COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON LAW AND GOVERNMENT - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, May 23, 2000 10:12 a.m. - - - RESOLUTION NO. 000188 - A resolution calling for hearings by the Committee on Law and Government on the health effects of MTBE on Philadelphians. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Chair COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ, Vice Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 5/23/00 LAW AND GOVERNMENT - RES. 000188 I N D E X * Warren C. Fisher, Chemical Engineer. . . . . Consultant, Adjunct Faculty, Drexel Univ. 5 * Marcia Spink, Associate Director . . . . . . 15 6 Air Programs - USA EPA, Region III Office, Phil. 7 Barry Grossman, Founder, Oxybusters. . . . . . 40 Gloria Inverso, Cofounder. . . . . . . . . . . 56 South Philadelphia Environmental Action Coalition Water Dept. Witnesses Richard Roy, Acting Commissioner . . . . . . . 65 E. Peterkin, Supervisor, Organic Chemistry Lab 75 Alexa Obolensky, Regulatory Affairs Manager 77 * M. Fine, Director, Air Management Services 80 Philadelphia Department of Public Health * Dr. Peter Joseph, Professor. . . . . . . . . 98 School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania C. Oliveri, Criminal Justice Center Employee 112 Dr. Richard Billmers, Professor. . . . . . . . 129 Research Associate, Drexel University * Robert Wendelgass, Pennsylvania State. . . . 141 Director, Clean Water Action * Linda Maietti, Philadelphia Business Owner 149 * Saul Berger, Private Citizen . . . . . . . . 157 (* - Also provided attached written testimony.) Other Attached Written Testimony By: - Harold James/LeAnna Washington, State Reps. - Julie Becker, Women's Health & Environmental Network - Nancy Cava, Private Citizen 3 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 P R O C E E D I N G S
To members of the Law and Government Committee, the hearings are about to begin. I would very much -- this is Dave Cohen. I'd very much appreciate if the members of the committee would come down so we can get the hearings underway. - - -
The Committee on Law and Government is now in session for the purpose of holding a public hearing. I'm going to ask that the clerk of the committee, Tim Kearney, read the title and number of the resolution.
Resolution No. 000188 is a resolution calling for hearings by the Committee on Law and Government on the health effects of MTBE on Philadelphians.
Thank you. Over the last number of years, the movement to protect the environment has seemed to -- at least to me, has seemed to lose some of its drive. That may be just part of the turn of society and the direction away from government exercising its -- what I regard to as its 4 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 appropriate responsibilities to safeguard the health of people. We're hoping that governments will assume their proper responsibility in this area. And when a great deal of concern was expressed about the effect of MTBE, as Chairman of the Committee on Law and Government, I began informal investigation of the subject matter to see whether there was enough evidence to justify the concern that I had began to learn about with respect to the impact of the MTBE use in the City of Philadelphia. I reached a personal judgment that there was a basis for real concern and then introduced a resolution in City Council asking that this public hearing be held, and the members of City Council respected the recommendation I made with respect to the hearing, and that's why we're here. We're in a very busy time of City Council. The hearing on MTBE gets limited publicity because it's much more exciting and maybe interesting and you can gossip much more about the stadium and who's going to pay for it and it's just -- you can't talk about MTBE or 5 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 environmental matters in the same way. But I think gradually there is an understanding. I found among my colleagues in City Council a growing interest in this subject, and we're hoping that the evidence that's presented today, whatever it may be, will be finally fashioned into a report. And that report will be distributed to Councilmembers, and there will probably be a vote by City Council as to whether or not to accept the report. So all of us today are principal players in part of the fight to make Earth Day a real event to protect the environment, to heighten the consciousness of people, and, if possible, to take definitive action toward protecting people. In the City Council, our Health Committee has been very much concerned, for example, about the sudden enormous explosion of asthma and the impact it's had in Philadelphia, where the rate has been tripled particularly among senior citizens and among young children. And we're going to be particularly interested in what some of the witnesses have to say with respect to that or any other health ailments and of the relationship 6 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 between asthma and MTBE. Now, we're going to make all witnesses -- I'll make this a formal request before the hearings got underway -- Councilman Ortiz is to my left physically today. Councilman Blackwell has come into the chamber, she's a member of the committee. And Councilman Nutter, who was here, had to leave for a moment, but he'll be back shortly. And there will be others coming in. Thank you, Councilwoman Blackwell.
I'm going to first call on Warren Fisher, who, I understand, is a chemical engineer. And, Mr. Fisher, come forward and just be seated. (Witness comes forward.)
We don't swear in witnesses in City Council; it's extremely rarely when we do. We assume all witnesses have no 22 motivation other than to tell the truth about whatever they're going to be testifying about.
Mr. Fisher, we 7 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 welcome you. For the record, I will be asking each witness to state their name, if they have any connection with an organization, or if they're testifying on behalf of the organization or a unit of government to please state so; and if not, just to give their name. Mr. Fisher, would you state your name for the record, please.
Warren C. Fisher. I am speaking only on behalf myself and in an unauthorized manner for the people that were affected by the spill at Blue Bell.
All right. Let me interrupt you to announce that Councilman Frank Rizzo, a member of the committee, has just joined us.
Okay. My name is Warren Fisher. I've lived at 515 Pennlyn Pike, Blue Bell, for the past five years. I'm a chemical 8 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 engineer currently working as a consultant. I'm on the adjunct faculty of Drexel University, and I hold a professional engineer's license in New York. I want to thank you for the opportunity to discuss MTBE. I think our experience in Blue Bell with an underground gas spill may be relevant to potential City regulations of MTBE and gasoline. The Blue Bell gasoline spill. My testimony is only one page, so it's going to be brief. On May 8, 1998, two explosions occurred across the street from a gas station at the corner of Skippack Pike and Pennlyn Pike. A weakened underground line was repaired. On June 30, 1998, some six, seven weeks later, two houses were evacuated because of gasoline fumes and are still unoccupied. In early July 1998, my wife and I noticed our well water had a bad taste and notified the state DEP. They found a level of MTBE to be 780 parts per billion, some 39 times greater than the drinking water standard of 20 parts per billion. We are one half mile from the station. A spring closer to the station had MTBE levels of 39,000 parts per billion, almost 2,000 9 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 times the drinking standard. Benzene levels were as high as 560 parts per billion, over 100 times the EPA drinking standard of parts per billion. 5 The spill was reported to be 13,000 gallons over roughly a period of February to May, 1998. Remediation of the site is expected to go on for some years. A pilot unit has been installed downgrade from the station to remove MTBE and benzene before it reaches the Wissahickon River and eventually the Schuylkill. Fourteen wells were eventually closed over the summer and the homes connected to North Wales Water Authority. In addition, a well supplying the North Wales Authority had to be closed because of MTBE and benzene contamination. This means that the Authority has to take this volume of water by drawing it from the Delaware River, which may, in turn, have an impact on Philadelphia's water supply in dry spells. I remember some years ago at Torresdale plant that during dry spells, they have to be careful of the tide so that you don't get salt encroachment into the City water. I don't know if that's still a problem, but it could well be. Similarly, 10 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 aquifers contaminated with MTBE in the surrounding area may place additional burdens on the Delaware River. MTBE and benzene migration into water supplies. The basic problem with MTBE, as I'm sure you know by now, is that it's soluble in water and gasoline. It is added in concentrations of up to percent in gasoline as an octane 10 booster and supposedly reduces carbon monoxide and 11 ozone at ground level. What was overlooked when 12 EPA regulations went into effect in the '70s and 13 '80s was that as MTBE migrated into the rivers, 14 lakes, and aquifers, it would pull benzene and 15 gasoline with it. MTBE is a suspected carcinogen and benzene is a known human carcinogen and is highly regulated in the chemical industry. Thus, MTBE causes a double toxicity hit on water supplies, and there's wide agreement that it should be banned. As you know, a blue-ribbon panel on oxygenates in gasoline appointed by EPA has called for a substantial and rapid reduction of MTBE in reformulated gasoline. I can't speak with any certainty on 11 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 MTBE impact on air. I personally know a number of people who complain about fumes around gasolines, and that could well be caused by MTBE. Thank you for your attention and I will be glad to answer any questions that you may have.
Just a observation. If MTBE were not in gasoline and the same incident had occurred, what would have been the ramifications, the result of this incident, without MTBE?
That's a very good question. Certainly, the explosions would have occurred at the well across the street cause that was the gasoline fumes, and the houses that were evacuated would have had to be evacuated. This was a major, major spill from a gasoline underground storage tank. The impact on the water would have been much less because the gasoline and water, as you know, don't mix, and there would have been a much smaller migration of benzene or other toxic organics. 12 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 So the fume, the gasoline fume part, wouldn't change very much, but the water contamination would be substantially less.
You still would not have been able to drink the water, but what I think I'm hearing you say is that the collection of gasoline would have been a lot easier if it had not had MTBE in it than it would if it had. Or you would have been able to remove the gasoline from the water supply but not the MTBE because that would have mixed in with water, where gasoline won't.
Yeah. The gasoline stays in a separate layer, and its remediation has to be handled in a different fashion, and it is being handled in a different fashion. In other words, they did a pump-and-treat at the station and recovered about a third of the gasoline that way so far. The problem is that it's spreading out. The water has to be handled differently because as the rain goes through the gasoline, it goes down into the aquifer and then the soluble parts that are soluble in water stay in the aquifer and keep it toxic for almost 13 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 indefinitely. So the mutual solubility of MTBE, which pulls the gasoline, especially benzene, into the water, would not occur if it was the old-fashioned gasoline, just --
I've read as much of this information but, again, I'm not as versed as I would like to be on the issue. But, again, just in consumer language right now, I recall when oxygenated fuel was required during the winter months. Am I on the same page here?
That even at locations where they bragged that they had what referred to as "vapor recovery," I had to like do this (indicating) as I was filling my vehicle with fuel. At some point, I believe I read or I heard that oxygenated fuel requirement for this region was lax or not required. So could you comment on the requirement for the City of Philadelphia to dispense fuel with MTBE? Is it required only during certain months of the year? Could you just elaborate on why we would even need 14 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 this in this region?
There are going to be other witnesses that are going to be dealing with that specific point.
Yeah. I do understand that Philadelphia was considered one of the nine noncompliant areas, and I believe that MTBE was required for Philadelphia and in eight other areas, but I'm not conversant with that.
Well, since -- unfortunately, I have other commitments, but if you would pass that answer on to me when that person's available, I'd appreciate it.
'Cause, again, if we're not required to have MTBE in the fuel, why do we have it?
Okay. 15 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 (Witness comes forward.)
First you have to state your name. Mr. Fisher, why don't you stay here for a moment.
Councilman Cohen, thank you for this courtesy to allow me to learn this -- to gather this information.
My name is Marcia Spink. I'm the Associate Director for Air Programs with the United States Environmental Protection Agency, the Region III Office here in Philadelphia. Councilman Rizzo, it's a very good question. There used to be actually two different fuels that had to be required under the 1990 Clean Air Act here in the Philadelphia area. At one time, Philadelphia was not only non-attainment for ground-level ozone, or smog, which is a summertime problem, but Philadelphia was also designated non-attainment for carbon monoxide. When the area became attainment -- was brought into attainment 16 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 for carbon monoxide, we were able to drop the wintertime oxygenate program in the Philadelphia area, and it's no longer required. Now, what that meant that was -- that actually created the greatest ease to the fuel suppliers in the area because what was happening is that the refineries around here were having to put in oxygenated gasoline in the summertime, empty their tanks in the fall to put the wintertime fuel in, empty them again to put the summertime in, and they now sell the same fuel all year-round, and it's the summertime RFG fuel because the other fuel had been required for CO purposes, not for smog purposes. So what you read was correct, but there's year-round selling of oxygenated fuel in Philadelphia.
Who -- and, again, it maybe the responsibility of our Licenses and Inspections organization that goes out -- or Weights and Measures goes out to check to make sure that the octane level is correct and that we get a full pour for our $1.80 or whatever it is now, $1.60. 17 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 I don't personally think that the vapor recovery program works as well as it should. Should I as a consumer, pumping my own fuel, be able to detect the odor of the fuel being pumped into the tank? Because if that vapor recovery system is supposed to contain that, it doesn't in many locations. Could you explain to me the importance of vapor recovery. And if it's not properly, who can be the enforcement organization to get those stations to have those systems perform the way they're designed to?
The vapor recovery, which is the piece of equipment that's on the nozzle when you go to fill your gasoline tank, is -- you're correct, Councilman, it's referred to as Stage 2 vapor recovery. Now, Philadelphia has had a Stage 2 vapor recovery program longer than most cities because it actually started in the '80s here, not just the '90s, but we take the position that the combination of Stage 2 vapor recovery and reformulated gasoline is actually healthier for the citizens of Philadelphia because there is less 18 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 benzene than before, in gasoline. Reformulated gasoline contains less benzene than traditional gasoline does. But you are correct that the Stage 2 vapor recovery, when it's working properly and people don't top off their tank -- anyone who tops off their tank, by the way, defeats the purpose of that nozzle. But operated correctly, not topped off the tank, when it's working properly, it should protect you from many the of the vapors that you previously experienced because, you know, no actually gasoline tank is every empty. Even when there's no liquid in it, you have the vapor. What was happening before is as you pumped fuel, then the vapor came out. This double coaxial hose catches that vapor and it returns it back to the underground storage tank. It's the responsibility of both DEP and EPA to look at the performance of the Stage 2 vapor recovery systems here in the Philadelphia area.
Well, I don't want to 19 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 answer what exactly the frequency of inspections are, but we can look into that for you and get you the information.
Well, I think it's important because I buy fuel all over the region, and I can tell you this, that if those vapor recovery systems are supposed to protect the consumer from vapor, they're not doing it.
Thank you. Let the record show that in the earlier part of his questioning, Councilman Rizzo stretched out his arm to indicate that he moves away from the -- what do you move away from when you fill the car with gasoline? You said you usually hold out --
You mean you move your body -- I want the record to disclose --
You want me to demonstrate that again? 20 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2
When you're pumping the fuel, if the system's working correctly, Councilman, you should be able to stand there and not get the vapor that's being discharged from the filter. The vapor recovery system is supposed to, I think, in that second hose, bring it back to the storage tank. Well -- and here you go now -- if the system's not working correctly, you have to kind of pump the fuel and put your head back over here (indicating). Is that okay for the record?
Yeah, just to show that Councilman Rizzo moved his head far away from the pumping operation.
Thank you. Is there any other question of Mr. Fisher? (No further questions.)
Well, thank you, Mr. Fisher. And I'm going to suggest that while you are here, Miss Spink, why don't you finish 21 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 your statement. Mr. Fisher, you're free to go. I know you had an early obligation, and we appreciate your making it here.
Miss Spink, why don't we start at the federal level. You have a summary of the statement you want to make?
Yes. Again, my name is Marcia Spink, and I'm the Associate Director for the United States Environmental Protection Agency's Region III office here in Philadelphia. And I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, and members of the committee for the invitation to appear here today. I am pleased to have the opportunity to share information with the committee on the Administration's recommendations and plans to reduce or eliminate the use of methyl tertiary butyl ether, or MTBE, in order to protect the nation's drinking water, preserve clean air benefits, and promote greater production and use of safer renewable fuels like ethanol. And let me begin with a word of thanks from the Administration to the Council. The EPA 22 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 applauds your decision to hold an asthma hearing. Protecting human health and the environment is at the heart of the mission of EPA. And for over 30 years, we have been working to provide cleaner air for all citizens, and we've made progress in that regard. We've been doing it for 30 years; the Chair has been doing it for longer, and we appreciate your efforts as well. Today's hearing helps focus attention once again on the importance of clean air and its link with respiratory health. My testimony today will focus on the Clean Air Act's Reformulated Gasoline Program, which has provided significant air quality improvement, and the Administration's response to concerns associated with the use of oxygenated gasoline and the Agency's position with regards to the effect of MTBE on respiratory illnesses such as asthma. In addition, I will share with you some of the Agency's initiatives to address asthma. Members of the Council, I've actually submitted testimony for the record in a longer form, and at some times during my abbreviated testimony, I will just simply refer your attention 23 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 to that.
Background Information on MTBE: As you know, the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 put in place a number of programs to achieve cleaner motor vehicles and cleaner fuels. The Reformulated Gasoline Program is called "RFG," and it introduced cleaner gasoline in January 1995 primarily to help reduce ozone, or smog levels. And as a result, 75 million people are breathing cleaner air because of cleaner-burning gasoline. RFG is an effective way to reduce smog precursors, and the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 required that RFG contain a 2 percent minimum oxygen content by weight. Now, the first phase of the RFG Program, which was from in 1995 through 1999, required average reductions of smog-forming what we call "VOC," or volatile organic compounds emissions. Those are things that smell like solvent, that's what VOCs are. 5 percent. 24 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 This year, the second phase of the RFG Program will achieve even greater benefits: a 27 percent reduction in VOCs, a 22 percent reduction in air toxics, and a percent reduction in 6 nitrogen oxide emissions. 7 To put it in simple layman's terms, in terms of its air quality benefit, this Reformulated Gasoline Program is equivalent to taking million cars off the road in the United 11 States. That's the air quality benefit from 12 reformulated gasoline. 13 Now, that said, neither the Clean Air 14 Act nor EPA requires the use of specific 15 oxygenates. The statute and, subsequently, EPA's 16 regulations only specified the oxygen content by weight; they do not specify which oxygenate to use. Both ethanol and MTBE are used in the current RFG Program, with fuel providers choosing to use MTBE in about 87 percent of the reformulated gas, mainly because of cost and ease of transport. Unhealthy smog levels are still a significant concern in this country, with over 30 areas still not meeting the current one-hour ozone 25 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 health base standard. Now, this not only includes Philadelphia, but Bucks, Delaware, Chester, and Montgomery Counties. And although we had hoped that Lancaster County would have attained the standard, Lancaster County, in fact, in addition to the five-county Philadelphia non-attainment area, Lancaster is still not meeting the ozone standard as well. Ozone smog has been linked to a number of health effects concerns. Repeated exposure increases susceptibility to respiratory infection, causes lung inflammation, aggravates pre-existing respiratory diseases such as asthma, and respiratory symptoms such as chest pain and coughing in certain individuals. Other health effects that have been attributed to smog exposure includes significant decreases in lung function and impairment to autoimmune systems, particularly in those people whose immune systems are already compromised by pre-existing conditions. Despite the air quality gains from the use of oxygenates in reformulated gasoline, there is significant concern about contamination of drinking water by MTBE in many areas of this /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 country. The EPA is very concerned about the increasing detection of MTBE in drinking water. Current data on MTBE indicate that about 20 percent of the nation's ground and surface waters now show detections of low levels of MTBE. Our Administration's Response: In response to the growing concern associated with the use of oxygenates in gasoline, Administrator Carol Browner established an independent blue-ribbon panel of leading experts from public health and scientific communities, water utilities, environmental groups, industry, local, and state government to assess issues posed by the use of MTBE.
The panel recommendations included: Congress should act to remove the current Clean Air Act requirement for 2 percent oxygen by weight in RFG; Substantial reduction of the use of MTBE should occur nationwide, with no loss of the air quality benefits; Improvement of the nation's water protection programs, including over 20 specific actions, to enhance underground storage tank, safe drinking water, and private well protection 27 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 programs should also occur. In addition to supporting the need for Congress to act immediately on passing national legislation to address the MTBE issue, the EPA has initiated a regulatory action aimed at reducing or eliminating the use of MTBE in gasoline. Under Section 6 of the Toxic Substances Control Act -- some of you may know it better as "TSCA" -- an Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to ban or phase down MTBE from gasoline was signed last month. This action is the best regulatory mechanism available for eliminating or limiting the use of MTBE. TSCA gives the EPA authority to ban, phase out, limit, or control the manufacture of any chemical substance deemed to pose an unreasonable risk to the public or the environment. The procedures required by this statute can be complex and time-consuming. Therefore, legislative action is our first priority, and we want to work with Congress to address this issue. The EPA has also initiated a number of other actions in response to the blue-ribbon panel's recommendation. This includes developing 28 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 a secondary drinking water standard under the Safe Drinking Water Act, establishing a water quality standard under the Clean Water Act, and enhancing the underground storage tank program compliance to a 90 percent level in 2000. The Agency is currently funding a grant with the University of California (Davis) to evaluate the effectiveness of leak detection technologies, and the EPA is also conducting a $1 million technology demonstration project for the cleanup of MTBE- contaminated aquifers. The EPA continues to work with those cities and states that need help in cleaning existing problems. In addition, where possible, we will work to provide more flexibility to states and refiners as they move to decrease the use of MTBE in gasoline. The Growing Asthma Problem: We know that asthma -- that cases of asthma are dramatically increasing across the United States, and this is a serious issue. Increased incidence of asthma affects people of all ages; however, children are particularly affected. Nearly in 13 school-age children has asthma, and the 29 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Philadelphia Health Management Corporation tells us that in Philadelphia, nearly 38,000 children have this disease. The number of hospitalizations and emergency-room visits for asthma have increased, and the CDC reports that asthma deaths are on the rise in children. And although the increase is taking place in all racial and ethnic groups, minority populations are experiencing a disproportionately higher death rate. This picture is even startling in large, older urban cities such as Philadelphia. These facts we do not deny, and in recognition of the growing body of scientific information demonstrating the issue, President Clinton issued Executive Order 13045. The order created the Environmental Risk and Safety to Children Task Force. It's cochaired by Donna Shalala, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and our own Administrator, Carol Browner. The task force was charged with recommending strategies for protecting children's environmental health and safety. In February 1999, they released an action plan designed to 30 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 promote federal action to protect children with asthma from environmental risk that worsen this disease. Now, in my longer remarks, there are several examples of actions going on within the EPA to address asthma, and I really wish you would take a look at those.
And in here, in Region III, Philadelphia, we have chosen to aggressively tackle the asthma issue by partnering with the regional offices of the United States Department of Health and Human Services and collaborating our efforts in a commitment to support a regional stakeholder-driven strategy to reach the national goals. Many of you are well acquainted with the recent actions taken by EPA to reduce pollution that affects the increase in asthma attacks and other respiratory illnesses. The smog reductions in our actions such as the call for reductions in NOx from upwind states so that their emissions no longer impact downwind states. I think it's no secret to most of you that Pennsylvania is a recipient of nitrogen oxide emissions from the big power plants to the 31 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Midwest, and this has caused virtually the inability for Pennsylvania to solve its own problems. But we recently were successful in the court challenge, where the call for NOx reductions has been upheld. We've recently issued regulations for diesel vehicles, both long awaited and strongly supported by the public, and the Tier II Self Fuel Regulation, which lowers the sulfur content in gasoline and calls for tighter tail pipe standards in passenger vehicles, including sport utility vehicles, commencing with model year 2004. This will not only reduce smog-causing air pollutants but sulfur dioxide, particulates, and air toxics as well. In summary, the scientific and medical link between unhealthy ozone levels and increases in the full range of respiratory illnesses is well-documented. We know with great certainty that reducing smog levels is having a beneficial effect on the breathing of millions of Americans and on everyone who lives in the greater Philadelphia area. There is insufficient data at this 32 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 time, on the other hand, to substantiate or support the claim that the use of MTBE and its derivatives as gasoline additive causes or increases the frequency of asthma attacks or any other respiratory illnesses, particularly in children; nor does scientific data exist to support a causal relationship between the increase in asthma cases in cities where MTBE is used. The EPA not only recognizes the undisputed fact that we're facing a continuing and alarming rise in asthma cases in this country, but we're also addressing the problem with a variety of specific measures that have proven effectiveness. While the link between MTBE and asthma is theoretically weak at this point, the link between high levels of smog and aggravated symptoms of pre-existing respiratory diseases, including asthma, is well-documented. We know that RFG is an effective way to reduce smog and, thus, help those with asthma. Reducing or eliminating MTBE is in the public interest. All of us probably agree on that fact. We may agree for different reasons, but we agree with that. Let us move forward in our fight 33 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 against unhealthy smog levels. And while we cannot, and will not, sacrifice clean water for clean air, we can have both. That is why EPA has asked Congress to immediately pass legislation that will significantly reduce or eliminate the use of MTBE while preserving clean air benefits. Let's use today's hearing to renew our common commitment to provide clean air to all of the citizens of the Philadelphia area, especially our children and elderly. Thank you, and I'd be happy to take questions at the appropriate time.
Thank you for your testimony, very informative and interesting. I'd like to go back to something that you stated a bit ago about the fact that service stations -- and I'm not sure whether what you told me if it was good or bad, so I would like you to clarify it, maybe explain it again. It wasn't your fault, it was my fault. The fact that there are two different types of fuels -- one used in the winter, one used 34 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 in the summer. The one in the winter is different than the one used in the summer, and that service facilities have elected to use the winter fuel all --
No. I probably didn't explain it as well as I should have, Councilman. I'll give it another crack. Under the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments, Philadelphia, unfortunately, was not only designated to not be needing the health-based standards for ground-level ozone, or smog, which is a summertime problem, but Philadelphia was also designated at that time as being non-attainment. In other words, its air quality levels didn't meet the health-based standard for carbon monoxide. Now, under the Clean Air Act, under the Ozone Smog Program, we required this reformulated gasoline be used in the summertime in nine cities across the country, including Philadelphia. At the same time, Councilman Rizzo, at the beginning of the '90s, we were requiring another different oxygenated fuel for the wintertime in Philadelphia, but that was a carbon monoxide control measure. So when Philadelphia came into 35 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 attainment -- in other words, when its air quality met the health-based standards for carbon monoxide, the City and the State were able to show EPA that even without that wintertime program, that it's an oxygenated gasoline but it's different from the one in the summertime, they were able to show that even without that program, Philadelphia would stay in attainment for carbon monoxide. And that has been proven to be the case. So unlike several major urban areas in this country that have to put one kind of oxygenated fuel in place in the summertime, drain their fuel tanks, put a different kind of fuel in to go to the gas stations to distribute to the gas stations in the wintertime, Philadelphia uses oxygenated gasoline that's required for the summertime program, and that's the fuel they use year-round.
Well, doesn't it make sense -- obviously, oxygenated -- maybe it doesn't. Does oxygenated fuel cost the consumer more money?
You know, at one time, 36 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 initially it did, but cost figures from local refineries now particularly when they get to distribute the same fuel all year round, it's not particularly more expensive anymore. That's sort of -- that has -- first of all, we are talking literally pennies initially. And right now, although there are people that certainly in this city could give you better information, like Sun -- Sunoco now, let's get the names right -- Sunoco, who is a major distributor of the fuel, but it's my understanding that the cost differential between traditional gasoline and the reformulated gasoline, when you have a market as big as the Philadelphia non-attainment area, those costs have evened out.
So would it be to our region's advantage if we did it the way maybe we're supposed to be doing it -- using the fuel that has the additive in it, the oxygenated fuel, only when required. Wouldn't we only lessen our exposure if we didn't use it for five months when we don't have to, or six months, whatever the period? Why use something that is controversial when we really don't need to? 37 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2
Well, we can look into that, but as I said, because of the costs associated with, you know, draining the big tanks that you see like out by the airport and places like that, having to completely time them getting rid of the summertime fuel, then putting in the wintertime fuel does add some cost, Councilman Rizzo.
Well, I think we could -- I think we could be a little forgiving if they kind of gradually made a transition, if they mixed it a little bit until the point they got to the purer product.
But my point is, why would we want to expose ourselves to something that's questionable if we don't need to have it, just for the sake of ease in management of a product or it being cheaper, which I can't imagine it being cheaper, but maybe it works out in the handling part of it to become cheaper rather than actually the product itself. I can't imagine why we're doing that or allowing that to occur.
Well, I think there 38 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 will be other witnesses that will also address this issue and --
The only thing that I would suggest that we would need to look into -- and I don't know this to be the case, Councilman Rizzo, but because both the summertime fuel had an oxygen component to it and the wintertime fuel had a higher one, it may be that the reason they were able to get rid of the wintertime fuel and keep the City of Philadelphia in attainment for carbon monoxide may in some way be helped by -- although it's less, the oxygen in that summertime fuel, we'd have to look into that first. I don't know that to be the case.
Good. That would obviously change my thought if that was a part of the equation that balanced things out, but if that's not case, I think --
That's why Councilman Cohen asked me to be on his committee. 39 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Thanks.
All right, thank you. Thank you very much. One question: are you familiar with any research being undertaken locally?
I am -- as a private individual who likes to go on the Internet and is interested in work that's going on in the universities in the field in which I choose to make my living, I am aware of certain papers and abstracts that have been done at the University of Pennsylvania and Penn State; I am aware of those, but not in my official capacity as an Agency official.
Mm-hmm. Are you aware of any studies involving methyl nitrate?
I actually have read an abstract that's being done, and I believe it's Dr. Joseph's work.
And I would like to ask you and others who testified, if you are able 40 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 to remain as sort of maybe to help us with other questions that may arise at a later session of the hearing, we would welcome it. And don't feel that after you testify, you have to leave. We'd love to have you here so we might be able to call on you later.
Councilman Nutter was faithful to his word and he's returned. Incidently, there was a quorum of this committee represented by Councilman Ortiz, who was to my left, Councilwoman Blackwell, Councilman Rizzo, and Councilman Nutter, and myself, Councilman Cohen, as Chairman of the committee. Mr. Grossman, for the record, please identify yourself.
I'm Barry Grossman. I'm the founder of Oxybusters, which is a grass-roots organization represented now in 11 states around 41 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 the country. And I want to thank the City Council for giving us the opportunity to speak on behalf of thousands of people from around the country.
Isn't it amazing that during the first few years MTBE was unleashed upon the American public, people who suffered ill health effects had nowhere to turn but a grass-roots organization composed of ordinary citizens just like themselves. In New Jersey, for example, they could not turn to their elected officials because, with rare exceptions, they ignore this issue as if it did not exist. They could not turn to their State Department of Environmental Protection because the Department irresponsibly and incomprehensibly, in our judgment, supported MTBE, preaching its air-quality benefits at every opportunity. Never once did the DEP consider that thousands of people were getting ill. This agency, designed to protect the health of New Jersey citizens, ignored the mounds of evidence from around the country that MTBE was making people sick and down-played the severity of the 42 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 problem and the number of people affected by it. Seven years later, very little has changed in New Jersey. In that state alone, Oxybusters has documented nearly 1,000 cases of people who developed a host of health problems following the introduction of oxygenated fuel. It's important to note that the vast majority of these people never suffered from any type of chemical sensitivity prior to November 1992, when high levels of MTBE were introduced into the gasoline supply. Yet, the government agencies charged with protecting our health bragged about the clean air benefits of MTBE, when in reality, if it were truly cleaning the air, people would have begun to experience an improvement in their health, not a deterioration. " Well, I say if this is efficiency, I'd hate to see what inefficiency looks like. That statement by 43 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Carol Browner followed almost two years of assertions by Oxybusters that MTBE was poisoning our air. In addition, the State of Alaska had already banned MTBE after about 25,000 residents suffered ill health effects from breathing its dangerous combustion by-products. And, meanwhile, North Carolina banned MTBE after that state's epidemiology authorities determined that the additive produced zero reduction in carbon monoxide. In Wisconsin, so many people began getting sick from MTBE that the EPA held a public hearing there. Yet Carol Browner and her staff did nothing. Unfortunately the news media followed the EPA and Carol Browner like sheep and failed to exercise their government-given right to uncover this debacle. Respected scientists in detailed studies, including recent ones by the University of California and the National Research Council, have stated that the effects of MTBE on air quality are minimal at best, while the dangerous release of formaldehyde and nitrogen oxide negates any positives. 44 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Cases of asthma continue to rise, and it doesn't take Einstein to figure out that MTBE obviously cannot be cleaning the air. So why has this compelling information continued to be ignored by the media. It would seem that the quality of journalism in this country is going downhill as fast as our nation's water supply. Almost six years ago, Oxybusters stated publicly that MTBE had the potential to contaminate groundwater. It is appalling to us that it has taken this long for the EPA to begin to pay attention to our concerns. Indeed, it took a recent "60 Minutes" expose on the subject to cause a big enough outcry that the EPA had to stop and listen. If the EPA had listened to Oxybusters six years ago, we could have nipped this water-contamination problem in the bud. Yet the EPA is still dragging its feet, not taking any action to ban MTBE immediately. And now Rutgers University, two months ago, concluded, after a four-year study, that indeed, MTBE, simply breathing it is causing a host of health problems.
Thank goodness for today's hearings, 45 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 because it now appears that members of the government are beginning to listen to what Oxybusters has been saying for seven years. And while New Jersey may be lagging behind the rest of country in addressing this serious health issue, it is clear that the City of Philadelphia is taking steps in the right direction so that the problem will not spread like a cancer. Let's hope that after today's hearing, MTBE will be eliminated immediately. Not only will our water be safe to drink once again, but we'll all breathe a lot easier as well. Thank you.
Thank you very much, Mr. Grossman. Do you know anything about lawsuits that have been brought that have dealt with this subject?
Yes. There's a number of lawsuits from around the country that have been initiated in just about every state where MTBE has been introduced. See, you have to understand --
What's been the basis of those lawsuits, generally? 46 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2
The basis of those lawsuits is that once MTBE was found in people's drinking water -- and by the way, it almost is always found once people start smelling a kerosene-like odor in their tap water. And when it reaches well above the parts per billion that is acceptable, people began to develop a host of health problems, including breathing difficulties, horrible skin rashes, ongoing sinus problems. And like I said in my testimony, the vast majority of people who have experienced health problems either by drinking in drinking water or by breathing its combustion by-products never suffered any type of chemical sensitivity prior to November of 1992. And there are numerous lawsuits.
The first ones in North Carolina, a trailer community, which apparently had thousands of parts per billion, or if not, tens of thousands of parts per billion, in their drinking water, where the families, their children, even their animals suffered severe health problems, they won a lawsuit, something 47 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 about $10 million, in North Carolina. That was the first one, that's the one I know about, which has been successful. By the way, the representative from the EPA stated there's been no proof that any of these health problems have been associated with breathing the combustion by-products of MTBE. There are literally thousands of people who called into the Oxybusters hotlines to report their health problems. Many of these people, once they left an area that was designated with MTBE, almost immediately felt 100 percent relief. And that, in our view, is reason to believe that MTBE indeed is causing health problems. We'd also like to say that while the EPA, you know, brags about the fact that putting MTBE in gasoline is like taking 16 million cars off the road, we agree with that, but we think it's like putting like 60 million diesel tracks back onto the high.
We agree with the EPA that by putting MTBE in gasoline is like taking 16 48 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 million cars off the highways, but we feel it's like adding 60 million diesel trucks on the road.
This is it. Do you think it was any coincidence when, in November of 1992, that some 25,000 people in Alaska started to experience headaches, breathing difficulties, sinus infections, ongoing skin rashes? And that's according to Dr. John Minoa (ph.), their State epidemiologist, a very reputable scientist there. Now, at that exact time, in November of 1992, that's when people from Philadelphia, the Pennsylvania area, New Jersey, Connecticut, Raleigh, North Carolina,, it was the exact same time that this same host of health problems were experienced by thousands of people where MTBE had just been introduced. Yet the EPA doesn't want to acknowledge that. They don't want to admit that immediately following the introduction of high levels of MTBE, that unsuspecting thousands of people from around the country started to experience health problems. Their intention was for people to breathe easier. I'm saying that if were really cleaning the air, 49 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 then people would have experienced an improvement in their health, not a deterioration, and that is exactly what has happened. And to wait three years to phase out MTBE is criminal. Last week, in Bayville, New Jersey -- that's a shore town near Toms River -- an entire community just experienced MTBE water contamination at high levels. People are experiencing a host of health problems. It's been in the papers every day. Last month Camden County College, a student there smelled turpentine in the drinking water fountain found. They found that this well had 550 parts per billion of MTBE, which was feeding into 10,000 students. Two months ago, in Dallas, Texas, one of the largest cities in the country, one-third of their drinking water was shut down because of MTBE water contamination. This is just the tip of the iceberg. You want to wait three years? I'll be back to give you a much longer list of cities.
It was by a well coming from a lake. The lake was contaminated with extremely high levels of MTBE, which fed one-third of the residents in Dallas, Texas, which was 1.9 million people. That water supply has been shut down indefinitely, and they are spending millions of dollars bringing water in from other avenues. And I'm saying to you again, this is just the tip of the iceberg. It should have been enough when people started to experience health problems by breathing. And by the way, when we first learned about MTBE water contamination, it was in January of 1995. See, Oxybusters started in the summer of '93, following the first year of oxygenated gasoline, and what prompted the formation of Oxybusters is that people were getting sick from breathing the combustion by-product but less than two years later, in January of 1995, we learned 51 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 from the United States geological survey out of Denver, Colorado, that MTBE had the potential to contaminate groundwater. Now, this is not simply just by underground leaking tanks, but in Denver, the exhaust of the MTBE got up into the sky and landed on the Snow Peak Mountains and drifted down and found its way, coming into the lakes and the streams, boom into the water. Also, the EPA and some people from the oil companies stated, Well, let's just get these double fiber glass tanks. The MTBE is not the problem. Lets get these new great tanks and there'll be no problems. Well, in California, when they first started using these double underground fiberglass tanks, the MTBE had the potential even to bleed through those tanks and contaminate the water that way. So it's not just from underground leaking tanks; it's from any type of spilling, and it also gets into the environment and finds its way into the water. But the EPA should have acted in the best interests of the American public back in 1993, the year following the first season of 52 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 oxygenated fuel when people got sick. But, no, it took this water damage across the country for them to take notice seven years later, and now they want to wait another three years. It's criminal.
Well, the EPA will have an opportunity to counter or rebut or give whatever testimony they wish to.
Thank you Mr. Chairman. I think that you've answered my question.
But I'd like to ask a question so it can be specifically for our record here today. The major contributor to the contamination of undergroundwater supplies, wells, would you suggest that they are as a result of leaking underground storage tanks, the bigger percentage?
Probably yes. I mean, what we're finding is that usually in communities of up to 80 to 100 homes, there has usually been 53 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 an underground leaking tank at a nearby gas station. However, I am here today to tell you that they're leaking in many instances because of the MTBE, because this MTBE has the potential to bleed through the tanks.
So you're telling me that the manufacturers of underground storage tanks manufactured a tank that is not impervious, or whatever word you want to use to describe it, to contain a additive to a product that they're supposed to store?
That's correct. And I'm telling you what all the reports coming out of the California, which was the first state to start replacing the tanks, the MTBE was bleeding through the newest underground double fiberglass tanks, and that's what they're finding. The only way to stop the problem is to eliminate the MTBE.
The fact that -- well, I'll give you a perfect example of something that occurred in my life before I came to City Council, and maybe the standards or the way these underground tanks are designed, I learned that 54 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 there is a -- obviously, there's locations that fill these tanks, and along the perimeter of the underground tank, I'm talking about in an industrial application, a very large underground tank, there is things called monitoring ports that look like they are filled. And the technology, I believe, is to put a probe in this monitoring port to see if there's any fuel leakage from that tank. Well, what occurred, at o'clock at 11 night, a delivery truck loaded to the very top from one of our refineries, went to that location, and instead of putting the fuel in the tank, they filled the monitoring port, which, obviously, is not connected to any underground storage facility, and totally contaminated an entire three city- block area with hundreds, if not thousands, of gallons, because they completely off-loaded the truck into the monitoring port before the driver realized that they made a mistake and put the fuel in the wrong place. And I know for months that everybody but the French Foreign legion was there to try to recover -- even miles away, miles away, it got into the underground water, and they actually 55 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 collected the fuel in a creek three or four miles away from the location where the spill occurred. So, again, accidents happen, but in my opinion, that's one that could have been avoided. Good training, maybe a change in the engineering specifications of the site. But I know the chaos that occurred that night. When that fuel was off-loaded improperly, it actually cost hundreds of thousands of dollars and whatever the environmental ramification was after this incident occurred, who knows. They claim that the majority of the fuel was recovered, but I personally don't think so, but maybe the experts can claim that, but it's hard for me to believe that two miles away, they were able to recover everything that was mistakenly put into that monitoring port. That's just a story I wanted you to hear about my personal involvement in an incident. And if back then, it had this additive in it, it obviously got where it wasn't supposed to be. Thank you.
Mr. Grossman, we thank you very much. 56 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2
And we think your organization is doing a great job in sensitizing people to environmental concerns.
Thank you. And I applaud your efforts for following up on this very serious health problem.
Thank you. Very good. Gloria Inverso. (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Gloria Inverso. I'm cofounder of South Philadelphia Environmental Action Coalition. I also served as the co-chair of the Restoration Advisory Board of the Closure of the Defense Supply Center of Philadelphia, which is located at 28th and Oregon. At approximately the beginning of the early '90s, we were noticing a lot of people throughout our area that were experiencing very bad headaches, nose bleeds. Asthma was on the rise and sinus conditions. People in my neighborhood who are in their seventies and eighties at the time and never had occasion to 57 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 have asthma, they were starting to develop it at that point. Our group was recognized to share in seating on the Board, the Restoration Advisory Board of the Closure of the Defense Supply Center. The Defense Supply Center is approximately 28 acres, formally known as the Quartermaster, and it sits kind of adjacent to the Passyunk Homes Housing Project and the Sun Oil Refinery. We, about five years ago, started to question the Defense Supply Center about an oil plume which was free-flowing petroleum product that we had known existed under that facility, and we were being told, We'll take care of that at another time and another time and another time. Well, we got a little bit tired of hearing that and we refused to go on until that problem was identified. Initially we were told that it might only be 50,000 gallons of free-flowing petroleum product. It later has manifested itself into over 2 million gallons, which has migrated not only from that particular site but over to the adjacent 58 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Philadelphia Public Housing Project. They, per capita, have the lowest income in the City of Philadelphia, and their children were devastated with sinus problems, asthma. Older people were developing lung cancer who never smoked. Also, workers from the Defense Supply Center also asked us to please, on their behalf, try to look into seeing what was going on underground because they were being sickened by fumes that were running under certain buildings. Well, in conjunction with that, another neighborhood came on that is adjacent to this facility, and they said for many years, they were getting petroleum odors out of their sewer inlets, and it smelled in their basements. Well, asked the City finally to look into it, EPA, and what we discovered was, we had this 2-million-gallon plume that was under the Defense Center and Passyunk Homes. And there was another plume another discovered that was running in the Shunk Street area, which was going through Girard Estates. The City of Philadelphia could not send a crew in to investigate what the odors actually were because someone, in their infinite wisdom, 59 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 covered over three manhole covers, with seven feet of asphalt, so it would have made over a thousand feet of sewer inlets to send the sewer walker in, or crawler, as they call them, to look and see what he could see the source was, without having a source of escape. So we in insisted that they use sonar, unearth those manhole covers. They dropped them in and, lo and behold, the Shunk Street sewer plume, now that they call that one, was traced back to the tank farm at the Sun Oil Refinery at the Belmont Plaza, which tanks up gasoline. So we are impacted in our area where we live, in South Philadelphia, the lower -- we'll call it the southwestern corner -- with not only the source of the plume that's underground that has contaminated the groundwater in the area, they have put in biofiltration systems to try and exhaust the fumes. The fumes on site in the buildings, that the City of Philadelphia's Industrial Development Corporation will take over this summer, have put in exhaust fans and they're exhausting that outside to try and move it away.
That -- where that facility is located, 60 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 there is an aquifer that feeds under the Delaware River and goes over to New Jersey that feeds their wells, and one of the tributaries that goes off feeds into the Toms River section of New Jersey. So we have groundwater contamination which will take many, many years to -- I heard one of the previous gentleman say they had, like, 15,000 gallons. Well, we've got 2 million gallons at one end of South Philadelphia that's underground, not knowing what is in the area where the Shunk Street sewer is. And when put the man down in the sewer, he said, Get me out. It was leaching (sic) through the sewer, and it was coming from the tanks. The City of Philadelphia had the distinct responsibility -- back about 35 years ago, there was an explosion at 26th and Hartranft, where they were putting an intercepting sewer in. And they knew then that they had groundwater contamination gasoline from by-products from gasoline coming from the old Atlantic Refinery. What had happened was, where these men were killed, their survivors took lawsuits out. It went to the Third Circuit Court of 61 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Appeals, which upheld the decision that the City of Philadelphia was totally responsible because they should know, or had known, and had knowledge of the fact, that any area that's immediately adjacent to a refinery will have leakage of tanks and it will leak into the ground and eventually seek water. Groundwater was contaminated, there was a source spark, it ignited, and they were killed. From that point on until the federal government decided to close this installation down, there was no monitoring of that underground area by the City or by any other department. It has been a fight by the common people to get people to listen. And one of my Board members said, If we get up one morning and we don't have to fight, we'd think we died and went to heaven, because it's just -- you have to be on top of it day after day. And we were a part of the South and Southwest Philadelphia Johns Hopkins EPA-funded health characterization study, which took place. They found out and actually, you know, boasted (sic) our morale a little bit by say, you know, you did something good, that what we were 62 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 complaining about was actually indeed happening. And these are people who never had asthma. I didn't have it until the mid-'90s, and this is my constant companion on me here (pointing to asthma inhaler) and on my night stand at home. Children are being affected. I never, ever saw people in my neighborhood, elderly, walking around with oxygen tanks, wheeling them like they're taking their dog for a walk. Something's out there, and there's got to be some way that with a City as large as we have and the medical facilities and institutions and schools of higher learning that have to be funded to do a research. We don't have to prove to you anymore -- I mean, to the government agencies that this is affecting us; they have to prove to us that it's not. You know, we're always on the defensive. You know, this is what we have and this is the problem it may be causing, but nobody comes back and gives us solid information in telling us that this is not occurring. I appreciate, you know, your efforts, Councilman Cohen, and the Board to take a look at what's going on. But if any area could be studied 63 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 about the effects of MTBE on underground and groundwater and above ground for producing, you've got people who have been in the neighborhood for many, many years, and they'll readily be out there to help you to understand what effects they've had since MTBE was introduced. And we know that there was MTBE in this oil plume that was found. And I hope the agencies that are out will take us at our word that we'll help you, and we'd really appreciate it if they would because we'd like to have a little better quality of life and a little longer one.
You've been a very longtime for health in the neighborhoods, and we'll see if any of the representatives of different governmental units here have anything to say about the conditions you've talked about. I remember I was down at one of the meetings that you had in South Philadelphia on the question of the plume. And to date, there still have been no 24 answers and no acceptance of responsibility.
Well, we might be able to 64 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 help you out. Again, we fought like hell to get the DEP to finally hold a meeting. There will be -- and I'll give this to you. There will be a public meeting from the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. The topic is the cleanup of the petroleum that lies in the vicinity of the Defense Supply Center in Philadelphia. Passyunk Homes and Sunoco Incorporated in South Philadelphia, DEP staff, as well as representatives of other organizations will hold a status informational session and answer questions from the public. It will be Wednesday, May 31st, Year 2000, from 7 p.m. to 9 p.m., and it will be at the Fels South Philadelphia Community Center, 24307 South Broad Street. It's located on Broad Street, between Ritner and Porter. Please feel free to come. We'd appreciate any support that we can get from the City Council and as well as the other agencies to look into this.
Very good. Thank 65 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 you. What I'd like to suggest at this point is that the representatives from the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania -- are there any here from the Department of Environmental Protection from the State? I'm told that they were here to listen to the testimony, but not to speak. How about Mr. Richard Roy, the Acting Director of the Philadelphia Water Department. (Witness comes forward.)
You may bring with you any others that you would like to have at the table. Mr. Roy? Mr. Roy, you're going to begin?
All right. Identify yourself and please introduce the other people with you.
Okay. My name is Richard Roy. I am Acting Commissioner for the Philadelphia Water Department. With me today is: Mike Pickel, our Environmental Projects Manager; 66 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Alexa Obolensky, Regulatory Affairs Manager; and Earl Peterkin, Supervisor of our Organic Chemistry Laboratory. I am here representing the Philadelphia Water Department. One of our primary missions is supplying the safe drinking water to the City of Philadelphia. I appreciate this opportunity to comment on the Council resolution calling for a speedy ban to MTBE. We concur with the Councilman's concern over the issue of national contamination of water supplies by MTBE from gasoline mixtures and with this intention of ensuring that such contamination does not threaten the safety of Philadelphia's drinking water. We hope that this testimony provides useful context for understanding how MTBE might affect Philadelphia's drinking water and clarify what actions are being taken at a national level to address this important concern. Although human health effects data for MTBE remains inconclusive at this time, the USA EPA has set a non-enforceable health advisory level of 20 to 40 micrograms per liter in drinking water based on MTBE's status as a suspected human 67 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 carcinogen. This assumes ingestion of two liters of water per day over a lifetime and incorporates a large margin of safety as levels of MTBE required to cause cancer in laboratory animals are more than 10,000 times greater than the EPA advisory level. Furthermore, the animals in these experiments are not exposed through drinking water. Going beyond EPA's guidelines, the States of California and New Jersey have established enforceable concentration limits of MTBE in drinking water at 13 and 70 micrograms per liter, respectively, and have proceeded with the actions to ban MTBE use by requesting waivers through the Clean Air Act mandates. The States of Maine and Texas are also in the process of developing their own regulatory frameworks for MTBE. MTBE can be detected at very low levels by most people due to the smell and turpentine taste in water. Making drinking water tainted with even tiny amounts of MTBE is esthetically unacceptable to most people. The concern -- I'm sorry. The concentration thresholds for odor and 68 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 taste vary from 10 to 100 micrograms per liter. The State of California set a 5-micrograms-per- liter secondary taste and odor standard for MTBE. The problem with drinking water contamination water by MTBE is largely associated with groundwater impacts by leaking underground fuel storage tanks and by spilled fuel that migrates into groundwater. As I am sure you are aware, Philadelphia's drinking water is drawn exclusively from surface water. Due to MTBE's chemical characteristics, unacceptable concentrations in drinking water wells may take decade to recede through natural processes, and it is very difficult and expensive to remove MTBE from contaminated water. The current problem of surface-water MTBE contamination does not approach that for groundwater either in frequency or in severity. However, it may still be of significant concern in some circumstances. Accidental fuel spills running into surface-water waterways are one potential source of intermittent MTBE contamination. Because of the high concentration of 69 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 MTBE in reformulated fuels, 11 to 15 percent by volume, a spill of 10 gallons of gasoline into a waterway would require dilution by 4 million gallons of water to bring the concentrations down to EPA's drinking water advisory level. However, the primary source of MTBE in urban surface-water supplies are releases from gasoline-powered recreational water craft, especially two-cycle engines, an atmospheric deposition through precipitation of industrial and vehicular emissions.
An unusually high surface-water concentration of 88 micrograms per liter was observed in water from one California marina. The Philadelphia Water Department has been concerned about the possibility of source- water MTBE contamination for sometime, and began monitoring its occurrence in 1996. Sampling results indicate that MTBE is typically present in background levels ranging from non-detectable to 2 micrograms per liter at our three water-treatment plant intakes on the Schuylkill River and Delaware River. To date the highest observed concentration was 6 micrograms per liter, and that occurred this past May. 70 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 A recently published national MTBE occurrence survey found MTBE is in only one of nine Pennsylvania surface-water sites sampled between 1997 and 1998. The source of the MTBE was nearby leaking underground storage tanks that had contaminated a well field, which the creek traversed. US EPA Administrator Carol Browner recently announced a two-pronged approach to reduce and eliminate the use of MTBE as a fuel oxygenate. The EPA will ask congress to give the Agency Director the authority, under the Clean Air Act, to ban MTBE, providing the quickest solution. At the same time, the EPA will begin developing a rule under the Toxic Substance Control Act to achieve the same objective, though this pathway could take three or more years to implement. In addition to federal and state efforts to ban and phase out the use of MTBE in fuel mixtures, the nation faces enormous cost for cleanup of contaminated groundwater supplies and for the removal or repair of existing underground storage tanks testimony. In April, testimony to the House 71 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Veterans Administration, HUD, an independent agency of the Association's subcommittee, the American Water Works Association, of which the Philadelphia Water Department is an active member, recommended that $100 million be appropriated this year for priority cleanup of leaking underground storage tank sites contaminated by MTBE. Under the provisions of the Unregulated Contaminate Monitoring Rule, enacted last year, the EPA will require all large water systems, those serving over a population of 10,000, to monitor for MTBE for a one-year period during the -- I'm sorry, during 2001 to 2003. Together with health effects research data, the UCMR's current information will be used to determine whether an enforceable drinking-water standard should be set for MTBE. We believe the EPA is taking responsible action at this time towards amending uses of MTBE in fuel mixtures. However, remediation of existing groundwater MTBE contamination on a national scale is surely to be very costly and stretch out for decades. Through our research -- though our 72 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 research has not shown Philadelphia's drinking water to be greatly impacted by MTBE contamination, we intend to maintain an active MTBE monitoring program for our sources of water beyond what is required by the federal mandates. In summary, we do not feel that Philadelphia's drinking water is at risk from MTBE contamination at this time. Our active monitoring program has shown concentration levels to be near the reporting limits of the method, generally more than an order of magnitude below the federal health advisory level of to 40 micrograms per 14 liter. 15 Thank you for your concern and for 16 giving us the chance to share our thoughts with 17 you. We would be more than happy to provide you 18 with reference material or further information 19 upon your request. 20
Thank you, Commissioner Roy. Chairman David Cohen went out, left chambers for a few minutes and will be back shortly. I'm going to chair the meeting until then. 73 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 And, Councilman Rizzo, do you have some questions?
Commissioner, I guess you were in the room -- and I'm confident you were -- when Barry Grossman made a statement. Now you might not be the commissioner that needs to answer this question, but if you have knowledge, I'd appreciate you answering the question. It might be your counterpart, Commissioner McLaughlin, from Licenses and Inspections. But Mr. Grossman made a statement that the storage tanks that are presently being manufactured to contain and store gasoline may not be adequate because of the MTBE additive and that that would cause those underground facilities to leak. Obviously, if that were true, that would concern you, and I'd appreciate you asking Commissioner MacLaughlin if that is in fact an accurate statement, that this is occurring, because I know if it is accurate, that would certainly concern you.
We -- we do not have any information on what Mr. Grossman stated, that the 74 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 MTBE -- I believe his words were "leaching through the double-layered fiberglass tanks," and we have not heard of that of present, but --
And get any information. I would hope that that is not the case. Does MTBE -- does MTBE show up in waste oil?
I -- I would -- I would imagine that there may be trace amounts of it, but to my knowledge, it's not added to oil; it's added to the gasoline.
No? In other words,, if you analyzed waste oil, like you say, you might see a trace of it, but not necessarily -- what I'm getting at --
Mr. Peterkin can answer that question 'cause he's working in the oil 75 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 industry.
Yes. My name is Earl Peterkin. And I'll attempt to answer your question. If an engine is ineffective, you could possibly have blow-by, in which the fuel would contaminate the oil. And, subsequently, you would have the MTBE getting into the oil.
So then if an engine is defective or, like you claim, where the combustion process gets by the piston rings --
That's what they call "fuel dilution." You would also see the fuel itself being diluted into oil. So, yes, you could possibly have MTBE in crank case oil.
And, again, I'm not sure that you're the right people to even be expressing this to, but I feel confident that the 76 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 way we recover used oil from our service stations -- I always wondered what we're doing, and I know we recover a tremendous amount of fuel. When I was a young man, the way they used fuel, old oil, would be to put it on a race track or they would cover a dusty road with it and, my God, some of the things we did, it's hard to believe that they ever did things like that and that they were legal. But I believe anytime a service station is now abandoned to turn into a non-fuel -- just a service repair facility, is there a City requirement or is there a State requirement, federal requirement? 'Cause I've noticed that they remove the underground storage tanks. Is that part of a requirement that exists? And, again, I might not be addressing this to the wrong people, but I know you have an interest, I know you have an interest in what's under-grown because you don't want it to contaminate the water supply. Are you comfortable that the management of underground facilities, both active and inactive, are adequate within the City of 77 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Philadelphia?
Well, that's probably a question that's more appropriate for L&I, but all underground storage tanks are required to be registered, and they do have to be tested regularly. And probably, I think by this time, most of them have been replaced.
And anyone, if a service station closes, they are not allowed to just bury them over; they must physically be removed?
Okay. And, again, I think that you have knowledge, but I can't expect you to have that personal expertise. That is an L&I issue. But that point of them possibly leaching through, that concerns me if that is even close to accurate.
Sorry. It's spelled O-B-O-L-E-N-S-K-Y. In all the research I've done, extensive literature I've read on MTBE, I've never come across any indication of that phenomenon, so, I just --
But I think we should follow up and formally ask the question.
I think it might be interesting to know what the reference is for the information that the gentleman --
Well, earlier, in the gentleman's testimony, by the name of --
-- Barry Grossman, he indicated that the majority of the contamination of gasoline is through underground storage facilities.
But even tanks that 79 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 aren't leaking, apparently, the inclusion of the MTBE, apparently the tank itself doesn't have the capability of containing that additive, and it leaches through, or leaks through, even a perfectly good underground storage tank. In other words, it's just --
That's what the gentleman said. I think that's what I heard.
Yes. And we have his address, phone number, e-mail. So if you would like to contact him, I can get you all of that information.
Well, I want to finish up by telling you, I don't think I've ever gotten -- since I've been here now, five years, six years, almost, five and a half six years, that I've never gotten a complaint about the quality of our water, so that's --
I'll tell you, I travel around into the suburbs, and I have a joke with this, and I think I jested with you earlier, Commissioner, in the year about this. A lot of folks have moved from Philadelphia to Bucks County, and a friend of mine who lives in Bucks County, he tells me, Boy, the water's great. He's drinking Philadelphia water.
Thank you, Commissioner Roy and the other three folks, Earl and Alexa and Mike from the Water Department. The next witness that Committee Chairman Cohen would like to call is Morris Fine, Director of the Air Management Services, from the City Health Department. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning, Mr. Fine. Could you please state your name and spell your last name for the stenographer.
Morris Fine. Last name is 81 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 spelled F-I-N-E. Now, before I start my testimony, I just wanted to answer, or more fully answer, a question that Councilman Rizzo asked earlier in terms of the Stage 2 vapor recovery systems at Philadelphia's gasoline stations and who does the inspections of those facilities. And that would be Air Management Services. We do about 200 inspections annually at these facilities, and if there are any that have obvious problems, such as odors coming from them, that that should be referred to Air Management Services. The Department of Environmental Protection for the State does this work outside of Philadelphia, but inside of Philadelphia, it would be the Health Department through Air Management Services.
So just to digress, before you give your testimony, if we are at a facility and it is emitting and you can detect an odor of the additive or the actual fuel, that is a suggestion that the system is not performing properly?
That's correct. I mean, there's always some leakage, but for the most 82 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 part, it's a closed system, where the vapors that come out of the gasoline tank in your car go back to the underground storage tank when the liquid gasoline is being introduced into our automobile. So it's a closed system, and it's intended to prevent the vapors from escaping into the air, and eventually these vapors wind up at the bulk terminals where they are disposed of.
Maybe I should ask you this question off the record, outside this chamber, but I won't. Many governments are exempt of their own regulations, and that in itself troubles me. Would you make sure, or at least make an effort to inspect the fueling sites that the City of Philadelphia owns? Because I don't think that your people actually visit the various police districts to make sure that they conform and comply with the same standards that you're expecting the private industry to comply with. Again, you may not be required and you might -- you may be told not to inspect them, but I would appreciate you making an effort to include those in your inventory of locations, because I 83 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 think we should be doing it right internally. And I'm not going to point any fingers, but I have identified the aroma of oxygenated fuel at many of our City locations. Thank you, sir.
Yes. Just a point on that. Philadelphia facilities are regulated. There is a lower cutoff point so that there may be some small dispensers that fall below the regulatory requirement, but if it's a major dispenser, then they would naturally fall into the regulatory requirement.
So I didn't confuse you, and I'm not talking about the service stations in the community; I'm talking about the City of Philadelphia sites.
The police districts, the fueling stations, the incinerator sites, both with diesel and -- that have to dispense both diesel and -- I want to make sure --
You're welcome. My name is Morris Fine, and I'm the Director for the Air Management Services component of the Philadelphia Department of Public Health. Thank you very much for allowing me to comment the Council resolution calling for a speedy ban of MTBE. Air Management Services is the City's local air-pollution control agency, with programs conducted under the authority provided in the Philadelphia Code, the Pennsylvania Air Pollution Control Act, and the Federal Clean Air Act. Air Management Services is responsible for the prevention, abatement, and control of air pollution and air pollution nuisances, as required to achieve and maintain the national ambient air quality standards. Air Management Services is also responsible for the control of airborne asbestos from building renovations and demolition projects and for the abatement of community noise and vibration nuisances. I'm here today to support the actions being taken by the United States Environmental 85 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 Protection Agency to protect water quality by significantly reducing or eliminating the use of MTBE in gasoline. EPA's anticipated three-year timeframe to implement these actions takes into account the legislative and rule-making process, the requirements to find safe alternatives, and the lead time needed to assure an uninterrupted fuel supply. Because of the proven air-quality benefits from the use of MTBE, any reduction in its use must be done in a way that does not denigrate or degrade the air quality. And while there are some alternatives to the use of MTBE, the health effects associated with their usage must be better understood before they are put into widespread application. Thus, by rushing to ban MTBE, we could be in danger of making the air quality in Philadelphia worse. The need for emission reductions of volatile organic compounds is essential for non-attaining cities like Philadelphia to achieve the national air standards for ozone. A major contributor to these reductions is the use of reformulated gasoline. The Federal Clean Air Act 86 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 mandates the sale of reformulated gasoline in the ten largest metropolitan areas with the most severe summertime ozone levels. They include Baltimore, Chicago, Hartford, Houston, Los Angeles, Milwaukee, New York, Philadelphia, Sacramento, and San Diego. The Act specifies that reformulated gas must contain 2 percent oxygen by weight, and although a number of oxygenates could be used to meet this requirement, in practice, over 87 percent of reformulated gasoline contains MTBE as the primary oxygenate. The use of MTBE in gasoline results in cleaner air, with fewer toxic components and less potential for ground-level ozone formation than non-formulated gasoline. In Philadelphia, 17 percent of the total reduction are volatile 18 organic compounds from for mobile sources comes by 19 way of reformulated gasoline containing MTBE. 20 Human exposure to MTBE comes mostly 21 through both inhalation and ingestion. To date, 22 MTBE has been shown to produce cancer in 23 laboratory animals, but the data thus far is 24 insufficient to classify MTBE as a human 25 carcinogen. Data indicates that if MTBE were a 87 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 carcinogen, it would be much less potent than other gasoline constituents like benzene and 1,3-butadiene. On the non-cancer side, some people report short-term effects like headaches, dizziness, eye, nose and throat irritation, nausea, vomiting, and coughing. Population-based surveys and epidemiological surveys have suggested an association between MTBE exposure and the incidence of asthma. However, due to the variability of the responses of the exposed individuals, it is difficult to confirm the suggested evidence. More research is necessary to evaluate the potential effect. A recent California report reviews epidemiologic evidence of elevated asthma rates in children living near highways and heavily traveled streets.
This study proposes that the metabolites and atmospheric degradation products of fuel and MTBE might be linked to asthma. The predominant reason for the recent actions by the EPA to reduce and eliminate MTBE from gasoline stems from its contamination of groundwater. 5 percent of the water supplies tested contained MTBE in concentrations above 35 parts per billion, a level well into the range that would cause public health impacts. MTBE contaminates surface and groundwater from leaking storage tanks, accidental spills, atmospheric deposition, and storm runoff. Because of its persistence and mobility in water, MTBE is more likely to contaminate ground and surface water than other components of gasoline. As a result of the substantial scientific uncertainties, a review committee of the National Academy of Sciences has recommended that additional studies be conducted on MTBE before existing study information is used for risk-assessment purposes. A number of ongoing studies by the EPA, the Chemical Industry Institute of Technology, and other organizations should provide EPA and the public with information to assess health risks of MTBE exposure via different routes. On March 20th of this year, Carol Browner, the EPA Administrator, announced several steps being taken by the EPA to address the MTBE 89 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 problem. These steps would include legislation to eliminate the requirement for oxygenated gasoline and federal rulemaking to eliminate or limit the use of MTBE as a fuel additive. It is important, however, that the country's refineries have the opportunity to adjust the fuel mixture and, at the same time, have the EPA and other scientific bodies evaluate substitutes to MTBE, like ethanol, so that the benefits to air quality are preserved. A recent report by the Northeast States for Coordinated Air Use Management (NESCAUM) is the acronym) calls for a streamlined screening process which accounts for environmental fate, transport, and toxicity to be performed prior to the widespread introduction of new additives or significantly increasing the level of current gasoline additives. Absent such analysis, it will be difficult to confidently protect public health and environmental quality from future changes in the fuel supply. I would add that this should also include the toxic effects of both the additives and any secondary compounds formed in the combustion process. 90 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2 In summation, Air Management Services supports efforts to determine whether there is a connection between MTBE or any secondary compound, like methyl nitrate, alleged to be formed in the MTBE combustion process and asthma cases. We also believe that similar studies must be performed on potential substitutes to MTBE. In addition, we agree with the NESCAUM finding to improve the public health testing requirements for gasoline components and additives. We support EPA's initiative, and while we agree that the cost to the environment may call for its eventual ban, we caution against recommending an immediate ban on the use of MTBE until the safety of alternative oxygenates has been shown to be acceptable. Thank you very much for your comments, and I'll be happy to entertain any questions at this time.
Thank you. The very first question I have is, is Barry Grossman in the group? Do you want to repeat or change your statement about Philadelphia having a forward approach? 91 /00 LAW & GOV'T - BILL 2