[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the quorum call be rescinded.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.

                          ____________________