[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 58 (Thursday, May 12, 1994)]
[Senate]
[Page S]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[Congressional Record: May 12, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1994
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate
resume consideration of S. 2019, the bill to reauthorize the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
The clerk will report.
The legislative clerk read as follows:
A bill (S. 2019) to reauthorize and amend XIV of the Public
Health Service Act (commonly known as the ``Safe Drinking
Water Act''), and for other purposes.
The Senate resumed consideration of the bill.
Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. President, I understand that the managers are on
their way to the floor. Therefore, until they arrive, I suggest the
absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, on behalf of Senator Kerrey, the present
occupant of the chair, I ask unanimous consent that Theresa Manley, a
Presidential management intern assigned to Senator Kerrey, be afforded
floor privileges during the pending of S. 2019.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
PRIVILEGE OF THE FLOOR
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that John Reeder,
an assistant to the committee on this issue, be afforded the privilege
of the floor during the consideration of S. 2019.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Amendment No. 1698
(Purpose: To amend the bill)
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I send an amendment to the desk on behalf
of myself, Senator Chafee, and others, and ask for its immediate
consideration.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will report.
The assistant legislative clerk read as follows:
The Senator from Montana [Mr. Baucus], for himself, Mr.
Chafee, Mr. Hatfield, and Mr. Kerrey, proposes an amendment
numbered 1698.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that reading of
the amendment be dispensed with.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
(The text of the amendment is printed in today's Record under
``Amendments Submitted.'')
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the amendment I am offering on behalf of
myself and Senator Chafee is essentially a managers' amendment to the
Safe Drinking Water Act legislation. This is an amendment that includes
various provisions that Senator Chafee and I and many other Senators,
including the Senator from Nebraska, have worked out. We think it is a
big improvement to the bill. It addresses several concerns expressed by
State and local governments, by environmental organizations, and by
water companies. I will briefly explain some of the major changes it
makes in the committee-reported bill.
In the selection of new contaminants to be regulated, the amendment
makes two additions to the new process that is established in the bill.
It requires the EPA to consult with the Director of the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention, and it also requires the administrator
to use appropriate peer-reviewed science in setting drinking water
standards.
Third, the amendment clarifies that a new contaminant must meet the
criteria specified in the bill on occurrence and risk to public health
before it can be regulated.
To help customers better know whether their drinking water meets the
standards, the amendment requires community water systems to notify
their customers by mail, at least once a year, if they have violated a
standard.
It also requires noncommunity systems to notify their users if there
is a serious threat to health from drinking the water.
These changes stem from some GAO findings that have pointed out the
need for a better means of alerting people to problems with their
water. These changes are in addition to the bill's requirement for
immediate notice in the case of serious problems.
The amendment also allows customers of a water system to petition the
EPA Administrator to object to the granting of a small system variance.
This will allow for more effective participation by those persons
directly affected by a system's decision to seek a variance.
Along that same line, the amendment establishes a new system for the
certification of home water treatment devices. The certification, run
by independent parties, will help assure the material safety and
effectiveness of these devices.
A recent GAO report also highlighted certification as an important
safeguard for consumers against false or misleading claims about
product performance.
In addition, the amendment makes two changes to the operator
certification program in the bill. First, it requires that EPA
guidelines for State programs must be developed in consultation with
the States.
Second, if a State program lacks major elements of the guidance, EPA
may withhold a portion of the State's SRF grant according to a sliding
scale. Both these changes will encourage more States to assure that
trained and qualified individuals are running water systems.
Several States recommended changes to the revolving loan fund
authorization. The amendment delays the 20-percent State match for
fiscal years 1994 and 1995 until 1998. This will help States get their
programs moving quicker, while preserving the matching requirement.
The amendment also allows land acquisition to facilitate a
consolidation project. And it gives Governors the authority to transfer
up to 50 percent of the dollar amount in the drinking water SRF to the
clean water SRF, and to transfer a similar amount from the clean water
to the drinking water SRF.
Furthermore, the amendment specifies that two of the five members
from State and local agencies on EPA's Drinking Water Advisory Council
must represent small water systems.
Finally, the amendment modifies the provision in the bill authorizing
the Administrator to set alternative drinking water standards. Under
this amendment, the Administrator could set an alternative standard for
carcinogens if it would achieve substantial cost savings and would not
result in a significant increase in the individual lifetime risk of
cancer.
For noncarcinogens, a greatly more complicated area, the alternative
standard would be allowed if it achieved substantial cost savings and
would ensure a reasonable certainty of no harm. The National Academy of
Sciences would have to validate that the scientific information and
methodology exists before this authority could be used for
noncarcinogens.
These provisions will allow the Administrator to consider less costly
treatment requirements provided that public health protection is
maintained.
This amendment also requires that EPA publish information on risk
reduction benefits and costs prior to setting a standard. And it
requires EPA to conduct a continuing research program to identify
whether there are groups, such as infants, pregnant women, or the
elderly, that may be at greater risk of adverse effects from
contaminants in drinking water. The results of this research must be
reported to Congress every 3 years.
Mr. President, this amendment makes several needed changes. It will
result in a more effective drinking water program at the Federal,
State, and local levels.
It also represents a compromise, a good compromise, on many issues.
And like all compromises, I doubt that it is written exactly as any one
Senator might wish to write it.
But one thing it does not compromise is the protection of public
health. Neither Senators Chafee, Hatfield, or Kerrey of Nebraska, with
whom I worked very closely in developing this amendment, would allow
that to happen.
Mr. President, I will ask that the amendment at the appropriate time
be agreed to.
Now I would like to turn to my very good friend, the ranking member
of the committee, Senator Chafee.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Rhode Island is recognized.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, first of all, I am delighted to join with
Senator Baucus as a cosponsor of this amendment. He, as you of course
know, is the chairman of our full committee and really has taken the
leadership role in the whole clean water, safe drinking water bill that
we have before us today and especially this amendment that we are
considering now.
As Senator Baucus has said, this amendment includes a series of
changes to the bill that we have worked out, and we worked out these
changes with you, Mr. President, and Senator Hatfield. Those Senators,
you and others, as I understand it, will offer an additional amendment
that includes the remainder of our agreed upon changes.
The most difficult legislative issue addressed by these amendments is
the administrator's authority to set standards. We are going to be
entering into a colloquy on this issue with our colleagues that is to
be the exclusive legislative history on the standard-setting
provisions.
But there are several other important issues addressed in this
managers' amendment. One item that I have been particularly concerned
about is the flexibility which the bill gives to Governors to shift
from funding between this new State revolving fund for drinking water,
the so-called SRF, and the existing State revolving fund that is under
the Clean Water Act. In other words, we have now two State revolving
funds, one for safe drinking water and one for the Clean Water Act,
which is money used for the construction of waste treatment plants, and
so forth.
The bill reported by the committee allows a Governor to take 50
percent of the State's drinking water grant and place it in the State's
clean water State revolving fund. And it also allows a State to shift
50 percent of its clean water grant into the new drinking water SRF. In
other words, you can shift 50 percent back and forth between the two
funds. Note that is a percentage amount rather than a dollar amount.
I personally support the flexibility and the authority of States to
shift funds between the programs. In fact, I think I probably was the
first to recommend it to the chairman. But I did not support the
committee bill as reported on this particular point. There was too
great a disparity, in my judgment, between the two programs. In other
words, the drinking water fund was $700 million total, and the clean
water fund was $1.6 billion, more than twice as much.
So to let 50 percent of the $1.6 billion, $800 million, go over to
one fund and only $400 million coming back the other way did not seem
like a fair deal.
I do not think a shift of dollars out of the Clean Water Act's
pollution control program of that magnitude is justified, especially
when one considers the relative needs throughout the Nation for the two
areas. EPA estimates that the safe drinking water investment required
for the whole country is in the neighborhood of $8.6 billion, a little
over $8\1/2\ billion. On the other hand, the Clean Water Act, which
deals with cleaning up the waters of our Nation, is not $8.6 billion.
It is a $100 billion demand.
So, as you can see, the demands are far greater remaining to be taken
care of under the Clean Water Act.
As a result, I urged the chairman to limit the transfer from one fund
to the other to a dollar amount rather than a percentage amount, and I
am grateful to Chairman Baucus for agreeing to that change in the
legislation.
That is the way it is in the amendment we have here. Fifty percent of
the safe drinking water grant can be shifted to clean water, and vice
versa. Let me correct that if I might. Fifty percent of the State's
safe drinking water grant can be shifted to clean water or the States
have authority to shift an equal number of dollars from the clean water
into the drinking water SRF. In other words, the limit back and forth
is half of the smaller fund in each State.
Now, I would like to add one other comment to clarify a provision
relating to the identification of so-called qualified independent
laboratories to certify whether the residential drinking water
treatment devices are satisfactory. The intent of this section is to
identify and list a substantial number of these qualified certifiers,
not just one or two. And we believe that will benefit the consumers and
promote competition by making readily available a wide range of
certified products which can reduce the concentration of drinking water
contaminants.
So there it is, Mr. President. I think it is a good amendment, and I
am delighted to join with the chairman in cosponsoring it.
Mr. HATFIELD. Mr. President, this amendment authorizes the
Administrator to set maximum contaminant levels under the Safe Drinking
Water Act as levels less stringent than the law currently requires, if
the alternative level would not result in a significant increase in
risks and if it costs substantially less. But there are limits on the
amount of flexibility provided. In the case of cancer-causing
substances, the less stringent standard must not result in a
significant increase in individual lifetime cancer risk. I would ask
the Senator from Montana about the use of the term significant in this
context.
Mr. BAUCUS. EPA policy has been based on the premise that there is no
safe level of exposure to a cancer-causing substance. So the health
goal under the Safe Drinking Water Act has been set at zero, reflecting
treatment and analytical technology. The amendment permits some
increase in the cancer risk at the regulatory level, but not a
significant increase.
Mr. KERREY. Let us suppose that the current maximum contaminant level
set at the feasible level for a particular contaminant reflects a
lifetime cancer risk of 1 in 1,000,000 for a person drinking the water,
would the Administrator be authorized by this amendment to consider a
less stringent standard that would increase that person's lifetime
cancer risk to 1 to 100,000, if substantial costs would be saved?
Mr. BAUCUS. No, that would be a significant increase in risk and
would not be permitted by this amendment. Increases in cancer risk of a
lesser amount would be authorized. No matter what the feasible level
is, an increase in cancer risk of the same degree as an increase from 1
to a million to 1 in 100,000 would be significant and prohibited, but
lesser increases would be permissible under this amendment.
Mr. HATFIELD. Does the chairman intend the term ``significant
increase in risk'' as used in the amendments to carry a rigid,
mechanic, or statistical meaning?
Mr. BAUCUS. No. We intend significant to be used in the everyday
meaning of the term and not in the statistical sense. During the
development of these amendments, we heard very loudly two important
points: First, that one standard setting process will not work for all
contaminants; and two, There are circumstances where the Environmental
Protection Agency needs discretion when selecting a standard for a
particular drinking water contaminant. In order to address what we have
found to be legitimate concerns, the manager's amendment includes
additional authority for standard setting that provides EPA with some
discretion when establishing standards.
Mr. KERREY. Only some of the contaminants regulated under the Safe
Drinking Water Act are carcinogens. Is the Administrator permitted
flexibility to set less stringent standards where other health effects
are the basis for regulation?
Mr. BAUCUS. For most other health effects addressed the act, the
Administrator has been able to identify a threshold for the health
effect below which no adverse health effect is expected to occur form
the presence of the contaminant in drinking water. These thresholds
also reflect margins of safety and have been used as the health goal
under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
But the science underlying these decisions is not so precise as to
define the exact point that separates safe drinking water from unsafe
water. There is an area of uncertainly around any one of these
estimates. The Administrator may be able to pick some other less
stringent level that is also at a level where there is reasonable
certainly of no harm. For the contaminants that are regulated for a
health effect other than cancer, this amendment allows some flexibility
to recognize this situation.
Mr. CHAFEE. Would there be an increased risk to public health, if the
Administrator uses this authority to select a less stringent maximum
contaminant level?
Mr. BAUCUS. No. The amendment requires that a less stringent standard
ensure a reasonable certainty of no harm to human health. Unlike the
standards for cancer-causing substances, there is no risk of adverse
effects with the current standards that address health effects for
which a safety threshold can be identified.
Mr. KERREY. The health goals also reflect margins of safety for
variability in the human population, extrapolation from animal test
data to human health effects, and for the use of data that is not fully
reflective of lifetime exposures. These margins of safety reflect
recommendations made by the National Academy of Sciences. Does the
amendment reduce or eliminate any margin of safety consideration that
EPA now includes in the standard setting process?
Mr. BAUCUS. No, it does not. The Senator mentioned that many of the
procedures now used by EPA in selecting goals and standards under the
Safe Drinking Water Act have been recommended by the National Academy
of Sciences in its series of reports entitled ``Drinking Water and
Health.'' This amendment requires an additional report by NAS before
the Administrator uses the authority created by the amendment to set
standards at other than the feasible level for noncarcinogens. As with
previous reports, we would expect the National Academy of Sciences to
prescribe scientifically sound criteria for selecting contaminant
levels under this new authority. The amendment authorized $1 million to
fund the study, which should be completed within 3 years of enactment.
Mr. CHAFEE. One final question on cost considerations. In considering
the cost savings that may be realized from selecting less stringent
standards, what size systems is the Administrator to consider?
Mr. BAUCUS. The Administrator would consider costs for the systems of
the same types and sizes as are currently considered to set maximum
contaminant levels.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. If there is no further debate, the question
now is on agreeing to the amendment.
The amendment (No. 1698) was agreed to.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I move to reconsider the vote.
Mr. CHAFEE. I move to lay that motion on the table.
The motion to lay on the table was agreed to.
Privilege of the Floor
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that Martha
Bennett of Senator Hatfield's staff be granted floor privileges for the
duration of the debate on S. 2019.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Mr. CHAFEE. Mr. President, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
Order of Procedure
Mr. BAUCUS. Mr. President, the Senator from Virginia [Mr. Warner], is
about to seek recognition to speak on another matter, that is, on
Bosnia. When he finishes his statement, we will then return to the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
In the meantime, I urge Senators who have amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act to please bring them over. We are ready to accept
amendments.
I will just remind all of us that the more amendments we can dispose
of today, the more quickly we are going to dispose of this bill
altogether. I strongly urge Senators who have amendments to come over.
Now is a good time to bring up amendments to the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
Mr. President, in the absence of the Senator from Virginia seeking
recognition at this time, I suggest the absence of a quorum.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. The clerk will call the roll.
The legislative clerk proceeded to call the roll.
Mr. WARNER. Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the order for
the quorum call be rescinded.
The PRESIDING OFFICER. Without objection, it is so ordered.
____________________