LOS ANGELES COUNTY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
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
APPEARANCES:
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-£i
REPORTED BY EDT'JARD G. FISHSR, CSR
J'. 7 f. ^ 3
CLARK
STtN,OTV»t
• IPO«-(««
388-3283
-------
r
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
INDEX OF SPEAKERS
DONALD E. VANDERKAR
Representative of the Contra Costa
Water District
DR. TALBOT PAGE '
Visiting Research Associate
Environmental Quality Laboratory
California Institute of Technology
FRANK KOSTAS
Representative of the Southern California
Water Company
DUANE R. SUDWEEKS
Chief Engineer
Division of Colorado River Resources
Nevada State Department of Energy
ALEXANDER GRENDON
Representative of the Coalition of State
Drinking Water
DONALD G. LARKIN
Representative of the East Bay Municipal
Utility District
DAVID SPATH
Senior Sanitation Engineer
California Department of Health
WALTER HOYE
Executive Assistant to the
Chief Engineer of Water Works
Los Angeles Department of Water and
Power
HAROLD PEARSON
Water Quality Engineer
Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California
GEORGE W. ADRIAN
Representative of the California/Nevada
Section of the American Water Works ,
Association;
Engineer of Water Quality
California Water Service Company
PAGE
20
31
43
63
67
80
86
100
CLARK
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
-------
3
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
«M
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
-------
5
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 Repore«r» •
-------
6
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 ^——» Caf*ci'i»<3 Shorettana Raoomars •
^^^A^rn 1^ f IMMHiav
T=|_£. 388-3283
-------
required.
That concludes our comments. Are there any
questions?
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
r
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
solution.
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
-------
8
required, that would be an element to consider as to whether
2 or not to make the change in a short term.
sr
MR. VANDERKAR: So if we can demonstrate it's not
4 feasible —
5
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
THM.
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
using.
MR. VANDERKAR: Our research is at bench scale.
CLARK certified Shorthand Reporters •
T5LE. 388-3293
-------
9
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
-------
10
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
-------
2
5
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
*
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
11
chloroform which has been done in the past to a certain
extent.
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
CLARK
d Shorchand Reporters <
TELE. 388-3233
-------
12
of cancer patients who are attracted to New Orleans in
2 search of medical facilities); and when th» 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 P«oore«r* •
-------
13
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•
-------
•14
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
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CLARK r certified Shorthand Reporters •
•t«»«--ie «-""_ T > TSLS. 388- 3233
-------
15
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 j»—^_ Certified Shorthand Reporters •
-------
2
. 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?
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
»
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
.£. 388-3233
-------
17
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
-------
18
- \ that's really relevant to how much precautionary expenditures
2
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
-------
19
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
surprising.
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
-------
20
uhe air and so on.
HEARING OFFICER: Thank you very much.
Frank Kostas of Southern California Water
District.
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
-------
21
limit.
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
California.
CLARK ^"•*"™"*> Careifiad Shorthand Reporters •
-------
22
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 <
T£L£. 383-3233
-------
23
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
I
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.
9
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 •
•«•:•• »-, 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 -
synthetics?
MR. KOSTAS: I'd like to say for both. It's
|—i_APK ^"*"""*"^ Certified Shortt-iand neooreara •
TEL£. 383-32=3
-------
25
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 !
i
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
* «M
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
-------
27
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
*M
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 •
T£L£. 338-3293
-------
28
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 Shor«-iand Reoorters •
T = LS. 389-3233
-------
2
o
4
5
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
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
this?
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
-------
31
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
T£L£. 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
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
regulations.
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
£iApK •*___. Certified Shorthand
TSLS. 389-3293
-------
•34
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.
i
5 We believe there is an alternative approach
i
6 in which we would be pleased to'participate with EPA both \
I
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.
«M
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
"I
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
ta*
based on early promulgation of what we felt would be necessary
in order to meet the 100 micrograms per liter regulation you
required.
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
-------
37
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
i
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?
i
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
*M
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
-------
38
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.
«K
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
-------
39
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
-------
40
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
«M
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
-------
41
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
-------
42
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
level.
MR. SUDWEEKS: I don't totally understand why,.but
I understand that they've put a maximum level on chlorine
dioxide.
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 •
T£LS. 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.
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Certified Shorthand Reporters •
TSL = . 399-3233
-------
}" * •-•-•i TIT " n 7 •">
^/ , ; •.. j_ IX X -L / ^ . / v,
2
3
4 MR. GRE1TDOIJ: I'n Alexander Grendon, a resident
5 of Sacrap.snto. I an a consultant biophysicist at Donner
° Laboratory, University of California at Berkley. I am here
n
to represent the coalition for safe drinking v;atsr, and
Q
association of water companies, both investor-owned and
Q
niinicipally. owned, who are convinced that the proposed
regulation is not in public interest.
The basis of that contention is'that there has
12
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
18
on cost-benefit analyses of the health effects of
19
environmental carcinogens and the counter measures against
20
them. Hardin Jones v/as probably the first, more than 20 years
21
ago to quantify the long-delayed effects of insults to human
22" ~
health, particularly in the induction of cancer. Like all
23
other investigators, we were faced with the dilema that the
24
yield of tumors from the experimental application of the
25
carcinogenic agent, whether radiation or chemically
2fi
inhaled, ingested, or superficially applied could be measured
27
only at high dosage.of the agent.
28
Mankind's exposure, except in certain occupational
Certified ShorcHand P«poi~cer-s •
T£LE. 388-3293
-------
45
1
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
7
known data points to the straight line passing through the
8
origin, the point of zero dose and hence zero effect; then,
9
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
9
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
7
estimate human risk from ingested nitrosamines, which are
Q
0 known to produce cancer in animal experiments, we tabulated
Q
* 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
12
comparison pairs except one, the ratio of mortality in the
cancer declined.
later year to the earlier year was less than one; that is,
17
T_8
•
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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
27
clue. 'In every published study we examined, the latent period
28
varied inversely as a fractional power of the dose within
Certified Shorthand Reporters •
T£'_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. • :
I
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
3.
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
»:.;::.;: SIS "LE- 338-3233
-------
4?
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
1
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
1® could experience it. It is contrary to the public interest
TO
' to count each of these as one case'in the indictment of, say,
on
a chemical whose use may prevent diease among large
21
populations or may enhance food production or serve some other
22
valuable purpose. Jerome Cornfield has noted "That conservative
23
risk assessments distort the cost-benefit analysis since an
24
exaggerated estimate of risk cannot be balanced against a
25
sober analysis of benefit."
p £
In many cases, I have found that the prevailing
27
level of carcinogenic .contaminant which has aroused concern
28
is so low that the theoretically projected numbers of cases
CLAR K r Certified Shorthand Reporter* •
I -OH * • A MO
"•_£ 333-3233
-------
8
lo
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
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
24
25
26
27
28
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 - Carcifi«
-------
52
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
° for these predictions would have'in effect ruled out the
rj
1 prediction. I know they have not taken this into account.
Q
For example, Page 57, 61, 62, they indicate that the excess
Q
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
12
the face value, you'd have to asJ; whether a systen, serving
100,000 people — and you expect to have one death, would
14
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 •
17
prediction of whether these deaths might occur.
18
I could say more. I'll send a written statement
later on.
20
Do you have any questions?
21
DR. COTRUVO: You've listed a number of very
22 '
important issues, and issues which we are certainly familiar
23
with. We are aware of the concept of latency relative to
24
dose and so forth. We, of course, relied heavily on the
25
National 'Academy of Sciences and its interpretation of, let's
26
say, the state of the art or the scientific opinion on the
27
uses of various methodologies for evaluating human risks fron
28
exposures to substances, both the use of animal data,
CLARK /"""^H3 Cer-bfiad Sl-iortt-mnd Reporters «
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
r»
some of those factors having to do with population diversity
Q
and things along that line.
9
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
12
shortening and dose changes, and I think that's an
interesting concept — perhaps a useful one — but there are
14
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
17
the presumption that the animal model is a sufficient '
18
indicator of human risks. The animal may be more or less
19
sensitive than certain humans.
20
The question is, which humans are, in fact,
21
being represented by that animal and its susceptibility
22
because of that population diversity. The other problem,
23
the other factor that it doesn't take into account is the
24
fact that the analysis is, of course, performed in a vacuum,
25
analysis performed on one compound basis. So the exposure
26
to one nitrosamine or one other contaminant, as a variable
27
relative to controls, will arrive at some certain conclusion,
28
but the proolem in human populations is that they re not
CL.AR K ^*mm~"~\ Cartifiad Shorthand Haoorcara •
TSLE. 398-3223
-------
5T
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
4
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,
rj
since the original assessment was based on only one single
stress, a single chemical exposure. So all I'm saying,
Q
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
0 and that's the kind of information, kind of approach that
g
* the agency has generally taken in dealing with environmental
carcinogens.
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 <
T£LE. 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
i
But Evans data did have enough, and the variability is quite j
I
evident. When you generate the line, you define this j
i
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
sr
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
Q
cigarettes then we must remove those contaminants, we don't
Q
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.
12
DR. COTRUVO: The point is, that was an indication
that the biological variability, whether it's smoking or some
14
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'
17
talking about 3,000 lifetimes.
18 MR. GRENDON: 35 lifetimes, which might be
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 «M
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 •
T£LS. 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 •
.£. 333-3233
-------
60
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.
4
I hope you would introduce into the record those
specific publications you did mention.
6 MR. GRSNDON: I shall do so.
7
DR. COTRUVO: And they will be taken into
Q
consideration.
9
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
12
there's so much unknown; in an area where scientific knowledge
13
is only beginning to understand how the whole thing has
14
affected society, and while we appreciate your attempt to
15
quantify the risks involved with exposure to carcinogenic
16
agents, I think what Dr. Cotruvo is saying is that the agency
17
is down playing that quantification type of analysis, because
18
. ' we don't feel that it takes into account or can take into
19
account all the various other variables that are missing
20
which we feel have an impact on the risk assessment.
21
For that reason, we have relied upon the
22
principles set forth —
23
MR. GRENDON: But instead, the agencies have gone
24
to terms such as "maximum feasible protection," and there's
25
no limit to that. You can devote all your economic resources
26
to fighting a hazard that, in light of this information,
27
is indeed trivial, instead of devoting it to those things,
28
which as I said in that paper I wrote many years ago, any
Cereified ShorWiand Reoortara •
TS!_£. 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
I
of rsgulatory decision naking. !
i
MR. GRni^DOM: That's why I'm asking you to decide i
10
i
tiiat v;ay.
0
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
12
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
feasibility.
17
Certainly/ we're saying, essentially, in this
18
regulation that, number one, we've identified a risk here.
19
We feel there's sufficient information to indicate that it
20
is a real fisk based on animal data and epidemeological data.
21
We're saying, however, there is not sufficient information
22 '- -
to quantify it precisely. However", the law says that we must
23
move forward in those circumstances, and our next conslusion
rt *
is that, given the technologies that are considered to be
25
available here to help to alleviate that exposure, given those
26
technologies and their costs, and that as those costs are
27
applied to the total .population, those costs are relatively
28
snail, therefore variable and feasible, and they do buy an
Certified Shorcnand B«oorc»ra •
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 i«d 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
I
of public funds where reasonable data are produced. I
The variance application decisions should .
I
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
t
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
i
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 Cartifi«d Shorthand Reporters •
-------
ob
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 •
-------
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)
COUVITY OF LOS ANGELES )
SS.
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
Direction.
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
NOTARY ?U8UC - CALIFORNIA
LOS ANGEUS COUNTY ;
«*m. -Pirn OK- "' W' /
Notary Public and Certifi4<3
Shorthand Reporter No. 36
for the State of Calif-
ornia.
CLARK
S » 3«* • * MO
Corcif led ShortMand Reporters •
TSLS. 338-3ZS3
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
67
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 •
-------
68
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 •
•«•"*" u__ TELE 333-3223
—fc-&. -as •at.i.j
-------
69
measures of uncertain value may
prove costly not only in financial
terms, but also, and more impor-
o
* 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
-------
70
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
V*
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
-------
71
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 £"™""S5D Certified Shorthand Reporters •
•••'«'•••«
ELS. 338-32=3
° J«--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
Cl_ARK
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 ^——»^ Certified Shorthand
T = l_£ 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
States.
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
-------
75
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
b£ 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
control.
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.
r»i A p« ^——^ 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
water?
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
0
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
-------
77
and should certainly make efforts where feasible to reduce
trihalomethanes.
DR. COTRUVO: Well, how would, that judgment of
I
feasibility be made then? Who would determine whether it would.
I
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 •
TSL£ 3=3-3253
-------
78
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 •
T£LE. 23a-3233
-------
7
a
9
10
11
12
I
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[_£ 538-3293
-------
81
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
v*
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
-------
82
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
-------
S3
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 •
~£L£ 333-32S3
-------
0-j
T_ i organic chemical levels. The monitoring for organic
chemicals is very expensive, and that's why we feel it should
o
4
be financed by EPA at this stage.
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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
-------
S5
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 !
i
i
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_£. 333-3233
-------
86
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 ;
i
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
California.
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
-------
87
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
Project.
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
-------
88
personnel.
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 •
"'_£. 388-3283
-------
89
raising this level for specific variance cases should be
i
considered. This should apply where a protected water source j
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
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
i
5 July, and December indicated wide, seasonal variations. j
i
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
-£!_£ 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
i
3 the need to check on increases of general bacterial populations
i
4 in the water. i
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 •
T£L£ 323-3223
-------
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
92
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
-------
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
93
cost effectiveness is absolutely essential.
For the above reasons no detailed
preliminary engineering estimates have been made to present j
i
today on capital costs for adding GAC contactors to our five |
i
plants. In view of continuing escalation of construction ;
costs, we believe a "ballpark" estimate may be in the range !
l
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 = L£. 388-3233
-------
I — ' •— •
I 94
I organic contaminants for the other public water systems.
I
There are no clearcut guidelines in the preamble or the
!
regulations as to the criteria for a protected watershed. j
I
Without sufficient guidelines the State agency responsible for j
i
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 •
-£_S. 383-32S3
-------
95
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
promulgated.
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
EPA.
One final comment, Academy of Science's
assessment of our lack of adequate scientific information to
CLAR « /—•——»^ Certified Shorcnend Reporters •
TSLS. 339- 3Z33
-------
9S~|
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 |
I
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
i
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 •
T£LS. 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
i
carbon dioxide with the primary disinfectant or maybe using
o
. chlorine as the next move in water treatment. And if so,
4
_ this would not be the problem; but if you start talking about
0
lowering the levels, you're going to have a massive changeover
6
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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 !
i
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
-------
99
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
i
appreciably, you see we're increasing our cost five times as i
i
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.
CLARK
Careif led Shorthand Recorders •
T = L2. 383-22S3
--"
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
) SS.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )
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.
OFFICIAL SEAL
JANIS RUTTLE
NOTMT PUILIC —CALIFORNIA
NtlNCIPAL OFFICE '*
LOS AM6CLES COUMTT
My Cammluion Ltplrm March 2*. 19W
Notary Public and Certified
Shorthand Reporter No. 3851
for the State of California
CLARK
• «0" « • NO
Certified Sherd-land Reporters •
TELS. iSa-3223
-------
100
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, !
i
i
who will be making two separate statements, one representing j
i
the California/Nevada Section of AWWA, the other representing |
i
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,
California:
"Whereas, the California/Nevada
Section of the American Water Works
Association represents a majority of
the water utilities of this region,
and
"Whereas, water utilities are
dedicated to and required by law to
produce a safe drinking water supply,
and
"Whereas, water utilities must
also serve the public responsibly
in cost-effective administration of
Certified Snorrdana naporcera •
TE^S. 353.3-33
-------
101
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,
and
"Whereas, the water utility
industry utility is continuing
strong research efforts to effectively
Certified Shorthand Reoortera •
T5l_S. 388-32S3
-------
102
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
o
. 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
-------
104
•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 •
-------
105
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
-------
106
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
-------
107
regard attributed to our domestic water supplies as evidenced
by the statement of the NAS that "The hig£ 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 •
*«•=•• -« i_*<__> TELE. 388-3253
-------
I 103
i
i on tae basis of the cost that would be incurred in obtaining
them.
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
-------
103
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
T£'_E iea.3233
-------
110
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
sections.
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
-------
Ill
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 •
-5L£. 388-3223
-------
112
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. - |
i
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
-------
1.13
promulgation of the proposed standards,
and in sequential»periods, 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
9
to monitoring for THM's, or is it the monitoring that would
be required to support a variance request under the treatment
technique?
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
-------
114
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
I
i
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 •
7£!_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 •
-------
115
annual 0 and M costs based on EPA1s
figures. Another likelihood —
In our judgment.
o
, — is that the carbon loss per
4
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
o
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
-------
117
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 '' ' " -» Certified Shorthand Reporters •
T£l_£. 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
-------
119
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
use.
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
-------
120
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
Jw
not providing a safe water by notifying
0
its customers at least every three
4
months that it is operating under a
5
variance. Additionally, the proposed
o
criteria do not sufficiently provide
direction to a utility to determine
8
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 •
~EL£. 383-32S2
-------
122
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 /»™*~~-"^ 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
» «M
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 •
>-J«'-»»C
• 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
o
. 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:«ra •
T£._S. 388-3233
-------
126
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
-------
127
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 R«oor-cara •
TELS. 388-3233
-------
8
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
128
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
variance.
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 «
T5LE. 388-3233
-------
129
caken a little bit with a grain of salt — but I would think
that the study period for that would be m«ch 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
constructed.
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 •
-------
130
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
«M
22 TTHM precursors to a certain extent. Let me point out,
23 though, that in that regard perhaps you have not given as
24
25
26
27
28
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
-------
131
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
*
i
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
-------
132
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
position.
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 •
-------
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
) SS.
COUI.'TY OF LOS ANGELES )
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
CLARK
Cercifiod Sl-iorchand Reoor-er3 •
------- |