It has been over three years since Congress overwhelmingly passed the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. This Act is an excellent example of what can be achieved when we work together on a bipartisan basis.
When we were drafting the 1996 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Committee worked closely with the Administration, state and local governments, and stakeholders to ensure that all Americans receive clean and safe drinking water. Today's hearing is an important step in carrying out the goals of these Amendments.
With several new regulations proposed in the past year, including the radon and arsenic rules, cooperation between Congress, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and the drinking water community is necessary to protect public health while continuing to address the costs to our economy and small systems as a result of new drinking water standards.
I have been working on the issue of improving our drinking water supply for many years. I have worked on the radon issue since 1991 when EPA proposed a rule to limit radon in drinking water. I took an interest in this issue because of its importance to New Hampshire. At that time, it was estimated that cities and towns in New Hampshire would have to sepnd as much as $12 billion to comply with the EPA's proposed limit. Even more importantly, the proposed rule would have achieved very little environmental or health benefit since it would have reduced indoor air levels by only 2-5 percent -- the real source of risk. I was convinced that the very limited risk reduction did not justify the costs of the new rule.
However, the cost factor was not what caused me the greatest concern. I believed that EPA's proposed rule was not based on sound science. Even EPA's own Science Advisory Board criticized the proposed standard as very costly with minimum health benefits. I agreed with the Board's assessment that controlling radon from all sources was necessary. I also believe resources should be directed towards the greatest health risk, which is from airborne emissions, not drinking water.
In the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments, we greatly improved the process by requiring that sound, peer-reviewed science and cost-benefit analyses be used when the Environmental Protection Agency conducts risk assessments for all drinking water standards. I supported a provision that required the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct a full risk assessment of radon in an effort to produce a more scientifically-based standard for radon in drinking water.
The NAS report on radon, released in 1998, concluded that, "the increased level of indoor radon that is caused by using water in the home is generally small compared with the level of indoor radon that originated in the soil beneath the home." Radon is an air problem, not a water problem. The report also found that the risk from radon is higher among smokers because the combination of radon and smoking increases cancer risks.
Today, EPA is in the process of finalizing the proposed rule on radon. The radon rule sets a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for radon in drinking water at 300 picoCuries per Liter (pCi/L) and an Alternative Maximum Contaminant Level (AMCL) for radon at 4,000 pCi/L. While the NAS report supports the approach taken in the new proposed AMCL for radon, I continue to have serious concerns about the science underlying the specific radon standards, the costs associated with compliance with the new standards, and the burdens placed on small systems to find affordable treatment technologies. Small drinking water systems should not be responsible for addressing an air problem, when they deal with water.
I look forward to hearing from EPA today how it plans to address these issues, and any others that may be raised by stakeholders.
Another major proposed regulation that could have a substantial impact on small systems is the arsenic rule. At EPA's request, the National Research Council, a subset of NAS, reviewed data on the health effects of arsenic in drinking water and recommended revising the MCL for arsenic to a level below 50 parts per billion (ppb). I support lowering the standard. It is clearly warranted to protect public health. But I am concerned that EPA has gone too far.
EPA has recommended 5 ppb as the new MCL for arsenic, a level that the science on arsenic just does not justify. Other levels, such as 10 and 20 ppb, have been proposed by EPA for comment and can be supported by the available science. The 1996 Amendments to the SDWA require the best available, peer-reviewed data when selecting an MCL. I don't believe the data to support an MCL of 5 ppb is available right now.
Proponents of the 5 ppb standard argue that EPA should adopt a lower standard even if the science is not there. I believe the better, and legal, solution is to adopt a scientifically justifiable standard now and then review it in a few years. The SDWA provides for a six-year review of all drinking water standards. Arsenic would be an ideal candidate for this review. When stronger science is available that can substantiate the 5 ppb level, reduce the level then. As with the radon standard, I also have concerns that economically viable treatment technologies do not exist for small systems to meet such a low standard.
I have a number of questions for the Administration and the water companies and associations represented here today about the Safe Drinking Water Act and the proposed radon and arsenic rules. These issues are very important to me because of the high levels of radon and arsenic in drinking water in New Hampshire.
Another issue of concern to the citizens of my State is the issue of fluoride, and in some cases the addition of fluoride to the water supply. I am pleased that Dr. Hirzy was able to testify on this significant issue on behalf of the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 280 to express his concerns about fluoride and the fluoridation of public drinking water supplies. I have been contacted by a number of constituents in New Hampshire and across the country who have voiced concerns about negative health effects associated with fluoride in drinking water.
In 1986, EPA set the revised Maximum Contaminant Level and Maximum Contaminant Level Goal for fluoride in drinking water at 4 parts per million (ppm), taking into account the need for an adequate margin of safety. Many public water systems add fluoride -- usually at a level of 1 ppm -- to prevent the incidence of tooth decay. As I mentioned, I've heard from a number of people across the country who are concerned about this practice. I recognize that the Safe Drinking Water Act prohibits the EPA from requiring the addition of any substance, including fluoride, to drinking water for preventative health care purposes. However, since this Subcommittee has jurisdiction over the Safe Drinking Water Act, I believe we have an opportunity to ensure that EPA is on target with assessing the risks of fluoride in drinking water. I hope we can address the fluoride controversy and what the federal government's role may be in the debate during today's hearing.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses this morning. Thank you.