neoplasms produced

by chloroform in rats.  Only two data points  were sited:

A dose of 90 milligrams per  kilogram a day showed  latency

of 102 weeks; a dose of 100 milligrams per kilogram a  day

showed GO weeks.  Using these two points,  I derived the

value of n in our hypothesis.  It is 2.85, which is very

close to the nominal 3 I would expect.  I  have  applied the

result to estimate the latency in predicted carcinogenesis

from 100 parts per billion of chloroform in drinking water.

Assuming the ingestion of two liters of this  water  per day

by the so-called "standard man" weighing 70 kilograms,

his daily intake is 0.2 milligrams or 0.00286 milligrams

per kilogram a day.

            The corresponding latency from the  graph of the

rat experiment is 3,850 weeks or 74 years; that is  the rat,

which/ without administration of chloroform,  had a  mean

life span of 111 weeks/ according to Tardiff, would have  to

live almost 35 times its normal lifetime before any

theoretically calculated cancers, computed on any
hypothesis of the relation of tumor yield  to  dose,  would

be expected to occur.

            For the present purpose, the important  point  is

that the data available all demonstrate the impropriety

of estimating the risks to mankind from very  low levels of

environmental contaminants by merely applying the linear

hypothesis or any other means of extrapolation  far  below  the
                 CLARK ^^^ISD  Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                                     ~ELS. 389-3233

     hr.v-.T. range of affect without also considering the tire- vrhen

 2   the  predicted cases of the disease may occufr.  Scientists

 5   have focused their attention for many years on developing

 4   formulas  for estimating expected numbers of cases in

 5   relation  to dose.   It is time now that we consider what these

 6   hypothetical numbers mean to individuals and to society by

     considering also when these cases may be expected to occur.

     It is not a meaningful measure of risk to state how many people

     are  predicted to die; we all die.  The only valid measure is

     how  much  useful lifetime is predicted to be lost.   If a

11   100-year  old person dies of cancer rather than dying some

     days or weeks later of nephritis, pneumonia, or some other

     disease,  neither he nor his family nor society has suffered

     much loss.   In cold economic terms his family and society

     may  have  to record a gain.

                 If a predicted cancer death is predicted to

     occur after 35 lifetimes, only those who live to age 2,500

1ฎ   could experience it.  It is contrary to the public interest


 '   to count  each of these as one case'in the indictment of, say,

     a chemical  whose use may prevent diease among large

     populations or may enhance food production or serve some other

     valuable  purpose.   Jerome Cornfield has noted "That conservative

     risk assessments distort the cost-benefit analysis since an

     exaggerated estimate of risk cannot be balanced against a

     sober analysis of  benefit."

p ฃ

                 In many cases, I have found that the prevailing

     level of  carcinogenic .contaminant which has aroused concern

     is so low that the theoretically projected numbers of cases
                       CLAR K r       Certified Shorthand Reporter* •

                       I -OH * • A MO

                                           "•_ฃ 333-3233

i  ....-._•- i;o '3:-:^ccr=ci, cr. equally  theoretical  grounds,  no-u to
  occur unless the population lives  to  a  nean age of several
  hundred years.  I rr.aintain that  this  practical threshold is
  sufficient assurance of public safety.  That such  thresholds
  rust exist is evident  from the vital  statistics I  sited
  earlier.  I have no knowledge of what it  would cost
  nationwide to introduce the systems necessary to comply with
  the proposed regulation, though  I  have  been told the cost
  would be in the billions of dollars.
              To those who must assess  the  wisdom of requiring
  such a change, I wish  to quote some remarks I made in an
  invited paper presented to the American  Puplic Health
  Association over 14'years ago and  published in their journal.
  It was a time when proposals were  under consideration for the
  treatment of the nation's milk supply to  remove fallout
  strontium-90.  I'm quoting from  that  paper which I presented
  in 1963 (I had previously testified before the Joint
  Committee on Atomic Energy in 1962),  I  noted that:
              "With the  levels of  strontium-90 then  found
              in milk, the estimated cost to remove  it,
              and the more adverse estimates of how  many
              leutemia cases might  be Caused per
              strontium unit, the  cost  per  lukemia case
              theoretically averted would be of the
              order of a billion dollars.   The current
              (1963) process cost  estimates (lower the
              cost) to, say, one million dollars per
              theoretical leukemia  case.  And I still say
                        CLARK -       Carcifiซ

 1               that many rr.ore lives than one can surely

 2               be saved by spending that much money on

 5               other public health activities."

 4               My contention throughout this is that the EPA

 5   has,  at no  point, shown inclination to recognize the time

 ฐ   for these predictions would have'in effect ruled out the
 1    prediction.  I know they have not taken this into account.
     For example, Page 57, 61, 62, they indicate that the excess
     risk to lifetime exposure to radiation would be on the order

     of 10  to minus 4 and 6.  There's no mention of when one

     might expect supposed death to occur.  Even if he just took
     the face value, you'd have to asJ; whether a systen, serving

     100,000 people — and you expect to have one death, would
     justify whatever costs involved there.  But you say that

     death will  never occur in the lifetime of any conceivable

     human being.  You would have to gauge this in terms of a  •
     prediction  of whether these deaths might occur.
                 I could say more.  I'll send a written statement

     later on.
                 Do you have any questions?
                 DR. COTRUVO:  You've listed a number of very
22  '
     important issues, and issues which we are certainly familiar
     with.  We are aware of the concept of latency relative to
     dose and so forth.  We, of course, relied heavily on the
     National 'Academy of Sciences and its interpretation of, let's
     say, the state of the art or the scientific opinion on the
     uses of various methodologies for evaluating human risks  fron
     exposures to substances, both the use of animal data,
                       CLARK  /"""^H3  Cer-bfiad Sl-iortt-mnd Reporters ซ

                                           TSLS. 383-3233

1   i::trappla-ion of a:-.i~al data to human risks, and a conceni

2   v.'hether or not thresholds were to be considered or not to be

    considered.  Again,  as a matter of agency policy, it has been

    determined that that conservative approach and reasonable

    approach,  at this point, is to presume a nonexistence of

    thresholds because of various factors, and you mentioned

    some of those factors having to do with population diversity

    and things along that line.

    further the concept that you raised, an approximate fixed
                  In  that respect,  I'd like to explore a little

      further  the

      ratio.   I  think it was  one-third power relating to life

      shortening and  dose changes,  and I think that's an

      interesting  concept —  perhaps a useful one — but there are

      some  factors that it doesn't  take into account.  One of then

      is  just  the  fact of diversity within exposed population and

      susceptibility  within an exposed population.  Another one is

      the presumption that the animal model is a sufficient '

      indicator  of human risks.   The animal may be more or less

      sensitive  than  certain  humans.

                  The question is,  which humans are, in fact,

      being represented by that animal and its susceptibility

      because  of that population diversity.  The other problem,

      the other  factor that it doesn't take into account is the

      fact  that  the analysis  is, of course, performed in a vacuum,

      analysis performed on one compound basis.  So the exposure

      to  one nitrosamine or one other contaminant, as a variable

      relative to  controls, will arrive at some certain conclusion,

      but the  proolem in human populations is that they re not
                     CL.AR K ^*mm~"~\  Cartifiad Shorthand Haoorcara •

                                         TSLE. 398-3223


    e::--csed to increments of individual chemicals.  They're
    exposed to lar^e number of chemicals, and a large number of

    other factors simultaneously.  That, of course, will alter

    those risk considerations greatly.  Just as an obvious

    example, which I'IT. sure you are aware of, the risk of

    mesoderraia from asbestos exposure; studies showed that workers

    who had been exposed to asbestos in various occupational

    capacities had incidents of mesodermia and other cancers and

    other diseases that were — well,  let's say, that the

    occurrence of the disease was very tine related, in that

    as  a person lived to an older age  the appearance of the

    disease and the rate of appearance increased.

                Therefore,  a person who,  let's say,  with a 20-year

    latency period a certain number of incidences  occurred, and

    at  a 30-year period a higher number of incidences occurred.

    Most significantly, I think they showed that there was a'very

    great difference in occurrence when another factor was taken

    into account in addition to the asbestos and smoking.   The

    rate that  cancer in persons who were  occupationally exposed

    and  smoke  was  approximately 100 times  the rate of the

    appearance of  those persons who were  nonsmokers,  and that's

    only one exposure combination.   So  obviously,  there are

    factors that lead to  very extreme changes and  differences

    in the rates of  occurrence  that we  would expect  from various

    chemical stresses or  environmental  stresses; be  it exposure

    to dozens  of chemical simultaneously; be it  exposure to

    those chemicals  plus'emotional  and  other kinds of  stresses;
                                    Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                                        TELE. 388-32S3

    be it rar.ges of sensitivity genetically induced, let's say,

    and exposure of chemicals and stresses and so forth.

                My point being that, it's e::tre::iely difficult to

    introduce that vide range of assurance that we discussed,

    this wide apparent safety factor that we discussed as many

    lifetimes,  when one adds in all those complicating factors,

    since the original assessment was based on only one single

    stress,  a single chemical exposure.  So all I'm saying,

    there's  biological evidence that the factor can be very

    different in different circumstances, and therefore, it

    would not be possible to rely on a given number, a factor

    of a thousand or whatever that would happen to be.

                I'll add one more thing, and that is, is it not

    possible, is it not very likely, that there are substantial

    elements in a population, in human population, who are

    identifiably extremely more susceptible or likely to be

    extremely more susceptible because of existing disease.

    For example, if you were going to perform your calculation

    on the average healthy reference man, you might arrive at

    one conclusion, but if you were to perform your calculation

    on, let's say, that  segment of the population that already
    had a condition such as a diseased liver situation, such as

    hepatitis,  malaria, whatever, which when taken together can

    result in a fairly substantial segemented population — I

    don't know what that would be off hand.  It might be five

    percent, ten percent,, it might be more — and that's just

    one element, let's say, exceptional risks that we would be

    dealing  with.
                      CLARK  ^——-^   Certified Shortnand Recorders*

                             ~           TELi. 333-32S3

                The -joint being,  it's extremely difficult to

    derive  a specific  threshold of effect for an entire population

    of  human beings because of all those complicating factors,

    and they may be very substantial.  They may result in

    substantial  adjustments in the risks that one calculates

    in  using your model.  So,  I think that's the kind of thing

    that the National  Academy  was discussing in that report,

0   and that's the kind of information, kind of approach that

*   the agency has generally taken in dealing with environmental


                The idea, even though we must deal with them

    on  a compound by conipound  basis sometime, they are all part

    of  the  total environmental stress, and it's extremely

    difficult to describe a specific risk to a specific exposure

    to  a specific compound. So in light of that, it's more

    necessary to take  a conservative approach.

                MR. GREHDON:  I can't respond to all the points

    you made.  I didn't take sufficient notes to keep in mind

    what they all were.

                On the matter  of the threshold principal, and

    based on the NAS report, it says, "Methods do not now exist

    to  establish threshold for long term intoxification."

    That unquestionably is true.  There will never be.  We know

    that.  There will be no way to. measure it down to the lowest

    level.   You can just measure down to a minimal detectable

    level,  and extrapolate below that, but the method we have

    doesn't say, "Take the threshold."  It says, "Look at the

    prediction numbers," and remember, you're dealing with theory
                      CLARK  ,       Certified Shorthand Peoorters <

                                          TฃLE. 358-3233

thera.  You nusn't reject any other theory that can work in

conjunction with that.  Look at the time when he predicted

numbers of tutors will occur, and you'll find that they're

so far beyond that the — for example, it's very difficult

to find enough data on latency in literature to analyze.       j
But Evans data did have enough, and the variability is quite   j

evident.  When you generate the line, you define this          j
exponent of one over 2.5 or 9, whatever it was.

            You also find the variability around that line,

and you find that you don't have to go very far to show that

among that sample, the distribution, the chance of finding

somebody far enough away to truely incur this cancer in this

lifetime may be one in 100,000 or a million.  So whatever the

number, you must divide by 100,000.  Then there is a slim

chance that some person will be hurt — we took that into

account — but we analyze the total statistics for cancer.

Digestive organs of which liver is one of the most

susceptible — but those show that there's something wrong

with out jumping to the conclusion that these numbers are

being truely representative of what happened because of

contamination at this level.  Something is wrong, and the

something is, we're counting cases that don't occur, because

the -latency prevents them from occurring.

            You sited this question on a asbestos and smoke.

You also find it with uranium miners with

smoking.  The answer is give up smoking.  Smoking itself

causes innumeral deaths.  We know that there's no question,

and we say to a person, "If you smoke in this environment,
                                 Cereifivd Shorthand Reporters •

                                      TSLE. 338-3233

    	—	•                                        3T

    your risk  is so r.vach."   You  cannot change the environment


    v:hich  includes the  air  you breathe,  and all  the other factors.

    "he air you breathe has radon  and  chloron in it.  The air

    you breathe has multiplying  effects.   The signs of effects of

    cigarette  smoking which is a terrible  cost to the nation

    is what we assign as the effect o'f cigarette smoking plus

    all contaminants.   To say because  some people want to smoke


    cigarettes then we  must remove those contaminants, we don't


    know what  would happen.   We  just say smoking is a bad thing.

10  If you want to/ there's the  risk you run, and don't make us

    modify the existence of everybody  else on account of it.

                DR. COTRUVO:  The  point is, that was an indication

    that the biological variability, whether it's smoking or some

    other  factor,  could be  great enough to significantly impact

    your estimates of life  latency.  The point being, I think you

    at one point arrived at the  conclusion that  perhaps -we were'

    talking about  3,000 lifetimes.

18              MR. GRENDON:  35 lifetimes, which might be









 2,500 years, for one carcinogenic.

             DR. COTRUVO:  But if a factor that has been

_demonstrated biologically could be as much as 100 times, then

 v                                   ซM

 no longer are we talking about 35 lifetimes if that factor

 is operative.  We're now talking about less than one lifetime,

 and therefore we are in the realm of direct population risk.

 That's my only point.  I'm not saying that we should determine

 whether we're going to control smoking, or not.  What I'm

 saying is, there is an-actual example where a significant

 impact on that theoretical approach indicates it doesn't
                       CLARK  *     *  Careified Shorthand Reporters •
                                           TฃLS. 298-3293

r.scj-ri.iriiy load us to that el^rr.cr.t of conservatism  that
you say does.
            I1R. GREMDOX:  I'll return to the point I nade
before.  Statistical study shows that with hundreds  of
carcinogen their effects haven't changed the pictures I
described.  In fact, these levels — so we do not have
evidence that the world is going to pop because of the
presence of these contaminants.  We believe that the method
of prediction I'm advocating does have a much more realistic
approach to determine what to expect than anything else.
            Remember, that any change you propose, such as
the GAG method, may involve  side effects you don't  know
about.  So to be realistic, here is something we do  not know
about.  We know that.all these carcinogenics we've tested,
this kind of a relation exists,'and the reason is, along with
the linear hypothesis for predicting numbers, and say, just
don't predict numbers, but consider when they will occur, you
must realize they will occur in old age or beyond old age.
            DR. COTRUVO:  That's a good point, but I think
we should note that the regulations are not predicated on
those kind of risk extrapolations in qualifying —
            MR. GRENDON:  That's what I'm protesting.  I'm
saying they should be.
            DR. COTRUVO:  They're not predicated on  where the
estimate is made here.  At one point, I believe it says
200 lifetime risks — it's in the statement — again, that
estimate only related to one specific contaminant, only
chloroform..  It did not relate to any of the others. So  in

                  CLARK  /~™^^3   Certified SMorcl-iand Reporters •
                                        .ฃ. 333-3233


     tha- respect,  i;h'3n you na.ka that one, you must deal with

 ?                                            *
 c   latent.   You cannot say there will be 200 people here that

 0   will die.

                 I  hope you would introduce into the record those

     specific publications you did mention.

 6               MR. GRSNDON:  I shall do so.

                 DR. COTRUVO:  And they will be taken into

                 THE HEARING OFFICER:  I think the discussion

     between  yourself and Dr. Cotruvo has indicated to me, anyway,

     that we're talking about an area of carcinogenacy where

     there's  so much unknown; in an area where scientific knowledge

     is only  beginning to understand how the whole thing has

     affected society, and while we appreciate your attempt to

     quantify the risks involved with exposure to carcinogenic

     agents,  I think what Dr. Cotruvo is saying is that the agency

     is down  playing that quantification type of analysis, because

.  '   we don't feel  that it takes into account or can take into

     account  all the various other variables that are missing

     which we feel  have an impact on the risk assessment.

                 For that reason, we have relied upon the
     principles set forth —

                 MR. GRENDON:  But instead, the agencies have gone

     to terms such  as "maximum feasible protection," and there's

     no limit to that.  You can devote all your economic resources
     to fighting a  hazard that, in light of this information,
     is indeed trivial, instead of devoting it to those things,
     which as I said in that paper I wrote many years ago, any
                                      Cereified ShorWiand Reoortara •

                                           TS!_ฃ. 383-3293

     !                                                               51

   i  i
   - I  ."-i-Jiic '-.salt:: -Jjicial 'I'ive;: fi hundred r.illion collars,  csn

       sava a great many real lives.  You can nairTe people, and  you

       ran never name the people involved in this theory.  i:ever.

                   THE KEARIKG OFFICER:  I think that that's a  natter


       of  rsgulatory decision naking.                                  !


                   MR.  GRni^DOM:   That's why I'm asking you to decide  i

      tiiat v;ay.


   0                DR.  COTRUVO:   Well,  in writing the Safe Drinking
Water Act, the congress pretty  clearly  said  that that was not

to be the case; that we were not  to wait  until  we could name
  ^   the people.  They  said  that  v/e  would be protective, and to

      prevent hunan exposure  to  those substances  that may have an

      adverse affect on  human health.   It  is  not  the agencies intent

      to have an open-ended- definition of  feasibility,  and obviously

      it is very difficult, in light  of that,  to  precisely define


                  Certainly/  we're saying,  essentially,  in this

      regulation that, number one, we've identified  a risk here.

      We feel there's sufficient information  to indicate that it

      is a real  fisk based on animal data and  epidemeological data.

      We're saying,  however,  there is not sufficient information

 22 '-                                    -
      to quantify it precisely.   However", the  law says that we must

     move forward in those circumstances, and our next  conslusion

 rt *

      is that, given the  technologies that are considered  to  be

      available  here  to help to  alleviate that exposure, given those

      technologies and their costs, and that as those costs are

      applied to  the  total  .population, those costs are relatively

      snail,  therefore variable  and feasible,  and they do buy  an
                                      Certified Shorcnand Bซoorcปra •

                                           TSLS. ses-assa

 _-l2.-.:3:;t of protection of public health, which -,.-c think  is  a
 •rood  buy,  and in addition to that, just as a footnote,  they
 also  enhanced water quality; astheticallv, consistant v;ater
 Duality, protection fron tastes and odors and other factors
 t:u-t  render  water unpalatable in certain circumstances.
             So put that all together,  fairly pragmatically,
 I think the  conclusion was, it's a reasonable thing to do.
             MR.  GRENDON:   The real risk is that risk I
defined, which is  the  risk of somebody at the age of 1,000
will die of  cancer.
             THE  HEARING OFFICER:   I think we  understand what
your theory  is,  and we will take  it into account when we
review  your  comments in writing.
            MR.  GRENDON:   Thank you.
            TEE  HEARING OFFICER:   At this  point  we  will take
a short recess.
             (Short recess  was  held.)
                                  Cer-eif iซd Shorcl-iand

 would  not  lead  utility applicants through an unnecessary

 labyrinth  of  unquestionably required analyses and submittals,

 and  should, in  fact,  be encouraged to minimize expenditure    . j

 of public  funds where reasonable data are produced.            I

                    The variance application decisions should   .
 take into  account the unusually conservative factors already   ;

 built  into the  established limits for"organics.                j

                    Application of the proposed regulations

 should be  without respect to the size of the utility.  If the

 issue  is serious enough to require the stringent proposed

 regulations,  then all utilities should be treated equally.

                    Timing for compliance with finally adopted

 Interim Primary Drinking Water Organics Regulations  should be

 over a longer term than proposed.  Most utility staffs or

• consultants will not in the next 18 months have all  their

 data analyzed,  let alone have identified options and feasible
 projects which could be successful to meet compliance through

 all  seasons of water supply with research which we believe the

 industry deserves to see before compliance.  An extension of

 two  years to  proposed dates should be allowed, providing five

 years before  compliance.

                    Application of GAG should not be  mandated

 under the finally adopted regulations.  It is apparent that

 water utilities have not had adequate input to EPA staff on

 this subject  since so many practical problems involved with

 operation, regeneration and monitoring aspects of GAG contactor

 facilities are not reflected in the proposed regulations.  The

 wide range of individual utility circumstances should be
                                  Certified Sliorcl-iand Reporters •

                   -s."oI.T-'"t *—*.lf*-*       TSUE. 388-3283

batter evaluated and other options  given  equal  consideration.

                   The  100 microgram  per  liter  Maximum

Contaminant Level standard for  the  trihalomethane should not

be lowered, and raising this  level  for  specific variance cases j

should be considered.   We agree with  the  National Academy of   j

Science Report which indicates  that more  research is required   j

before specifics are detailed.

                   Adoption of  a  Standard Plate Count procedure

as a mandate  is not necessary or  helpful  to many utilities

already practicing membrane bacteriological test techniques

and should be left discretionary  to the agency  have primacy in

each State.
                                                     out 60 million  dollars  in capital

construction  without sufficient argument  supporting such

expense.  A  2-million-dollar-per-year operation and

maintenance  cost would  double our present costs and provide,

vas  far  as we  can see from our present data, no  safer water.

                   While cost should  be no barrier to justified

public  health-required  water-protecting activities, it would

be  appropriate,  in  light of  the estimated national costs,

coincident with  adoption of  the trihalomethane  MCL and

synthetic  requirements  to  set up  a Federal/State grant

program similar  to  that of  the  PL92-500,  to assist water
                   CLARK  /""~I^3   Cartifiซd Shorthand Reporters •

utilities,  public and privately owned, in meeting  costs.
                   Our response to the 16 issues raised  in
the proposed regulations as they appeared in the Federal
Register for February 9, 1978 are submitted for your  review.
                   Thank you for this opportunity  to  register
our opinion and comments.
          HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you, Mr. Larkin.
                   I think you're well aware that  there  is  a
tradition in law to provide for a variance for alternative
treatment techniques.  In the event it shows its techniques
are effective in treating for synthetics, and in the  case of
the THiM/MCL in meeting that level that's  set forth in the
regulation, any kind of control measures  are allowable.
          MR. LARKIN:  Yes.  I've discussed this with
Dr. Cotruvo, and I've told him that_the variant procedures
aren't too clear to us and we'd like them a little more  clear.
          HEARING OFFICER:  We'll make that point  when we're
reviewing the regulations and putting them in file form.
                   I think most of the other comments that
you've made have already been dealt with this morning,
unless you have any specific questions.
          MR. LARKIN:  No, ma'am.*-
          HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you for your comments.
                   I think at this point we have three more
speakers for this afternoon, but in light of the time, it
would be best to break for lunch and come back at  1:30.
                  CL.AR K ^*"^"*~^  Certified Shorthand Reporters •

            I,  Edward G.  Fisher, a Certified Shorthand Reporter

Uo. 3638 and  a Notary Public in and  for  the State of California

do hereby  certify:

            That the foregoing pages,  2-66,  are a full, true

and.correct transcript of proceedings  taken before me at the

time and place therein named, and was  taken down by me in

shorthand  and thereafter reduced to  typewriting under my


            I  further certify that I  an; not  interested in the

event of the  action.

            WITNESS  my hand and seal  this    4th	day of

May, 1972.
              OFFICIAL SEAL
              EDWARD G. FISHER
              LOS ANGEUS COUNTY   ;
              ซ*m. -Pirn OK- "' W' /
              Notary Public  and  Certifi4<3
              Shorthand Reporter No.  36
              for the State  of Calif-
                    S ป 3ซ* • * MO
         Corcif led ShortMand Reporters •

              TSLS. 338-3ZS3

              TUESDAY,  APRIL 11,  1978;  1:40 P.M.

           HEARING OFFICER:   I'd like to start the hearing
 again.   This  afternoon I only have three speakers registered.
 If there's anyone else who  would like to make a statement
 this afternoon,  I'd appreciate it if you would please either
 inform us here at the table or the registration desk outside.
                    For this afternoon I have three people,
 David Spath from the California State Department of Health,
 Walter Hoye from the Los Angeles Department of Water and
 Power and Mr. Pearson from the Metropolitan Water District
 of Southern California.
                    'David Spath, please.  Do you have other
 copies of your written statement?
           MR. SPATH:  Well, it's just a summary.  I'll
 probably try to make it a little brief as yet.  A complete
 text of our comments will be mailed to you.  Also we intend
 to send specific wording changes that we would like to see
 to the regulations as well, and they'll be in your hands
 before the final date.
                    My name is David Spath.  I'm from the
• California Department of Health, a*id I'm a senior sanitation
 engineer.  I'd like to summarize our comments and some of
 our recommendations given the time limit on the proposed rules.
                    We welcome the opportunity to present our
 comments and recommendations on the proposed rules, EPA's
 efforts to quantify the magnitude of organic water pollution
 in  the water supplies  in getting epidemiological and
                       CLARK ^^^ISD  Certified Shorthand Recorders •

toxicological information on health effects.  EPA is going

to continue and expand this research effort^-and implement

relevant research of recommendations specified in the National

Adacemy of Science report of drinking water and health.  As

indicated in the background of the proposed rules EPA has

acted to amend the interim of the prior drinking water

regulations in light of what the Agency perceives to be  the

intent of Congress in the Safe Drinking Water Act.

                   The Court of Appeals for the District of
Columbia Circuit addressed this issue of congressional intent
by stating that, and we quote:

                        "We believe the Legislature

                   contemplated that the interim regu-

                   lations where feasible controlled

                   heavy organic and prove  injurious

                   to health."

                   The Court went on to say that, and  I  quote:

                        "While the urgency  of the

                   Legislature's plan is undeniable,
                   a second aspect of the plan or

                   perhaps equally important is an

                   apparent regulation in this area
                   to proceed most efficiently must

                   remain attuned to our rapidly

                   expanding knowledge and  technology.

                   The phase structure of the statu-
                   tory scheme widely reflects such
                   awareness.  Heavy investment in
                  CLARK ^™"^5D  Careified Shorthand Rapor-cera •

                  •ซ•"*" u__         TELE 333-3223
                                       —fc-&. -as •at.i.j

                       measures of uncertain value may

                       prove costly not only in  financial

                       terms, but also, and more  impor-
 *                      tantly, on a human  scale.   You can

 c                      be simplistic  to read the

                       legislative will as mandated,

                       undifferentiated and  full-scale

                       commitment of  resources and

                       programs based entirely upon the

10     '                 present state  of knowledge."

                       Although Congress  contemplated prompt

12    regulation  of  contaminants we see these  proposed rules as

13    infeasible  for mandated,  undifferentiated  and. full-scale

14    commitment  of  resources in programs based  entirely on the
15    present state  of knowledge without due consideration to the

16    resulting heavy investment  in measures of  uncertain value.

17    As well,  the implementation  of  these  regulations will pose

18   a significant  workload  in State regulatory programs some of

19   which, including California,  need additional support to

20   effectively endorse existing regulations and begin major new

21   activities.

22                      In addition, EJPA's apparent plans to

23   reduce the total trihalomethane, MCL, in the  future will

24   seriously disrupt States' activities.  These  regulations

25   will also widely cause a misallocation of work priorities

26   within State regulatory programs, particularly in areas

27   where  there are facility defects and  where major health

28   hazards may exist which could be more immediate  and affect
                                      Certified Shocuhend Reporters •

                                           TELE. 388-3233

   more people.
2                      In  lieu  of  these  considerations we question
   whether  it's  appropriate  to proceed  with the regulations as
   proposed at  this  time.   Instead the  following changes are
   recommended  for Agency consideration:
                       With regard to the  MCL or the total
   trihalomethanes we feel the toxicological evidence supports
   the  contention the trihalomethanes in  drinking water may pose
   potential health  hazards.  The proposed interim MCL  .1
   milligrams pe-r liter however is based  on feasibility rather
   than health  effects.
                       We see several problems with this procedure
   and  the  establishment of a specific MCL at this time.  One,
   this approach is  inappropriate since it is contrary  to the
   intents  described in the Safe Drinking Water Act.  The
   maximum  contaminant levels should be based on health effects.
   It does  not  give  proper consideration  to the National Academy
   of Science's report which does not recommend MCL or
   trihalomethanes or any of those compounds which make up that
   class.  The data presented by EPA on risk assessment under
    the proposed rules and in the statement of the basis and
   purpose  for regulation of trihalomethanes in drinking water
    also suggests it is not  feasible to establish an MCL based
    on health effects at this time.
                       Secondly, an important shortcoming in
    establishing an MCL of .1 milligrams per liter is that it
    does not require the water utilities for total trihalomethane
    concentrations at or slightly below this level to make any
                                     Certified Shorthand Repon-cer-a •
                                          TSLE- 3".3293


efforts to reduce TTI1M levels even though  reductions  might

be easily accomplished.

                   Three, to set an MCL  at this  time  and then

incrementally reduce the level in the  future will  serve to

disrupt both water utilities and State regulatory  efforts to

comply with MCL.  The water utilities  may  be required to make

sizable investments in equipment and qualified personnel to

comply with the initial MCL only to be forced to add  additional

costly treatment when MCL is reduced.  State regulatory

programs will also suffer as the effort  of time  and energy

expended initially adopting the regulation and then obtaining

compliance is repeated each time MCL is  lowered.

                   •Because trihalomethane  in drinking water

may pose potential health hazards,, THM levels should  be

reduced whenever readily feasible.  In lieu of a specific
MCL a prudent regulatory strategy would  be to use  the proposed

MCL as a guideline and require all water utilities serving

populations greater than 10,000 people to  monitor  TTHM, to

make appropriate water-treatment changes and  coagulation

where it is applicable in chlorination practices,  to  reduce

precursors and  minimize  THM  formation.

                   We  believe  this^procedure  will  one,

produce a significant  benefit  at a  lower dollar  and manpower

cost to the water utilities, States, and the  affected

populations; two, reduce potential  health  risks  affecting

a  larger fraction of the population; and three,  better serve

to implement the EPA strategy  of a  phase reduction of

trihalomethanes by requiring more water  utilities  to review
                   CLARK  ฃ"™""S5D   Certified Shorthand Reporters •
                                       ELS. 338-32=3
                                            ฐ Jซ--3

and improve existing treatment processes and make it

incumbent upon utilities to build plants to meet a stringent

MCL in the future.

                   With regard to reporting the TTHM data,

the reporting of TTHM data to EPA by water utilities should

apply only to States that are qualified for primacy.  A major

principal underlying development of an effective Federal-State

partnership in drinking water supply is the States will be

responsible for the direct contacts with the utilities in

water quality matters.  In other portions of the primacy

program, the EPA needs more water quality information and

can be satisfied by obtaining this information from the

States.  This relationship must be maintained.

                   With regard to the synthetic organic

chemical proposed rule/ the proposed rule in the proposed

form will result in heavy investment measures of uncertain

value which may prove costly not only in financial terms

but also, and more important, on a human scale.  We believe

there may be raw water sources, but- the proposed techniques

are inappropriate for health protection.  A more feasible

approach, however, can be taken and will be required with

these proposed rules.  The following are our recommendations

to provide such an approach:

                   One; the State or the administrator in

the case of nonprimacy States' should designate as vulnerable

those public water systems which are not of the type listed

in Section 141. 54 (c) 1-4.  The remaining public water systems

of the type listed would automatically be granted a variance.

                                 Careificd Shorthand

                                      TELE. 388-3283

The requirement of each public water system with 75,000 or

greater population to obtain a variance o& install a designated

treatment technique will place a large, unnecessary workload

on both the States and EPA.  If the proposed treatment

technique required for synthetic organics is essentially

extended to all the water utilities as the proposed rules

suggest, either a variance or installation of additional

treatment facilities will be required.  The paperwork

associated with such an apparent procedure would be an

enormous addition to the regulatory program.

                   Two, we do not support the proposed

interim control measure which would require existing filter

media to be reduced with granular activated carbon.  We

recommend the requirement be deleted.  The benefits derived

from this additional two and a half years of GAG treatment

are questionable and are  far overshadowed by the  treatment

difficulties, the potential degradation of the water quality,

and the potential increased health risks which would result

from such a measure.

                   To properly make this change would require

a pilot testing program to assess the  effect on water quality.

This pilot work along with the other desired testing work

required with the complete granular activated carbon system

would drain the snow resources of the  water utilities and

regulating agencies.  This effort would be better  attempting

to meet the other requirements of greater benefits.

                   Three,  the philosophy of requiring the

water utility to examine point and  nonpoint source of
                  CLARK ^——ป^  Certified Shorthand

                                      T = l_ฃ 339-3233

I                                                               74
  discharges does not appear to be appropriate.  This type of

  activity should be the responsibility of"waste-water regulatory

  agencies operating under the provisions of PL92-500.  The

  requirements for characterization of both raw water source

  and point and  nonpoint  source discharges could make it be

  extremely difficult to perform -in administering the water

  sources on major rivers.  Not all vulnerable systems should be

  subject to this requirement, and a preliminary review of

  relevant information on point and  nonpoint. source discharges

  provided by the waste-water regulatory agencies may be
  sufficient to determine if a variance is appropriate.  This

  determination should be left to the State using EPA guidelines

  and not subject to repeated re-examination by .the'Agency.

                     The requirement mandating each water  .
  utility that is issued a variance to prepare an annual,

  updated report also should be modified.  The States should

  be permitted to establish the frequency of updating that it

  determines is necessary.  The proposed requirement is

  unnecessary and will result in excessive paperwork with the

                     Finally, EPA should provide the States
  with an appropriate criteria for determining whether the
  vulnerable source is subject to the treatment technique or

  qualifies for a variance.  The proposed rules suggest that

  the information available for the variance issue pursuant to

  Section 141.54 should be taken into consideration but do not

  provide basic guidance to permit a proper determination.

                     That's the extent of our comment.
                    CUAPK /"•"•™*"^  Certified Shorthand Reporters •
                                        TELE aeaozsa

          HEARING OFFICER:  When you said that the updating

of the condition of water supplies was not necessary, why

would it not be necessary in .your view?

          MR. SPATH:  The updating?

          HEARING OFFICER:  Of modern requirements.  For

example, if in fact the supplies created a variance, what

assurance would there be that the condition of the water

supply would remain the same?

          MR. SPATH:  We weren't saying that they shouldn't

bฃ updated but not at the frequency that EPA is  suggesting

in the proposed rules, which I believe is a yearly updating.

          HEARING OFFICER:  How frequent do you  believe —

          MR. SPATH:  Well, I think that would probably

depend upon the conditions and a good relationship between  .

the water utility, the regulatory water supply,  and  also  the

regulatory agencies and waste-water control and  pollution


          HEARING OFFICER:  So, you would base the updating

frequency on the relationship between the two agencies?

          MR. SPATH:  Well, they could be providing

information on an ongoing basis on new sources of pollution,

both  point'and  nonpoint  sources,-and through that mechanism

I think  that they could make a determination whether or  not

an updating  is needed as  opposed to having  it on a continuing,

one-year frequency.

          HEARING OFFICER:   I thought  I heard you say that

the  nonpoint-point source pollution  issue  should remain

separate from  the water  supply  issue.
                   rปi A pซ  ^——^   Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                                      TELE. 323- 3223

i            MR.  SPATH:  Well, I think what you have to do is

  involve the waste-water regulatory agencies in this area.

  They're the ones that are controlling the point and nonpoint

  sources,  and it's their responsibility, I believe, to be

  providing this type of information, not the water utilities

  to have to characterize these discharges.

            HEARING OFFICER:  I think we're both in agreement

  that there is  a very intimate relationship between pollution

  sources upstream, for example, from water supply intakes and

  the water utilities themselves who are using that source of


            MR.  SPATH:  Right.

            HEARING OFFICER:  Okay.

            DR.  COTRUVO:   On the matter of issuing a guideline

  instead of a specific MCL for the  trihalomethanes I didn't
  quite understand what you meant at  that point.  You said

  that that would be more effective  because it would result

  in water  systems that had trihalomethane concentrations

  somewhat  below 100 still taking some action to reduce the

  levels.   Are you saying that what  we should do is essentially

  issue a very stringent  guideline that all feasible measures

  be taken  to minimize THM's without*putting any particular

  number  on it;  is that it?

            MR.  SPATH: Well,  we would like to see one 100

  probably  used  as a guideline,  and  maybe possibly a second

  guideline number maybe  lower  than  that for those utilities

  who  have  TTHM  levels below 100 and above a given number; and

  those utilities are also utilities above 10,000 population
                           	        Shorthand Raporrars i
                   CLARK  (  	J  '	5
                     """	                _ = . 383-3233

      and should certainly make efforts where feasible  to  reduce


                DR. COTRUVO:  Well, how would, that  judgment of
      feasibility be made then?  Who would determine whether it would.
      be feasible or not in a given case?

                MR. SPATH:  Well,  it would be up to the State and

      based on EPA's guidelines as well to make that determination

      based on cost and other relevant factors.

                HEARING OFFICER:   Would it be then the intention of
 10   the  State to impose the requirement if they determined that it

 11   was  feasible to the water utility or would it just be a matter

 12   of telling the  water suppliers that it's a good idea to put

 13   granular  activated' carbon,  for example,  or to achieve 100 —

 14             MR. SPATH:   Well,  I think our  feeling is that if  •

 15   it's deemed  feasible,  that  we would require them to take

 16   certain steps based on proper studies to lower the TTHM levels

 17   yes.

 18            HEARING OFFICER:   So you're perceiving this as a

 19  State regulatory  program with EPA  in Federal area just

 20  issuing guidelines  then,  which the  States  could  adopt or not

 21   depending on their  particular  situation?

 22 '            MR. SPATH:  Well,  I  see "it  as EPA giving the  general

 23   direction with these guidelines and the State strongly  making

 24   an effort to get water utilities to reduce  their  levels

 25   based on feasibility rules,  if you will.   Those  feasibility

26   rules or guidelines have to be worked out,  and they have  to

27   be based on a number of things.  I don't think there  is  a

     real  easy  answer to it.
                                      Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                                           TSLฃ 3=3-3253

                 DR. COTRUVO:  Well, that would certainly result

       in an uneven application then on a State-b^-State basis.

       There would be some States who naturally would be very

       concerned about that and therefore would make that a high-

       priority issue,  and then others would not be concerned and

       roake  it  a low-priority issue; and so do you think that would

       serve the public interests to have it applied that way?

                 MR.  SPATH:   Well,  there probably  should be some

       agreement between  State  and  Federal  so the  application would

  10    be uniform throughout  the  country.

  11              DR.  COTRUVO:   I'm  not  sure  if I heard  you correctly.

  12    In that  same context,  I  think you then said  that  by approachinc

  13   it from  a guideline point of  view we  wo.uld then  eventually

  14   lead into a very strong  restricted maximum contaminant  level;

  15   is that it?

  16             MR. SPATH:  Well, the way EPA has proposed the rules,

  17   eventually they foresee a more strict standard, which will be

 18   probably  based on harder evidence in terms of health effects;

 19   and we're looking down  the road at EPA doing that with the

 20   eventuality as I've read  in the proposed rules maybe even a

 21   standard  as low as  10 micrograms  per liter.   We see that the

 22   cost involved with  a continual change  in the  MCL  to both

 23   the water utilities  and the State is being unrealistic and

 24   not feasible.   We feel  that the cost   would be much lower if

 25   a guideline  approach were adopted.

 26              DR. COTRUVO:  I can  see  that there  would be  a

27   possibility of recurring  problems  there, of course,  with the

28   phase-down of MCL, but how would you then respond  to another
                       CLAPK          Certified Shorchand Reporters •

                                           TฃLE. 23a-3233

     I  approach which would be for an immediate imposition of let's
       say the most achievable MCL immediately and then allow some
       kind of flexibility  in the implementation of that rather
       than starting at a higher level then phasing it down, start
       at  virtually the minimum level and phase in its implementation.
       Do  you  see  any problems going that way,  or benefits?
                MR.  SPATH:   Very,  very  strict  MCL?
                DR.  COTRUVO:   Yes.
                MR.  SPATH:   Well,  I  think there's a  problem in
      considering  an MCL  to  begin with  because  the health  effects
      data is not  there and  100 may  not  be  a proper  number to set.
      It, appears that maybe that isn't a feasible number  itself,
 13   but as far as stron-g indications in. terms of health effects
 14   I don't see going to a very low number if it is going to be
 15   an improper approach.
 16             DR.  COTRUVO:   Well, of course the Academy said that
 17   for various technical reasons it wasn't possible for them to
 18   recommend an MCL because they could not define that as a
 19   safe  level,  you know, as a no-effect  level.   However,  they
 20   then  went on to say  that when the levels were  determined
 21   taking  into  account  the  data  which  they discussed previously,
 22 •  the carcinogenecity  and  potential jnalignancy and so forth,
 23   that  a  very  strict criteria should  be  applied  in making that
 24   judgment.  I would read  that  to  mean that even  though  one
 25   can't select a number, one should nevertheless  regulate
 26   strictly.  Is that the way you would read that?
27             MR. SPATH:  That's a way  of  reading it, yes.   There
28   are many ways to reading that.   I think from your standpoint
                                    Certified Shorthand Reporters •
                                         TSLS. 388-3293

I                                                               30
  I'm sure it could be read that way very easily.
            DR.  COTRUVO:   But you don't read it that way?

            MR.  SPATH:  Well, I read it as a lack of definitive

  health information but certainly a concern exists.  Now,

  they're just looking at it obviously in terms of health and

  are not requested to-give other problems or other considerations

  any weight such as costs and so forth.

            HEARING OFFICER:  Okay.   Thank you very much.

                     The next speaker will be Walter Hoye from

  the Department of Water and Power of Los Angeles, please.

            MR.  HOYE:  Good afternoon.  My name is Walter Hoye,

  and I'm executive assistant to the Chief Engineer of Waterworks

  Los Angeles Department of Water and Power.

                     I want to thank you for this opportunity

  to present the Department of Water and Power's view on the
  proposed regulations for the control of organic contaminants

  in drinking water.  The Department of Water and Power of the

  City of Los Angeles serves 3 million people and has an

  excellent record of over 75 years of providing a safe/

  healthful water supply.  Los Angeles is very active in

  meeting the objective of the Environmental Protection Agency
  in administering the Safe Drinking Water Act and as a prime

  example we're in the planning stage of a costly filtration

  project at this time for the Los Angeles Aqueduct which

  provides 80 percent of our water supply.  This project is to

  meet the new EPA turbidity standard.•

                     So while we support measures that are

  necessary to protect public health, we are responsible to our
                                   Cercifiafl Shorthand Peoorters •

                                        T5[_ฃ 538-3293

rate payers to insure that expenditures of public funds

are actually beneficial.  With that in mind, we strongly

object to the proposed standards and feel that EPA should

do the following four items:

                   First, delay implementation of these and

any other further organics regulation until stronger evidence

of need has been established.

                   Secondly, expand and accelerate Federally

financed, large-scale health effects research as recommended

by the National Academy of Science.

                   Third, encourage water systems to lower

trihalomethane levels by setting 100 parts per billion as a

national goal and require monitoring those serving over

75,000 customers.

                   Fourth, provide Federal monitoring of

major water sources nationwide to determine the synthetic

organic chemical levels.

                   That's our summary.  To get into the

trihalomethane topic specifically, we object to the EPA

proposal to set up  a maximum contaminant level for

trihalomethanes of 100 parts per billion and its expressed
intent to lower this level in the future to 10 parts per

billion.  The National Academy of Sciences was charged by

Congress and the EPA to recommend maximum contaminant levels

for water to protect public health.  The  Academy made no

basis for doing so and recommended that further research be

conducted.  Among members of the scientific community there's

widespread.disagreement of the health significance of low
                  Cj_ARK ^^TSZ2>  Certified Shorthand Reporters*

                                      TELE. 333-3233

 levels of organic contaminants.  We support  the  National
 Academy's recommendation that  further research on  the  health
 risk of low levels of trihalomethanes is needed  before
 standards are set.
                    Now with regard to the  treatment method,
 EPA has proposed a treatment method using  granular activated
 carbon to remove manmade synthetic organics  from water supplies.
 The National Academy of Sciences was  directed to make studies
 and recommendations on synthetic organic  chemical levels in
 water.  However, the Academy  recognized that uncertainties
 exist regarding health risks  of these compounds and recommended
 further research to determine whether low levels of these
 compounds actually increase the probability  of human cancer.
 We agree that  this additional research is necessary and that
 it would be premature 'for  EPA to impose a granular activated
 carbon treatment requirement  on water systems.
                    The lack of knowledge on  synthetic organics
 is demonstrated by the vagueness of  proposed regulations.
 The regulations require utilities-to monitor for 60 synthetic
 organics.   However,  the only  guidance given  utilities for
 determination  if  they will be required to install GAG units
' is  the statement  that a variance cannot be granted if
 "significant  contamination" exists.   The term significant
 contamination  is  not defined  but  left open to future
 interpretation by EPA and  by  State health agencies.   It's
 impossible  for utilities  to determine the impact of the
 regulations on their costs until  it's seen how  it will be
 applied  by  the regulatory  agencies.
                    n|_ARK  /•"•'•"•'•^  Certified Shorthand Rooorcera •
                                        TELE. 3aa-32S3

                   With regard to costs, the costs for GAC

treatment are unknown because there simply has not been

adequate experience with design, construction, and operation

of these facilities.  Just how to get the EPA cost estimates

to comply with that standard are open to question.  There's

an analogy I can make from personal experience and that is

with regard to the capital investment that we have to make to
filter the Los Angeles Aqueduct supply.  The cost for our

treatment facilities alone in Los Angeles will be one-half

of'the nationwide cost estimate by EPA for turbidity control.

Los Angeles conducted a sample survey of costs.  We surveyed

31 cities above 100,000 people and found that a 257 million

dollar investment would be required to meet turbidity standards

and that's just 31 cities of that size; and that's 90 percent

higher than the nationwide EPA estimate.
                   So utilities must not be required to

construct treatment facilities at a cost of hundreds of

millions of dollars nationwide when these projects have only

questionable justification.  Much more time is needed to

gain information from research and experiments before

treatment methods are adopted.
                   And now for a few comments on monitoring.

We feel the EPA should require the utilities to monitor their
trihalomethanes especially those cities serving the population

of over 75,000.  However, the monitoring of synthetic organic

chemicals should be managed, operated, and financed by EPA.

Such a program should be based on cost effectiveness,

focusing on.the system as having had the highest synthetic
                                 Certified Shorthand Recorders •

                                      ~ฃLฃ 333-32S3

   T_ i organic  chemical  levels.   The monitoring for organic

      chemicals  is  very expensive,  and  that's  why we feel it should
  be  financed by EPA at this stage.


















                     In conclusion we in the Department of       |

 Water  and  Power of Los Angeles recommend that promulgation     j

 of  the  proposed EPA standards  be delayed indefinitely.   EPA    j

 should  continue in its leadership role in conducting research

 on toxicological and epidemiological studies  on organics in

 water supplies.  These studies should  be Federally financed

 and the findings made  available  to  the water industry.   And

 then if evidence of a  health risk of organic contaminants  in

 water is developed  and  the monitoring  of water supplies shows

 where improved water quality is  necessary, treatment  methods

 can be implemented.  While awaiting the  results of this

 research,  water systems should be encouraged  to achieve water

 quality goals across the nation.

                    That concludes my comments.

           HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you,  Mr. Hoye.   One comment

 that I'd like to make is that again you're emphasizing  the

 fact that EPA really should be  involved in an ongoing research

 program  rather than a regulatory one,  and I think that although

 additional  research is  always going to  be necessary and

 desirable that the  NAS  nowhere  in their study intended for

 EPA  to do research  indefinitely and  that in the interim the

 need for stringent  regulation of  organic chemicals was urged.

          iMR.  HOYE:   Miss  Chang,  I have a comment  on that.

The National Academy of  Science's report did  not recommend

any maximum contaminant  levels.   It  recommended further
                       CLARK -       Certified Sl-iorrfiand Reporters <
                       •*•••• *a  <_,!_>        TELS. 338-3283


research and someone  has to do that research.

          HEARING OFFICER:  I think that the matter  —

          iMR. HOYE:  The research of today hasn't  been

sufficient to establish the proposed regulations,  and that's   !
my feelings.                                                   j

          HEARING OFFICER:  I don't think this particular  formi


is an appropriate one to debate the interpretation that we

obviously differ on as to the NAS's report.

          MR. HOYE:  Are you saying that the NAS's report

recommends establishing certain regulations?

          HEARING OFFICER:  I think that our interpretation

of the NAS's report is not that they have recommended any

specific maximum contaminant levels per se, but by expressing

their recommendation that ongoing research be continued was '

not intended to preclude the Agency from regulating  now,

but in fact —

          MR. HOYE:  I'm not saying that.  I'm saying that

there is not sufficient evidence for establishing  a  regulation,

and I'm using the NAS report as an example and simply

suggesting that further research take place so that  sufficient

evidence can be.  I'm not talking about conclusive proof.

          HEARING OFFICER:  I understand.

          MR. HOYE:  I'm talking about sufficient  evidence

to undertake this expenditure of the County.

          HEARING OFFICER:  Again, I believe that  this is

not the appropriate form for us to debate whether  the data is

adequate.  We appreciate your comments, and obviously there

have been several other speakers who have expressed  their
                                 Cereifiod Shorthand Reoorcers •

                                      "l_ฃ. 333-3233

opinion t;iac the data is not accurate; and we have  taken  it

upon ourselves to consider your comments arid to  review  again

the data that has been made available to the Agency  to decide

again whether in fact there is substantial evidence  to support ;
the Agency's regulation to reduce the risk of cancer or other

adverse health effects that exposure to organic chemicals

does pose.

          MR. HOYE:  I think it's very important that  you

communicate that information, and once you do it —  to the

water supply industry.before regulations are set.

          HEARING OFFICER:  We will be revealing all the

information that we will be receiving.  All that information

is on the public record, and it's available to  anyone  who

wishes to view it; and we welcome your review of whatever

information we get as well as to get your comments  on  that.

                   Okay.  Thank you very much,  Mr.  Hoye.

          MR. HOYE:  Thank you.

          HEARING OFFICER:  Mr. Pearson.

          MR. PEARSON:  My name is Harold Pearson,  water

quality engineer for Metropolitan Water District of Southern


                   We appreciate fehis opportunity to submit

comments  on the proposed amendments  for control of  organics

which could have a major impact on capital  and  operating

costs for Metropolitan's water treatment  facilities and

others nationwide.

                   The  Metropolitan  Water District  of

Southern  California  is  a public agency organized under the
                                 Certified Shorthand Raoorcars •

                                      "_i. 338-3233

laws of the State of California to furnish supplemental
water at wholesale to its member agencies.  Nearly 11 million
people — half of California's population — live within  the
district's 4900-square-mile service area which extends into
the six counties of Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside,
San Bernardino, San Diego, and Ventura.  The district includes
126 cities and many large unincorporated communities.
                   Metropolitan imports water from two sources;
the Colorado River via the Colorado River Aqueduct and
Northern California through the facilities of the State Water
                   Metropolitan has five treatment plants with
a total design capacity of 1.4 billion gallons per day where
coagulation, sedimentation, filtration, and disinfection  with
chlorine are provided.  The total capital cost to date in
treatment  facilities is about  140 million dollars.   These
facts are  cited to indicate the large  capital investment
Metropolitan has made to provide•safe, high-quality  water to
the public in  its service area.
                   Metropolitan's State Project  water has
been  sampled and analyzed in the National Organics Monitoring
Survey conducted by EPA, and it is- being monitored in another
investment on  identification of organics and techniques  for
their removal  sponsored by the AWWA Research Foundation.
Moreover,  in anticipation of the proposed regulations
Metropolitan has substantially increased  its trace organics
monitoring capability by providing new analytical equipment,

including  a GC MS, new labroatory  facilities, and additional
                                  Cartifiad Shorthand Raporcara •

                                      T51.S. 3BS-32S3

                   Data on trihalomethane ^production in
Colorado River water during a study conducted from January  13  |
to February 8, 1978, indicated that the concentration of       |
TTHM's plateaued within three hours after leaving the treatment!
plant and changing the chlorine application pointed no         |
significant effect on the formation of TTHM's at levels of
20 to 50 micrograms per liter.  It should be pointed out  that
the standard coagulant feed of 2 million grams per liter  of
alum and 700 milligrams per liter of cationic polymer did not
remove the THM precursors.
                   A paper reporting the results of this  study
will be presented at Palo Alto tomorrow, and with your
permission a copy is appended to this report.   Since it  is
anticipated that an increase in summer water temperature  of
10 degrees Centigrade will speed the breakdown of precursors
by chlorine and enhance the formation of TTHM's, similar
studies will be conducted to determine the magnitude of these
effects on State Project water and Colorado River water and
blends thereof as received at the two treatment plants.
                    Should these summer tests indicate seasonal
variations  in TTHM's as  far ranging as the Phase II and
Phase III NOMS data indicated, we may be faced with  significanl
added costs for applying  larger dosages of alum  to reduce the
precursors ahead of chlorination, or investigation of
disinfectants  that  do not generate THM's.
                    Due to these seasonal variations,  the  MCL
of one-tenth  of a milligram per liter should not be  lower and
                                 Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                                      "'_ฃ. 388-3283

raising this level for specific variance cases should be
considered.   This should apply where a protected water source  j
having a low chlorine demand during treatment has been in    •  i

long use and data on cancer morbidity and death rates in the   i
communities or area served are lower than a national average.

                   Statistics on cancer incidence by counties  j

across the United States gathered by the National Cancer

Institute show that cancer rates are very low in the Los Angeles

Metropolitan area.  With more than half of the population being

provided with chlorinated surface waters from the Owens Valley

and the Colorado River Aqueducts for many years, it appears

that water is probably a negligible factor.

                   Certainly no lowering of the limit to

.05-milligrams per liter is justified, and we would urge that

EPA defer any serious consideration of more restrictive
legislations until its own health effects and water treatment

research provides more definitive information on the need  for

such protection and the true costs of attaining it.  To attain

the lower level of TTHM's would require a large number of

utilities to resort to granular activated carbon treatment,

I believe.

                   The National Academy of Science's report

stated that there is no hard evidence that low-level oral

exposure to chloroform and other animal carcinogens produce

cancer in humans.  Since the need for such a  costly technique

to  control  trihalomethanes has not been demonstrated by the

NAS report  or EPA at this time, we believe that our customers

should not  be required to assume additional financial burdens
                                 Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                                      -SLE. 388-3233

   I                                                               90j

 -,  i  for  GAC  treatment  for speculative reasons.

 2                      The concept of averaging the concentrations

 -   of TTHM's  for compliance on an annual basis has considerable

 ^   merit because the  data from the  NOMS  samplings in April,      i

 5   July, and  December indicated wide,  seasonal variations.        j

 g   Moreover,  this will tend to even out analytical results due    i

 7   to accidental contamination of samples with these traces of

 3   organics that are  quite ubiquitous  in the environment other

 g   than water.

10                 .     I might point out as an aside here that

11   we made  some comparisons twice in the last 12 months with

12   two  labs taking samples at the same time but in their own

13   prepared sample and in another case with three laboratories,

14   and  the  difference between the highest and lowest levels,

15   determined for the trihalomethanes  amounted to 60 to

16   100  percent.  I think that we do need to be very circumspect

17   in  setting standards when our analytical methods may not be

18   all  that precise.

19             DR. COTRUVO:  Excuse me.   You mean that there was

20   disagreement between the laboratories?

21             MR. PEARSON:  Between the laboratories, right.

22   Each had prepared its own sample bottles, but the samples

23   were all taken at the same time and place.

24                      Mandating the use of Standard Plate Counts

25   should be modified to include the alternative of counting

26   the  noncoliform colonies growing on membrane filters for

27   those utilities now using this method routinely for coliform

28   enumeration.  A requirement that Standard Plate Count tests
                                      Certified ShoreHand R

                                           -ฃ!_ฃ 398-32=3

   I                                                         —Ti]

 T  I  should be initiated whenever the total colonies on the         ;

 2   membrane exceeded 200 per 100 mililiter sample should satisfy

 3   the need to check on increases of general bacterial populations

 4   in the water.                                                   i

 5                      The timing for compliance with treatment    j

 5   modification for control of TKM's, namely 18 months, may be    j

 7   sufficient for making changes in the point of chlorine

 3   additions or for installation of chlorine dioxide generating

 9   and feeding equipment; but it would not be long enough if

10   pilot plant studies were required.  Such would be needed for

11   getting design criteria for ozonation or GAG treatment

12   facilities.  For large water systems with several plants it

13   would be almost unthinkable to attempt to construct such

14   facilities at all of its plants without a 12- to 18-month

15   period of pilot studies to identify options followed by

16   operational testing in one module of a full-sized plant to

17   demonstrate the cost effectiveness of the more feasible

18   processes.

19                      One must keep in mind that Metropolitan

20   has three plants of 400 mgd capacity, one of 150, and one of

21   75 mgd.  Unless a crash program was mandated due to convincing

22   evidence that the public was endangered, the most prudent

23   course would be to design and construct facilities at one of

24   the plants to obtain adequate operating data, work out the

25   "bugs" in the system by reactivation frequency, methods of

26   removing and replacing GAG in the contactor boxes, attrition

27   losses pertaining thereto, and reliable cost information on

28   plant construction and operation.
                       CLARK  /"*™"™™^   Cartifiad Shorthand Raoorcara •

                                           TฃLฃ 323-3223

                   Three members of our staff had the good
fortune to tour 12 of the newer water treatment plants in
Europe in 1976 after EPA issued its advance notice of proposed
rulemaking on the organic contaminants it was noted that each
of the water systems had conducted extensive pilot studies to
evaluate the use of ozone and/or GAG before designing the      {
plant.  Moreover, the original primary function of either or
both treatments was to remove taste- and odor-producing
natural or synthetic organic materials not THM's.  Finally,
only three of_these beautiful plants were designed to treat
100 million gallons of water per day or more;, the Bodensee
Plant capacity was 177 mgd.  Therefore, when we think seriously
of designing ozonation or GAG units to operate in the treatment
train, we must proceed with deliberate speed.
                   Data being obtained in pilot studies in
the United States indicates, for effective reduction of THM's,
GAG must be reactivated at intervals of four to eight weeks
rather than the six-month period directed by EPA in
Section 141.53(d).  This spacing of reactivation frequency
appears to be related to European practice for taste and odor
control rather than for THM removal.  Should the pilot studies
indicate the necessity of more frequent reactivation, there
are many tradeoffs that must be considered such as increasing
the size and  the number of GAG contactors to lengthen the
time between handlings, other absorbants that the optimum
techniques for reactivation  to  cause the least impact on
dollar resources and the environment.  For systems as large  as
Metropolitan's careful evaluation of such options for maximum

                       CLAR K  ^^"-"~"*   Certified Shorthand Re
                                           TELE. 328- --S3

cost effectiveness is absolutely essential.
                   For the above reasons no detailed
preliminary engineering estimates have been made to present    j
today on capital costs for adding GAC contactors to our five   |
plants.   In view of continuing escalation of construction      ;
costs, we believe a "ballpark" estimate may be in the range    !
of 120 to 150 million dollars or two to two and a half times
the estimate of 60 million dollars we made in response to the
ANPRO questions in 1976 based on EPA's Interim Treatment Guide
for Control of Chloroform and other Trihalomethanes.
                   The interim provision of substituting GAC
for the existing filter media would only provide a  false sense
of security and would be effective only for only a  short period
of time.  It is definitely not practical in one of
Metropolitan's older plants because there  is insufficient
freeboard during backwashing to prevent carryover of the
material.  Another concern is the problem  of excessive fouling
of the carbon surfaces by coagulants and suspended  matter which
may greatly reduce absorbative capacity.   In particular this
phenomenon may occur in systems using cationic polymers as  a
coagulant or filter aid.  This is an area  that deserves
investigation before spending large sums of money for GAC to
put in old filter beds.
                   Variance procedures  seem to be flawed by
appearing to allow the State discretionary power in
Section 141.54(c) to grant variances for deep ground water,
watersheds protected by manmade pollution, and the  Great Lakes
and then requiring extensive monitoring of more than 60
                                      Certified Shorchana Haooreera •
                                           T = Lฃ. 388-3233

I	—	'	•—	•
I                                                              94
I  organic contaminants for the other public water systems.
  There are no clearcut guidelines in the preamble or  the
  regulations as to the criteria for a protected watershed.      j
  Without sufficient guidelines the State agency responsible  for j
  granting variances may be reluctant to make decisions  on

  variances until all the requirements of Section 141.54(d) and

  (e)  are met.

                     The California aqueduct supplying

  Metropolitan passes through agricultural areas, but  the water

  has been monitored for several years by GC methods at  the

  California Department of Water Resources laboratory; and the

  total concentration of 48 chlorinated hydrocarbons and

  pesticides in samples taken from terminal reservoirs has been

  below the breakthrough concentration of .5 micrograms  per

  liter stipulated in the proposed rules if you're using GAC
  treatment.  Therefore, we wonder why we should have  to have

  GAC if in fact we don't think we should have.  Moreover, the

  results on samples taken in the MOMS survey were consistently

  reported as "ND" for all items other than THM's.  ND of

  course means none detected with the value below the  detection

  limit.  Other than the other breakthrough value, States and

  utilities have received little evrdence as to what is  expected

  from this costly monitoring program.

                     We estimate that it may cost upwards to

  15 hundred to 2 thousand dollars per sample depending  on

  the detection limits set for each of the contaminants  listed.

  Only a few laboratories will have the equipment and  qualified

  personnel for a cost effective 'monitoring program.   Therefore,
                                   Certified SHorttiand Raoorcars •

                                        -ฃ_S. 383-32S3

ic would, be far better for EPA to extend its current

well-organized national water-quality monitoring to include

the water sources of the cities with greater than  75,000

population affected by subpart F of the amendment.

                   In addition to the above comments

Metropolitan endorses the American Water Works Association's

recommendations for a four-point program in lieu of EPA's      '

proposed drinking water organics regulation.

                   First, expand and accelerate large-scale

health-effect research in line with the National Academy of

Science report recommendations.  A scientific basis for

regulation should be established before the regulations are


                   Two, expedite plant-scale research  with

granular activated carbon and other treatment alternatives

in lieu of the mandated technology that the EPA proposed,

to gather financial and operating data to determine the most

cost effective solution.

                   Three, encourage utilities to institute

modifications in treatment to minimize the total trihalomethane

level as a goal subject to further research not as a limit

at this time.                    -

                   Four, conduct widespread monitoring of

public water supplies for TTHM's and synthetic organics,

the THM's by the utilities themselves and the latter by  the


                   One final comment, Academy of Science's

assessment of our lack of adequate scientific information  to
                  CLAR ซ /—•——ป^  Certified Shorcnend Reporters •

                                      TSLS. 339- 3Z33

recommend maximum contaminant levels appears to have been

accepted by the Congress.  When the Safe Drinking Water Act

was extended by Public Bill 95-190, it contained an amendment   |

charging the Academy to make revisions to its  report reflecting

new information which has become available  since the previous   |

report and to submit these recommendations  each two years       j

thereafter.  We submit this is not the time to yield to

pressure groups to institute costly changes in treatment

procedures with inadequate knowledge of  the additional health

protection afforded to the public who must  pay the bill.

                   Thank you very much.      .  •

          HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you, Mr.  Pearson.  Is  it

Mr. Pearson or Dr. Pearson?

          MR. PEARSON:  Dr. Pearson, but I  take three meals  a

day whenever I'm called and whatever I'm called.

          HEARING OFFICER:  I think that many  of the issues

that you raised have already been touched upon today.

          MR. PEARSON:  Granted.

          HEARING OFFICER:  One of the things  that I wanted

to make sure you did understand is the difference between  the

THM regulation and the granular activated carbon requirement.

I've gone through that a couple of~times this  morning, and I

think  that applies to your comment as well.

          MR. PEARSON:  The reason that  I included that was

that if EPA is seriously considering dropping  the TTHM

regulation down to 10 parts per billion  or  maybe even 50  parts

per billion or micrograms per liter, whichever you want  to call

it, I  think many water systems would not be available to
                                  Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                                      TฃLS. 3S9-3223

  I                                                               57
 ., j  reach  these  goals without  GAG  treatment.   I  think one might
 •       .                                                            ]

    readily  stay below  the  100 micrograms  per liter by substituting
 w                                                                   I
    carbon dioxide with the primary  disinfectant or maybe using

 .   chlorine as  the  next move  in water treatment.   And if so,

 _   this would not be the problem; but if  you start talking about

    lowering the levels, you're going to have a  massive changeover


















to GAG treatment all over the country, I think, or you're      '

going to cut out using chlorine altogether.

          DR. COTRUVO:  Would you like to comment on some of

the technical aspects, let's say, in the treatment regulation;

for example, the operational requirements that are currently

listed that include the breakthrough of volatile

organic chemicals' at  .5 micrograms and also a couple of

stipulations on total organic carbon.  Would you like  to

comment on the advisability of those kinds of operational

criteria OB how do you think it would work in your case?

          MR. PEARSON:  Well, I think that these type  of

criteria are desirous.  Certainly, we're not going to  be able

to monitor the synthetics daily or weekly or monthly.   It's

too costly and too time consuming.  So I think this  is a

substitute parameter  which has merit.

                   We did not have sufficient data since

we're not yet getting involved in the GAG column testing.

We have plans in that regard, but we're not  starting up on

this program; and we  can't really comment except on  the work

that some others have done or they have found  that the

effectiveness of the  GAG  for removing trihalomethanes

sometimes goes down  fairly quickly, within  a  week or  10 days
                                      Certified Shorthand Reoorters •

                                           7E'_E. 333-3233

                                                             98 i
or so, with some of the other organics.  I think  there's  a

little less information on the THM's, butr there is  some

evidence that that is going to pull through after maybe  six

to eight weeks, something like that.  I believe there's  going

to be adequate information that would indicate that on some

treatments, some waters, some locations we're going to have  if !

we're going to try to meet the standards that promulgated
there that we're faced with reactivation not  less  frequently   i

than once every two months, and maybe more  frequently.

                   This is the reason I object  to  the  falseness

and the security that some may feel by putting  GAG in  the

filter beds aside from the fact that I'm afraid that it just

wouldn't work in most systems where you're  treating to remove

suspended matter from waters.  The European practice — of

course they — the ones that we saw at least; they don't all

do the same.  The ones that we saw had a high level of

filtration usually preceded  by some other  coagulation

treatment with or metalic salts  preceded to  the filtration

and then the final step in the operation was  GAG treatment,

and admittedly they get a very high quality water. This

also means that they were paying  higher prices  for it, but I

think one of the things that might be commented on here just

for the benefit of the audience — I'm sure you probably know

what I'm talking about — the amount of water that's treated

in these plants amounts to about  50 to 55 gallons  per  capita

per day whereas treatment plants  in this country serving

all industries use for watering trees, shrubs and  so  forth in

our, shall we say, quality life that we lead  in this country
                   Ct_ARK  /•••^   Certified Shorthand Reoorcars •

                                      TELE. 288-3233


where we have — especially in the arid  parts  of  this country

we're talking about 250 gallons per day  per  person for

actual consumptive use.  So if you increase  treatment costs


appreciably, you see we're increasing  our  cost five times as   i

much as the European practices by indicating --

          MR. COTRUVO:  Of course it would also result in      i

reduced consumption?

          MR. PEARSON:  Probably so.                            j

          DR. COTRUVO:  Thank you.

          HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you, Dr. Pearson.

                   I don't have any other  speakers registered

to make statements, and unless there are any other additional

comments that anyone wishes to make or submit in  writing, I

urge them to do so.  We will be continuing the hearing this-

evening at  7:30 tonight right here, but  for  now I guess I'll

adjourn the meeting until then.  Thank you for coping.
                                 Careif led Shorthand Recorders •

                                      T = L2. 383-22S3

                        )   SS.

          I, Janis Ruttle, a Certified Shorthand  Reporter
No. 3851 and a Notary Public in  and for the State of California,
do hereby certify:
          That the foregoing pages, 67-99, are a  full,  true and
correct transcript of proceedings taken before me at the time
and place therein named, and was taken down by me in shorthand
and thereafter reduced to ytpewriting under my direction.
          I  further certify that I am not interested in the
event of the action.
          WITNESS my hand and  seal this   4th   day of
May , '1978.
          JANIS RUTTLE
          NtlNCIPAL OFFICE '*
  My Cammluion Ltplrm March 2*. 19W
Notary Public and Certified
Shorthand  Reporter No.  3851
for the  State of California
                        • ซ0" ซ • NO
                                    Certified Sherd-land Reporters •
                                         TELS. iSa-3223


             TUESDAY, APRIL 11, 1978; 7:40 P.M.
          HEARING OFFICER:  I'd like to call the hearing  to

order this evening.  We have only one speaker, Mr. Adrian,      !

who will be making two separate statements, one representing    j


the California/Nevada Section of AWWA, the other representing   |


California Water Service Company, San Jose Water Works,

Campbell Water Company, Santa Clara Valley Water District.

                   Mr. Adrian.

          MR. ADRIAN:  Thank you for this opportunity to  make

these presentations.  First I would like to make the

presentation on behalf of the California/Nevada Section of

the Americal Water' Works Association and read to you the

resolution which was adopted by the executive committee of  •

that organization  in a meeting held this morning in Palo  Alto,


                        "Whereas, the California/Nevada

                   Section of the American Water Works

                   Association represents a majority of

                   the water utilities of this region,


                        "Whereas, water utilities  are

                   dedicated to and required by law to

                   produce a safe drinking water supply,


                        "Whereas, water utilities  must

                   also serve the public responsibly

                   in cost-effective administration of
                                 Certified Snorrdana naporcera •

                                      TE^S. 353.3-33

resources, and

     "Whereas, tne Environmental

Protection Agency has proposed

regulations for the control of

organics in drinking water and

addresses the subject of carcinogens

in water and

     "Whereas, the issues raised

by the proposed regulations have

such broad impact on capital

construction, operation, and

maintenance, and on the cost of

water to our customers, and

     "Whereas, the Environmental

Protection Agency has not provided

sufficient evidence to justify the

proposed THM or synthetic organics

standards or treatment, and

     "Whereas, the National Academy

of Science was charged by Congress

and the Environmental Protection

Agency to recomm'end maximum organic

contaminant levels for water, but

instead recommended further research,


     "Whereas, the water utility

industry utility is continuing

strong research efforts to effectively
              Certified Shorthand Reoortera •

                   T5l_S. 388-32S3

 control organics in water working

 in concert with the Environmental

 Protection Agency and the American

 Water Works Research Foundation,

      "Now, therefore, be it resolved

 that the California/Nevada Section,

 AWWA executive committee endorses

 the following four-point program

 in lieu of the Environmental

 Protection Agency's proposed

 drinking water organics regulation:

 1.  Expand and accelerate large-scale

     health effect research in line

     with the National Academy of

     Science report recommendations.

     A scientific basis for regulation

     should be established before regu-

     lations are promulgated.

 2.  Expedite plant-scale research with

     granular activated carbon (GAG) and

     other treatment alternatives, in lieu

     of the mandated technology  that the

     Environmental Protection Agency

     proposes, to gather financial and

     operating data to determine the most

     cost-effective solution.

 3.  Encourage utilities to institute

     modifications in treatment  to
CLARK f"~—~*  Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                    TSLz 338-32S3

   I                                                              103
 ., j                         minimize the total trihalomethane
 "~ t
 2                          (TTHM)  level as a goal subject to

 -                          further research, not as a limit

 .                          at this time.

 g                      4.   Conduct widespread monitoring of

 g                          public  water supplies for TTHM1s

 7                          and synthetic organics, the THM's

 g                          by utilities and the latter by

 9                          Environmental Protection Agency."

10                      That concludes the statement on behalf of

11   the  California/Nevada Section, AWWA.

12             HEARING OFFICER:  Thank you.  I believe those are

13   all  points that we've heard before; so I'll let you continue

14   to your next statement.

15             MR. ADRIAN:   I might point out that I'm glad that

16   you've heard the comments before and found that our position

17   is endorsed by at least some of the people who were here

13   this morning apparently.

19             HEARING OFFICER:  You may proceed with your next

20   statement.

21             MR- ADRIAN:   Do you want the other statement now?

22 '-           HEARING OFFICER:  Yes.  to

23             MR. ADRIAN:   The next statement is on behalf of

24   the  California Water Service Company, of the San Jose Water

25   Works Company, the Campbell Wa'ter Company, the Santa Clara

26   Valley Water District.  I am employed as the engineer of

27   water quality by the California Water Service Company and

28   in that capacity serve as sanitary — or provide sanitary
                       CLARK  ^"*"~™*  Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                                           TSLS. 338-3283

     •engineering  services  for the San Jose Water Works and the

     Campbell  Water  Company.

                        The  California Water Service Company

     provides  water  to 23  distinct water systems which serve a

     total  of  approximately  1 million persons.   The San Jose Water

     Works  provides  water  to most of the area of the City of

     San Jose  and serves a population of approximately one-half

 g   million people.   The  Campbell Water Company provides water to

     the City  of  Campbell, California, and serves a population of

10   approximately 30,000  persons.  The Santa Clara Valley Water

11   District  (SCVWD)  is a county-wide special district which

12   administers  flood control,  ground water management, water

13   composition  and reclamation, and treated surface water

14   deliveries to -private and municipally owned retail water

15   utilities within the  county.

16                      The  operations of this district and these

17   three  water  utilities have clearly demonstrated over the

IS   years  our philosophy  that we owe-a good quality water to

19 '  our customers.   Within  economic feasibility and technical

20   capability we have consistently demonstrated a responsible

21   attitude  toward our customers and have consistently delivered

22,   a water of good quality.  As a rasult, we have a very high

23   reputation-among our  customers, within the water works

24   industry  in terms of  our responsibility and cooperativeness

25   in developing improvements in the water utility industry,

26   and among the regulatory agencies with whom we deal.  It is

27   in the spirit of this high regard and interest in delivering

28   good quality water that we present these comments on the
                       Cl_/XH K  /*"""~**^  Certified Shorthand Peeorters •

proposed Environmental Protection Agency regulations  for

the Control of Organic Chemical ContamiriSnts in Drinking  Water.

We intend that our comments in all regards will lead  to a

more cost-effective water utility service to our  customers.

Our comments in this transmittal will consist essentially of

two parts; general comments in the first part, and  a  second

part which will deal specifically with the questions  which

EPA has requested comments upon.

                   We appreciate that the EPA is  required to

prescribe MCL's for those contaminants which the  Administrator

determines may have an adverse effect on human health.  We

also appreciate that a qualification is attached  to this  within

the law itself — to the effect that the Drinking Water

Regulations are required to protect health to the maximum

extent feasible  using treatment methods which are  generally

available taking costs into consideration.  To paraphrase this

to a certain degree, we may state that health has a

tremendous value, but even health must be evaluated relative

to the resources to be used to achieve it.  We believe that

where a clear improvement in health can be achieved at a  cost

which is determined within the limits of our judgment to  be

a reasonable cost for that improved health, then  by all means

the action should be implemented to achieve that  higher

degree of health.

                   With this principle in mind, we  are most

pleased that the Safe Drinking Water Act included a requirement

that the National Academy of Sciences undertake a study to

determine the effect on health of inorganics and  organics in
                                 Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                                      TELE. 333-3233


drinking water and to recommend MCL's for those materials.

It was our hope that the HAS, with the high degree of

expertise that is available within the organization, would

come up with the answers to this very perplexing problem.

In its report the National Academy of Sciences enunciated

four principles which were basic to its investigations.  One

of these, principle four, states that "Material should be

assessed in terms of human risk rather than as safe or unsafe."

The principle involved here is that there is no firm cutoff

line in most cases.  That is, for some materials there is a

gradual increasing of risk as their concentration increases

from zero to higher levels in drinking water.  This is not

surprising, but it does present the difficult decision of

determining just where along that line the .concentration

should be considered as unacceptable.  In making that decision

it is inevitable that you will weigh some degree of adverse

health effect against the costs that are incurred to achieve

an improved health condition; and the weighing of these

costs should always be considered in the light of other ways

in which that money or those resources can be used to improve

other aspects of our quality of living.  In a sense, in health

matters as in other matters, there* is no free lunch, and our

decisions to provide one benefit must inevitably to some

extent detract from other alternatives in which we might

wish to engage.

                   The water utility industry in this nation

has shown a high degree of initiative and expertise throughout

the years of its existence.  This is demonstrated by the high
                  Gl_AHK >"™—**~^  Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                                      TELE. 333-3233

regard attributed to our domestic water supplies as  evidenced

by the statement of the NAS that "The higฃ quality of  drinking

water in the United States is recognized  throughout  the  world."

The industry has traditionally carried on, through utility

associations and within many individual utility organizations,

a high degree of research and large  financial  expenditures

to improve domestic water quality.   This  water utility posture

is consistent with the statement in  your  Federal Register

article of February 9', 1978, that many comments received on

your ANPRM supported removal of the  contaminants which were

shown to be hazardous to health.  Where we feel that there

are contaminants in the water that are presenting  significant

hazard to health we want to remove those  contaminants; and

we will take the actions to construct and operate  the

facilities which are necessary to produce the  improved water

quality condition.  We believe that  our customers will

support us in an endeavor along these lines.   But our

customers are very conscious of the  price they pay for water

and, while they want good quality, water,  they  do not want

frills placed upon their water at a  price which is not

acceptable to them.

                   We are concerned  that  the regulations

which the EPA has proposed for the control of  organics in

water do not represent'a good investment  to the people of

this nation.  With all of its'expertise,  the NAS was unable

with its present degree of knowledge to place  MCL's  on various

organics in water including the trihalomethanes.   They could

not place MCL's for these materials  and justify those  MCL's
                  CXAPK S~"——i  Certified Shorthand Roporwrs •

                  *ซ•=•• -ซ i_*<__>       TELE. 388-3253

I                                                              103
i  on tae  basis of the cost that would be incurred in obtaining


                     NAS,  however,  did recommend a concerted

  program for research,  investigation, and development of

  knowledge which at a later date would enable a placing of

  MCL's on a justifiable basis for inorganics including

  trihalomethanes in water.  We strongly endorse their

  recommendation.  To hasten into this area of standard setting

  without a sound basis will have counterproductive effects in

  the" long run.

                     The Administrator has proposed MCL's  and

  a treatment requirement with granular activated carbon which

  would affect only a' relatively small number of utilities at

  this present time.  The cost-effectiveness of the requirement

  even for this small number of utilities is very highly in

  question.  What is more alarming, by strong implication  within

  the proposed Federal Register article is the intent by EPA,

  at sometime in the future, to reduce the MCL's that currently

  are proposed.  For example,  it is stated that in  the  future

  "... the MCL for the THM's will become more restrictive and

  coverage will be extended to smaller water systems..."

  -(underlining added  — page  5765 of-F.R.).

                     In the proposed  regulations the water

  utility must provide  granular activated carbon treatment or

  must establish that it does  not have  a water source  exposed

  to organics.   In principle,  this does not  seem to be  a bad

  approach.   However, it must  be noted  that  practically no

  guidelines  are presented in  the regulations which a  utility
                                    Certified Shorttnend Reporters •

                                        TELE 393-3253

can use to establish that its water source is not subject  to

organic pollution.  Therefore, we are largely in a vacuum  for

evaluating the reasonableness of the statement which in

principle seems to be appropriate.  Experience has shown us

that with the best of intentions it is still possible for

regulatory persons to exercise poor judgment or even on

occasion to be arbitrary in their decisions.  It seems to  us

that the ambiguity in many parts of the proposed regulations

are in fact an evidence of the uncertainties which exist in

the entire field of organics  in water.  As stated earlier,

we do not object to large expenditures to improve water quality

when these expenditures can be shown to be a good investment

in terms of benefits received for the funds expended, but  we

have strong objection to the  expending of funds for which

little public health benefit  can be shown to be received.

                   We strongly endorse the recommendation  of

the National Academy of Sciences in its report under contract

with EPA to the effect that an expanded research activity

should be engaged in.  We believe that the Environmental

Protection Agency is the agency to coordinate and to spearhead

such research activities using contractual arrangements with

those organizations which have hi'gh expertise in the

particular field  involved.  NAS is certainly one of the

organizations which should be brought into the picture by

EPA.  We also suggest the American Water Works Association

and the University system throughout this country are

appropriate companions to work with EPA toward better  solutions

and answers to the problems that we face.
                                 Certified Shorthand

                                      Tฃ'_E iea.3233

                   In the second part of our presentation,

we deal specifically, or more specifically, with comments  on

questions posed by the Administrator in _the Federal  Register

dated February 9, 1978, and these are presented in two


                   Section I, MCL for TTHM's

                   1.  Reasonableness of phasing application

                       of the regulation.

                            It appears to be reasonable  to

                       phase the application of regulations

                       by making the MCL's mandatory initially

                       for larger water systems.

                   Incidentally, let me break  for a  moment

to strongly state that all of these suggestions we're making

here 'are predicated on the — I don't want to  say on an
assumption, but on the possibility that legislation  may  be

adopted at present; so we are commenting  on   that possibility

and on earlier statements that, really, the whole regulatory

approach at this time is not justified;'but if you want  to

go ahead you must go ahead.  Here are a few comments.

          HEARING OFFICER:  We appreciate that.

          MR. ADRIAN: "      This "really is a recognition

                        of the principle that  cost-

                        effectiveness and feasibility needs

                        to be given thorough consideration

                        in any final "decision. Cost-

                        effectiveness is recognized  in  this

                        requirement in that a  given  improvement
                  CLARK  ^""""^^3   Certified Shorehand Reporters •

                                      TELE. 33S-3293

    in water quality  can  be  achieved by

    a larger system at? less  unit cost than

    by a  smaller  system.   Feasibility is

    therefore  recognized  as  a legitimate

    concern and not just  the final water

    quality regardless of cost.

          We suggest that  all other factors

    being equal,  no differentiation should

    be made in the application of the

    regulations between ground and surface

    water supplies; however, please note in

    this  regard that  feasibility or cost-

    effectiveness very definitely can be

    influenced between these two water

    sources.   Surface supplies, generally

    speaking,  are treated at one location

    at  relatively large rates of flow;

    ground water, on  the- other hand,

    typically  -is  produced at relatively

    low rates  of  flow from individual wells,

    and to treat  each one of these wells,

    even though  the  supply of water in its

    aggregate  amount may be considerable,

    would require a  tremendous expenditure

    of  funds.

 2.  The magnitude _pf._the_ MCL.

          There does  not seem to be  a  sound

     reason for establishing an MCL  for
Gl_ARK ^••—•^  Certified Shorcnend Reporters •

                    -5Lฃ. 388-3223

                       TTHM's at 0.10 mg/1, much less reducing

                       it to a figure such as 0.05 mg/1.

                   Which was implied or even stated in the
regulations.                                       -             |
                            At the very bottom of page 5768 of

                       the Federal Register of February 9, 19781,

                       it is stated:  "There is no direct

                       evidence that consumption of drinking

                       water has actually caused human cancers.

                       This particular statement, which we

                       believe to be accurate, verifies that

                       there is an unacceptably high degree of

                       speculation involved in establishing a

                       TTHM maximum concentration of even

                       0.10 mg/1.  We hasten to add that  this

                       does not give us comfort, but rather

                       special reason to  encourage an  expedited

                       schedule in research and study  in  order

                       to develops the proper MCL for  TTHM.

                   3.  The  feasibility of timing schedule.

                            We believe the timing schedule

                       that is proposed in the regulations  .

                       would represent a  crash program for

                       accomplishment that will  lead under  the

                       best of circumstances to  an excess and

                       unjustified expenditure of  funds.   The

                       following  is proposed as  an alternative

                            Beginning with the time of-
                                 Certified Shorthand Recorders •

                                      TELE  -aa-azsa

                       promulgation of the proposed standards,

                       and in sequentialปperiods, allow 6

                       months to set up a testing program.

                       Allow 12 months for a sampling program

                       so as to cover full seasonal variations

                       in water quality.  Note that even this

                       relatively long program for sampling

                       will not take into account yearly

                       variations which occur in significant

                       magnitude as a reflection of water

                       surplus or drought conditions as well

                       as other causes.

                   And I have other comments later which will

expand on this somewhat.

          HEARING OFFICER:  Is this particular comment geared
to monitoring for THM's, or is it the monitoring that would

be required to support a variance request under  the treatment


          MR. ADRIAN:  This would be applied to  the TTHM's  and

also the same schedule by later reference would  also be

suggested for the synthetic organics monitoring.

                            Allow 12 months for  bench pilot

                       studies where the sampling program

                       indicates these will be necessary.

                       Allow 6 months to evaluate the bench

                       pilot studies and to formulate design

                       parameters.  Allow 18 months for the

                       design of the facilities.  Allow
                                 Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                                      "Li 3S3-3223


6 months for the formal preparation  of

contract documents, advertising  for  bids

evaluation of bids, and the  final  award

of contract.  Allow 24 months  for  actual

construction.  Note that certain types

of equipment may not be available  even

within the 24-month construction period.

For example; especially with the

competition for equipment  available,

carbon regenerative furnaces may not be

available within a 24-month  period.

For a utility which is required  to go

the full route, the above-outlined

schedule would allow seven years from

the date of promulgation of  the

regulations.  It is very doubtful  that

this schedule can be shortened,

especially if many utilities around  the

country are drawing upon available

equipment and engineering  expertise

during the same time frame.  This

schedule ai-lows no time for  processing

of an EIR; an EIR will almost  surely

be required in a number of cases,  and

this could extend the time frame a full

year or more.

Economic impact.

     Based on experience through the
          Certified Snorchana Raoorcars •

               7ฃ!_Z. 3SB-3233

                            past years it is very doubtful  that  the

                            cost estimates presented  in  the Federal

                            Register publication can  be  met.   First

                            of all, note that  the cost data —

                        And when I use cost data in the  Federal

     Register, I'm referring to the basic data, not their higher

     or lower limits.

 Q                          — presented in the Federal  Register

 9                          are based on 1976  dollars.   In  a rough

 10                          approach we may add 10 percent  a year

                            to bring us up to  current costs,  so

 12                          the cost estimates as presented by

 13                          EPA need to be increased  in  an  amount

 14                          of approximately 20 percent  just due

•15                          to elapsed time to date.  'At the time

 16                          of construction of such facilities,  it

 17                          would appear that  another 50 percent

 18                          inflationary increase may be applicable.

 19                          Also it appears that a significant

 20                          cost increase over the estimates

 21                          presented by EPA can be experienced  due

 22'-                         to an increase in  the cost of granular

 23                          activated carbon.  It seems  reasonable

 24                          to predict that the assumed  cost of

 25                          38 cents a pound would increase to

 26                          55 cents a pound just due to competition

 27                          for the supplies that are available.

 28                          This alone would add 16 percent to the
                                      Certified Shorthand Reoortera •


                            annual  0  and  M costs based on EPA1s

                            figures.   Another likelihood —

                        In  our  judgment.

 ,                          —  is  that the carbon loss per

 c                          regeneration  cycle would exceed the

                            10  percent that EPA has used for its

 7                          base figures.  This seems reasonable

 o                          in  view of the fact that lignite, which

 n                          produces  a softer carbon, has been

,Q    .                      shown  by  EPA to be the more effective

-j,          '                type of GAC for organics removals; but

12                          because lignite is softer,^it is quite

•,-z                    •      probable that the loss per regeneration

-74                          cycle can move from the 10 percent  .

-, c        •                  assumed up to an amount of 15 percent.

•J_Q                          This would add another 29 percent  to

17                          the cost data presented by EPA.  The

•jo    •                      several factors mentioned here,  and  a

^g  '                        number of other  factors,  lead  to the

2Q                          general conclusion  that  the  cost data

2i                          presented in  the Federal  Register  will

22                          be  exceeded  in a  large  amount  if the

23                          regulations  are  indeed  implemented.

24                          Note also that the  cost  data presented

25                          by  EPA is for GAC  treatment for the

26                          larger systems in  the nation.   The unit

27                          costs  for GAC treatment  increase

 28                          significantly as  the  size of the water

                                       Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                                            TELE. 383-3233

     treatment facility decreases.  An

     apparent answer tot- this may be to

     aggregate water systems and make

     treatment plants larger, but this will

     not always be feasible because many

     systems are relatively small because

     they serve relatively local populations.

     It is entirely infeasible to aggregate

     into a larger utility operation many of

     the smaller systems which currently

     exist throughout our nation.

     The concept of averaging concentrations

     of TTHM's.

          This appears to be fairly

     reasonable on a basis of an  annual

     averaging of quarterly samples. However,

     it should be noted that all water

     quality cycles do not occur within a

     one-year period.  There are  a number

     of water utilities where water quality

     varies within the four seasons of the

     year, and"also where much greater water

     quality variations occur between water

     surplus and water shortage years.  An

     example of this occurred just last year

     in the South Bay Area of the State of

     California.  Due to the drought

     conditions the very low flows of  fresh
CLARK '' '  " -ป  Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                    Tฃl_ฃ. 388-3233

 T (                         water through the delta provided treated

 2                          water of a quality that had TTHM's on

 3                          the order of 2 mg/1.   When the heavy

 4                          rains of this last winter occurred,

 5                          more normal flows through the delta

 5                          developed and the TTHM concentration in

 7                          treated water decreased to 0.07 mg/1.

 3                          If the regulations are adopted in the

 g                          form generally proposed, at least some

10  '                        provision should be made to allow the

11                          very high spike given in the example

12                          above to occur without requiring a

13                          tremendously expensive water treatment

14                          facility which would be required for

15                          operation only one short period out of

16                          perhaps each 5- or 10-year period.

17                          Additionally, the regulations should

18                          be worded in such fashion that a

19                          variance would not be required for

20                          operation during the high spikes which

21                          may occur on the relatively long-time

22.                          intervals~referred to above.

23                      6.   The use of the Standard Plate Count.

24                               The use of the Standard Plate

25                          Count was considered in considerable

26                          depth when the existing interim primary

27                          drinking water standards were under

28                          development.  While the Standard Plate
                                      Certified Shorthand R

                                          TELE. 333-3233

                       Count has a value in certain conditions,

                       it is recommended^that it not be made

                       a requirement for all utilities.   It

                       is recommended that the State Health

                       Departments, where they are exercising

                       primacy, have the latitude to require

                       Standard Plate Count in those circum-

                       stances where in their expert judgment

                       there is value to be produced by its


                   Comments in Section II, now dealing with

the treatment technique proposal of the proposed regulations.

                   Section II, Treatment Technique

                   1.  Limiting the application of the

                       treatment technique initially to

                       larger water systems.

                            The wording of the EPA proposal

                       appears to place as much.emphasis  on

                       the difficulty of regulatory admini-

                       stration in the event the treatment

                       requirement would be extended to

                       smaller systems as it does upon the

                       utilities' problems in providing

                       treatment.  It seems to us that

                       regulatory administration is a very

                       minor consideration.  The main point

                       is whether or not on a cost-effective

                       basis it is justifiable to have larger
                                 Certified Shorct-iand Raoorcara •

                                      TELE. 333-32S3

                            and smaller water utilities provide the

 2                          treatment.  As discussed throughout

 3                          this presentation, we believe there is

                            not sufficient evidence on a cost-

 5                          effective basis to warrant the

 5                          installation of a GAG treatment

 7                          technique at this time.  Rather than

 8                          require any water utility to provide

 9                          this type of treatment, we again

10  '                        recommend an increased emphasis on

11                          research utilizing the resources of

12                          EPA, NAS, the utility industry,

13                  '        consulting organizations, and the

14                          educational system of this nation.'

15                      2.   The use of the variance process to

16                          relieve from the treatment technique

17                          requirement systems that can demonstrate
18                          their raw water sources are not subject
19                          to organic chemical contamination.

20                               If a utility has a water source

21                          that does not warrant the treatment

22                          technique-with GAG then it should not

23                          come under the variance process which

24                          requires the utility to make periodic

25                          notification to its customers that it

26                          is operating under a variance.

27                      This is the once every three months by

28   mail.
                       CLARK  ^•••••^   Certified Shorthand Reporters •

                                Such a utility  should  not have
                           to  imply to its  customers  that it is
                           not providing  a  safe water  by notifying
                           its customers  at least every three
                           months  that it is operating under a
                           variance.  Additionally,  the proposed
                           criteria do not sufficiently provide

                           direction  to  a utility to determine
                           that  it is  not necessary for that

                           utility to provide GAG treatment.  The

,,                          regulations  as proposed leave a great

,„                          deal  of ambiguity and uncertainty which

,,                           almost inevitably will bring  into

,.                     •      conflict conscientious utility managers

                            and regulatory personnel.

                        3.  The feasibility  and  desirability  of

                            interim control  measure requiring

                            replacement o-f existing media with

19                          GAC.
2Q                               We strongly recommend against this

21                          proposed requirement of replacing the

22"                         filter med-ia  in  standard  filter  beds

23                          with GAC.  This  would provide an empty

24                         ' bed contact  time on the  order of five

25                          minute's.  Studies made by EPA show that

 26                          contact times of this amount will in

 27                          a  number  of  cases produce exhaustion of

 28                          the  GAC within a one- to two-week perio
                                      Certified SMoreMand Raporcara •

                                           ~ELฃ. 383-32S2


 T                           Regeneration of granular activated

 2                          carbon on a frequency such as this

                            would be a great waste of money with

                            relatively small and uncertain benefits

 5                          to be realized.  Rather than this, we

 5                          encourage EPA to develop optimal and

 7                          more effective measures for the

 3                          reduction . of organics, and along with

 9                          this develop a sound basis for the

10  •                        evaluation of the harmful effects of

11                          organics in water.

12                      4•   The feasibility and timing of the

13                   '       treatment technique requirements.

14                               Our comments on item 3 under

15      '                    Section I above will apply here also.

16                      This goes back to your earlier question,

17   ma'am,

18                      5.   The soundness and reasonableness of the

19                          three criteria specified for determining
20                          design parameters.

21                               An evaluation of the EPA reports

22.                          on this subject indicates that a great

23                          deal more investigation needs to be

24                          done to establish the reasonableness of

25                          the three criteria.  If we were faced

26                          with a recognizable occurrence of

27                          harmful health effects attributable to

28                          organics in water the enforcement of
                       CLARK  /ป™*~~-"^  Certified Shorthand Reporters*

                                                                 1 2 3
 T_                          such criteria may be justified on an
 ""                                         •*•
 2                          interim basis.  However, there is no

 3                          evidence to indicate that we have

 4                          adverse health conditions due to

 5                          organics in water, and much evidence to

 5                          indicate that the situation is under

 7                          reasonable control.  We are open to

 3                          improvements, but the need for major

 9                          overhaul of our water treatment para-

10                          meters has not been demonstrated.

11                      6.  The validity of assumption that

12                          variances would be more readily

13                          justified for systems with raw water

14                          sources such'as the Great Lakes, deep

15                          .ground water and protected surface

16                          waters.

17                               There is -a significant degree of

18                          reasonableness and logic in the stated

19                          premise.  However, we believe that

20                          analysis of the water source is the

21                          final proof of the pudding.   On this
 ป                                   ซM
22                          basis,  analytical results should be

23                          used to a maximum extent to establish

24                          the quality of a water source.

25                      7.  The comment requested on this item has

26                          been covered in the discussion of

27                        .  other items.

28                      8.  The existence of alternative treatment
                       CLARK  /   ..  '^   Certified Sho'-thana

 1 I                         techniques to GAG.

 2                               The results of  EPA  studies  and

 3                          that of other investigators  indicates

 4                          that a measure of reduction  of both

 5      .                    TTHM and synthetic organics  can  be

 6                          accomplished through relatively

 7                          inexpensive variations to  the normal

 8                          water treatment systems.   As a matter

 9                          of judgment, we recommend  that

10                          variations in the existing treatment

11                          plants be accomplished to  provide a

12                          reduction particularly in  TTHM's.  We

13                          refer here specifically  to the filtering

14               •           of the water in order to reduce

15                    •      precursors of the TTHM's prior to the

16                          addition of chlorine.

17                  9- & 10.  Please note the comments under Section I

18                          time frames and cost estimates which

19                          we believe to be applicable  in this

20                          case also.

21                      In concluding our comments on  the proposed
 •>                                   M*

22   control of organic chemical contaminants in drinking water,

23   we reemphasize the interest and desire that we have for

24   producing high-quality water for domestic use.  The utilities

25   have done much already to improve and protect the quality of

26   their water, including such as the preparation and publication

27   by AWWA an Emergency Manual for Hazardous Materials Spills

28   which enco-urages and outlines preventive actions and corrective
                       CLARK  /•^^••^   Cartifisd Shorct-iand Reocrcer-a •

                       • f • Q • T * G
                                           'SLE. 3 = 3- 3CS3

     actions  for  toxic  chemical  spills  which could affect domestic

     water  quality.   From the  regulatory stanSpoint,  the Federal

     Acts including  the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974, the

 .   Resources  Conservation and  Recovery Act of 1976, the Hazardous

 e   Materials  Transportation  Act of 1974,  the Port and Waterways

     Safety Act of 1972,  the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,

     Rodenticide  Act of 1972,  the Toxic Substances Control Act of

     1976,  the  Atomic Energy Act of 1954, and the Federal Water

     Pollution  Control Act of  1972, have all acted to support the

     control of toxic chemicals  and prevent their introduction to

11   the general  environment.  All of these acts have worked to

12   give us an environment a  great deal more free from pollution

13   than we faced a few years back.

14                      We hope  that our comments have been helpful,

15   that they  will  be taken as  they have been given with a

15   constructive motivation,  and that  you will give them due •

17   consideration in your decisions relating to trihalomethanes

18   and synthetic organics in water.

19             HEARING OFFICER:   Thank'you very much, Mr. Adrian.

2Q   It's obvious that you put in a lot of time in preparing your

21   statement, and we will be considering it in great detail.

22  ' We would like to clarify  one poiniT which you indicated on a

23   question of public notification in the event that the water

24   supply or  variance from treatment  techniques does differ from

25   a variance from MCL; and, in fact, the Safe Drinking Water

26   Act does not require public notification if the supplier has

27   a variance from a treatment technique.

28             MR. ADRIAN:  Does it reply to the MCL — THM's?
                       CLARK /———^  Certified Shorthand Reoorj:ซra •

                                           Tฃ._S. 388-3233

 1             HEARING  OFFICER:   Public  notification is still

 2   required  if  a  variance  is  granted from the MCL requirement,

     but  not from the treatment technique.   They are very different

     variances, and the criteria for granting a variance is very

     different for  the  two requirements.

               MR.  ADRIAN:  What's,the basis for a variance?

               HEARING  OFFICER:  A variance from an MCL is granted

     in a situation where because of the characteristics of the

     raw water source,  which is reasonably available to the system,

     -the system cannot  meet the requirements; that is, they cannot

11   meet the  MCL level despite the application of the best

12   technology treatment, techniques, or other means which are

13   generally available.

14             MR.  ADRIAN:  I have  had  trouble understanding the

15   difference between an exemption and a variance; and one of

15   the things that really confuses me is that what I read a

17   variance  to  be is  that you either absolutely don't need it,

18   such as having a pristine water, or it's absolutely impossible

19 '  to meet the  MCL.

20             HEARING  OFFICER:  After you've applied the treatment

21   technique that is  generally available.

22,            MR.  ADRIAN:  And one of- the conditions of the

23   variance  is  that you have to provide a time schedule to

24   overcome  the problem, and if you absolutely can't meet it,

25   I don't know how  to provide a time schedule.  If you can help

26   me out later on,  please do so.

27             HEARING  OFFICER:  On the time schedule, I guess

28   new technology would be constantly evolving and that new
                       CLARK f~"~"7  Certified Shorthand Rsooreera •

                       *""" *" *—'•—J       TELE. 388-3233

    technology may be coming up in the future so that, in  fact,
    they do have language in the act to say"this compliance  would
    be achieved as expeditiously as practicable; so  as technology
    was available, then the system would have additional tools  to
    put into the treatment technology that became  available.
              MR. ADRIAN:  I think I understand.   What I don't
    understand, though, is that if technology doesn't yet  exist,
 8  how can you set  up and put into writing  a  firm time  schedule
    which  anticipates technology  that really doesn't exist at the
10  moment?
11            HEARING OFFICER:  In those  situations you  would have
12  a  compliance  schedule  that would be  —
13            MR. ADRIAN:  Would  you deal with the situation that
14  I  mentioned on  the delta water,  for  example,  where  the very
15  low  flows, which haven't occurred  for many years until this
16  last  year in  the delta, gave  very high,  relatively  high,-TTHM
17  but  only  for  a  matter  of about  three months.
18            HEARING  OFFICER:  The  act  does not speak  to
19  excursions  such as  those you  are'referring to, and I think
20  that where  there would be  that  kind  of  a violation,  there
21  would be  the  public  notification requirement applicable; and,
22   although,  technically  that would*"consist of a violation, it
23  would be  up to  the discrepancy  of the enforcement authority
24   as to whether or not to pursue  that any further, but the
25   public notification requirement would still apply.
26             MR. ADRIAN:   Any other questions?
27             DR. COTRUVO:  Yes.   Just one possibility on the
28   time schedule for variances.   It would be conceivable that
                                      Certified Shorthand Rซoor-cara •

                                           TELS. 388-3233

    timing for development of a new water source  can  be  quantified,
    and so in that case, not only the development of  new technology
    but the possibility of alternate water  sources could be  one
    of the stipulations that would enter  into  the timing of  a
                   One question  on  the  third item relative to
 the trihalomethanes which  related to  the  feasibility of timing.
 I  think your  recommendation  or the  recommendation of the
 California Water  Service Company was  that the implementation
'schedule  should run  for approximately seven years for
 trihalomethanes.   I  presume  that recommendation is based upon
 circumstances in  those cases where  essentially the ultimate
 technology would  have to  apply.   In other words, the most
 complex case  where perhaps granular carbon might be selected
 as the means  for  reducing the trihalomethanes, but it would
 consider  that to  be  a relatively exceptional situation.  What
 would you think would be  a more  realistic compliance schedule
 for a more  typical case where,  perhaps, we would only be
 considering — as you have suggested — modifications,
 relatively minor  modifications in existing systems  such as
 the improvement in filtration,  coagulation,  additional
 disinfectants and so forth?
           MR. ADRIAN:  Well, the alternative of that general
 nature that comes most strongly to my memory is that of
 chlorinating after the coagulation, flocculation, sedimentation
 and filtration.   Once the need was established — and I would
 think that type of adjustment in a treatment plant  — and
 this is  really a top-of-the-hat figure — so it needs to be
                                      Certified SHorchand Beoorcars ซ
                                           T5LE. 388-3233

caken a little bit with a grain of salt — but I would think

that the study period for that would be mซch shorter for one

thing.  The full physical adjustment within the plant, I should!

think, would not take more than six months.

          DR. COTRUVO:  So the only time you would suggest  a

schedule as long as seven years.would be in a case where very

extensive modifications would be involved?

          MR. ADRIAN:  Yes, where extensive modifications —

really, this particular time schedule that was given here was

referring to the — was based on the assumption that GAG

studies and GAG facilities would need to be decided and


          HEARING OFFICER:  What kind of inexpensive variations

to the water treatment facilities are available for the control

of synthetic organics other than the THM's?

          MR. ADRIAN:  I qualified my statement that I was

speaking primarily to the TTHM's.  I don't recall  any

particularly strong effects that have been presented by EPA

studies in  the  sense  that water treatment can  affect the  other

organics; however, one of the  reasons in the narrative part

of the Federal  Register article — the  use of  granular

activated carbon  — was to protect against those  emergency —

we'll call  them at least emergency conditions  —  and  illustrated

at least by an  event  such as  a toxic chemical  spill,  and  this

to me does  not  seem  to be a significant feature  to justify a

granular activated carbon operation, you might say,  year  in

and  year out because,  for one thing, it's  extremely rare

that a toxic chemical spill is not  recognized  when it  occurs.
                   CLAR K  ^"™**™"^   Certified Shorthand Reporters •
                                       ~SL-•388 •


    There are a few examples but very, very few where they  have

    not been recognized.  Where they have been recognized in  the

    AWWA manual for the handling of these situations, there are

    a number of alternatives that a utility can use  to  minimize

    the effect of that  spill.  In any event,  the  effects are

    not long term, and  the  lifetime of —

 7            HEARING OFFICER:  I don't  think that there's  any

 8  question that the toxic chemical  spills,  fortunately,  are rare;

 9  but that our regulations are  not  based  upon  an understanding

10  that  toxic chemical spills  can  be controlled by requiring

11  utilities to put  granular activated  carbon.   My question dealt

12  with  what variations  could  be done because your statement does

13  refer both to THM1s and synthetics;  and I was not aware of

14  any  other method  of control,  generally, of those existing

15  chemicals  in  the  water.

16            MR. ADRIAN:  Well,  both of these were mentioned, but

17   the  statement included specific or stronger reference  to

18   TTHM's; and  I would reemphasize that at this time,.however,

19   I think it1s  not unreasonable to assume that a certain amount

20   of reduction of other organics  can take place through  the

21   sedimentation,  flocculation process just as occurs with  the
22   TTHM precursors to a certain extent.  Let me point out,

23   though, that in that regard perhaps you have not given as




much weight as I feel is justified to the effect of the six

or seven Federal Acts  that  I referred to in the very latter

part of the statement, and those are all in the paper that

you have there.  If you have these kinds of chemicals or

toxic, let-'s say, synthetics or organics that are endemic to
                                      Certified Sl-ioretiana P

                                           "SLE 3SS-32S3


 a given water  source,  then  surely  with  the enforcement of

 any one or  all of  those  different  Federai Acts for the control

 of waste  discharges  either  as  accidental spills or as

 deliberate  ongoing activities,  you have the means of greatly

 reducing  those chemicals in the water through the enforcement

 of the Federally legislated acts that already exist, and those

 have  already been tremendously effective across the country.

           HEARING OFFICER:   We're well aware of the close

 association between our  authority under the Safe Drinking Water

 Act  and  the Federal Water Control Act, and I think that the

 Agency  is committed to going to both fronts to attack the

 water pollution that is  generated at the industrial sources

 and  also the  nonpoint sources; however, because we are not

 able to  completely eliminate those problems — and they're

 clearly  problems involved in implementing this program as

 well —  the fact that the Safe Drinking Water Act provides us

 with the authority to ensure that the actual water that's

 provided to consumers is healthful and of good water quality

 requires us to act in this regard.as well.

           MR.  ADRIAN:  Well, let me reemphasize that we also —

 and I'm speaking now as a water utility man and especially

 for the four agencies who have signed the paper that  I read

 a few minutes ago — they want to deliver a good quality

 water.   We do not want to deliver water which  is going to

 harm people,  but when I say that  I have  to place some degree

 of — or ask you to place a value on —  amounts of harm or

 amounts of benefit, I'd like to write  it  out  on the paper as

 it was read and —  I hope that this  came  across —  that we
                   CLARK ^""""17""^  Certified Shorthand Reporeara •

                                       TELE. 388-3233

are for good quality water, but there is a point of  diminishing

returns on improving the quality of water just  as there  is  in

any other activity, and we certainly want to reach that point

of diminishing returns; but we don't want to go beyond  it,

and that's the reason we have so repeatedly, through the

paper, presented this thought:  Please  use NAS.  There  resides
a preserve of high expertise of  the  subject  of  these effects

of these synthetic organics.  Have them  go through the

investigations  and researches and tell us what  really and

truly is a significant concentration of  synthetic organics

in terms of  effect on health.   If there  is a thousand-dollar

improvement  in  terms of health  effects  for the  water and

we can  get it for-a thousand dollars,  I  think you'll find no

utilities objecting.  What  we don't  want to  do  is spend

20 million dollars for a  thousand-dollar worth  of value; that's

why we  have  asked — I would state again —  for more

definitive data so that you and we can look  at  this data that

we hope can  be  provided by  NAS  but cannot be provided by them

'now by  their own statements.  So more money  for research, we

think,  would be far more  productive  in this  point in time than

the expenditure of great  amounts of  money for granular

activated  carbon, which would be a-n  exercise in construction

and design  and  planning and operation but may produce very

little  benefit.  I think  that's really the crux of our point.

           HEARING OFFICER:  We  understand that that's your


           MR.  ADRIAN:   Thank  you.

           HEARING OFFICER:   Thank you, very much.
                   CLARK  ^""**™"^  Certified Shorthand Reporcara •

                    Is  there anyone else in the audience  who
wishes to make a  statement before I close the hearing?   If

not, I would  like to  say thank you all for coming  and we will

be reviewing  all  of your comments and statements made today

in the next several months in preparation for coming out with

our  final ruling.  Thank you again.

                    (Whereupon, the meeting adjourned

          at  8:40 P.M.)
                   CLARK  '     ">  Cer-:f:ea Sticrf-iara (=a=o<-:e-s •

                        )   SS.

          I, Richard G, Llewellyn,  a  Certified Shorthand  Reporter

No. 3902 and a  Notary Public in and for the State of California,

do hereby certify:

          That  the  foregoing pages, 100-133, are a full,  true

and correct transcript of proceedings taken before me  at  the

time and place  therein named, and was taken down by me in

shorthand and thereafter reduced to typewriting under  my  direc-

tion .

          I further certify that I  am not interested in the
event of the action.

          WITNESS my hand and seal  this   4th  day of

•fay, 1978.
                                            OFFICIAL SEAL
                                          RICHARD G. LLEWELLYN
                                          NOTARY PU8UC • CALIFORNIA
                                            LCS ANGELES COUNTY   i>
                                           My conn, er.riros J"! 17. 1S81 \,
                                  Notary Public and  Certified
                                  Shorthand Reporter No.  3902
                                  for the State of California
                                    Cercifiod Sl-iorchand Reoor-er3 •