[Congressional Record Volume 140, Number 137 (Tuesday, September 27, 1994)]
[House]
[Page H]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]


[Congressional Record: September 27, 1994]
From the Congressional Record Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]

 
               SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1994

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 3392) to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act to assure the 
safety of public water systems, as amended.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 3392

         Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives 
     of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Safe Drinking Water Act 
     Amendments of 1994''.

     SEC. 2. REFERENCES; EFFECTIVE DATE; DISCLAIMER.

       (a) Reference to Safe Drinking Water Act.--Except as 
     otherwise expressly provided, whenever in this Act an 
     amendment or repeal is expressed in terms of an amendment to, 
     or repeal of, a section or other provision, the reference 
     shall be considered to be made to a section or other 
     provision of title XIV of the Public Health Service Act (the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act) (42 U.S.C. 300f and following).
       (b) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise specified in this 
     Act or in the amendments made by this Act, the amendments 
     made by this Act shall take effect on the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       (c) Disclaimer.--Nothing in this Act or in any amendments 
     made by this Act to title XIV of the Public Health Service 
     Act (the Safe Drinking Water Act) or any other law shall be 
     construed by the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency or the courts as affecting, modifying, 
     expanding, changing, or altering (1) the provisions of the 
     Federal Water Pollution Control Act, (2) the duties and 
     responsibilities of the Administrator under that Act, or (3) 
     the regulation or control of point or nonpoint sources of 
     pollution discharged into waters covered by that Act. The 
     Administrator shall identify in the agency's annual budget 
     all funding and full-time equivalents administering the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act separately from funding and staffing for 
     the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.

     SEC. 3. NATIONAL DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS.

       (a) New Contaminant Selection.--Section 1412(b)(3) is 
     amended to read as follows:
       ``(3) Regulation of Unregulated Contaminants.--
       ``(A) Proposed lists.--(i) Within 1 year after the 
     enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, 
     the Administrator, after consultation with the scientific 
     community, including the Science Advisory Board, shall select 
     and publish a proposed list of not fewer than 15 contaminants 
     which are known or anticipated to occur in public water 
     systems, which are not subject to any proposed or promulgated 
     national primary drinking water regulation, and which may 
     require regulation under this title.
       ``(ii) Within 5 years after the enactment of the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994 and every 4 years 
     thereafter, the Administrator, after consultation with the 
     scientific community, including the Science Advisory Board, 
     and after considering the occurrence data base established 
     under section 1445(g), shall (in addition to the contaminants 
     listed under clause (i)) select and publish a proposed list 
     of not fewer than 12 contaminants which are not subject to 
     any proposed or promulgated national primary drinking water 
     regulation, which are known or anticipated to occur in public 
     water systems, and which may require regulation under this 
     title.
       ``(iii) If, after the year 2010, the Administrator 
     determines that the number of unregulated contaminants 
     meeting the criteria for the list under clause (ii) is fewer 
     than 12, the Administrator may, by rule, waive the 
     requirement to select at least 12 contaminants every 4 years 
     under that clause. At any time after such rule is 
     promulgated, the Administrator may, after consultation with 
     the scientific community, including the Science Advisory 
     Board and after considering the occurrence data base 
     established under section 1445(g), select a proposed list of 
     1 or more contaminants (in addition to the contaminants 
     listed under clause (i) or (ii)) which are known or 
     anticipated to occur in public water systems, which are not 
     subject to any proposed or promulgated national primary 
     drinking water regulation, and which may require regulation 
     under this title.
       ``(iv) In selecting unregulated contaminants for the 
     proposed lists referred to in this paragraph, the 
     Administrator shall select contaminants that present the 
     greatest public health concern. The Administrator, in making 
     such selection, shall take into consideration, among other 
     factors of public health concern, the effect of such 
     contaminants upon subgroups that comprise a meaningful 
     portion of the general population (such as pregnant woman and 
     children) that are identifiable as being at greater health 
     risk than the general population, based on adequate 
     scientific information. The unregulated contaminants 
     considered for such proposed lists shall include, but not be 
     limited to, substances referred to in section 101(14) of the 
     Comprehensive Environmental Response Compensation and 
     Liability Act of 1980, and substances registered as 
     pesticides under the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and 
     Rodenticide Act.
       ``(v) The Administrator's decision whether or not to select 
     an unregulated contaminant for a proposed list pursuant to 
     this paragraph shall not be subject to judicial review.
       ``(B) Final list.--Each proposed list established in 
     subparagraph (A) shall be subject to public comment for a 
     period of at least 60 days. Within 6 months after the close 
     of the public comment period, and not later than 1 year after 
     the proposed list is published, the Administrator shall 
     publish in the Federal Register the final list of 
     contaminants meeting the requirements of subparagraph (A), 
     together with responses to significant comments. Each final 
     list shall include at least the minimum number of 
     contaminants specified in subparagraph (A).
       ``(C) Determination to regulate.--At any time after the 
     final list of contaminants established under subparagraph (B) 
     is published, but not later than 30 months thereafter, the 
     Administrator shall determine, by rule, whether or not to 
     regulate each of the contaminants on such final list. The 
     Administrator, after notice in the Federal Register, may 
     extend the period for making such determination for any or 
     all of the contaminants on the list for up to 9 months. The 
     Administrator shall allow at least 90 days for public comment 
     prior to making a determination under this subparagraph. A 
     determination to regulate a contaminant shall be based on the 
     following three findings:
       ``(i) A finding that the contaminant is known to occur in 
     public water systems.
       ``(ii) A finding that, based on the best available public 
     health information, the contaminant occurs in concentrations 
     which have or may have any adverse effect on the health of 
     persons.
       ``(iii) A finding that regulation of such contaminant 
     presents a meaningful opportunity for public health risk 
     reduction for persons served by public water systems.

     The Administrator may regulate a contaminant that does not 
     appear on a list published under subparagraph (A) or (B) if 
     the determination to regulate is pursuant to this 
     subparagraph.
       ``(D) Regulation.--For each contaminant under subparagraph 
     (C) that the Administrator determines shall be regulated, the 
     Administrator shall promulgate, by rule, maximum contaminant 
     level goals and national primary drinking water regulations 
     as provided in paragraphs (4) and (5) of this subsection. The 
     Administrator shall propose the maximum contaminant level 
     goal and national primary drinking water regulation not later 
     than 18 months after the determination to regulate under 
     subparagraph (C), and may publish such proposed regulation 
     concurrent with the determination to regulate. The 
     Administrator shall allow at least 90 days for public comment 
     on any such proposed goal and proposed regulation. The 
     Administrator shall promulgate a maximum contaminant level 
     goal and national primary drinking water regulation within 18 
     months after the proposal thereof. The Administrator, by 
     notice in the Federal Register, may extend the deadline for 
     such promulgation for up to 9 months.
       ``(E) Health advisories.--The Administrator may publish 
     health advisories (which are not regulations) or take other 
     appropriate actions for contaminants not subject to any 
     national primary drinking water regulation.
       ``(F) Study of health effects.--As part of the 
     Administrator's study, under existing authorities of the 
     Administrator, of the health effects of contaminants for 
     regulatory purposes, the Administrator shall examine, among 
     other health related issues, methods for identifying 
     subpopulations that may be impacted by contaminants and the 
     extent and nature of such impacts, taking into consideration 
     other risks to such subpopulations. There are authorized to 
     be appropriated such sums as may be necessary for the 
     Administrator to examine the health effects of drinking water 
     contaminants for such regulatory purposes.
       ``(G) Cryptosporidium.--(i) Not later than December 31, 
     1996, the Administrator shall publish a maximum contaminant 
     level goal and promulgate an interim national primary 
     drinking water regulation for cryptosporidium for public 
     water systems serving 10,000 persons of more. Such regulation 
     shall take effect not later than 24 months after the date of 
     promulgation.
       ``(ii) Not later than December 31, 1998, the Administrator 
     shall promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation 
     for cryptosporidium. Such regulation shall take effect, for 
     public water systems of all sizes, not later than 24 months 
     after the date of promulgation.

     Each date for publication and promulgation specified in 
     clause (i) and (ii) may be delayed by up to 6 months if the 
     Administrator determines that such additional time is 
     necessary to review information under the Administrator's 
     information collection rule.''.
       (b) Limited Alternative to Filtration Requirements.--
     Section 1412(b)(7)(C) is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(v) As an additional alternative to the regulations 
     promulgated pursuant to clauses (i) and (iii), including the 
     criteria for avoiding filtration contained in 40 CFR 141.71, 
     a State exercising primary enforcement responsibility for 
     public water systems may establish, on a case-by-case basis 
     and after notice and an opportunity of at least 90 days for 
     public comment, alternatives to filtration requirements in 
     effect on such date of enactment, in the case of systems 
     having uninhabited, undeveloped watersheds in consolidated 
     ownership, and having control over access to, and activities 
     in, those watersheds if (taking into consideration the 
     effects of wildlife in such watersheds) the State determines 
     (and the Administrator concurs) that the public health will 
     be fully protected by such alternatives consistent with the 
     requirements of this title. The authority of a State to 
     establish alternatives under this clause shall expire 3 years 
     after the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments 
     of 1994.''.
       (c) Compliance Dates.--Section 1412(b) is amended by 
     striking the first sentence in paragraph (10) and by adding 
     the following at the end thereof:
       ``(12) Within 24 months after the promulgation of a 
     national primary drinking water regulation under this 
     subsection, each State exercising primary enforcement 
     responsibility for public water systems shall adopt 
     corresponding State regulations under section 1413(a)(1). The 
     Administrator shall specify the date upon which public water 
     systems must comply with each national primary drinking water 
     regulation promulgated under this subsection. Such compliance 
     date may not be more than 36 months after the date of 
     promulgation, except that if the Administrator determines 
     that additional time is necessary for capital improvements 
     required to meet the national primary drinking water 
     regulations, the Administrator may establish a later 
     compliance date. Such later date shall not be later than 48 
     months after the date of promulgation (or 60 months in the 
     case of systems serving fewer than 3,300 persons). Each State 
     with primary enforcement responsibility may determine a 
     public water system's eligibility for any extension beyond 36 
     months. Nothing in this paragraph shall limit the discretion 
     of the Administrator to differentiate among the compliance 
     dates on the basis of system size or other factors considered 
     appropriate by the Administrator, or to establish interim 
     compliance milestones.''.

     SEC. 4. STANDARD SETTING.

       Section 1412 is amended as follows:
       (1) The second sentence of subsection (b)(4) is amended by 
     inserting before the period the following: ``or a treatment 
     technique established pursuant to paragraph (7)(A) of this 
     subsection''.
       (2) Subsection (b)(5) is amended as follows:
       (A) In the first sentence, strike ``feasible'' after 
     ``means'' and insert ``achievable''; and after ``technology'' 
     strike ``, treatment techniques and'' and insert ``or''.
       (B) Insert ``(A)'' after ``(5)'' and add the following at 
     the end thereof:
       ``(B) For purposes of taking costs into consideration 
     pursuant to the first sentence of subparagraph (A) of this 
     paragraph, in the case of any national primary drinking water 
     regulation proposed and promulgated after enactment of the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994 (other than a 
     national primary drinking water regulation covered by 
     subparagraph (C) or (D)), the Administrator shall consider 
     (in the case of nonthreshold contaminants) and may consider 
     (in the case of threshold contaminants) both the incremental 
     compliance costs likely to be incurred and the incremental 
     public health risk reduction benefits afforded by alternative 
     levels. The terms `costs' and `benefits', as used in this 
     subparagraph--
       ``(i) shall include additional and identifiable reductions, 
     if any, of regulated contaminants not covered by such 
     proposed or promulgated regulation that are expected to be 
     achieved solely from the use of the applicable technology or 
     technologies that form the basis for such regulation, and
       ``(ii) shall include consideration of the effects of such 
     contaminants upon subgroups that comprise a meaningful 
     portion of the general population, such as pregnant women and 
     children, that are identifiable as being at greater health 
     risk than the general population based on adequate scientific 
     information.
       ``(C) Subparagraph (B) shall not take effect with respect 
     to the first promulgation after the date of enactment of the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, or with respect 
     to the initial revision after such date, of a national 
     primary drinking water regulation for the following:
       ``(i) Contaminants covered by the proposed national primary 
     drinking water regulation for radionuclides as set forth in 
     56 Federal Register 33050, July 19, 1991.
       ``(ii) Sulfate.
       ``(iii) Contaminants covered by the proposed negotiated 
     rules on (I) disinfectants and disinfection by-products as 
     set forth in 59 Federal Register 38668, July 29, 1994, and 
     (II) enhanced surface water treatment as set forth in 59 
     Federal Register 38832, July 29, 1994. Subparagraph (B) shall 
     also not take effect with respect to the promulgation of a 
     second stage regulation for contaminants covered by the 
     proposed negotiated rules referred to in clause (iii).

     Any subsequent revision of any such regulation shall be 
     subject to the provisions of subparagraph (D).
       ``(D) In the case of any national primary drinking water 
     regulation for a contaminant regulated prior to enactment of 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, or any 
     subsequent revision of a national primary drinking water 
     regulation established in accordance with subparagraph (C), 
     subparagraph (B) shall apply to any proposal to amend such 
     national primary drinking water regulation only if a review 
     required pursuant to paragraph (9) results in findings by the 
     Administrator, published in the Federal Register, that 
     changes in technology, treatment techniques, or other means 
     permit greater protection of the health of persons. If the 
     Administrator promulgates such regulation in accordance with 
     subparagraph (B), such regulation must provide for greater 
     protection of the health of persons. If the Administrator 
     does not promulgate a regulation in accordance with 
     subparagraph (B) because such greater protection of the 
     health of persons is not achievable, the Administrator may 
     initiate a new rulemaking under subparagraph (A) or retain 
     the existing national primary drinking water regulations.
       ``(E) Any subsequent revision of a national primary 
     drinking water regulation for contaminants regulated in 
     accordance with subparagraph (C) or (D) (where such revision 
     is pursuant to the standard setting language of subparagraph 
     (B)) shall, at a minimum, provide greater protection of the 
     health of persons than the regulation in effect on the date 
     of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 
     1994 for such contaminant or, in the case of contaminants 
     subject to subparagraph (C), than the regulation promulgated 
     under subparagraph (C). If the Administrator does not 
     promulgate such regulation in accordance with subparagraph 
     (B) because such greater protection is not achievable, the 
     Administrator may initiate a new rulemaking pursuant to 
     subparagraph (A) or retain the existing national primary 
     drinking water regulations.
       ``(F) In the absence of scientific evidence suggesting new 
     or more serious health effects than existing on the date of 
     enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, 
     for purposes of proposal and promulgation after such date of 
     a national primary drinking water regulation for sulfate, the 
     Administrator shall include--
       ``(i) best technology or other means under subsection 
     (b)(5), and
       ``(ii) public notification and options for provision of 
     alternative water to populations at risk as alternative means 
     for complying with such regulation.

     Such proposal shall be made within 6 months after such date 
     of enactment and such rule shall be promulgated within 2 
     years after such date of enactment.
       ``(G)(i) Except as provided in clause (ii), notwithstanding 
     any provision of any law enacted prior to the enactment of 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, within 6 
     months of such date of enactment, the Administrator shall 
     promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for 
     radon.
       ``(ii) For the period of 5 years from the date of 
     promulgation of the regulation under clause (i) or from the 
     end of the 6-month period referred to in such clause, 
     whichever comes first, such regulation shall provide that 
     public water systems may comply with an alternative maximum 
     contaminant level of 1000 picocuries per liter. If the 
     Congress enacts legislation which reauthorizes the Indoor 
     Radon Abatement Act in the 103d or 104th Congress, such 
     alternative maximum contaminant level shall thereafter be 
     deemed to be the applicable maximum contaminant level for 
     purposes of such regulation.''.
       (3) In the first sentence of subsection (b)(7)(A), strike 
     the word ``ascertain'' and insert ``measure''.
       (4) In subsection (b)(9) strike ``3-year'' and insert ``5-
     year''. No change to section 1412(b)(9) made by this Act 
     shall be a basis for delaying the promulgation of any rule 
     proposed pursuant to section 1412(b)(9) prior to the date of 
     the enactment of this Act.
       (5) Add the following new subsection at the end thereof:
       ``(f) Methodologies; Risk Assessment.--(1) The 
     Administrator, in carrying out the provisions of this title, 
     is expected, consistent with the intent of Congress, to use 
     at all times sound, unbiased, and objective scientific 
     practices and methodologies. The Administrator, in carrying 
     out the Administrator's responsibilities under this title, 
     shall ensure that the presentation of information on 
     significant health risks is unbiased and informative.
       ``(2) To the extent feasible, documents made available to 
     the general public which describe the degree of risk from 
     exposure shall, at a minimum, characterize the population or 
     populations, (including any identifiable subpopulations, as 
     referred to in section 1412(b)(5)(B)(ii), at greater risk 
     than the general population) addressed by any agency risk 
     estimates; state the expected risk for the specific 
     population; and state the reasonable range or other 
     equivalent description of uncertainty in the assessment 
     process.''.

     SEC. 5. SMALL SYSTEM TECHNOLOGY.

       Section 1412(b)(6) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(6)(A) For purposes of this section and section 1415, at 
     the time the Administrator proposes and promulgates a 
     national primary drinking water regulation establishing a 
     maximum contaminant level for any contaminant, the 
     Administrator shall propose and promulgate a listing of the 
     best technology or other means available for achieving 
     compliance with such regulation for large public water 
     systems, and a listing of the best technology or other means, 
     if any, available for achieving compliance with such 
     regulation for public water systems in each of the following 
     categories:
       ``(i) Systems serving fewer than 10,000 persons but not 
     fewer than 3,300 persons.
       ``(ii) Systems serving 3,300 persons or fewer.

     In proposing and promulgating lists for systems described in 
     clauses (i) and (ii), the Administrator shall consider cost 
     variations associated with system size.
       ``(B) For purposes of this section and section 1415, at the 
     time the Administrator proposes and promulgates a national 
     primary drinking water regulation establishing a treatment 
     technique for any contaminant, the Administrator shall 
     propose and promulgate, for large public water systems, and 
     for systems in the size ranges referred to in clause (i) and 
     (ii) of subparagraph (A), a listing of the best technology or 
     other means, if any, available for achieving a level of 
     protection for public health equivalent to the level of 
     protection provided by such treatment technique for systems 
     in such size ranges.
       ``(C) A listing under this paragraph of the best technology 
     or other means under subparagraph (A) shall not be construed 
     to require or authorize that any specified technology or 
     other means be used for purpose of meeting any national 
     primary drinking water regulation.
       ``(D) A listing under this paragraph of the best technology 
     or other means shall provide as much reliable information as 
     practicable on performance, effectiveness, limitations, 
     costs, and other relevant factors in support of the listing, 
     including the applicability of such technology or other means 
     to surface and underground source waters, or both. Consistent 
     with such reliable information, each State exercising primary 
     enforcement responsibility for such systems shall presume 
     (pending the availability of monitoring data, pending 
     availability of information on a system's viability, 
     including the availability of financial assistance under this 
     title, and pending other relevant factors) that use of such 
     technology or other means should enable the public water 
     system concerned to meet the national primary drinking water 
     regulation.
       ``(E) The Administrator shall, on a continuing basis, 
     assess the engineering feasibility, performance, 
     effectiveness, costs, and limitations of best technologies 
     and other means of meeting national primary drinking water 
     regulations, and may, by rule, revise the list under 
     subparagraph (A) or (B) as appropriate.
       ``(F) As used in this paragraph, the term `best technology' 
     for public water systems shall include, whenever appropriate, 
     innovative and alternative technologies.
       ``(G) At any time after the promulgation of a national 
     primary drinking water regulation, the Administrator may add 
     to the lists under this paragraph, by guidance published in 
     the Federal Register, any new or innovative technology or 
     other means. A State may treat such technologies in the same 
     manner as those listed pursuant to subparagraph (A) or (B).
       ``(H) To the greatest extent possible, within 24 months 
     after the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments 
     of 1994, the Administrator shall publish each of the 
     following for public water systems in the size ranges 
     referred to in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A)--
       ``(i) For contaminants subject to a maximum contaminant 
     level promulgated prior to such publication, a list of best 
     technologies available that achieve compliance with such 
     maximum contaminant level.
       ``(ii) For contaminants subject to a treatment technique 
     promulgated prior to such publication, a list of alternative 
     technologies that achieve a level of protection of public 
     health equivalent to the level of protection provided by such 
     treatment technique.''.

     SEC. 6. AMENDMENTS TO SECTION 1413.

       (a) Emergency Plans.--Section 1413(a)(5) is amended by 
     inserting after ``emergency circumstances'' the following: 
     ``including earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and other 
     natural disasters''.
       (b) Protection of Drinking Water Distribution Systems.--
     Section 1413(a) is amended by adding the following after 
     paragraph (6), as added by section 7(a):
       ``(7) has adopted (pursuant to guidance issued by the 
     Administrator not later than 3 years after the date of the 
     enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994) 
     and implemented requirements for public water systems in the 
     State to take feasible measures to protect the distribution 
     system from contamination due to leakage from sewer lines.''.
       (c) Recycling of Filter Backwash.--Section 1413 is amended 
     by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(c) Recycling of Filter Backwash.--The Administrator 
     shall promulgate a regulation to govern the recycling of 
     filter backwash water within the treatment process of a 
     public water system. The Administrator shall promulgate such 
     regulation not later than 3 years after the date of the 
     enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994 
     unless such recycling has been addressed by the 
     Administrator's `enhanced surface water treatment rule' prior 
     to such date. Any regulation under this subsection shall be 
     deemed to be a national primary drinking water regulation for 
     purposes of this title.''.

     SEC. 7. CERTIFICATION OF LABORATORIES AND OPERATORS.

       (a) Certification.--Section 1413(a) is amended by striking 
     ``and'' at the end of paragraph (4), by striking the period 
     at the end of paragraph (5) and inserting a semicolon, and by 
     adding the following at the end thereof:
       ``(6) has adopted and is implementing, within 2 years after 
     the promulgation of regulations pursuant to section 1442(h), 
     requirements for the certification of--
       ``(A) laboratories conducting tests pursuant to this part, 
     and
       ``(B) operators of community and nontransient noncommunity 
     public water systems; and''.
       (b) Standards.--Section 1442 is amended by adding the 
     following at the end thereof:
       ``(h) Minimum Standards.--(1) Not later than 30 months 
     after the date of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
     Amendments of 1994 and after consultation with States 
     exercising primary enforcement responsibility for public 
     water systems, the Administrator shall promulgate regulations 
     specifying minimum standards for certification (and 
     recertification) of the operators of public water systems. 
     Such regulations shall take into account existing State 
     programs, the complexity of the system and other factors 
     aimed at providing an effective program at reasonable cost to 
     States and public water systems, taking into account the size 
     of the system.
       ``(2) Not later than 3 years after the date of enactment of 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994 and after 
     consultation with States exercising primary enforcement 
     responsibility for public water systems, the Administrator 
     shall promulgate regulations specifying minimum standards for 
     certification (and recertification) of laboratories 
     conducting tests pursuant to this part. Such regulations 
     shall contain minimum criteria to ensure, to the extent 
     possible, nationwide uniformity in such testing.
       ``(3) For any State exercising primary enforcement 
     responsibility for public water systems which has an operator 
     certification program in effect on the date of the enactment 
     of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, the 
     regulations under paragraph (1) shall allow the State to 
     enforce such program in lieu of the regulations under 
     paragraph (1) if the State submits the program to the 
     Administrator within 18 months after the promulgation of such 
     regulations unless the Administrator determines (within 9 
     months after the State submits the program to the 
     Administrator) that such program is inconsistent with such 
     regulations. If disapproved it may be resubmitted in 
     accordance with section 1428(c).''.
       (c) Study of Transient Systems.--The Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency shall survey various 
     categories of transient noncommunity public water systems 
     nationwide to evaluate any potential public health threat 
     posed by any lack of operator certification or training for 
     such systems, and within 4 years after the date of the 
     enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, 
     report to Congress with appropriate recommendations.

     SEC. 8. ENFORCEMENT OF DRINKING WATER REGULATIONS.

       (a) Notice.--Section 1414(a)(1)(A) is amended by striking 
     ``he shall so notify the State and'' and inserting ``the 
     Administrator shall so notify the State, provide the State 
     with an opportunity to confer with the Administrator, and 
     notify''.
       (b) Effective Date.--Section 1414(g)(2) is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) Amend the first sentence to read as follows: ``In the 
     case of a State exercising primary enforcement responsibility 
     for public water systems, an order issued under this 
     subsection to enforce section 1445 shall not take effect 
     until after the Administrator has provided such State with an 
     opportunity to confer with the Administrator regarding the 
     order.''.
       (2) Strike ``proposed'' in the second sentence.
       (c) Civil Penalty.--Section 1414(g)(3) is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) In subparagraph (B), strike ``$5,000'' and insert 
     ``$75,000 (or $100,000 if the violation occurs for more than 
     15 days or the public water system serves more than 10,000 
     persons)''.
       (2) In subparagraph (C), strike ``$5,000'' and insert 
     ``$75,000 (or $100,000 if the violation occurs for more than 
     15 days or the public water system serves more than 10,000 
     persons)''.
       (d) Enforceability of State Requirements.--Section 1414 is 
     amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
       ``(h) State Requirements.--For a State exercising primary 
     enforcement responsibility for public water systems, any 
     violation of a State requirement that implements a national 
     primary drinking water regulation shall be treated as a 
     violation of a national primary drinking water regulation in 
     effect under section 1412, except to the extent that the 
     State requirement includes elements that are more stringent, 
     or broader in scope, than elements of the national primary 
     drinking water regulation.''.

     SEC. 9. QUARTERLY NONCOMPLIANCE REPORTING.

       (a) Noncompliance Reporting.--Section 1413 is amended by 
     inserting the following new subsection after subsection (c):
       ``(d) Quarterly Noncompliance Reporting.--(1) Each State 
     exercising primary enforcement responsibility for public 
     water systems shall submit quarterly reports to the 
     Administrator on a schedule and in a format prescribed by the 
     Administrator, consisting of each of the following items:
       ``(A) Violations, during the previous quarter, by public 
     water systems in the State of State regulations adopted to 
     implement the requirements of national primary drinking water 
     regulations.
       ``(B) Enforcement actions taken, during the previous 
     quarter, by the State against public water systems with 
     respect to State regulations adopted to implement the 
     requirements of national primary drinking water regulations.

       ``(C) Notification of any variance or exemption granted 
     during the previous quarter. The notice shall include a 
     statement of reasons for the granting of the variance or 
     exemption, including documentation of the need for the 
     variance or exemption and the finding that the granting of 
     the variance or exemption will not result in an unreasonable 
     risk to health. The State may use a single notification 
     statement to report 2 or more similar variances or 
     exemptions.
       ``(2) The reports under paragraph (1)(A) shall include 
     information specifying the contamination level in the case of 
     any exceedance of any maximum contaminant level included in a 
     national primary drinking water regulation.
       ``(3) The Administrator shall make all information reported 
     to the Administrator under this subsection available to the 
     public in such manner as will ensure maximum accessibility 
     and comprehension by the public.''.
       (b) Compliance With Subsection (h).--Section 1413(a)(3) is 
     amended by inserting ``, including reports under subsection 
     (d),'' after ``reports''.

     SEC. 10. SMALL SYSTEM ASSISTANCE PROGRAM.

       (a) BAAT Variance.--Section 1415 is amended by adding the 
     following at the end thereof:
       ``(e) Small System Assistance Program.--
       ``(1) BAAT variances.--In the case of public water systems 
     serving 3,300 persons or fewer, a variance under this section 
     shall be granted by a State which has primary enforcement 
     responsibility for public water systems allowing the use of 
     Best Available Affordable Technology in lieu of best 
     technology or other means where--
       ``(A) no best technology or other means is listed under 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) or subparagraph (B) of section 
     1412(b)(6) for a given contaminant for public water systems 
     serving 3,300 persons or fewer;
       ``(B) the Administrator has identified BAAT for that 
     contaminant pursuant to paragraph (3); and
       ``(C) the State finds that the conditions in paragraph (4) 
     are met.
       ``(2) Definition of baat.--The term `Best Available 
     Affordable Technology' or `BAAT' means the most effective 
     technology or other means for the control of a drinking water 
     contaminant or contaminants that is available and affordable 
     to systems serving fewer than 3,300 persons.
       ``(3) Identification of baat.--(A) As part of each national 
     primary drinking water regulation proposed and promulgated 
     after the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments 
     of 1994, the Administrator shall identify BAAT in any case 
     where no `best technology or other means' is listed under 
     subparagraph (A)(ii) or subparagraph (B) of section 
     1412(b)(6) for that contaminant for systems serving fewer 
     than 3,300 persons. No such identified BAAT shall require a 
     technology from specific manufacturer or brand. BAAT need not 
     be adequate to achieve the applicable maximum contaminant 
     level or treatment technique, but shall bring the public 
     water system as close to achievement of such maximum 
     contaminant level as practical or as close to the level of 
     health protection provided by such treatment technique as 
     practical, as the case may be. Any technology or other means 
     identified as BAAT must be determined by the Administrator to 
     be protective of public health. Simultaneously with 
     identification of BAAT, the Administrator shall list any 
     assumptions underlying the public health determination 
     referred to in the preceding sentence, where such assumptions 
     concern the public water system to which the technology may 
     be applied, or its source waters. The Administrator shall 
     provide the assumptions used in determining affordability, 
     taking into consideration the number of persons served by 
     such systems. Such listing shall provide as much reliable 
     information as practicable on performance, effectiveness, 
     limitations, costs, and other relevant factors in support of 
     such listing, including the applicability of BAAT to surface 
     and underground waters or both.
       ``(B) To the greatest extent possible, within 24 months 
     after the date of the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act Amendments of 1994, the Administrator shall identify BAAT 
     for all national primary drinking water regulations proposed 
     or promulgated prior to such date of enactment where no best 
     technology or other means is listed under subparagraph 
     (A)(ii) or subparagraph (B) of section 1412(b)(6) for that 
     contaminant for systems serving fewer than 3,300 persons, and 
     where compliance by such small systems is not practical. In 
     identifying BAAT for such national primary drinking water 
     regulations, the Administrator shall give priority to 
     evaluation of atrazine, asbestos, selenium, 
     pentachlorophenol, antimony, and nickel.
       ``(4) Conditions for baat variance.--To grant a variance 
     under this subsection, the State must determine that--
       ``(A) the public water system cannot install `best 
     technology or other means' because of the system's small 
     size;
       ``(B) the public water system could not comply with the 
     maximum contaminant level through use of alternate water 
     supplies or through management changes or restructuring, as 
     described in section 1419 (relating to public water system 
     viability);
       ``(C) the public water system has the capacity to operate 
     and maintain BAAT; and
       ``(D) the circumstances of the public water system are 
     consistent with the public health assumptions identified by 
     the Administrator under paragraph (3).
       ``(5) Schedules.--Any variance granted by a State under 
     this subsection shall establish a schedule for the 
     installation and operation of BAAT within a period not to 
     exceed 2 years after the issuance of the variance, except 
     that the State may grant an extension of 1 additional year 
     upon application by the system. The application shall include 
     a showing of financial or technical need. Variances under 
     this subsection shall be for a term not to exceed 5 years 
     (including the period allowed for installation and operation 
     of BAAT), but may be renewed for such additional 5-year 
     periods by the State upon a finding that the criteria in 
     paragraph (4) continued to be met.
       ``(6) Microbiological contaminants.--No variance may be 
     issued under this subsection for microbiological 
     contaminants.
       ``(7) Review.--Any review by the Administrator under 
     paragraphs (4) and (5) shall be pursuant to subsection 
     (a)(1)(G)(i).''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Changes.--(1) Section 1415 is 
     amended by striking ``best technology, treatment techniques, 
     or other means'' and ``best available technology, treatment 
     techniques or other means'' each place such terms appear and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``best technology or other means''.
       (2) Section 1415(a)(1)(A) is amended by striking the third 
     sentence and by striking ``Before a schedule prescribed by a 
     State pursuant to this subparagraph may take effect'' and all 
     that follows down to the beginning of the last sentence.
       (3) Section 1415(a)(1)(C) is amended as follows:
       (A) Amend the first sentence to read as follows: ``Before a 
     variance is issued and a schedule is prescribed pursuant to 
     this subsection or subsection (e) by a State, the State shall 
     provide notice and an opportunity for a public hearing on the 
     proposed variance and schedule.''.
       (B) Insert ``under this section'' before the period at the 
     end of the third sentence''.
       (4) Section 1415(a)(1)(D) is amended as follows:
       (A) Strike ``under subparagraph (A)'' and insert ``under 
     this section''.
       (B) Strike ``that subparagraph'' in each place it appears 
     and insert in each such place ``this section''.
       (C) Strike the last sentence.
       (5) Section 1415(a)(1)(F) is amended by striking ``3-year'' 
     and inserting ``5-year'' and by amending the first sentence 
     to read as follows: ``Not later than 5 years after the 
     enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, 
     the Administrator shall complete a review of the variances 
     granted under this section (and the schedules prescribed in 
     connection with such variances).''.
       (6) Section 1415(a)(1)(G)(i) is amended by striking 
     ``subparagraph (A) or (B)'' and inserting ``this section''.
       (7) Section 1415(b) is amended by striking ``paragraph 
     (1)(B) or (2) of subsection (a)'' and inserting ``this 
     section''.
       (8) Section 1415(c) is amended by striking ``subsection 
     (a)'' and inserting ``this section''.
       (9) Section 1415(d) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(d) [Repealed.]''.

     SEC. 11. EXEMPTIONS.

       (a) Systems Serving Fewer Than 3,300 Persons.--Section 1416 
     is amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
       ``(h) Small Systems.--(1) For public water systems serving 
     fewer than 3,300 persons, the maximum exemption period shall 
     be 4 years if the State is exercising primary enforcement 
     responsibility for public water systems and determines that--
       ``(A) the public water system cannot meet the maximum 
     contaminant level or install Best Available Affordable 
     Technology (`BAAT') due in either case to compelling economic 
     circumstances (taking into consideration the availability of 
     financial assistance under section 1443(c), relating to State 
     Revolving Funds) or other compelling circumstances;
       ``(B) the public water system could not comply with the 
     maximum contaminant level through the use of alternate water 
     supplies;
       ``(C) the granting of the exemption will provide a drinking 
     water supply that protects public health given the duration 
     of exemption; and
       ``(D) the State has met the requirements of paragraph (2).
       ``(2)(A) Before issuing an exemption under this section or 
     an extension thereof for a small public water system 
     described in paragraph (1), the State shall--
       ``(i) examine the public water system's technical, 
     financial, and managerial capability (taking into 
     consideration any available financial assistance) to operate 
     in, and maintain compliance with, this title, and
       ``(ii) determine if management or restructuring changes (or 
     both) can reasonably be made that will result in compliance 
     with this title or, if compliance cannot be achieved, improve 
     the quality of the drinking water.
       ``(B) Management changes referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     may include rate increases, accounting changes, the hiring of 
     consultants, the appointment of a technician with expertise 
     in operating such systems, contractual arrangements for a 
     more efficient and capable system for joint operation, or 
     other reasonable strategies to improve viability.
       ``(C) Restructuring changes referred to in subparagraph (A) 
     may include ownership change, physical consolidation with 
     another system, or other measures to otherwise improve 
     customer base and gain economies of scale.
       ``(D) If the State determines that management or 
     restructuring changes referred to in subparagraph (A) can 
     reasonably be made, it shall require such changes and a 
     schedule therefore as a condition of the exemption. If the 
     State determines to the contrary, the State may still grant 
     the exemption. The decision of the State under this 
     subparagraph shall not be subject to review by the 
     Administrator, except as provided in subsection (d).
       ``(3) Paragraphs (1) and (3) of subsection (a) shall not 
     apply to an exemption issued under this subsection. 
     Subparagraph (B) of subsection (b)(2) shall not apply to an 
     exemption issued under this subsection, but any exemption 
     granted to such a system may be renewed for additional 4-year 
     periods upon application of the public water system and after 
     a determination that the criteria of paragraphs (1) and (2) 
     of this subsection continue to be met.
       ``(4) No exemption may be issued under this section for 
     microbiological contaminants.''.
       (b) Technical and Conforming Amendments.--(1) Section 
     1416(b)(1) is amended by striking ``prescribed by a State 
     pursuant to this subsection'' and inserting ``prescribed by a 
     State pursuant to this subsection or subsection (h)''.
       (2) Section 1416(c) is amended by striking ``under 
     subsection (a)'' and inserting ``under this section'' and by 
     striking ``including'' in the second sentence and inserting 
     ``including, in the case of an exemption under subsection 
     (a),''.
       (3) Section 1416(d)(1) is amended by striking ``3-year'' 
     and inserting ``4-year'' and by amending the first sentence 
     to read as follows: ``Not later than 4 years after the date 
     of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 
     1994, the Administrator shall complete a comprehensive review 
     of the exemptions granted (and schedules prescribed pursuant 
     thereto) by the States during the 4-year period beginning on 
     such date.''.
       (4) Section 1416(b)(2)(C) is repealed.
       (c) Systems Serving More Than 3,300 Persons.--Section 
     1416(b)(2)(A)(ii) is amended by striking ``12 months'' and 
     inserting ``4 years'' and section 1416(b)(2)(B) is amended by 
     striking ``3 years after the date of the issuance of the 
     exemption'' and inserting ``4 years after the expiration of 
     the initial exemption''.

     SEC. 12. PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM VIABILITY.

       Part B is amended by adding the following at the end 
     thereof:

     ``SEC. 1419. PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM VIABILITY.

       ``(a) EPA Guidelines.--Within 18 months after the enactment 
     of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, the 
     Administrator shall issue guidelines for purposes of 
     subsection (b) for State programs to bring public water 
     systems into compliance with this title and to maintain such 
     compliance. The guidelines shall be developed in consultation 
     with the States.
       ``(b) State Programs To Assure Viability.--Within 2 years 
     after issuance of guidelines under subsection (a), each State 
     exercising primary enforcement responsibility for public 
     water systems shall develop and implement a comprehensive 
     program to assure the viability of community and noncommunity 
     nontransient public water systems within that State which are 
     subject to the provisions of subsection (e). The program 
     shall be treated as approved by the Administrator unless 
     disapproved by the Administrator within 6 months after the 
     date of its submittal. If disapproved it may be resubmitted 
     in accordance with section 1428(c).
       ``(c) Financial Assistance for Small Systems.--(1) Except 
     as provided in paragraph (2), no financial assistance may be 
     provided from funds made available under section 1443(c) to 
     any public water system in operation on the date of enactment 
     of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994 that--
       ``(A) serves fewer than 10,000 persons, and
       ``(B) has a history of violations of monitoring 
     requirements or violations of national primary drinking water 
     regulations,
     unless the State determines whether the public water system 
     has, or will have, the technical, managerial, and financial 
     capability to operate in compliance, and maintain compliance, 
     with this title. Such determination shall be based on such 
     information as the public water system may provide to the 
     State and such other information as may be available to the 
     State. In making such determination the State shall take into 
     consideration the financial assistance which may be available 
     to the public water system.
       ``(2)(A) If the State determines under paragraph (1) that a 
     public water system lacks the capability referred to in 
     paragraph (1), the State shall require adoption by the system 
     of management or restructuring changes or both before 
     providing funding to the system under section 1443(c), except 
     as provided in subparagraph (B). Management changes may 
     include rate increases, accounting changes, the hiring of 
     consultants, the appointment of a technician with expertise 
     in operating such systems, contractual arrangements for a 
     more efficient and capable system for joint operation, or 
     other reasonable strategies to improve viability. 
     Restructuring changes may include ownership change, physical 
     consolidation with another system, or other measures to 
     otherwise improve customer base and gain economies of scale.
       ``(B) If the State determines under paragraph (1) that a 
     system lacks the capability referred to in paragraph (1), 
     funds provided under section 1443(c) (relating to State 
     Revolving Funds) shall be available only to support such 
     physical consolidation.
       ``(d) New Systems.--No financial assistance of any kind may 
     be provided under this title to any public water system that 
     is established, and begins operations, in any State after the 
     enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, 
     unless the Administrator determines that the State has an 
     effective operating permit program or other means to ensure, 
     before commencing operation, that the system has the 
     management and technical capacity and financial capability, 
     taking into account its customer base and other relevant 
     factors, to comply and maintain compliance with the 
     applicable requirements of this title. No change in the 
     ownership of a public water system shall result in the 
     application of the prohibition contained in this subsection 
     to such system.
       ``(e) State Viability Assessments.--(1) Before the end of 
     the first full fiscal year after the enactment of the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, each State shall 
     establish a program for assessing, over a 5-year period, the 
     long-term technical, managerial, and financial capability of 
     community and nontransient noncommunity public water systems 
     serving fewer than 10,000 persons that are in violation of 
     this title or may be in jeopardy of not maintaining 
     compliance with this title. The State shall establish a 
     schedule for determining which systems to include in the 
     assessment program.
       ``(2) The assessment program referred to in paragraph (1) 
     shall include any public water system that has been in 
     significant noncompliance (as defined in guidelines issued 
     prior to the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
     Amendments of 1994 or any revisions thereof and in national 
     primary drinking water regulations promulgated after such 
     date of enactment) or violated any maximum contaminant level 
     or treatment technique, any variance, or any exemption under 
     this title during the 2 years prior to the date on which the 
     State makes a determination (in accordance with the schedule 
     under in paragraph (1)) regarding whether to include such 
     system in the assessment program.
       ``(3) For all public water systems referred to in paragraph 
     (1) (other than those referred to in paragraph (2)), the 
     State shall establish, in consultation with the 
     Administrator, a system of priorities, as part of the program 
     for conducting assessments, where there has been other 
     noncompliance during such 2-year period which the State 
     considers serious. The State shall publish such priorities 
     and file them with the Administrator. The State, in its 
     discretion and considering its resources, may, but is not 
     required to, conduct assessments of public water systems 
     which are in compliance during such period.
       ``(f) Waiver.--The Administrator may waive any requirements 
     of this section in the case of a State viability program 
     adopted before the enactment of this section if the 
     Administrator finds that such State viability program is 
     fully achieving the objectives of this section.
       ``(g) Availability of SRF Funds.--Unless the State has--
       ``(1) prior to the end of the first full fiscal year after 
     the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 
     1994, established a program meeting the requirements of 
     subsection (e), and
       ``(2) beginning with the third fiscal year after the 
     Administrator issues guidelines under subsection (a), 
     developed and implemented an approved program under 
     subsection (b),

     only 50 percent of the funds that would otherwise be 
     allocated to that State under section 1443(c) (relating to 
     State Revolving Funds) may be made available to the State.
       ``(h) EPA Review.--The decisions of the State under this 
     section regarding any particular public water system are not 
     subject to review by the Administrator.''.

     SEC. 13. SOURCE WATER ASSESSMENT AND PETITION PROGRAM.

       (a) Guidelines and Programs.--Section 1428 is amended by 
     adding ``AND SOURCE WATER'' after ``WELLHEAD'' in the section 
     heading and by adding at the end thereof the following:
       ``(l) Source Water Assessment.--
       ``(1) Guidance.--Within 12 months after enactment of the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, after notice and 
     comment, the Administrator shall publish guidance for States 
     exercising primary enforcement responsibility for public 
     water systems to carry out directly or through delegation 
     (for the protection and benefit of public water systems and 
     for the support of monitoring flexibility) a source water 
     assessment program within the State's boundaries.
       ``(2) Program requirements.--A source water assessment 
     program under this subsection shall--
       ``(A) delineate the boundaries of the assessment areas in 
     such State from which one or more public water systems in the 
     State receive supplies of drinking water, using all 
     reasonably available hydrogeologic information on the sources 
     of the supply of drinking water in the State and the water 
     flow, recharge, and discharge and any other reliable 
     information as the State deems necessary to adequately 
     determine such areas; and
       ``(B) identify for contaminants regulated under this title 
     for which monitoring is required under this title (or any 
     unregulated contaminants which the State, for the purposes of 
     this subsection, has determined to present an urgent threat 
     to public health), to the extent practical, the origins 
     within each delineated area of such contaminants to determine 
     the susceptibility of the public water systems in the 
     delineated area to such contaminants.
       ``(3) Approval, implementation, and monitoring relief.--A 
     State source water assessment program under this subsection 
     shall be submitted to the Administrator within 18 months 
     after the Administrator's guidance is issued under this 
     subsection and shall be deemed approved 9 months after the 
     date of such submittal unless the Administrator disapproves 
     the program as provided in subsection (c). States shall begin 
     implementation of the program immediately after its approval. 
     The Administrator's approval of a State program under this 
     subsection shall include a timetable, established in 
     consultation with the State, allowing not more than 2 years 
     for completion after approval of the program. Public water 
     systems seeking monitoring relief in addition to the interim 
     relief provided under section 1418(a) shall be eligible for 
     monitoring relief, consistent with section 1418(b), upon 
     completion of the assessment in the delineated source water 
     assessment area or areas concerned.
       ``(4) Timetable.--The timetable referred to in paragraph 
     (3) shall take into consideration the availability to the 
     State of funds under section 1443(c) (relating to State 
     Revolving Funds) for assessments and other relevant factors. 
     The Administrator may extend any timetable included in a 
     State program approved under paragraph (3) to extend the 
     period for completion by an additional 18 months. The 
     timetable shall be deemed to be part of the guidance 
     published under paragraph (1) and shall be subject to section 
     1450(j). Compliance with subsection (g) shall not affect any 
     State permanent monitoring flexibility program approved under 
     section 1418(b). To avoid duplication and to encourage 
     efficiency, the program shall, to the extent practicable, be 
     coordinated with other existing programs and mechanisms, 
     including the wellhead protection program, vulnerability 
     assessments, sanitary surveys, and monitoring programs.
       ``(5) Demonstration project.--The Administrator shall, as 
     soon as practicable, conduct a demonstration project, in 
     consultation with other Federal agencies, to demonstrate the 
     most effective and protective means of assessing and 
     protecting source waters serving large metropolitan areas and 
     located on Federal lands.
       ``(m) Petition Program.--
       ``(1) Submission of petitions.--Within 18 months after 
     publication by the Administrator of guidance under subsection 
     (l), each State exercising primary enforcement responsibility 
     shall adopt and submit to the Administrator a source water 
     petition program. A petition under such program may request 
     that the State assist in addressing the origins of 
     contaminants regulated under this title (or unregulated 
     contaminants for which the State has determined, for purposes 
     of this section, that there is an urgent threat to public 
     health) and that are not adequately addressed by the wellhead 
     protection program or other programs. The origins of such 
     contaminants may include, to the extent practicable, the 
     specific activities that affect the drinking water supply of 
     a community. Such program shall also include provisions for 
     voluntary partnerships, including those in which public water 
     systems and local governments participate and submit 
     petitions. The program shall provide for public notice of 
     petitions.
       ``(2) Contents of petitions.--Petitions submitted to the 
     State under this subsection may seek assistance in directing, 
     or redirecting, consistent with applicable program 
     authorities administrative, technical, or financial resources 
     to address the origins of drinking water contaminants 
     regulated under this title (or unregulated contaminants for 
     which the State has determined, for purposes of this section, 
     that there is an urgent threat to public health) and that are 
     not adequately addressed by the wellhead protection program 
     or other programs. Any such petition shall, at a minimum--
       ``(A) include delineation of the source water area covered 
     by the petition, based on the source water assessment 
     delineation areas set forth in subsection (l)(2)(A);
       ``(B) based on reasonably available data, identify the 
     nature of the problem that is the basis for the petition;
       ``(C) to the extent practicable, identify the origins of 
     such drinking water contaminants; and
       ``(D) identify any missing data necessary to adequately 
     characterize the problem that is the basis of the petition.

     Identification of a contaminant or contaminants in a petition 
     shall be contaminant specific. Contaminants may be combined 
     in a single petition. The State may elect to waive the 
     requirement for the petitioner to meet subparagraph (D).
       ``(3) Response to petitions.--Each State receiving a 
     petition under this subsection shall respond to the petition 
     in an expeditious manner unless the State determines, in its 
     discretion, that the petition is frivolous. The State 
     response may include, as appropriate, utilization and 
     coordination of programs, technical assistance, financial 
     assistance, education, training, contingency plans and 
     demonstration projects for the delineated areas to protect 
     the drinking water supply of systems within those areas from 
     such contaminants. Nothing in this paragraph is intended or 
     shall be interpreted to create or convey any new authority in 
     any State, political subdivision of a State, or public water 
     system for any control measure or limit in any way any 
     authority of a State, political subdivision of a State, or 
     water system.
       ``(4) Approval of petition program.--The Administrator's 
     approval of a State source water petition program under this 
     subsection is not required unless the State uses grant funds 
     under section 1443(c) (relating to State Revolving Funds) to 
     adopt and implement the program. The State may use grants 
     allotted to the State under section 1443(c) for such purposes 
     only with the approval of the Administrator. If adopted with 
     the use of funds made available under section 1443(c) by a 
     State exercising primary enforcement responsibility for 
     public water systems, the State shall comply with the 
     delineation requirements set forth in subsection (l)(2)(A) 
     and the program shall contain, as appropriate, one or more of 
     the elements referred to in section 1428(a)(4).''.
       (b) Public Participation.--Subsection (b) of section 1428 
     is amended by adding the following at the end thereof: ``No 
     funds shall be available to the State under section 1443(c) 
     (relating to State Revolving Funds) for the purpose of 
     carrying out a State source water petition program unless the 
     State procedures referred to in this section also apply to 
     any State source water petition program adopted under 
     subsection (m).''.
       (c) Approval and Disapproval of State Programs.--Section 
     1428 is amended as follows:
       (1) Amend the first sentence of subsection (c)(1) to read 
     as follows: ``If, in the judgment of the Administrator, a 
     State program or portion thereof under subsection (a) is not 
     adequate to protect public water systems as required by 
     subsection (a) or a State program under subsection (l) or (m) 
     or section 1418(b) does not meet the applicable requirements 
     of subsection (l), (m) or section 1418(b), the Administrator 
     shall disapprove such program or portion thereof.''.
       (2) Add after the second sentence of subsection (c)(1) the 
     following: ``A State program developed pursuant to subsection 
     (l) or (m) or section 1418(b) shall be deemed to meet the 
     applicable requirements of subsection (l), (m) or section 
     1418(b) unless the Administrator determines within 9 months 
     of the receipt of the program that such program (or portion 
     thereof) does not meet such requirements.''.
       (3) In the third sentence of subsection (c)(1) and in 
     subsection (c)(2) strike ``is inadequate'' and insert ``is 
     disapproved''.
       (4) Add the following at the end of subsection (c)(1): 
     ``Notwithstanding any other provision of this subsection, the 
     provisions of this subsection shall apply to source water 
     petition programs under subsection (m) only if the State uses 
     grants under section 1443(c) (relating to State Revolving 
     Funds) for such program.''.
       (5) In subsection (b), add the following before the period 
     at the end of the first sentence: ``and source water 
     assessment programs under subsection (l)''.
       (6) In subsection (g)--
       (A) insert after ``under this section'' the following: ``, 
     State source water assessment programs under subsection (l) 
     and State petition programs under subsection (m) for which 
     the State uses grants under section 1443(c) (relating to 
     State Revolving Funds)''; and
       (B) strike ``Such'' in the last sentence and inserting ``In 
     the case of wellhead protection programs, such''.

     SEC. 14. MONITORING OF REGULATED CONTAMINANTS.

       Part B is amended by adding the following after section 
     1417:

     ``SEC. 1418. MONITORING OF CONTAMINANTS.

       ``(a) Interim Monitoring Relief Authority.--(1) A State 
     exercising primary enforcement responsibility for public 
     water systems may modify the monitoring requirements for--
       ``(A) regulated chemical pesticide contaminants,
       ``(B) polychlorinated byphenyls,
       ``(C) dioxin, and
       ``(D) unregulated contaminants for which monitoring is 
     required under phase II as set forth on January 30, 1991, in 
     volume 56 of the Federal Register, page 3526 and phase V as 
     set forth on July 17, 1992, in volume 57 of the Federal 
     Register, page 31776
     for an interim period to provide that any public water system 
     serving 3,300 persons or fewer shall not be required to 
     conduct additional quarterly monitoring during an interim 
     relief period for such contaminants if--
       ``(i) monitoring, conducted at the beginning of the period 
     for the contaminant concerned and certified to the State by 
     the public water system, fails to detect the presence of the 
     contaminant in the ground or surface water supplying the 
     public water system, and
       ``(ii) the State, (considering the hydrogeology of the area 
     and other relevant factors), determines in writing that the 
     contaminant is unlikely to be detected by further monitoring 
     during such period.
       ``(2) The interim relief period referred to in paragraph 
     (1) shall terminate when permanent monitoring relief is 
     adopted and approved for such State, or at the end of 36 
     months after the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
     Amendments of 1994, whichever comes first. In order to serve 
     as a basis for interim relief, the monitoring conducted at 
     the beginning of the period must occur at the time determined 
     by the State to be the time of the public water system's 
     greatest vulnerability to the contaminant concerned in the 
     relevant ground or surface water, taking into account in the 
     case of pesticides the time of application of the pesticide 
     for the source water area and the travel time for the 
     pesticide to reach such waters and taking into account, in 
     the case of other contaminants, seasonality of precipitation 
     and contaminant travel time.
       ``(b) Permanent Monitoring Relief Authority.--(1) Each 
     State exercising primary enforcement responsibility for 
     public water systems under this title and having an approved 
     wellhead protection program and a source water assessment 
     program may adopt, in accordance with guidance published by 
     the Administrator, and submit to the Administrator as 
     provided in section 1428(c), tailored alternative monitoring 
     requirements for public water systems in such State (as an 
     alternative to the monitoring requirements specified in the 
     Administrator's standardized monitoring framework for 
     chemical contaminants and the applicable national primary 
     drinking water regulations) where the State concludes that 
     (based on data available at the time of adoption concerning 
     susceptibility, use, occurrence, wellhead protection, or from 
     the State's drinking water source water assessment program) 
     such alternative monitoring would provide assurance that it 
     complies with the Administrator's guidelines. The State 
     program must be adequate to assure compliance with, and 
     enforcement of, applicable national primary drinking water 
     regulations. Alternative monitoring shall not apply to 
     regulated microbiological contaminants, disinfectants and 
     disinfection by-products, or corrosion by-products. The 
     preceding sentence is not intended to limit other authority 
     of the Administrator under other provisions of this title to 
     grant monitoring flexibility.
       ``(2)(A) The Administrator shall issue, after notice and 
     comment and at the same time as guidelines are issued for 
     source water assessment under section 1428(l), guidelines for 
     States to follow in proposing alternative requirements to the 
     standardized monitoring framework for chemical contaminants. 
     The Administrator shall publish such framework in the Federal 
     Register. The guidelines shall assure that the public health 
     will be protected from drinking water contamination. The 
     guidelines shall require that a State alternative monitoring 
     program apply on a contaminant-by-contaminant basis and that, 
     to be eligible for such alternative monitoring program, a 
     public water system must show the State that the contaminant 
     is not present in the drinking water supply or, if present, 
     it is reliably and consistently below the maximum contaminant 
     level.
       ``(B) For purposes of subparagraph (A), the phrase 
     `reliably and consistently below the maximum contaminant 
     level' means that, although contaminants have been detected 
     in a water supply, the State has sufficient knowledge of the 
     contamination source and extent of contamination to predict 
     that the maximum contaminant level will not be exceeded. In 
     determining that a contaminant is reliably and consistently 
     below the maximum contaminant level, States shall consider 
     the quality and completeness of data, the length of time 
     covered and the volatility or stability of monitoring results 
     during that time, and the proximity of such results to the 
     maximum contaminant level. Wide variations in the analytical 
     results, or analytical results close to the maximum 
     contaminant level, shall not be considered to be reliably and 
     consistently below the maximum contaminant level.
       ``(3) The guidelines issued by the Administrator under 
     paragraph (2) shall require that if, after the monitoring 
     program is in effect and operating, a contaminant covered by 
     the alternative monitoring program is detected at levels at 
     or above the maximum contaminant level or is no longer 
     reliably or consistently below the maximum contaminant level, 
     the public water system must either--
       ``(A) demonstrate that the contamination source has been 
     removed or that other action has been taken to eliminate the 
     contamination problem, or
       ``(B) test for the detected contaminant pursuant to the 
     applicable national primary drinking water regulation.
       ``(c) Treatment as NPDWR.--All monitoring relief granted by 
     a State to a public water system for a regulated contaminant 
     under subsection (a) or (b) shall be treated as part of the 
     national primary drinking water regulation for that 
     contaminant.
       ``(d) Other Monitoring Relief.--Nothing in this section 
     shall be construed to affect the authority of the States 
     under the standard monitoring framework for chemical 
     contaminants and under applicable national primary drinking 
     water regulations to alter monitoring requirements through 
     waivers in effect at the time of the enactment of the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994. States are encouraged 
     to use such authority.''.

     SEC. 15. FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       (a) In General.--Part C is amended by adding at the end 
     thereof the following new section:

     ``SEC. 1429. FEDERAL FACILITIES.

       ``(a) In General.--Each department, agency, and 
     instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and judicial 
     branches of the Federal Government--
       ``(1) owning or operating any facility in a wellhead 
     protection area,
       ``(2) engaged in any activity at such facility resulting, 
     or which may result, in the contamination of water supplies 
     in any such area, or
       ``(3) owning or operating any public water system
     shall be subject to, and comply with, all Federal, State, 
     interstate, and local requirements, both substantive and 
     procedural (including any requirement for permits or 
     reporting or any provisions for injunctive relief and such 
     sanctions as may be imposed by a court to enforce such 
     relief), respecting the protection of such wellhead areas and 
     respecting such public water systems in the same manner and 
     to the same extent as any person is subject to such 
     requirements, including the payment of reasonable service 
     charges. The Federal, State, interstate, and local 
     substantive and procedural requirements referred to in this 
     subsection include, but are not limited to, all 
     administrative orders and all civil and administrative 
     penalties and fines, regardless of whether such penalties or 
     fines are punitive or coercive in nature or are imposed for 
     isolated, intermittent, or continuing violations. The United 
     States hereby expressly waives any immunity otherwise 
     applicable to the United States with respect to any such 
     substantive or procedural requirement (including, but not 
     limited to, any injunctive relief, administrative order or 
     civil or administrative penalty or fine referred to in the 
     preceding sentence, or reasonable service charge). The 
     reasonable service charges referred to in this subsection 
     include, but are not limited to, fees or charges assessed in 
     connection with the processing and issuance of permits, 
     renewal of permits, amendments to permits, review of plans, 
     studies, and other documents, and inspection and monitoring 
     of facilities, as well as any other nondiscriminatory charges 
     that are assessed in connection with a Federal, State, 
     interstate, or local regulatory program respecting the 
     protection of wellhead areas or public water systems. Neither 
     the United States, nor any agent, employee, or officer 
     thereof, shall be immune or exempt from any process or 
     sanction of any State or Federal Court with respect to the 
     enforcement of any such injunctive relief. No agent, 
     employee, or officer of the United States shall be personally 
     liable for any civil penalty under any Federal, State, 
     interstate, or local law concerning the protection of 
     wellhead areas or public water systems with respect to any 
     act or omission within the scope of the official duties of 
     the agent, employee, or officer. An agent, employee, or 
     officer of the United States shall be subject to any criminal 
     sanction (including, but not limited to, any fine or 
     imprisonment) under any Federal or State requirement adopted 
     pursuant to this title, but no department, agency, or 
     instrumentality of the executive, legislative, or judicial 
     branch of the Federal Government shall be subject to any such 
     sanction. The President may exempt any facility of any 
     department, agency, or instrumentality in the executive 
     branch from compliance with such a requirement if he 
     determines it to be in the paramount interest of the United 
     States to do so. No such exemption shall be granted due to 
     lack of appropriation unless the President shall have 
     specifically requested such appropriation as a part of the 
     budgetary process and the Congress shall have failed to make 
     available such requested appropriation. Any exemption shall 
     be for a period not in excess of 1 year, but additional 
     exemptions may be granted for periods not to exceed 1 year 
     upon the President's making a new determination. The 
     President shall report each January to the Congress all 
     exemptions from the requirements of this section granted 
     during the preceding calendar year, together with his reason 
     for granting each such exemption.
       ``(b) Administrative Enforcement Actions.--(1) The 
     Administrator may commence an administrative enforcement 
     action against any department, agency, or instrumentality of 
     the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Federal 
     Government subject to the provisions of subsection (a) 
     pursuant to the enforcement authorities contained in this 
     title. The Administrator shall initiate an administrative 
     enforcement action against such a department, agency, or 
     instrumentality in the same manner and under the same 
     circumstances as an action would be initiated against another 
     person. Any voluntary resolution or settlement of such an 
     action shall be set forth in a consent order.
       ``(2) No administrative order issued to such a department, 
     agency, or instrumentality shall become final until such 
     department, agency, or instrumentality has had the 
     opportunity to confer with the Administrator.
       ``(c) Limitation on State Use of Funds Collected From 
     Federal Government.--Unless a State law in effect on the date 
     of the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 
     1994 or a State constitution requires the funds to be used in 
     a different manner, all funds collected by a State from the 
     Federal Government from penalties and fines imposed for 
     violation of any substantive or procedural requirement 
     referred to in subsection (a) shall be used by the State only 
     for projects designed to improve or protect the environment 
     or to defray the costs of environmental protection or 
     enforcement.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1447(a) is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) By striking out ``(1) having jurisdiction over any 
     federally owned or maintained public water system or (2)''.
       (2) By striking out ``respecting the provision of safe 
     drinking water and''.
       (3) Section 1447(c) is amended by striking out ``the Safe 
     Drinking Water Amendments of 1977'' and inserting ``this 
     title'' and by striking ``this Act'' and inserting ``this 
     title''.

     SEC. 16. EMERGENCY POWERS.

       Section 1431(b) is amended by striking out ``$5,000'' and 
     inserting in lieu thereof ``$15,000''.

     SEC. 17. TAMPERING.

       Section 1432 is amended as follows:
       (1) In subsection (d), by striking ``or'' at the end of 
     paragraph (1) and by striking paragraph (2) and inserting the 
     following:
       ``(2) to knowingly and deliberately interfere with the 
     operation of a public water system with the intent to cause 
     economic harm to the system or cause the system to violate 
     this title; or
       ``(3) to knowingly and deliberately render inaccurate a 
     monitoring device with the intent to falsify monitoring 
     results.''.
       (2) By adding at the end the following:
       ``(e) Failure To Report.--Any owner or operator of a public 
     water system who knowingly and deliberately fails to report 
     for more than 90 days to the State with primary enforcement 
     responsibility for public water systems, or to the public as 
     required by this title, or to the Administrator, a violation 
     of a maximum contaminant level or treatment technique shall 
     be subject to a fine of not more than $10,000, imprisonment 
     for not more than 2 years, or both, except that failure to 
     comply with the exact form and contents of a notice shall not 
     be considered a failure to report which is subject to 
     enforcement under this subsection.
       ``(f) False Statements.--State requirements applicable to 
     public water systems in States with primary enforcement 
     responsibility for public water systems under this title, or 
     requirements of the Administrator under this title, 
     respecting statements, representations, writings, or 
     documents shall be construed to be subject to the provisions 
     of section 1001 of title 18 of the United States Code and for 
     such purposes such requirements shall be treated as a matter 
     within the jurisdiction of a department or agency of the 
     United States and solely for that purpose such State shall be 
     treated as a Federal department or agency.''.

     SEC. 18. FUNDS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER.

       (a) State Revolving Funds.--Section 1443 is amended by 
     redesignating subsection (c) as subsection (d) and by adding 
     the following new subsection after subsection (b):
       ``(c) State Revolving Funds.--
       ``(1) General authority.--
       ``(A) Grants to states to establish revolving funds.--The 
     Administrator shall enter into agreements with States to make 
     capitalization grants, including letters of credit, to the 
     States under this subsection solely to further the health 
     protection objectives of this title, promote the efficient 
     use of fund resources, and for such other purposes as 
     specified in this title. The grants shall be deposited in 
     drinking water treatment revolving funds established by the 
     State, except as otherwise provided in this subsection and in 
     other provisions of this title. No portion of any specific 
     percentage amount of such grants referred to in paragraph 
     (5), (8), or (9) or authorized by other provisions of this 
     title to be used for other purposes specified in this title 
     shall be deposited in any State revolving fund. All such 
     grants shall be allotted to the States in the same manner as 
     funds are allotted to States under subsection (a)(4), except 
     as provided in paragraph (8) and except that the State 
     allotment for a State not exercising primary enforcement 
     responsibility for public water systems shall not be 
     deposited in any such fund but shall be allotted by the 
     Administrator as follows: 30 percent of such allotment shall 
     be available to the Administrator as needed to exercise 
     primary enforcement responsibility under this title in such 
     State and the remainder shall be reallotted to States 
     exercising primary enforcement responsibility for public 
     water systems for deposit in such funds. Whenever the 
     Administrator makes a final determination pursuant to section 
     1413(b) that the requirements of section 1413(a) are no 
     longer being met by a State, additional grants for such State 
     under this title shall be immediately terminated by the 
     Administrator.
       ``(B) Use of funds.--Except as otherwise authorized by this 
     title, amounts deposited in such revolving funds, including 
     loan repayments and interest earned on such amounts, shall be 
     used only for providing loans or other financial assistance 
     of any kind or nature that the State deems appropriate to 
     public water systems. Such financial assistance may be used 
     by a public water system only for expenditures (not including 
     monitoring, operation, and maintenance expenditures) of a 
     type or category which the Administrator has determined, 
     through guidance, will facilitate compliance with national 
     primary drinking water regulations applicable to such system 
     under section 1412 or otherwise significantly further the 
     health protection objectives of this title. Such financial 
     assistance may be used for acquisition from willing sellers, 
     at fair market value, of real property or interests therein 
     which are integral to such systems. 15 percent of the amount 
     credited to any revolving fund established under this section 
     in any fiscal year shall be available solely for providing 
     loan assistance to public water systems which regularly serve 
     fewer than 10,000 persons.
       ``(C) Fund management.--Each State revolving fund under 
     this subsection shall be established, maintained, and 
     credited with repayments and interest. The fund corpus shall 
     be available in perpetuity for providing financial assistance 
     under this section. To the extent amounts in each such fund 
     are not required for current obligation or expenditure, such 
     amounts shall be invested in interest bearing obligations of 
     the State or of the United States.
       ``(D) Grants from revolving funds.--A State may not provide 
     assistance in the form of grants from a State revolving fund 
     established under this subsection in an aggregate amount 
     which exceeds the sum of the interest collected on deposits 
     in such State revolving fund plus amounts deposited in such 
     fund by the State pursuant to paragraph (3). Such grants may 
     only be made to public water systems owned by a governmental 
     or inter-governmental agency, a non-profit organization, an 
     Indian tribe, or any combination thereof which the State 
     finds to be experiencing financial hardship.
       ``(E) Investor-owned public water systems.--In the case of 
     any public water system not owned by a governmental or inter-
     governmental agency, a non-profit organization, an Indian 
     tribe, or any combination thereof, the State may provide 
     assistance from a State revolving fund under this subsection 
     according to priorities established by the State based on the 
     greatest public health needs and financial need. The State 
     may provide loan assistance to any such system from such a 
     State revolving fund only after making a determination that 
     the system has the ability to repay the loan according to its 
     terms and conditions. States are authorized to require such 
     systems to identify a dedicated source for repayment of the 
     loans and to impose such other requirements as may be 
     necessary to assure loan repayment.
       ``(2) Specific requirement.--No loan or other financial 
     assistance may be provided to a public water system from a 
     revolving fund established under this subsection to be used 
     for any expenditure that could be avoided or significantly 
     reduced by appropriate consolidation of that public water 
     system with any other public water system, except that in 
     such cases such assistance may be provided from the revolving 
     fund for such consolidation.
       ``(3) State contribution.--In the case of grants made after 
     fiscal year 1995, each agreement under this subsection shall 
     require that the State deposit in the fund from State moneys 
     an amount equal to at least 20 percent of the total amount of 
     the grant to be made to the State on or before the date on 
     which the grant payment is made to the State.
       ``(4) Combined financial administration.--Notwithstanding 
     subparagraph (C) of paragraph (1), a State may (as a 
     convenience and to avoid unnecessary administrative costs) 
     combine, in accordance with State law, the financial 
     administration of a revolving fund established under this 
     subsection with the financial administration of any other 
     revolving fund established by the State if otherwise not 
     prohibited by the law under which such revolving fund was 
     established and if the Administrator determines that--
       ``(A) the grants under this subsection, together with loan 
     repayments and interest, will be separately accounted for and 
     used solely for the purposes specified in paragraph (1); and
       ``(B) the authority to establish assistance priorities and 
     carry out oversight and related activities (other than 
     financial administration) with respect to such assistance 
     remains with the State agency having primary responsibility 
     for administration of the State program under this part.
       ``(5) Administration.--(A) Each State may annually use up 
     to 4 percent of the funds allotted to the State under this 
     subsection to cover the reasonable costs of administration of 
     the assistance program under this subsection and of providing 
     technical assistance to public water systems within the 
     State. For fiscal year 1995 and each fiscal year thereafter, 
     each State may use up to an additional 5 percent of the funds 
     allotted to the State under this subsection for public water 
     system supervision if the State matches such expenditures 
     with at least an equal amount of non-Federal funds. At least 
     half of such match must be additional to the amount expended 
     by the State for public water supervision in fiscal year 
     1993. An additional 1 percent of the funds annually allotted 
     to the State under this subsection shall be used by each 
     State to provide technical assistance to public water systems 
     in such State.
       ``(B) The Administrator shall publish such guidance and 
     promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out 
     the provisions of this section, including--
       ``(i) provisions to ensure that each State commits and 
     expends funds allotted to the State under this subsection as 
     efficiently as possible in accordance with this title and 
     applicable State laws,
       ``(ii) guidance to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, and
       ``(iii) guidance to avoid the use of funds made available 
     under this subsection to finance the expansion of any public 
     water system in anticipation of future population growth.

     Such guidance and regulations shall also insure that the 
     States, and public water systems receiving assistance under 
     this subsection, use accounting, audit, and fiscal procedures 
     that conform to generally accepted accounting standards.
       ``(C) Each State administering a revolving fund and 
     assistance program under this subsection shall publish and 
     submit to the Administrator a report every 2 years on its 
     activities under this subsection, including the findings of 
     the most recent audit of the fund and the entire State 
     allotment. The Administrator shall periodically audit all 
     revolving funds established by, and all other amounts 
     allotted to, the States pursuant to this subsection in 
     accordance with procedures established by the Comptroller 
     General.
       ``(6) Needs survey.--The Administrator shall conduct an 
     assessment of financial needs of all public water systems in 
     the United States and submit a report to the Congress 
     containing the results of such assessment within 2 years 
     after the date of the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act Amendments of 1994. The Administrator shall revise such 
     report periodically as appropriate.
       ``(7) Indian tribes.--1\1/2\ percent of the amounts 
     appropriated annually to carry out this subsection may be 
     used by the Administrator to make grants to Indian Tribes and 
     Alaskan Native Villages which are not otherwise eligible to 
     receive either grants from the Administrator under this 
     subsection or assistance from State revolving funds 
     established under this subsection. Such grants may only be 
     used for expenditures by such tribes and villages for public 
     water system expenditures referred to in paragraph (1)(B).
       ``(8) Other areas.--Of the funds annually available under 
     this section for grants to States, the Administrator shall 
     make allotments in accordance with section 1443(a)(4) for the 
     District of Columbia, the Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of 
     the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the 
     Republic of Palau. The grants allotted as provided in this 
     paragraph may be provided by the Administrator to the 
     governments of such areas, to public water systems in such 
     areas, or to both, to be used for the public water system 
     expenditures referred to in paragraph (1)(B). Such grants 
     shall not be deposited in revolving funds. The total 
     allotment of grants under this subsection for all areas 
     described in this paragraph in any fiscal year shall not 
     exceed 1 percent of the aggregate amount made available to 
     carry out this subsection in that fiscal year.
       ``(9) Additional set-asides.--Any State exercising primary 
     enforcement responsibility for public water systems may use 
     up to 4 percent of the annual grants under this subsection 
     allotted to that State for the following:
       ``(A) To establish and implement wellhead protection 
     programs under section 1428.
       ``(B) For a period of 5 years after the Administrator 
     publishes guidance under section 1428(l), to establish and 
     implement source water assessment programs under section 
     1428.
       ``(C) For a 7-fiscal year period after guidelines are 
     issued under section 1419(a), to develop and implement a 
     viability program under section 1419(b) and assess viability 
     under section 1419(e).

     Not more than 2 percent of such annual grant allotment for 
     any such State in any fiscal year may be used by that State 
     for purpose of subparagraph (C). If any State exercising 
     primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems 
     adopts a petition program under section 1428(m), the State 
     may use not more than 1 percent of the grant under this 
     subsection allotted to the State in any fiscal year for 
     establishing and implementing such program. No such funds 
     shall be used for such a petition program if the State fails 
     to implement the program.
       ``(10) Demonstration project for state of virginia.--
     Notwithstanding the other provisions of this subsection 
     limiting the use of funds deposited in a State revolving fund 
     from any State allotment, the State of Virginia may, as a 
     single demonstration and with the approval of the Virginia 
     General Assembly and the Administrator, conduct a program to 
     demonstrate alternative approaches to intergovernmental 
     coordination to assist in the financing of new drinking water 
     facilities in the following rural communities in southwestern 
     Virginia where none exists on the date of the enactment of 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994 and where such 
     communities are experiencing economic hardship: Lee County, 
     Wise County, Scott County, Dickenson County, Russell County, 
     Buchanan County, Tazewell County, and the city of Norton, 
     Virginia. The funds allotted to that State and deposited in 
     the State revolving fund may be loaned to a regional 
     endowment fund for the purpose set forth in this paragraph 
     under a plan to be approved by the Administrator. The plan 
     may include an advisory group that includes representatives 
     of such counties.
       ``(11) Authorization of appropriations.--There is 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out the purposes of 
     this subsection $599,000,000 for the fiscal year 1994 and 
     $1,000,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1995, 1996, and 
     1997, and such sums as may be necessary thereafter. Sums 
     shall remain available until expended.''.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 18 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency shall report to the Congress, after notice 
     and public comment, on the appropriateness of using State 
     revolving funds under section 1443(c) of the Public Health 
     Service Act for acquisition of real property or interests 
     therein from willing sellers where such acquisition is 
     undertaken in addition to, or as an alternative to, system 
     development as a means of complying with national primary 
     drinking water regulations. The review of the use of such 
     funds shall examine any cost savings and environmental 
     benefits for safe drinking water and any problems related 
     thereto.
       (c) Technical Assistance.--(1) The Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency may provide technical 
     assistance to small public water systems to enable such 
     systems to achieve and maintain compliance with applicable 
     national primary drinking water regulations. Such assistance 
     may include circuit-rider programs, training, and preliminary 
     engineering evaluations. There is authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Administrator to be used for such 
     technical assistance $15,000,000 for the fiscal year 1994, 
     and such sums as may be necessary for fiscal years 
     thereafter. No portion of any State revolving fund 
     established under section 1443(c) of the Public Health 
     Service Act and no portion of any funds made available under 
     this subsection may be used either directly or indirectly for 
     lobbying expenses. Of the total amount appropriated under 
     this subsection, 3 percent shall be used for technical 
     assistance to public water systems owned or operated by 
     Indian tribes. Nothing in this Act or the amendments made by 
     this Act authorizes scientific or environmental research and 
     development.
       (2) Section 1442(g) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(g) [Reserved].''.
       (d) Public Water Systems Supervision Grants.--Section 
     1443(a) is amended as follows:
       (1) Paragraph (4) is amended by adding the following at the 
     end thereof: ``The allotment of grant funds under this 
     subsection for States not exercising primary enforcement 
     responsibility for public water systems shall not be provided 
     to such States but shall be available to the Administrator 
     for the costs of administering this title in those States.''.
       (2) Paragraph (7) is amended by striking out ``not more 
     than the following amounts'' and all that follows down 
     through the end of such paragraph and inserting ``such sums 
     as may be necessary for fiscal years after fiscal year 
     1994.''.

     SEC. 19. RECORDS AND INSPECTIONS.

       (a) Requirements.--Section 1445(a)(1) is amended by 
     inserting ``(A)'' after ``(1)'' and by adding at the end the 
     following:
       ``(B) Instead of using the authority under subparagraph (A) 
     for the purposes set forth in this paragraph or subsection 
     (b), the Administrator may, on a case-by-case basis, require 
     by certified mail any public water system to provide, on a 1-
     time, periodic, or continuous basis, such records, reports, 
     and information as the Administrator may reasonably require 
     in determining whether such system has acted or is acting in 
     compliance with this title. The Administrator shall provide 
     the State exercising primary enforcement responsibility for 
     public water systems a copy of such certified mail. This 
     subparagraph shall not be construed to change any 
     requirements of other applicable laws, such as the Paperwork 
     Reduction Act of 1980. Nothing in this subparagraph shall be 
     construed to affect the authority of the Administrator to use 
     the authority of subsection (b) to determine compliance with 
     this title.''.
       (b) Penalties.--Section 1445(c) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following: ``Such penalty may be assessed by the 
     Administrator after notice and opportunity for a public 
     hearing on the record in accordance with section 554 of title 
     5 of the United States Code.''.

     SEC. 20. MONITORING FOR UNREGULATED CONTAMINANTS.

       Section 1445(a) is amended as follows:
       (1) By adding at the end of paragraph (2) the following 
     sentence: ``Within 24 months after the enactment of the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994 and every 5 years 
     thereafter, the Administrator shall review and, if necessary, 
     revise the list of unregulated contaminants for which 
     monitoring is required.''.
       (2) In paragraph (3), by inserting ``not more than 40'' 
     after ``shall list'' in the first sentence.
       (3) In paragraph (4), by adding at the end thereof: ``Prior 
     to the 24-month deadline established under subsection (g), 
     the State, where it is exercising primary enforcement 
     responsibility for public water systems under this title, 
     shall provide the results of such monitoring to the 
     Administrator for inclusion in the occurrence data base under 
     subsection (g).''.

     SEC. 21. OCCURRENCE DATA BASE.

       Section 1445 is amended by adding the following new 
     subsection at the end thereof:
       ``(g) Occurrence Data Base.--Not later than 24 months after 
     enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, 
     the Administrator shall assemble and maintain a national 
     drinking water occurrence data base, using monitoring data on 
     the occurrence of both regulated and unregulated contaminants 
     in public water supply systems obtained under subsection (a) 
     of this section, and information from other public and 
     private sources.''.

     SEC. 22. GENERAL PROVISIONS.

       (a) Guidelines.--Section 1450 is amended by adding the 
     following at the end thereof:
       ``(j) Guidelines.--(1) All guidelines issued by the 
     Administrator for States exercising primary enforcement 
     responsibility for public water systems for any purpose 
     pursuant to any requirement established by the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act Amendments of 1994 shall be published in the 
     Federal Register and shall remain in effect until changed by 
     the Administrator in accordance with the same procedure as 
     they were established. Such guidelines shall not be 
     considered to be rules and shall not be enforceable as rules. 
     Adoption by a State of a program covered by such guidelines 
     and approval of the program by the Administrator shall be 
     treated as an agreement by the State with, and acceptance of, 
     the guidelines.
       ``(2) Except as otherwise provided in this title, failure 
     of a State to abide by a guideline referred to in paragraph 
     (1) shall not be a basis for the State's loss of primary 
     enforcement responsibility for public water systems.
       ``(3) The Administrator shall order a State to halt use of 
     a monitoring relief program under section 1418 to which any 
     guideline referred to in paragraph (1) applies if the 
     Administrator makes a finding, in writing, after notice to 
     the State, that the State has failed to comply with such 
     guideline and gives the State at least 90 days to correct the 
     alleged problem.
       ``(4) The Administrator may, in the Administrator's 
     discretion, reduce by 50 percent the amount of grants 
     otherwise made available to the State in any fiscal year 
     under section 1443(c) (relating to State revolving funds) if 
     the Administrator makes a finding in writing, after notice to 
     the State, that the State has failed to comply with any 
     guideline referred to in paragraph (1) and gives the State at 
     least 90 days to correct the alleged problem.''.
       (b) Whistle Blower.--Section 1450(i) is amended as follows:
       (1) Amend paragraph (2)(A) by striking ``30 days'' and 
     inserting ``180 days'' and by inserting before the period at 
     the end ``and the Environmental Protection Agency''.
       (2) Amend paragraph (2)(B)(i) by inserting before the last 
     sentence the following: ``Upon conclusion of such hearing and 
     the issuance of a recommended decision that the complaint has 
     merit, the Secretary shall issue a preliminary order 
     providing the relief prescribed in clause (ii), but may not 
     order compensatory damages pending a final order.''.
       (3) Amend paragraph (2)(B)(ii) by inserting ``and'' before 
     ``(III)'' and by striking ``compensatory damages, and (IV) 
     where appropriate, exemplary damages'' and inserting ``and 
     the Secretary may order such person to provide compensatory 
     damages to the complainant''.
       (4) Redesignate paragraphs (3), (4), (5), and (6) as 
     paragraphs (4), (5), (6), and (7), respectively, and insert 
     after paragraph (2) the following:
       ``(3)(A) The Secretary shall dismiss a complaint filed 
     under paragraph (1), and shall not conduct the investigation 
     required under paragraph (2), unless the complainant has made 
     a prima facie showing that any behavior described in 
     subparagraphs (A) through (C) of paragraph (1) was a 
     contributing factor in the unfavorable personnel action 
     alleged in the complaint.
       ``(B) Notwithstanding a finding by the Secretary that the 
     complaint has made the showing required by paragraph (1)(A), 
     no investigation required under paragraph (2) shall be 
     conducted if the employer demonstrates, by clear and 
     convincing evidence, that it would have taken the same 
     unfavorable personnel action in the absence of such behavior.
       ``(C) The Secretary may determine that a violation of 
     paragraph (1) has occurred only if the complainant has 
     demonstrated that any behavior described in subparagraphs (A) 
     through (C) of paragraph (1) was a contributing factor in the 
     unfavorable personnel action alleged in the complaint.
       ``(D) Relief may not be ordered under paragraph (2) if the 
     employer demonstrates clear and convincing evidence that it 
     would have taken the same unfavorable personnel action in the 
     absence of such behavior.''.
       (5) Add at the end the following:
       ``(8) This subsection may not be construed to expand, 
     diminish, or otherwise affect any right otherwise available 
     to an employee under Federal or State law to reduce the 
     employee's discharge or other discriminatory action taken by 
     the employer against the employee. The provisions of this 
     subsection shall be prominently posted in any place of 
     employment to which this subsection applies.''.
       (c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (b) 
     shall apply to claims filed under section 1450(i) of the 
     Public Health Service Act on or after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

     SEC. 23. ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES.

       Part E is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     section:

     ``SEC. 1452. ADMINISTRATIVE PENALTIES.

       ``(a) In General.--The Administrator may assess an 
     administrative penalty for violations of section 1412, 1415, 
     1416, or 1442(h). Such a penalty may only be assessed--
       ``(1) after providing notice (in accordance with section 
     1414(a)(1)(A)) of at least 45 days of the Administrator's 
     intention to assess such penalty to the State exercising 
     primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems 
     and to the public water system in violation of such section, 
     and
       ``(2) after opportunity for a hearing on the record in 
     accordance with section 554 of title 5, United States Code.
       ``(b) Penalty.--The penalty under subsection (a) shall be 
     not more than $5,000 per day of violation. The total penalty 
     under such subsection shall not exceed--
       ``(1) $50,000 for violation of section 1442(h) (relating to 
     minimum standards for certification of operators and 
     laboratories), or
       ``(2) $90,000 in the case of violations of sections 1412, 
     1415, and 1416.

     In assessing such penalties, the Administrator shall consider 
     the size of the public water system, the ability of the 
     system to operate in compliance with this title, the 
     seriousness of the violation, the economic impact of such 
     violation, and history of violations.''.

     SEC. 24. WATER RETURN.

       Part E is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1453. WATER RETURN.

       ``Not later than 18 months after the date of the enactment 
     of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, the 
     Administrator shall issue, after public notice, guidelines to 
     assist public water systems in assessing the conditions, when 
     it is consistent with the requirements and public health 
     objectives of this title, to return water from the public 
     water system used for heat pumps and similar devices to the 
     distribution system of the public water system.''.

     SEC. 25. WATER CONSERVATION PLAN.

       Part E is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1454. WATER CONSERVATION PLAN.

       ``(a) Guidelines.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 
     1994, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register 
     guidelines for water conservation plans for public water 
     systems serving fewer than 3,300 persons, public water 
     systems serving between 3,300 and 10,000 persons, and public 
     water systems serving more than 10,000 persons, taking into 
     consideration such factors as water availability and climate.
       ``(b) SRF Loans or Grants.--Within 1 year after publication 
     of the guidelines under subsection (a), a State exercising 
     primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems 
     may require a public water system, as a condition of 
     receiving a loan or grant from a State revolving fund under 
     section 1443(c), to submit with its application for such loan 
     or grant a water conservation plan consistent with such 
     guidelines.''.

     SEC. 26. SUBMERSIBLE PUMPS; FITTINGS; AND RESIDENTIAL WATER 
                   TREATMENT UNITS.

       Part F is amended by adding at the end the following:

     ``SEC. 1466. SUBMERSIBLE PUMPS.

       ``(a) In General.--(1) Except as provided in subsection 
     (b), within 3 years after the date of the enactment of the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994 the Administrator 
     shall promulgate regulations containing a health effects 
     based performance standard establishing minimal leaching 
     levels of lead from new submersible pumps reasonably 
     anticipated to be used in domestic water wells, taking into 
     account marketing and sales information and other relevant 
     factors. Such standard shall apply to new pumps manufactured 
     for, or first introduced into, interstate commerce after the 
     effective date of the regulation promulgating the standard.
       ``(2) At a minimum, the standard under this section shall 
     not allow lead concentration in drinking water to increase by 
     more than 15 parts per billion (ppb) when in prolonged 
     contact with the pump. Such standard shall be effective 3 
     years after the date of its promulgation or at such earlier 
     time as the Administrator determines that pumps subject to 
     paragraph (1) can reasonably be anticipated to be in 
     compliance with such standards.
       ``(b) Exception.--(1) If the Administrator determines, 
     after notice and opportunity for public comment, that--
       ``(A) voluntary standards have been developed that are at 
     least as protective as the minimum standard described in 
     subsection (a)(2), and
       ``(B) pumps subject to paragraph (1) of subsection (a) can 
     reasonably be anticipated to be in compliance with such 
     voluntary standards within 6 years after the date of the 
     enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994,

     the Administrator shall not promulgate regulations 
     establishing the standard under subsection (a) or, if such 
     regulations have been promulgated, provide that such 
     regulations shall not take effect or be enforced.
       ``(2) Within 2 years after the date of the enactment of the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, the Administrator 
     shall determine, after notice and opportunity for public 
     comment, whether new submersible pumps which convey drinking 
     water and which contain brass alloys containing 0.2 percent 
     lead or more are being manufactured for, or first introduced 
     into, interstate commerce. If the Administrator determines, 
     at that time, that such pumps are not being manufactured for, 
     or first introduced into, interstate commerce, the 
     Administrator shall not promulgate regulations establishing 
     the standard under subsection (a) or make a determination 
     under subsection (b)(1), or if such regulations have been 
     promulgated, provide that such regulations shall not take 
     effect or be enforced.

     ``SEC. 1467. FITTINGS.

       ``(a) In General.--Within 1 year after the date of the 
     enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, 
     the Administrator shall determine if--
       ``(1) voluntary standards for new plumbing fittings 
     manufactured for or introduced into interstate commerce which 
     convey drinking water have been developed that are at least 
     as protective of human health as the minimum performance 
     standard promulgated under subsection (b), and
       ``(2) such fittings can reasonably be anticipated to comply 
     with such standards within 5 years after such date of 
     enactment.
       ``(b) Regulations.--If the Administrator determines that 
     such voluntary standards for new plumbing fittings which 
     convey drinking water have not been developed or that such 
     fittings cannot reasonably be anticipated to comply, within 5 
     years of such date of enactment, with such voluntary 
     standards, the Administrator shall, within 2 years after the 
     date of such determination, promulgate regulations setting a 
     health effects based performance standard establishing 
     minimal leaching levels of lead from such new plumbing 
     fittings. Such regulation shall take effect 3 years after the 
     date of such promulgation. Under such regulation, such 
     fittings shall not cause lead concentration in drinking water 
     to increase by more than 15 parts per billion when in 
     prolonged contact with such fitting.

     ``SEC. 1468. ENFORCEMENT OF SECTIONS 1466 AND 1467.

       ``(a) In General.--Any person who manufactures or first 
     introduces in interstate commerce any new submersible pump or 
     new plumbing fitting which violates any requirement 
     established by the Administrator by regulation under section 
     1466 or 1467, shall be liable to the United States for a 
     civil penalty in an amount not to exceed $10,000 for each 
     such violation. To assess such civil penalty, the 
     Administrator shall, after notice and opportunity for hearing 
     on the record in accordance with sections 554 and 556 of 
     title 5, United States Code, issue an order assessing such 
     civil penalty.
       ``(b) Actions.--The Administrator may commence a civil 
     action to enjoin any violation of section 1466 or 1467 or to 
     assess and recover any civil penalty under subsection (a). 
     Any such action may be brought in the district court of the 
     United States for the district in which the violation is 
     alleged to have occurred or in which the defendant resides or 
     has the defendant's principal place of business. Such a court 
     shall have jurisdiction to issue injunctive relief and to 
     assess a civil penalty.
       ``(c) Order.--The Administrator may issue an order to 
     require any person to comply with any requirement of section 
     1466 or 1467.
       ``(d) Future Compliance.--The Administrator shall 
     periodically evaluate compliance with the standards under 
     sections 1466 and 1467.

     ``SEC. 1469. RESIDENTIAL WATER TREATMENT UNITS.

       ``(a) FTC Investigation.--The Federal Trade Commission, in 
     consultation with the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency, shall conduct an investigation, pursuant 
     to the Federal Trade Commission Act, into the veracity of 
     claims that devices manufactured, sold, or distributed in 
     interstate commerce for use in single and multi-family 
     residences will improve the quality of drinking water or 
     eliminate or reduce the level of 1 or more drinking water 
     contaminants (for which a national primary drinking water 
     regulation is promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water Act) 
     and shall take such action pursuant to section 5 of such Act 
     against any person who introduces, delivers for introduction, 
     sells, advertises, or offers for sale, in interstate 
     commerce, such devices as the Commission deems appropriate to 
     ensure that such claims are consistent with the requirements 
     of that Act and any applicable decisions and orders of the 
     Commission under section 5 of that Act. The Commission shall, 
     consistent with the requirements of such Act, report the 
     results of its investigation and the actions it takes to the 
     Congress within 2 years after enactment of this Act. The 
     Commission may, from time to time, issue rules (pursuant to 
     section 553 of title 5 of the United States Code) and any 
     violation of such rules shall be treated by the Commission as 
     a violation of a rule under section 18 of the Federal Trade 
     Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 57a) regarding unfair or deceptive 
     acts or practices.
       ``(b) EPA Report.--The Administrator, taking into account 
     any available results of such study, shall, within 3 years 
     after the date of the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act Amendments of 1994, submit a report to Congress 
     containing recommendations regarding the effectiveness of 
     such devices, and recommendations for legislation, to the 
     extent necessary to assure the effectiveness of such devices 
     in reducing the level of drinking water contaminants.''.

     SEC. 27. BOTTLED DRINKING WATER STANDARDS.

       Section 410 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21 
     U.S.C. 349) is amended--
       (1) by striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``(a) Except as 
     provided in subsection (b), whenever''; and
       (2) by adding at the end thereof the following new 
     subsection:
       ``(b) Bottled Drinking Water Standards.--(1) Not later than 
     180 days after the Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency promulgates a national primary drinking 
     water regulation for a contaminant under section 1412 of the 
     Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-1), the Secretary, 
     after public notice and comment, shall issue a regulation 
     under this subsection for that contaminant in bottled water 
     or make a finding that such a regulation is not necessary to 
     protect the public health because the contaminant is 
     contained in water in public water systems (as defined under 
     section 1401(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300f(4)) but not in 
     water used for bottled drinking water. In the case of 
     contaminants for which national primary drinking water 
     regulations were promulgated under such section 1412 before 
     the date of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
     Amendments of 1994, the Secretary shall issue such regulation 
     within 1 year after such date of enactment.
       ``(2) A regulation issued by the Secretary as provided in 
     this subsection shall include any monitoring requirements 
     that the Secretary determines appropriate for bottled water.
       ``(3) A regulation issued by the Secretary as provided in 
     this subsection shall require the following:
       ``(A) In the case of contaminants for which a maximum 
     contaminant level is established in a national primary 
     drinking water regulation under section 1412 of the Public 
     Health Service Act, the regulation under this subsection 
     shall establish a maximum contaminant level for the 
     contaminant in bottled water which is at least as stringent 
     as the maximum contaminant level provided in the national 
     primary drinking water regulation.
       ``(B) In the case of contaminants for which a treatment 
     technique is established in a national primary drinking water 
     regulation under section 1412 of the Public Health Service 
     Act, the regulation under this subsection shall require that 
     bottled water be subject to requirements no less protective 
     of the public health than those applicable to water provided 
     by public water systems using the treatment technique 
     required by the national primary drinking water regulation.
       ``(4)(A) If the Secretary fails to establish a regulation 
     under this subsection within the 180-day period described in 
     paragraph (1), the national primary drinking water regulation 
     referred to in paragraph (1) shall be considered, as of the 
     date on which the Secretary is required to establish a 
     regulation under paragraph (1), as the regulation applicable 
     under this subsection to bottled water.
       ``(B) Not later than 30 days after the end of the 180-day 
     period, or the 1-year period if applicable, described in 
     paragraph (1), the Secretary shall, with respect to a 
     national primary drinking water regulation that is considered 
     applicable to bottled water as provided in subparagraph (A), 
     publish a notice in the Federal Register that--
       ``(i) sets forth the requirements of the national primary 
     drinking water regulation, including monitoring requirements, 
     which shall be applicable to bottled water, and
       ``(ii) provides that such requirements shall take effect on 
     the date on which the national primary drinking water 
     regulation for the contaminant takes effect under section 
     1412 of the Public Health Service Act (or in the case of 
     national primary drinking water regulations promulgated 
     before the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
     Amendments of 1994, on the date 18 months after the enactment 
     of such Act).''.

     SEC. 28. ARSENIC.

       (a) Study.--Subject to availability of appropriations, the 
     Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall 
     enter into an agreement with the National Academy of Sciences 
     to conduct a comprehensive study of the human health effects 
     of arsenic (which is subject to regulation as a contaminant 
     under the Safe Drinking Water Act), taking into consideration 
     the fact that arsenic occurs naturally. Such study shall be 
     completed within 2 years of the date the agreement is entered 
     into. A report shall be transmitted to the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency for purposes of 
     subsection (b).
       (b) Regulation.--
       (1) Proposed regulation.--Not later than December 31, 1996, 
     the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
     shall propose a national primary drinking water regulation 
     for arsenic. If the study under subsection (a) is begun 
     before May 31, 1996, the Administrator may not, except as 
     provided in paragraph (2), promulgate such regulation until 
     the National Academy of Sciences has issued a report under 
     such subsection. When the National Academy of Sciences issues 
     such report, the Administrator shall reopen the comment 
     period on the proposed regulation for 60 days.
       (2) Regulation.--The Administrator shall promulgate a 
     national primary drinking water regulation for arsenic not 
     later than December 31, 1999, except that the Administrator 
     may extend such date for 1 year if the Administrator has 
     issued a new proposed regulation for arsenic. The 
     Administrator may promulgate such regulation prior to such 
     date if the Administrator finds that arsenic in drinking 
     water is associated with an imminent and substantial 
     endangerment to the health of persons and publishes such 
     determination in the Federal Register.
       (3) Standard setting process.--In issuing the national 
     primary drinking water regulation for arsenic, the 
     Administrator may promulgate a national primary drinking 
     water regulation pursuant to section 1412(b)(5)(A) and (B) of 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act.

     SEC. 29. DEFINITIONS.

       (a) Piped Water.--Section 1401 is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(15) The term `piped water' means, in addition to water 
     carried in pipes, water carried in culverts, canals, or 
     similar conveyances. Such term does not include irrigation 
     water provided to incidental nonagricultural users if the 
     Administrator or State (in the case of a State exercising 
     primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems) 
     determines that alternative drinking water to achieve the 
     equivalent level of health protection provided by the 
     applicable national primary drinking water regulations is 
     provided for drinking, cooking, and bathing, or where the 
     Administrator or State (in the case of a State exercising 
     primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems) 
     determines that the water provided for drinking, cooking, and 
     bathing is treated by the provider of such irrigation water, 
     or a pass-through entity providing water for drinking, 
     cooking, and bathing, to achieve the equivalent level of 
     health protection provided by the applicable national primary 
     drinking water regulations. This paragraph shall not be 
     construed to affect the meaning of the term `human 
     consumption' as used in any other provision of this title. As 
     used in this paragraph, the term `conveyance' does not 
     include rivers, streams, lakes, or ponds. Nothing in this 
     paragraph shall create new or additional requirements for 
     public water system.''.
       (b) Alternative Quality Control and Testing Procedures.--
     Section 1401(1)(D) is amended by adding the following at the 
     end thereof: ``At any time after promulgation of a regulation 
     referred to in this paragraph, the Administrator may add 
     equally effective quality control and testing procedures by 
     guidance published in the Federal Register. Such procedures 
     shall be treated as an alternative for public water systems 
     to the quality control and testing procedures listed in the 
     regulation.''.

     SEC. 30. REPORTS ON ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY 
                   ADMINISTERED PROGRAMS.

       For States and Indian Tribes in which the Administrator of 
     the Environmental Protection Agency has revoked primary 
     enforcement responsibility under part B of title XIV of the 
     Public Health Service Act (the Safe Drinking Water Act) or is 
     otherwise administering such title, the Administrator shall 
     provide every 2 years, a report to Congress on the 
     implementation by the Administrator of all applicable 
     requirements of that title in such States.

     SEC. 31. GENERAL AUTHORIZATION.

       (a) In General.--Part A is amended by adding the following 
     new section after section 1401:

     ``SEC. 1402. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

       ``There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may 
     be necessary to carry out the provisions of this title for 
     the first 8 fiscal years following the enactment of the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendments.--The heading for part A is 
     amended to read as follows:

                    ``Part A--General Provisions''.

     SEC. 32. CLERICAL AMENDMENT.

       Section 1421(b)(3)(B)(i) is amended by striking ``number or 
     States'' and inserting ``number of States''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
California [Mr. Waxman] will be recognized for 20 minutes, and the 
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] will be recognized for 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman].


                             general leave

  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may 
have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on 
the legislation now under consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, this bipartisan consensus on Safe Drinking Water is the 
result of months of negotiations, as members and staff from both sides 
of the aisle in the Energy and Commerce Committee have worked with one 
another and outside groups to hammer out a compromise that addresses 
the legitimate concerns of all sides in the safe drinking water debate.
  Remarkable, the package of amendments before us today is supported by 
the water supply community, by State and local governments, by the 
public interest community, and by agricultural interests.
  Organizations supporting passage of this legislation, include, to 
name a few: the American Water Works Association, the National 
Association of Water Companies, the National Rural Water Association, 
the National League of Cities, the American Public Health Association, 
the National Governor's Association, the Natural Resources Defense 
Council, the U.S. Public Interest Research Group, the National 
Conference of Farmer Cooperatives, and the National Agricultural 
Chemicals Association. I will put a more complete list of supporting 
organizations in the Record accompanying my remarks.
  There are good reasons why this bipartisan legislation has such broad 
support.
  It is a good deal for State and local governments because it offers 
new flexibility and new funding to: establish more intergovernment 
cooperation, carve a greater role for the States, and address concerns 
about unfunded mandates.
  It is a good deal for the public water suppliers because it reduces 
the financial burden of monitoring for contaminants unlikely to be a 
problem, clarifies that future regulatory efforts should focus on 
contaminants associated with the greatest public health risks, revises 
the standard-setting provisions to expressly allow the consideration of 
incremental costs and benefits in evaluating the feasibility of 
drinking water technologies for some new standards, and provides broad 
new authorities for variance and exemptions from the act's 
requirements, where consistent with continued health protection.
  And, finally, it is a good deal for public interest groups because it 
establishes a new program to see that operators of public water systems 
are properly trained, puts in place a new State effort to assure that 
small water systems have the resources and expertise needed to provide 
safe water, promotes pollution prevention, enhances health protection 
for subpopulations especially sensitive to drinking water 
contamination, such as the elderly or pregnant women, puts in place a 
new program to reduce contamination of drinking water distribution 
lines from leaking sewer lines, and calls for prompt establishment of 
new standards for cryptosporidium--the drinking water contaminant 
responsible for the tragic disease outbreak in Milwaukee last year.
  This cooperative effort is only possible because President Clinton 
made the enactment of safe drinking water legislation a top 
environmental priority for this Congress. He has been steadfast in his 
commitment to providing regulatory relief while still maintaining 
important public health protection.
  I want to commend my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for their 
efforts in helping to make this difficult compromise possible. In 
particular, I want to express my deep appreciation to Chairman Dingell 
for his leadership in this matter and to Congressman Bliley and 
Congressman Moorhead who have worked hard to see all the legitimate 
issues addressed as they have helped to forge this bipartisan 
consensus.

  I also want to commend Congressman Synar for his work in helping us 
put this package together, and to give special commendations to 
Congressman Slattery, Congressman Studds, and Congressman Lambert for 
their efforts in helping to bridge the gap between the water supply 
community and the public interest community. Without their invaluable 
work, the progress we have made would simply not have been possible.
  Finally, I want to commend the EPA staff who contributed greatly to 
the negotiations, including the head of the drinking water program, Jim 
Elder, as well as Phil Metzker, Tom Wall, John Reeder, and Julie 
Anderson.
  I look forward to continuing to work with my colleagues to see this 
bill rapidly enacted into law.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a list of organizations 
supporting the bipartisan consensus in H.R. 3392:

     Organizations Supporting the Bipartisan Consensus in H.R. 3392

       Among the organizations supporting passage of this 
     legislation are:
       The American Water Works Association,
       The Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies,
       The National Association of Water Companies,
       The National Rural Water Association,
       The National League of Cities,
       The National Association of Counties,
       The National Governor's Association,
       The National Resources Defense Council,
       Friends of the Earth,
       The U.S. Public Interest Research Group,
       The American Oceans Campaign,
       Clean Water Action,
       Physicians for Social Responsibility,
       The U.S. Conference of Mayors,
       The National Conference of State Legislatures,
       The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators,
       The National Association of Regulatory Utility 
     Commissioners,
       The National Water Resources Association,
       The National Conference of Farmer Cooperatives,
       The National Agricultural Chemicals Association,
       The Food Industry Environmental Council,
       The National Audubon Society,
       The National Wildlife Federation,
       The American Public Health Association, and
       The Clean Water Industry Coalition.

  Mr. Speaker, I also include for the Record a memorandum to the 
members and staff of the Committee on Energy and Commerce regarding the 
markup of Safe Drinking Water Act amendments:

                              [Memorandum]

     Re mark-up of Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments.

     To: Members and Staff of the Energy and Commerce Committee
     From: Henry A. Waxman
     Date: September 19, 1994.

       Legislation amending the Safe Drinking Water Act is 
     scheduled to be marked up at the Health and the Environment 
     Subcommittee on Tuesday, September 21 at 11:00 a.m.; and at 
     the full Energy and Commerce Committee on the afternoon of 
     September 21.
       The mark-up vehicle will be H.R. 3392, amendments to the 
     Safe Drinking Water Act introduced by Congressmen Slattery 
     and Bliley. A bipartisan comprehensive substitute to this 
     bill will be offered at the Subcommittee mark-up with support 
     from Chairman Waxman, Chairman Dingell, Representatives 
     Slattery and Bliley, and Representatives Synar, Studds and 
     Lambert (the sponsors of H.R. 4314, an alternate drinking 
     water bill).
       The comprehensive substitute is the product of more than 6 
     months of negotiations, and is intended to address the 
     concerns of state and local governments and water suppliers 
     (who have sought greater flexibility in the control of 
     drinking water contamination and greater federal financial 
     and technical assistance); and the concerns of the public 
     interest community (which has sought greater assurance of 
     public health protection, and adoption of more effective 
     programs to address carcinogens in drinking water and prevent 
     water borne disease outbreaks such as the one occurring last 
     year in Milwaukee).
       The text of the Substitute is attached. This compromise 
     includes:
       A major new program of federal financial and technical 
     assistance to help drinking water suppliers, especially those 
     in rural areas, meet the health protection requirements of 
     the Safe Drinking Water Act;
       More flexible monitoring requirements designed to reduce 
     the burden on water suppliers while assuring continued 
     protection of the public health;
       Extended timeframes for compliance with new drinking water 
     standards;
       A new source water assessment program to encourage 
     prevention of drinking water contamination at the source;
       A revised approach to the regulation of new contaminants to 
     assure that new regulatory efforts focus on those 
     contaiminats associated with the greatest health threats;
       A revised standard setting approach providing EPA with 
     greater flexibility to consider incremental costs and 
     benefits in establishing standards for drinking water 
     contaminants not yet the subject of proposed or final 
     regulations;
       New provisions using federal financial assistance to assure 
     that small water suppliers have the financial, technical, and 
     managerial expertise to meet the health protection 
     requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act;
       A new program allowing small water systems (those serving 
     less than 3,300 persons) to utilize alternative technologies 
     tailored to their more limited capabilities in meeting 
     drinking water standards;
       Broad state authority to grant small water systems 
     renewable exemptions from Safe Drinking Water Act 
     requirements, where the terms of the exemptions continue to 
     assure health protection;
       Expanded state authority to grant larger water systems up 
     to two four-year exemptions from Safe Drinking Water Act 
     requirements, where the terms of the exemptions continue to 
     assure health protection.
       New state programs to assure that individuals operating 
     public water systems have the training and expertise 
     necessary to properly and safely operate drinking water 
     systems;
       A new program to assure that plumbing fixtures and 
     submersible pumps do not contribute unsafe levels of lead to 
     drinking water;
       More streamlined EPA authority to impose administrative 
     penalties comparable to the agency's enforcement authorities 
     under other environmental laws;
       New penalties for the falsification of monitoring results, 
     for interfering with the operation of a public water system, 
     and for knowing and deliberate failures to report violations 
     of drinking water standards;
       New directives for the Food and Drug Administration to 
     issue standards for bottled water supplies that are at least 
     as protective of the public health as applicable regulations 
     for tap water;
       A new program to prevent ``cross-connections''--where 
     sewage escaping from leaky sewer lines contaminates drinking 
     water;
       A new reporting system and widely available data base with 
     comprehensive information on violations of drinking water 
     standards;
       New provisions promoting more cost-effective approaches to 
     the contamination of drinking water by sulfate and arsenic;
       A requirement for EPA to promptly publish a new standard 
     for cryptosporidium, the currently unregulated drinking water 
     contaminant responsible for the disease outbreak in 
     Milwaukee; and
       A less burdensome approach to drinking water contamination 
     with radon, where effective national policies are adopted for 
     control of radon in indoor air pollution.
       A copy of the substitute is attached. If you have any 
     questions, please contact Greg Wetstone or Phil Barnett of 
     the Subcommittee staff at ext. 67620.

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. BLILEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3392, the Safe 
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994.
  Almost a year ago, Congressman Jim Slattery and I introduced 
legislation to reform the Safe Drinking Water Act. Our efforts were 
motivated by a concern that the Safe Drinking Water Act was broken and 
that it had lost the confidence of those it is intended to protect and 
those who are responsible for enforcing it.
  This legislation changes that. This legislation includes important 
reforms that will ensure that drinking water is safe and that public 
resources are allocated efficiently.
  As the chairman of the subcommittee, Mr. Waxman, has already 
described, this legislation is the product of literally months of 
negotiations among a number of members of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee. I am pleased to see that the compromise bill contains a 
number of elements that are contained in legislation that I introduced 
with Congressman Slattery more than a year ago.
  I am also proud that this legislation is supported by a broad 
coalition of elected officials and public water systems, including the 
National Governors' Association, the National League of Cities, the 
U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Conference of State 
Legislatures, and representatives of virtually every kind of public 
water system in the United States.
  Indeed, some 39 separate organizations support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I include this list of organizations supporting this 
legislation in the Record, as follows:

       National Governors' Association.
       National League of Cities.
       U.S. Conference of Mayors.
       National Association of Counties.
       National Conference of State Legislatures.
       Association of State Drinking Water Administrators.
       National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners.
       American Water Works Association.
       Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies.
       National Association of Water Companies.
       National Rural Water Association.
       National Water Resources Association.
       Natural Resources Defense Council.
       Friends of the Earth.
       Clean Water Action.
       Physicians for Social Responsibility.
       American Oceans Campaign.
       U.S. Public Interest Research Group.
       Agricultural Retailers Association.
       American Crop Protection Association (formerly NACA).
       American Farm Bureau Federation.
       American Feed Industry Association.
       American Soybean Association.
       Clean Water Industry Coalition.
       CF Industries, Inc.
       Equipment Manufacturers Institute.
       Farmland Industries, Inc.
       Food Industry Environmental Council.
       National Association of Conservation Districts.
       National Association of State Departments of Agriculture.
       National Association of Wheat Growers.
       National Corn Growers Association.
       National Cotton Council.
       National Potato Council.
       National Council of Farmer Cooperatives.
       National Grange.
       National Pork Producers Council.
       National Milk Producers Federation.
       United Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Association.

  Mr. Speaker, It was the coalition of elected officials and public 
water systems that brought to my attention the need to reform the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, and it is this coalition that deserves the credit 
for the fact that we are considering a bipartisan bill to make 
important reforms to the Safe Drinking Water Act. I want to emphasize 
that this is reform that started outside the Washington, DC beltway, 
not inside of it.
  Let me take a just a moment to describe a few of the important 
reforms that this bill would make to the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
First, this legislation changes the way that EPA would choose new 
contaminants to regulate. Under current law, EPA is required to 
regulate 25 new contaminants every 3 years. This bill changes that, 
requiring EPA to choose which contaminants to regulate based on whether 
regulation would result in a meaningful opportunity to protect the 
public health.
  Second, this legislation changes the way in which EPA sets standards 
for new drinking water contaminants by giving EPA the authority to 
consider the costs and benefits of various options. The bill also 
requires EPA to provide risk assessment information which is sound and 
unbiased.
  Third, this legislation contains a number of important changes that 
will benefit small public water systems. More than 80 percent of the 
public water systems in the United States are small systems, and they 
have been hit particularly hard by the dramatically increasing costs of 
complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act. This legislation requires 
EPA to identity technologies that small systems can use to meet the 
standards under the act. This legislation also creates new variance and 
exemption procedures when small systems just do not have the resources 
to comply with the standards established for larger systems.
  In conclusion, I want to thank Congressman Jim Slattery for his 
cooperation and hard work on H.R. 3392. I also want to thank the 200 
Members of the House who have cosponsored H.R. 3392 and helped to move 
it forward. Finally, I want to thank Chairman Dingell and Chairman 
Waxman for agreeing to work with us to develop legislation which 
attempts to solve problems.
  Mr. Speaker, I also want to thank the gentleman from Pasadena, CA 
[Mr. Moorhead], my ranking Member; the gentlewoman from Arkansas [Ms. 
Lambert]; the gentleman from Oklahoma [Mr. Synar]; and the gentleman 
from Massachusetts [Mr. Studds] for their work in the committee to move 
this bill forward in a bipartisan way.
  I also want to thank EPA for their willingness to work with us. I 
want to thank our staff, particularly Charles Ingebretson and Nandan 
Kenkeremath.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill will help restore confidence in the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, both for all of us who drink the water but also for 
those who are entrusted with enforcing the law and making it work. I 
certainly urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Arkansas [Ms. Lambert], an important member of our committee and a 
member who made an important contribution to this particular 
legislation.
  Ms. LAMBERT. Mr. Speaker, it is with satisfaction and some exhaustion 
that I rise in strong support of this long-awaited bill. This bill has 
been a long time in coming, and I want to thank my colleagues who have 
been working tirelessly over the past 6 months--Mr. Dingell, Mr. 
Bliley, Mr. Waxman, Mr. Slattery, my original cosponsor, Mr. Synar and 
Mr. Studds and their staffs. A special thanks to Mindy Byrns O'Brien of 
my staff.
  We have a rare situation where we have strong support from many 
interested parties to enact this piece of legislation into law. To name 
a few, we have the support of the Governors, the mayors, the cities and 
counties, the big water suppliers, the rural water suppliers, the 
environmentalists, and the agricultural community. I believe reaching a 
consensus of this magnitude is something to be very proud of.
  H.R. 3392 is a responsible bill and one that provides some needed 
relief to public water systems without compromising the health of their 
water consumers. In addition, H.R. 3392 includes $1.3 billion worth of 
already appropriated Federal funds to help States run their drinking 
water programs. This is one bill that does not contain unfunded Federal 
mandates.
  Most importantly to me, coming from a rural district, is the relief 
and assistance provided to our rural water suppliers. For years, small 
rural public water systems have been compelled to monitor for some 
contaminants that do not even exist in their watersheds, and at great 
expense. This compromise would permit systems to receive monitoring 
relief in these type of situations so that their limited resources can 
be devoted to more productive purposes like getting safe drinking water 
to the many people of my district. We also secured technical and 
financial assistance grants for organizations such as the National 
Rural Water Association and the Rural Community Assistance Program to 
continue to conduct their circuit rider and managerial support programs 
to help small systems stay in compliance with the act. These programs 
have been extremely successful and cost effective over the years, and I 
anticipate their continued success.
  I also appreciate the chairmen's accommodation of agricultural 
interests. Through these negotiations, we have been able to create a 
bottoms-up approach to prevent the contamination of our drinking water 
supplies. Through a petition process, concerned stakeholders, such as 
our farmers, can work together with the local governments, local public 
water systems and the States in voluntary partnerships to protect the 
integrity of our drinking water to avoid the installation of expensive 
treatment technology. Like preventative health care, we can elude 
certain contamination problems before they become irreversible.
  When we started, there were two bills--one introduced by Mr. Slattery 
and Mr. Bliley and one introduced by Mr. Studds, Mr. Synar, and myself. 
At the beginning we were pretty far apart in our approaches. However, 
through diligent negotiations and sheer determination, we were able to 
work out our differences and produce a responsible and effective bill.
  Therefore, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 3392 and vote yes for 
Safe Drinking Water.

                              {time}  1510

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Moorhead], the ranking minority member 
on the committee.
  Mr. MOORHEAD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3392, the Safe 
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994.
  As Chairman Waxman and the gentleman from Virginia, Mr. Tom Bliley, 
ranking member of the subcommittee have already mentioned, this bill is 
the product of many months of negotiations among members and staff of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee. I will admit that it is not a 
perfect bill, but it is a good compromise because it contains many 
important reforms to the Safe Drinking Water Act, and because it is 
supported by a broad coalition of elected officials and other 
organizations.
  This legislation contains many important reforms for small public 
water systems. I want to point out that this bill also contains reforms 
that will benefit large public water systems, such as the one that 
serves most of my constituents in southern California, the metropolitan 
water district.
  First of all, the bill directs EPA to use a new process for selecting 
new contaminants to regulate, and authorizes EPA to consider 
incremental costs and benefits when it sets new drinking water 
regulations.
  The bill also includes language requiring EPA to ensure that risk 
assessment information is presented in a fair and unbiased fashion. 
Together, these provisions will help to ensure that public water 
systems are spending their limited resources on the most significant 
public health risks.
  This legislation also helps large public water systems by giving them 
more time to comply with new EPA regulations. New treatment 
technologies can take a while to finance and construct. The bill gives 
EPA the authority to extend compliance timeframes to take these 
considerations into account.

  Finally, the bill includes a new source water assessment program that 
will help States and public water systems identify sources of drinking 
water contamination before they become big problems. I am pleased to 
note that the bill also includes a petition program that will allow 
public water systems to receive assistance from the State and other 
sources to address potential sources of drinking water contamination 
before they require the installation of expensive treatment 
technologies.
  I want to commend Congressman Bliley and Congressman Slattery for 
their work over the past year to reform and improve the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. They have listened to Governors, mayors, and other elected 
officials and they have stood fast for real reform in the Federal 
drinking water program.
  I also want to commend Chairman Dingell and Chairman Waxman, and Ms. 
Lambert, Mr. Synar, and Mr. Studds, and their staffs, for their efforts 
in developing this compromise. This legislation offers our first 
opportunity in a long time to make an environmental law more cost 
effective and flexible. I urge my colleagues to support the bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Synar], a key player in the development of this 
compromise.
  (Mr. SYNAR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. SYNAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3392, the 
bipartisan compromise bill negotiated by several members of the Energy 
and Commerce Committee. This bill achieves something that has been long 
sought by the small rural water systems that I represent: significant 
reform of the current Safe Drinking Water Act.
  When Congress strengthened the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1986 after 
years of the Reagan administration's unwillingness to regulate even the 
most basic contaminants polluting America's drinking water supplies, we 
went a little too far, quite frankly. Our actions were justified at the 
time, but I am afraid that we did not fully appreciate the impact that 
the 1986 amendments would have on already struggling small water 
systems, especially in light of dwindling Federal resources available 
to fund the mandates imposed on local water systems and States by the 
act.
  The Environment, Energy and Natural Resources Subcommittee, which I 
chair, held oversight hearings in 1990 and 1994 on this issue and 
requested several U.S. General Accounting Office reviews of EPA's 
efforts to address small system compliance problems with the act. Small 
systems have the greatest difficulties complying with the act because 
they lack the financial resources and technical capabilities to carry 
out the basic requirements of the original 1974 law, let alone the 
additional costly requirements of the 1986 amendments. In testimony 
before the subcommittee, representatives of small systems complained 
that their scarce resources were going to pay for sometimes excessive 
or unnecessary testing of contaminants, rather than needed 
infrastructure improvements.
  In 1992, I introduced legislation to provide small systems with 
appropriate monitoring relief. In 1993, the Clinton administration 
proposed 10 principles for the act's reauthorization, designed to 
address the needs of small systems. Earlier this year, I joined with my 
colleagues, Representatives Blanche Lambert and Gerry Studds, to 
introduce comprehensive legislation to provide relief to small systems 
and reform the current requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
Representatives Slattery and Bliley introduced competing reform 
legislation backed by a strong coalition of States, municipalities, and 
local water systems.
  After almost 7 months of staff negotiations, we reached agreement 
with Representatives Dingell, Waxman, Slattery, and Bliley on all of 
the complex and contentious issues raised at the negotiating table. The 
final bill is supported by a wide range of groups, including the 
States, municipalities, urban and rural water systems, the agricultural 
community, and environmental groups. The fact that so many diverse 
interests support the bill is a tribute to the leadership shown by 
committee Chairman Dingell and subcommittee Chairman Waxman, 
especially. And I want to say a special thanks to Representatives 
Lambert and Studds and their staff members for the extensive time and 
effort they put in on this important issue.
  The compromise legislation incorporates many of the key provisions 
included in the Lambert-Synar-Studds bill, including encouraging 
drinking water systems to protect their source waters and to implement 
programs to assess and prevent pollution of their drinking water 
supplies. Importantly, the bill eliminates the act's requirement that 
EPA arbitrarily regulate 25 additional contaminants every 3 years, and 
instead adopts a revised approach to ensure that EPA regulates only 
those contaminants that occur in the water and present actual health 
threats to citizens. The bill also revises the standard setting process 
to ensure that compliance costs and risk reduction benefits are 
considered when regulating new contaminants, and directs EPA to 
regulate the dangerous contaminant that caused hundreds of thousands of 
people in the Milwaukee, WI, area to become sick last year.

  Most importantly, the bill provides substantial monetary and 
technical assistance to small systems trying to achieve or maintain 
compliance with the act. Fully 15 percent of the newly established 
State revolving fund [SRF] for drinking water systems is set aside 
specifically for small systems. That amounts to almost $200 million in 
financial assistance to small systems right off the bat, since that 
money has already been appropriated. In addition, 1 percent of the SRF 
will be used by States to provide much needed technical assistance to 
water systems, and an additional $15 million per year is authorized in 
new funding for technical assistance to small systems.
  The bill also grants an automatic 3-year interim monitoring relief 
period for small systems to ensure that their scarce resources are not 
spent testing for contaminants not likely to be found. This relief 
extends to contaminants that are particularly expensive to monitor and 
test for, such as pesticides, dioxin, PCB's, and unregulated 
contaminants. Moreover, the bill contains opportunities for all systems 
to obtain long-term permanent monitoring relief in States with strong 
wellhead protection or source water assessment programs. The bill's 
provisions also grant drinking water systems substantial relief from 
the costly testing and treatment of contaminants such as radon, 
arsenic, and sulfate. The compromise also contains a new program 
directing EPA to identify technologies available to help small systems 
meet Federal standards. If small systems cannot afford conventional 
technologies, the bill allows systems to obtain a variance from the law 
by installing the best available affordable technologies, as determined 
by EPA. Under the legislation, small systems are given additional time 
to come into compliance with new EPA regulations--up to 5 years instead 
of the current 18 months.

  Finally, I want to point out that this legislation includes 
provisions which will enhance public health protection and assist small 
systems, in particular, in their efforts to achieve long-term 
compliance with the act. For example, the bill requires all drinking 
water operators to be trained and certified. We require drivers to have 
a license to operate a motor vehicle; we should accept no less from the 
folks who are, in effect, driving the delivery of drinking water safe 
enough to protect public health. This bill also contains Federal 
financial assistance to States to ensure that systems are viable and 
that they have the financial, technical, and managerial experience 
necessary to meet the health protection requirements of the act. GAO 
testified last March that one of the biggest problems facing small 
water systems is the fact that there are so many systems that operate 
on the margin financially. The viability provisions included in this 
bill will help systems achieve and maintain long-term compliance with 
the statute. Throughout the process, we endeavored to avoid any 
unfunded mandates, and the bill provides for grandfathering of existing 
programs where appropriate and ample time for systems to come into 
compliance with new requirements.
  Mr. Speaker, each time we turn on the tap, it is an act of faith that 
the water will be safe. Public water systems need new tools--not 
endless regulations--to be able to do their jobs. This bill gives it to 
them. I urge support for H.R. 3392.
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wyoming [Mr. Thomas].
  Mr. THOMAS of Wyoming. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me the time and giving me this opportunity to rise to express 
my concern about this bill, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 
1994, and the fact that it is being considered under suspension of the 
rules. While I commend the Committee on Energy and Commerce for its 
efforts to bring this initiative to the House floor, I have strong 
reservations about a single provision. That provision is claiming only 
States with primacy are eligible to receive Federal funding.
  As many may or may not know, Wyoming is a State, I think the only 
State in the Nation that does not claim primacy over drinking water 
standards. Wyoming does not choose to exercise drinking water primacy 
because of the annual administrative costs of up to $1 million it would 
take to hire an additional 35 employees to administer the EPA rules. 
EPA currently, however, does it with a total of 11 employees, and of 
course this is obviously much more efficient.
  I have been following this debate for some time, even when efforts to 
pass the bill failed last year over jurisdictional disputes, and I am 
pleased with the provisions of this bill that will ease the heavy-
handed Federal regulations that have been mandated in water systems 
throughout the country.
  Since the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act, water systems large and small 
in urban and rural districts have been calling for Congress to change 
and relieve them of some of the burdens, and I commend the committee 
for doing that. But I am concerned, as Members can imagine, and I had 
hoped that we would go to the Rules Committee and would have a chance 
to take a look at section 18 of this bill which excludes Wyoming from 
Federal funding simply because we do not claim primacy. I believe it is 
unjust to exclude one State with a population of 460,000 people from 
this important source of funding simply because the Federal Government 
wants to give us in this bill a federally unfunded mandate for primacy.
  The Senate passed its version of the Safe Drinking Water Act in May, 
and the measure did not contain this unfair discrepancy. I compliment 
the Senate for their work.
  So I of course have a certain amount of conflict in my mind. I think 
this is a good bill. I support the bill. But this provision is very 
troublesome to me and to my State.

                              {time}  1520

  I am hopeful that we can give it some consideration and some work 
during the conference committee, as I expect it will pass here and, 
indeed, it should. But I think there is an unfair provision, and I want 
to express my concern about that unfair provision and ask that it be 
given some consideration during the conference committee.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan [Mr. Dingell], the distinguished chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, without whom this bill would not be before us 
today.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in Strong support of the bipartisan 
bill, H.R. 3392, to amend the Safe Drinking Water Act. It was reported 
by our Committee on Energy and Commerce by a vote of 43 to 1. It has 
the support of the National Governors' Association, the Conference of 
Mayors, the League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the 
Rural Water Systems, agricultural interests, the environmentalists, and 
many others.
  I commend subcommittee Chairman Henry Waxman and the subcommittee's 
ranking Republican, Tom Bliley, for their leadership in forging this 
balanced, bipartisan compromise. In addition, I call attention to the 
tireless efforts of Representatives Mike Synar, Jim Slattery, Gerry 
Studds, Carlos Moorhead, and Blanche Lambert. Without their 
participation and support, the compromise would not likely have been 
achieved.
  I also want to express my appreciation to the committee staff, 
majority and minority, the staff of the subcommittee, and the staff of 
these other Members. They, together with the Office of the Legislative 
Counsel, devoted long hours and several weekends toward this effort.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill. It is balanced. It is bipartisan. 
It will help the States and public water systems comply with the law at 
less cost. It makes changes in the law aimed at making it more 
effective. It does not weaken existing regulations. It is fiscally and 
environmentally sound. I urge its adoption.
  Mr. Speaker, all of us embarked on this endeavor because we believed 
it important to make the Safe Drinking Water Act more workable and 
effective. We understand that this national program is very important 
to the health of the people we serve. When our citizens go to turn on 
the tap, they rightfully expect that the water from that tap is of good 
quality and safe for drinking, cooking, bathing, washing, and other 
uses that relate to the good health of persons. That is the purpose of 
the Safe Drinking Water Act which was last amended in 1986. However, as 
we all have learned from recent experiences in Wisconsin and the 
District of Columbia we cannot take it for granted that our drinking 
water is always safe.
  We must be vigilant. We must monitor the water to ensure that 
contaminants of any kind are not threatening to make our water unsafe. 
We must be watchful that our public water supply systems are capable of 
supplying safe water to our taps and that they are actually doing just 
that.
  At the same time, we are all aware of the complaints of the States 
and local governments and the public water systems about the act. They 
contend that it imposes unnecessary costs on States, local governments 
that operate public water systems, the privately operated water 
systems, and ultimately the ratepayers who are our constituents. They 
object to monitoring requirements that they believe are unnecessary and 
raise costs. They contend that the regulations fail to consider the 
size and rate base of water systems. Indeed, more than 87 percent of 
the public water systems in the United States serve less than 10,000 
persons; 83 percent of those serve under 3,300 persons with many 
serving fewer than 1,000 persons.
  One of the principle areas of concern to the States and the EPA 
relates to the obligations of the States under the act to properly 
administer the law as so-called primacy States; that is, States with 
enforcement responsibility over public water systems which includes all 
States but Wyoming. The States believing they were overburdened by the 
act have threatened to give up primacy which would require the EPA to 
administer the program in those States as it now does in Wyoming 
because that State has never accepted primacy. This concern was the 
subject of an investigation by the General Accounting Office. The 
following is our correspondence with the EPA about that investigation:

         House of Representatives, Subcommittee on Oversight and 
           Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce,
                                   Washington, DC, August 3, 1993.
     Hon. Carol M. Browner,
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Administrator Browner: Pursuant to Rules X and XI of 
     the House of Representatives, this Subcommittee has been 
     examining, with the help of the General Accounting Office 
     (GAO), the actions of the states and the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) in carrying out fully and in a timely 
     manner the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
     (SDWA). In furtherance of that continuing effort, the GAO has 
     provided the enclosed report (B-252821) of June 25, 1993 
     entitled ``States Face Increased Difficulties in Meeting 
     Basic Requirements.'' The GAO found that:
       Many states granted primary drinking water program 
     enforcement authority by the EPA are not effectively carrying 
     out the monitoring enforcement and other mandatory elements 
     of the program which GAO says is a key condition to retaining 
     primacy.
       Resource constraints have made it more difficult for the 
     states to carry out existing requirements and the situation 
     promises to deteriorate further as these requirements expand.
       EPA is hopeful that Alaska, Maine, and Washington, which 
     are threatened by EPA with withdrawal of their primacy 
     authority, will resolve these problems before EPA must take 
     over and run their programs.
       Alabama has only one staff person to oversee implementation 
     of the lead/copper rule by the state's 600 small water 
     systems and thus can not educate their operators on 
     compliance, which could lead to violations.
       The EPA has identified the primacy issue as a material 
     weakness under the Federal Manager's Financial Integrity Act.
       Preliminary studies show that the resource gap is $147 
     million now and will grow to $200 million by 1998.
       EPA's guidance on priority setting, which is to give states 
     time to gain funding while focusing on the most vital 
     activities to protect public health, does not appear to 
     address the problem of insufficient resources.
       EPA, facing budget constraints, acknowledges that it could 
     not effectively administer these programs either; that such 
     EPA operation would be significantly less effective in 
     protecting the public than an adequate state program; and 
     that it would impose substantially greater costs upon water 
     systems.
       Since 1986, the number of contaminants regulated has grown 
     from 23 to 85 today and is expected to reach 111 by 1995. If 
     radionuclides rules are finalized as proposed, EPA estimates 
     that the states will spend $15 to $28 million for one-time 
     start-up costs and $10 to $19 million annually on compliance 
     and enforcement.
       EPA's Phase II and V rules, which set standards for over 60 
     contaminants, including pesticides, are presenting problems 
     for the states. The high cost of testing, which GAO says 
     ranges from $2,500 to $10,000 for each set of analyses, is 
     expected to generate heavy resistance from many water 
     systems.
       The GAO report recommends: We recommend that as part of 
     EPA's strategy to deal with the drinking water program's 
     funding crisis, the Administrator, EPA, work with the 
     cognizant committees of the Congress to identify a funding 
     level for the program that (1) will maintain the integrity of 
     the program and (2) better reflects the program's importance 
     in protecting human health. This remedy should be part of an 
     integrated strategy that also considers the need to (1) find 
     innovative and cost-effective alternatives to achieve 
     compliance and (2) bring the program's spiraling regulatory 
     costs under control.
       While this Committee is certainly receptive to the idea of 
     EPA identifying an appropriate funding level for the 
     program, in connection with our Committee's consideration 
     of H.R. 1701 to establish a Drinking Water State Revolving 
     Fund under the Act, Chairman Waxman and I tried to work 
     with EPA to address funding for the primacy function in FY 
     1994. As a result, our Committee reported the bill with a 
     provision for funding for the primacy states. However, as 
     I understand the matter, the Office of Management and 
     Budget (OMB) opposed this idea. As a result, you wrote to 
     me on July 7, 1993 that the Administration does not now 
     favor such a provision. In expressing this view, your 
     letter notes that the fiscal year budget for 1994 proposes 
     the same level of funding for primacy as in FY 1993, but 
     adds that funding for this program has increased 80% since 
     FY 1989. On the other hand, GAO states that despite vastly 
     increased duties, the states have received relatively 
     modest increases in grants since 1986. Specifically, GAO 
     said the grants went from $33.5 million in FY 1997 to 
     $58.9 million in FY 1993. That is far short of closing the 
     gap noted above by the GAO.
       Given the present budgetary climate and OMB's views, I 
     question whether, once identified, the Administration would 
     fund primacy at the level suggested by the EPA. However, I 
     request your comments, in consultation with OMB, on this part 
     of the GAO recommendation. Please also comment on the funding 
     gap set forth by the GAO, and on whether you agree with the 
     GAO estimates.
       As the GAO observes, improved primacy funding is not a 
     panacea. Finding ways to help public water systems and their 
     customers meet the costs of regulation is crucial. I believe 
     that the President's initiative for a revolving fund could 
     provide early help, beginning in October, for many small 
     systems, although it too is not a panacea because funding is 
     limited. However, the Administration's criticisms of this 
     legislation, coupled with reports that the Senate does not 
     want to pass such limited legislation without reauthorizing 
     the Act, certainly raises doubts that such help will be 
     available before October 1. In this regard, I note that the 
     report required by section 519 of Public Law 102-389 has not 
     been issued and the Committee on Energy and Commerce has not 
     had an airing of the broader reauthorization issues.
       Please also comment on the remainder of the GAO 
     recommendation concerning alternatives to achieve compliance 
     and to control regulatory costs.
       In addition, please respond to the following questions:
       1. Please provide the status of primacy compliance by 
     Alaska, Maine, Washington, California, Kansas, Alabama, 
     Illinois, North Dakota, and Iowa. What is the status of 
     withdrawal actions by the EPA in these states, taking into 
     consideration the recent litigation concerning the applicable 
     regulations? What enforcement actions has EPA taken in these 
     states under section 1414(a)(1)?
       (2) Do you agree with GAO's estimates of costs of testing 
     for contaminants? If not, why not? Who must pay these costs?
       3. The GAO states that EPA's priority setting guidance is 
     legally consistent with the Act. However, GAO raises at least 
     two issues at pages 8 and 9. Please respond to each.
       4. Please explain EPA's contingency plan for takeover in 
     Alaska, Maine, and Washington. The GAO cites a letter to 
     Maine that states that compliance, after EPA takeover, would 
     be by enforcement rather than by preventive assistance. 
     Please explain the basis for this view. What is EPA's 
     capability to carry out this threat in Maine or other states?
       5. Congressman Washington and others have expressed concern 
     that public water systems do not adequately address the needs 
     of the poor and low income people who are threatened with 
     water shut-offs. I request your comments on this concern and 
     on what actions can and should be taken by the EPA or others 
     to address this matter.
       I request your response to these matters within 30 days 
     after receipt of this letter. I also welcome comments by the 
     states and the public water supply systems on these matters.
       With every good wish,
           Sincerely,
                                                  John D. Dingell,
                                                         Chairman.
       Enclosure.


                              Environmental Protection Agency,

                                Washington, DC. November 15, 1993.
     Hon. John Dingell,
     Chairman, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, 
         Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter of August 3, 
     1993, to Administrator Carol M. Browner, transmitting the 
     General Accounting Office (GAO) report entitled, ``States 
     Face Increased Difficulties in Meeting Basic Requirements.'' 
     Your letter and the GAO report advance several serious issues 
     that we have been grappling with for some time. States have 
     not allocated sufficient resources to keep pace with the 
     increased regulatory requirements in the Public Water Supply 
     Supervision (PWSS) program and this has jeopardized some 
     States' ability to maintain primacy. I would like to take 
     this opportunity to let you know what the Environmental 
     Protection Agency (EPA) is doing about the problem.
       As GAO points out, the funding shortfalls in State programs 
     are serious. Since the GAO interviews were conducted, we have 
     updated our estimates of State program needs. Our latest 
     estimates show that State program needs for Fiscal Year 1993 
     total $304 million. Almost $59 million was provided by 
     Federal grants in 1993, and States contributed an additional 
     $83 million, leaving a shortfall of $162 million. This is 
     somewhat higher than the shortfall estimate of $147 million 
     that we provided to GAO during its review.
       To help reduce this shortfall, we began in 1988 to 
     implement a State Capacity Initiative to inform State 
     legislatures and outside groups of the increased requirements 
     under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) and the need for 
     increased funding. This initiative has met with moderate 
     success. Since its inception, States have provided an 
     additional $53 million for drinking water through the passage 
     of fee legislation or through the redirection of general 
     revenues. During this same period, however, a number of 
     States experienced reductions in funding because of severe 
     budget shortfalls during the recent economic slowdown. At the 
     Federal level, grants to States have risen by $25.5 million 
     since 1988, a 76 percent increase.
       In spite of increases at the State and Federal levels, we 
     know that substantial shortfalls remain and States are having 
     difficulties fully meeting primacy requirements. Until 
     recently, many States responded by making their own decisions 
     about which parts of the program to implement first and EPA's 
     Regional offices had no guidelines on withdrawing primacy 
     from a State. Recognizing this, EPA crafted a three-pronged 
     strategy that involved: (1) providing States and Regions with 
     guidance which identified activities with the highest 
     priority and established where EPA would draw the line on 
     primacy, (2) devising a systematic way to evaluate State 
     performance, and (3) developing a contingency plan in the 
     event that a State returns primacy or EPA is forced to 
     withdraw primacy. As you point out, we also identified State 
     primacy as a material weakness under the Federal Managers 
     Financial Integrity Act.
       I would like to describe briefly the status of our 
     implementation of the three major elements of our strategy. 
     EPA issued the PWSS priority guidance in June 1992. It is 
     intended to focus limited State resources first on oversight 
     of requirements with the most significant impact on public 
     health and to allow States time to allocate resources to 
     fully implement the program. It is not intended to defer any 
     statutory or regulatory requirements. If conflicts arise, the 
     statutory and regulatory requirements would, of course, 
     prevail. Although we were concerned about potential 
     misunderstandings regarding the intent of the priority 
     guidance, we believe that it is better to establish 
     consistent and clear goals upon which we can measure program 
     progress rather than have each State set its own priorities. 
     We also believe that the EPA Regions can and do act more 
     decisively when they have clear guidance on when to consider 
     initiating primacy withdrawal.
       GAO contends that some States are unable to meet the 
     minimum State program criteria outlined in the priority 
     guidance. Over a year ago, we developed a systematic way to 
     evaluate individual State performance. The results of this 
     effort are enclosed. We plan to update this evaluation each 
     year--the next one is scheduled to be completed after all of 
     the information for FY 1993 is available. In addition, we 
     arranged for EPA headquarters staff to visit and review the 
     PWSS programs of seven States: Vermont, West Virginia, New 
     Mexico, Kansas, Colorado, California, and Idaho. We have 
     completed all seven reviews and our findings are that while 
     none of the States are currently about to implement all of 
     the regulatory requirements, they are doing a good job of 
     implementing the Priority One and ``Base Minimum'' elements 
     of their programs. The areas in which the State programs seem 
     weakest are: following up on enforcement actions after 
     they have been issued, updating their data management 
     systems to accommodate the new contaminants and 
     requirements, and maintaining technical capabilities to 
     provide support in areas such as corrosion control 
     optimization and vulnerability assessments. Most States 
     with past problems have been successful in securing new 
     sources of revenue to fund existing program requirements; 
     however, there is widespread understanding and concern 
     that current funding levels will be insufficient for 
     future needs.
       Our contingency plan for primacy withdrawal/return was 
     developed to give Regions a blueprint for action should they 
     need to withdraw primary for a State. Our ability to take 
     over State programs is admittedly limited because of our own 
     resource constraints. Because of this, the contingency plan 
     recommends that EPA-operated programs focus on those 
     activities specifically required by the Safe Drinking Water 
     Act and the drinking water regulations. Consequently, a 
     program implemented by EPA would be heavily weighted towards 
     enforcement and data management. EPA could not carry out a 
     preventative program like many States do. As a result, we 
     would expect States, systems, and outside organizations to 
     take the lead in working to maintain and fund drinking water 
     activities at the State level.
       EPA recognizes that the priority guidance and the 
     contingency plan are, at best, only temporary measures to 
     address the problem of maintaining State primacy. We agree 
     with GAO that a permanent solution must involve an integrated 
     strategy which combines increased funding of State programs 
     with finding innovative alternatives to achieve compliance, 
     and bringing the increase in the program's regulatory costs 
     under control. We have evaluated these matters as part of a 
     study required by Section 519 of Public Law 102-389 (i.e., 
     the Chafee-Lautenberg Amendment to the FY 1993 Appropriations 
     Act). The Administrator transmitted the report to Congress on 
     September 8, along with the Administration's recommendations 
     for reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). 
     The Administration supports a Federal backstop fee to help 
     States find the resources necessary to meet primary 
     requirements, and streamlined procedures to improve program 
     efficiency. I am sure Congress will wish to consider the 
     critical importance of the State capacity issue in its 
     deliberations on reauthorization of the SDWA.
       In addition to States, public water systems are facing 
     increased difficulties complying with the new regulations. As 
     you know, the Administration supports authorization of 
     appropriations for a five-year, multibillion dollar Drinking 
     Water State Revolving Fund which will help public water 
     systems meet SDWA requirements. We thank you for your support 
     and the support that other members of your committee have 
     given to developing specific proposals in this regard.
       You raised several specific questions in your letter. Our 
     response to these is enclosed.
       Thank you again for your continued interest in the PWSS 
     program. The Office of Water would be pleased to work with 
     you to shape solutions to the serious primary problems that 
     States face. If you have any questions in the meantime, 
     please contact me or have your staff call James R. Elder, 
     Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water, at (202) 
     260-5543.
           Sincerely,
                                                Robert Perciasepe,
                                          Assistant Administrator.
       Enclosure.
       Question one: Please provide the status of primacy 
     compliance by Alaska, Maine, Washington, California, Kansas, 
     Alabama, Illinois, North Dakota, and Iowa. What is the status 
     of withdrawal actions by the EPA in these states, taking into 
     consideration the recent litigation concerning the applicable 
     regulations? What enforcement actions has EPA taken in these 
     states under section 1414(a)(1)?
       Response: Alaska--EPA's Region X Office wrote to the State 
     of Alaska on February 5, 1993, indicating that they intended 
     to initiate primacy withdrawal because the State had not 
     adopted the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) and the Total 
     Coliform Rule (TCR) within the required time frame. The 
     Region was also concerned about the State's commitment to the 
     drinking water program, identifying several management-
     related problems.
       The State adopted the SWTR and TCR shortly after the 
     February letter and submitted the final primacy package and 
     formal Attorney General's statement soon thereafter. The 
     Region and the State also developed a 34-step agreement to 
     strengthen management of the program. While the State has 
     made limited progress toward meeting the terms of this 
     agreement, we remain concerned about the State's willingness 
     to fulfill its commitments. The Region will meet with State 
     officials every few months to review progress.
       The Alaska Native Villages are facing a host of sanitation 
     problems in addition to drinking water. EPA, in conjunction 
     with a number of Federal and State Agencies, is working to 
     strengthen the delivery of Federal assistance to them.
       EPA took the following enforcement actions in Alaska 
     between October 1, 1992 and July 31, 1993: nine Notices of 
     Violation (NOV's); seven Proposed Administrative Orders 
     (PAO); and six Final Administrative Orders (FAO).
       Maine--EPA's Region I Office wrote to the State of Maine in 
     January 1993, indicating that EPA may initiate primacy 
     withdrawal. The State program was substantially understaffed, 
     preventing them from meeting the minimum requirements for 
     maintaining primacy. The Legislature passed a user fee 
     proposal in July 1993. The authorizing legislation requires 
     appointment of a commission by the Governor within 60 days of 
     passage. The primary responsibility of this commission will 
     be to review the funding needs of the drinking water program 
     on an annual basis and set the level of the user fee based on 
     that review. The drinking water program is concurrently 
     funding five positions independent of this recent legislative 
     action. These staffing increases are in addition to several 
     positions being funded by the New England Interstate and the 
     Maine Rural Water Association. We anticipate the total number 
     of persons assigned to the drinking water program to increase 
     from the current level of 14 to 25.
       We are encouraged by these events and expect to receive a 
     detailed action plan from the State. While concurrence with a 
     satisfactory plan will allow us to put the primacy withdrawal 
     process on hold, we will continue to give close attention to 
     State activities until the increased resources to run a 
     complete program are realized.
       EPA took the following enforcement actions in Maine between 
     October 1, 1992 and July 31, 1993: two NOV's.
       Washington--EPA's Region X Office wrote to the State of 
     Washington on January 7, 1993, indicating that they intended 
     to initiate primacy withdrawal because the State failed to 
     adopt the Surface Water Treatment (SWTR) and Total Coliform 
     Rule (TCR) within the required time frame.
       The State responded on February 12, 1993, with a detailed 
     schedule of actions which culminated in the adoption of the 
     SWTR and TCR in March 1993. The rules became effective in 
     April 1993. EPA recently approved these regulations and a 
     notice was placed in the Federal Register on August 4, 1993.
       EPA took the following enforcement actions in Washington 
     between October 1, 1992 and July 31, 1993: 59 NOV's, nine 
     PAO's, two FAO's, and (1) 1431 emergency order, and one 
     referral to the Department of Justice.
       California--EPA became concerned about the ability of the 
     State of California to maintain primacy when they announced 
     two years ago that they could not adopt the Lead and Copper 
     rule without additional funding. The State and EPA were able 
     to work out a compromise that resulted in the State 
     requesting and receiving a two year extension for rule 
     adoption. The State is currently working towards adoption of 
     the rule with the full intent of maintaining primacy. In the 
     interim, the State and EPA's Region IX Office in San 
     Francisco are jointly implementing the requirements of the 
     Federal rule. The State has already approved its regulations 
     for the Surface Water Treatment Rule (SWTR) and Total 
     Coliform Rule (TCR). The State has extensions for adoption of 
     the Phase II and V rules through December 1993. EPA took the 
     following enforcement actions in California between 
     October 1, 1992 and July 31, 1993: 284 NOV's, 66 PAO's, 53 
     FAO's, and one (1) 1431 emergency order.
       Kansas--EPA had become concerned over time that Kansas did 
     not have sufficient personnel to fully implement the program. 
     The State was also late in adopting several of the early 
     rules and we questioned how committed the State was to 
     maintaining a strong drinking water program.
       Fortunately, the State's position has changed over the past 
     two years, and EPA is encouraged that the State will continue 
     to make improvements in their program. The State is now up-
     to-date on rule adoption and in 1992 received an increase in 
     the drinking water user fee in order to dedicate additional 
     personnel to the program.
       EPA took the following enforcement actions in Kansas 
     between October 1, 1992 and July 31, 1993: five NOV's, three 
     PAO's, three FAO's, and held one public hearing.
       Alabama--EPA is not seriously concerned about the ability 
     of Alabama to meet current primacy requirements. However, EPA 
     is concerned about the State's ability to fund expanding 
     program requirements. Alabama has adopted all of their 
     regulations and is proceeding with implementation.
       The GAO report specifically mentioned a concern about the 
     ability of the State to implement the Lead and Copper rule 
     due to the fact that only one State person is available to 
     oversee 600 small systems.
       EPA does not anticipate that the small systems will have 
     many action level exceedences. There were no action level 
     exceedences in either the first or second round of monitoring 
     of the large systems, and only two systems exceeded the 
     action level in the first round of monitoring for the medium-
     sized systems. (Data on the second round of the medium-sized 
     systems is not yet available.) While small systems will 
     probably present a monitoring and reporting problem, small 
     system oversight for the Lead and Copper rule is considered a 
     Priority Two issue under the EPA's Priority Guidance. EPA's 
     direction to the State is to undertake Priority One 
     activities. In this case, the State would focus on large and 
     medium systems oversight first, while it builds ample 
     capacity to implement the full Lead and Copper Rule by 1998.
       There were no EPA enforcement actions in Alabama in FY 
     1993.
       Illinois--Primacy is not an issue in Illinois. Illinois has 
     adopted all of their regulations and is proceeding with 
     implementation.
       The GAO report specifically mentioned a concern about the 
     ability of the State to increase funding for the program. The 
     issue of tight budgets and competition with other programs is 
     a problem facing nearly all State drinking water programs. It 
     often takes States two-three years to pass a fee proposal.
       EPA took the following enforcement actions in Illinois 
     between October 1, 1992 and July 31, 1993: 37 NOV's, 18 
     PAO's, nine FAO's, and one (1) 1431 emergency order.
       North Dakota--EPA is not currently concerned about the 
     ability of North Dakota to maintain primacy. North Dakota has 
     adopted all of their regulations and is proceeding with 
     implementation. The GAO report specifically mentioned a 
     concern about the ability of the State to increase funding 
     resources for the program. The North Dakota Legislature did 
     approve an increase of five positions recently and will be 
     reviewing the long-term funding picture at the end of this 
     year.
       EPA took the following enforcement actions in North Dakota, 
     between October 1992 and July 31, 1993: two NOV's
       Iowa--EPA is looking closely at Iowa's ability to meet 
     current requirements in order to maintain primacy. As with 
     many States, it will be difficult for Iowa to meet future 
     requirements without substantial funding increases.
       GAO noted that Iowa is planning to allow small, 
     nonvulnerable systems to take a single sample per sampling 
     point instead of quarterly samples mandated in the Phase II 
     rules, even if the sample is taken after the October 1, 1993 
     deadline of the Chafee-Lautenberg Amendment to the FY '93 
     Appropriations Act. EPA's policy interpreting this amendment 
     made it clear that systems must take the single sample before 
     that deadline. EPA has not given Iowa primacy for the Phase 
     II rule and could not approve the State's rule if it were 
     less stringent than the Federal rule.
       EPA took the following enforcement actions in Iowa between 
     October 31, 1992 and July 31, 1993: 11 NOV's.
       Question two: Do you agree with GAO's estimates of costs of 
     testing for contaminants? If not, why not? Who must pay these 
     costs?
       Reponse: In general, EPA agrees with GAO's estimates to 
     contaminant costs associated with the Phase II and V 
     contaminants. However, our actual upper level estimates are 
     lower, as they range from $2,500-$4,000 for one complete set 
     of samples. It is not clear to us whether the GAO range 
     estimate is for one set of samples, or whether it reflects 
     annual costs. Many of the contaminants require quarterly 
     monitoring, which could account for their $10,000 estimate.
       Monitoring costs are either paid by the system and its 
     ratepayers or by the State. Some States conduct all 
     monitoring for the systems, at no cost to the system. Other 
     States provide monitoring at a subsidized cost. In a majority 
     of States, however, systems use private, certified 
     laboratories and are responsible for paying for their own 
     monitoring costs.
       The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators 
     (ASDWA) is initiating a survey of all States to determine the 
     actual (or best estimate) costs for systems to comply with 
     Phase II and V monitoring requirements. The survey is 
     expected to be completed by the end of Winter.
       Question three: The GAO states that EPA's priority setting 
     guidance is legally consistent with the Act. However, GAO 
     raises at least two issues at pages 8 and 9. Please respond 
     to each.
       Response: GAO's two issues are that the provisions of the 
     Priority Guidance are, in some respects, inconsistent with 
     regulatory requirements and that the guidance is, at best, 
     only a partial solution to the underlying fiscal crisis 
     affecting the program. GAO recommends that EPA and Congress 
     reexamine the funding priority of the program rather than 
     compromise its overall integrity.
       The priority setting guidance clearly states that the 
     guidance does not defer any statutory or regulatory 
     requirements. If any conflicts arise between the guidance and 
     requirements, the requirements would prevail. In GAO's 
     example, the guidance identifies implementing the Lead and 
     Copper Rule for small systems as a Priority Two activity 
     while the regulations require States to designate or approve 
     optimal corrosion control treatment for small systems that 
     exceed the lead level by December 1996. GAO interprets the 
     guidance to give States until 1998 to start on Priority Two 
     activities. To clarify, the Priority Guidance is in effect 
     between 1993 and 1998. During this time, States must focus 
     first on Priority One activities and then begin Priority Two 
     activities. States must be concurrently working to close the 
     resource gap so that all activities can be undertaken as soon 
     as possible. There is a chance that some States may not be 
     working on some Priority Two activities by 1996 and that some 
     of their systems may exceed that action level for lead. In 
     such an instance, the State would be legally obligated to 
     designate the corrosion control treatment. States could, as 
     an option, designate a standard corrosion control (e.g., 
     adjust pH) for all small systems that exceed the action level 
     and still satisfy the regulatory requirement.
       We fully acknowledge that the guidance is only a partial 
     solution to the primacy problem. We have recently completed a 
     report on the drinking water program pursuant to the 
     requirements of Public Law 102-389 (i.e., Chafee-Lautenberg 
     Amendment to the FY '93 Appropriations Act). The report along 
     with recommendations for reauthorization of the Act were sent 
     to Congress on September 8, 1993, and a copy was provided to 
     your staff at that time.
       Question four: Please explain EPA's contingency plan for 
     takeover in Alaska, Maine, and Washington. The GAO cites a 
     letter to Maine that states that compliance, after EPA take-
     over, would be by enforcement rather than by preventative 
     assistance. Please explain the basis for this view. What is 
     EPA's capability to carry out this threat in Maine or other 
     states?
       Response: EPA's contingency plan for these States, as well 
     as any other State in which we would have to initiate primacy 
     withdrawal, is the same. The nucleus of a direct 
     implementation program operated by EPA would focus on 
     enforcement and data management. Our technical assistance and 
     other preventative services would remain very modest because 
     of resource constraints. Rather, we would reserve our efforts 
     for activities specifically required by the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act and the National Primary Drinking Water 
     Regulations. The contingency plan gives EPA some level of 
     consistency for all State programs that may be returned or 
     withdrawn and sends an early signal to States, systems, and 
     outside organizations about what an EPA operated program 
     would look like.
       Our capability to carry out direct implementation programs 
     is, admittedly, limited. As indicated in our contingency 
     plan, we would use the grant funds that the affected State 
     would have received and we would redirect EPA staff from 
     within the drinking water program as well as from other water 
     programs, both at the national and regional levels. If more 
     than one or two State programs were returned or withdrawn, we 
     would have to look beyond water program resources or approach 
     OMB regarding the need for a supplemental budget request.
       Question five: Congressman Washington and others have 
     expressed concern that public water systems do not adequately 
     address the needs of the poor and low income people who are 
     threatened with water shut-offs. I request your comments on 
     this concern and on what actions can and should be taken by 
     the EPA or others to address this matter.
       Response: We share Congressman Washington's concern and we 
     realize that the many new regulations being promulgated 
     pursuant to Congressional mandates may aggravate this 
     situation. However, specific programs to address the needs of 
     low-income people who are threatened with water shut-offs are 
     best structured and implemented at the State and local level. 
     A responsive program needs to take into account the variable 
     circumstances among different locales, including increased 
     costs for wastewater treatment and other environmental 
     programs.
       There is a full range of programs designed to help the 
     needy in cities across the U.S. For example, Congressman 
     Washington's home city of Houston established a contribution 
     program to a ``water fund'' via the regular water bill, 
     minimum billing rates for low income households, special 
     payment arrangements in cases of hardship, and several layers 
     of notification to ensure that customers are aware of their 
     status and their options. These efforts must involve 
     coordination among the water system and other community 
     agencies such as those responsible for housing and welfare.
       EPA has several activities underway to specifically assist 
     disadvantaged communities. Small systems, some of which would 
     fall into the category of minority and disadvantaged, are 
     receiving technical assistance and training to support their 
     system operators through an EPA grant to the National Rural 
     Water Association (NRWA). NRWA currently receives nearly $4 
     million to provide this assistance. In addition, the Rural 
     Community Assistance Program (RCAP) receives $750,000 per 
     year to help low income rural communities.
       EPA's drinking water and wastewater programs are 
     considering an environmental justice initiative to find 
     better ways to communicate with persons residing in 
     communities likely to be affected by environmental equity 
     concerns, so that EPA may provide these communities with 
     targeted assistance, both technical and educational. 
     Furthermore, EPA is working with other Federal agencies to 
     streamline the delivery of Federal assistance to Alaskan 
     Native Villages in order to help them solve their critical 
     sanitation problems.
                                  ____


                                                              STATUS OF STATE PWSS PROGRAMS                                                             
                                                 [Final fiscal year 1992 report--Revised Jan. 30, 1993]                                                 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Rule                                                Violation         Violation     State capability
           State               Rule scope      implementation   Compliance rates    Data quality       resolution        prevention                     
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Connecticut...............  High              Medium            Medium            Medium            Medium            Medium            Medium          
Massachusetts.............  High              High              High              High              High              Medium            High            
Maine.....................  High              High              Medium            Medium            Low               Medium            Low             
New Hampshire.............  High              High              Medium\1\         Undetermined      Medium\1\         Medium            Medium          
Rhode Island..............  High              High              Medium\1\         Undetermined      Medium\1\         Medium            High            
Vermont...................  High              High              Medium\1\         Low               Low\1\            Low               Medium          
New Jersey................  High              Medium            Low\1\            No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         Medium            High            
New York..................  High              Medium            Medium            Medium            Medium            High              High            
Puerto Rico...............  High              High              Low\1\            No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         Medium            Medium          
Virgin Islands............  Low               Low               Low\1\            No OGWDW audit    High\1\           Medium            Medium          
District of Columbia......  NA                High              High\1\           No OGWDW audit    High\1\           Low               NA              
Delaware..................  High              Medium            Low\1\            No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         Medium            Medium          
Maryland..................  High              Medium            Medium            High              Low               Medium            Medium          
Pennsylvania..............  High              Medium            Low               High              Medium            Medium            Medium          
Virginia..................  High              High              Medium            Medium            Medium            Medium            Medium          
West Virginia.............  High              Medium            Low\1\            No OGWDW audit    Low\1\            High              Medium          
Alabama...................  High              High              Medium\1\         No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         Medium            Low             
Florida...................  High              High              Low               Medium            Medium            High              High            
Georgia...................  High              Medium            Medium\1\         No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         Medium            Medium          
Kentucky..................  High              Medium            Low\1\            No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         Medium            High            
Mississippi...............  Medium            High              Medium            Medium            Medium            High              Low             
North Carolina............  Medium            Medium            Medium\1\         No OGWDW audit    High\1\           Medium            Low             
South Carolina............  High              Medium            Medium\1\         No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         Medium            High            
Tennessee.................  High              Medium            Medium\1\         No OGWDW audit    High\1\           Medium            Medium          
Illinos...................  High              Medium            Low\1\            No OGWDW audit    Low\1\            Medium            Medium          
Indiana...................  Medium            Medium            High\1\           Low               Medium\1\         Medium            Medium          
Michigan..................  High              Medium            Medium\1\         No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         Medium            Low             
Minnesota.................  High              Medium            High\1\           No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         Medium            Low             
Ohio......................  High              Medium            Medium\1\         No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         Medium            Medium          
Wisconsin.................  High              Medium            Medium\1\         No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         Medium            Low             
Arkansas..................  High              Medium            Medium\1\         No OGWDW audit    Low\1\            High              Medium          
Louisiana.................  High              Medium            Medium            High              Medium            Medium            High            
New Mexico................  High              Medium            Medium            High              Medium            Medium            Medium          
Oklahoma..................  High              High              Low\1\            No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         High              Medium          
Texas.....................  High              Medium            Medium            High              Medium            High              Low             
Iowa......................  Medium            Low               Medium\1\         No OGWDW audit    High\1\           Medium            Low             
Kansas....................  Low               Low               Low               High              Medium            Medium            Low             
Missouri..................  High              Low               Medium\1\         No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         Medium            Medium          
Nebraska..................  Medium            Medium            Low\1\            No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         High              Low             
Colorado..................  Medium            Medium            Medium            High              Medium            High              Low             
Montana...................  Medium            Medium            Low               Medium            Low               Medium            Low             
North Dakota..............  High              Medium            Medium\1\         No OGWDW audit    Low\1\            High              Low             
South Dakota..............  Medium            High              Low\1\            No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         Medium            Low             
Utah......................  High              Medium            Low\1\            No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         Medium            Medium          
Wyoming...................  NA                High              Low\1\            No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         Low               NA              
Arizona...................  High              Medium            Medium            Medium            Medium            High              Medium          
California................  Medium            Low               High\1\           No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         Medium            Medium          
Hawaii....................  High              Medium            Medium\1\         No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         Medium            High            
Nevada....................  Medium            Medium            Low\1\            No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         Medium            Low             
Alaska....................  Low               Low               Low               Medium            Low               Medium            Medium          
Idaho.....................  Medium            Medium            Low\1\            No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         Medium            Low             
Oregon....................  Medium            High              Low\1\            No OGWDW audit    Medium\1\         Medium            Medium          
Washington................  Low               Medium            Low\1\            Low               Low\1\            Medium            Low             
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Rating based on data of poor or uncertain quality.                                                                                                   
                                                                                                                                                        
 Note: No OGWDW audit--standardized OGWDW audit not yet conducted; undetermined--audit conducted data, but results not yet known.                       
NA--Not applicable--program implemented by EPA, not State.                                                                                              

                             Committee on Energy and Commerce,

                                 Washington, DC, October 21, 1993.
     Hon. Carol M. Browner,
     Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, 
         DC.
       Dear Administrator Browner: Enclosed, pursuant to Rules X 
     and XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, is my 
     letter to Chairman Louis Stokes of the Subcommittee on VA, 
     HUD, and Independent Agencies concerning H.R. 2491, the 
     Departments of Veterans Affairs, HUD, and Independent 
     Agencies Appropriations Act of 1994.
       I call your attention particularly to my comments regarding 
     the provision added by the Senate regarding radionuclides and 
     would appreciate your response to the following:
       1. The 102nd Congress, at the urging of the Senate, adopted 
     section 519(b) of Public Law 102-389. It required that the 
     EPA conduct a study and risk assessment of radon, obtain 
     recommendations from the Science Advisory Board (SAB), and 
     provide a report to Congress by July 31, 1993. Please explain 
     the status of these matters and the cause of delay in 
     submitting the report to Congress.
       In this regard, section 519(b) also refers to a court 
     imposed deadline of October 1. I understand that the EPA has 
     sought an extension. Please explain the status of this 
     litigation and the effect of H.R. 2491 on the litigation and 
     the rulemaking.
       2. According to the July 30, 1993 edition of Inside EPA 
     (copy enclosed), the SAB issued a ``highly critical review of 
     the agency's draft report on radon in drinking water, arguing 
     that the agency has not addressed key uncertainties in its 
     costs and risk analyses.'' Please provide that draft and the 
     SAB review and recommendations. What is the EPA doing to 
     address the SAB concerns and recommendations?
       3. Please (a) describe the radon standard proposed by the 
     EPA; (b) indicate the states and the water systems subject to 
     the standard; (c) explain the need for this particular 
     standard from a health standpoint and the risks; (d) explain 
     whether the statute requires this particular standard or 
     whether a less stringent standard is authorized; (e) explain 
     the lead time allowed to meet the standard and explain 
     whether that time is reasonable for all of the affected 
     systems, taking into consideration the availability of the 
     technology, the risks, and the costs; and (f) explain the 
     means, measures, and technology for compliance by all types 
     of systems and the expected initial costs and operating 
     costs. Please summarize the public criticism of this standard 
     in the rulemaking.
       Finally, I appreciated receiving your recent communication 
     of principles for amending the Safe Drinking Water Act. They 
     are helpful, but I note that the EPA has not transmitted a 
     legislative proposal to carry them out. To help our Committee 
     in considering these principles, my staff requested on my 
     behalf that you provide, as a drafting service, the 
     legislation to carry out each of these principles. I am 
     particularly interested in your drafting of the fee principle 
     because of the need to avoid constitutional problems and to 
     address the issue of whether the fees collected are subject 
     to the appropriation process under the House Rules.
       Also, I would appreciate your not endorsing any Senate 
     bills that purport to carry out the EPA principles without 
     discussing the matter with me and my staff, as well as with 
     Subcommittee Chairman Waxman.
       I request your response to the above matters as early as 
     possible, as well as your reply to our letter of August 3, 
     1993 concerning this program.
       With every good wish.
           Sincerely,
                                                  John D. Dingell,
                                                         Chairman.
       Enclosure.


                              Environmental Protection Agency,

                                    Washington, DC, Dec. 22, 1993.
     Hon. John D. Dingell,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC
       Dear Mr. Chairman: Thank you for your letter dated October 
     21, 1993, regarding the radon report to Congress and the 
     drinking water radionuclides regulation.
       The radon report was due to Congress on July 31, 1993. The 
     Science Advisory Board (SAB) Executive Committee 
     recommendations were received on July 30, 1993. The Agency 
     worked to address SAB's concerns by incorporating changes to 
     the report and also attaching a commentary to it that 
     addressed each comment in detail by citing the change or 
     explaining our perspective. In mid-October the report and 
     commentary were forwarded to the Office of Management and 
     Budget (OMB) for their review and comment. We are currently 
     having discussions with OMN over the contents of the report. 
     As soon as the radon report receives my final review, I will 
     transmit it to Congress. In the interim, as requested, I have 
     enclosed the July 15, 1993, version of the radon report, that 
     was reviewed by the SAB Executive Committee, and all three 
     SAB committee reviews.
       In regard to your inquiry concerning the radionuclides 
     regulation, specifically radon, enclosed is a detailed 
     response to your questions regarding the radon standard, the 
     associated health effects, those public water systems 
     affected by the radon standard and the public comments 
     received following the proposed rule.
       Concerning your interest in legislative language to carry 
     out the Administrations ten SDWA reauthorization 
     recommendations, we would be pleased to provide assistance to 
     Committee staff. Presently, we are drafting legislative 
     language that must undergo OMB review. We anticipate having 
     legislative language reflecting our ten recommendations by 
     early next year.
       You can be assured that my staff and I will not endorse any 
     Senate bills purporting to carry out EPA principles without 
     discussing the matters with you and your staff, as well as 
     with expect, we will provide technical assistance to members 
     as requested.
       If you have any additional questions regarding the enclosed 
     documents or the enclosed responses to your questions 
     regarding radon, please do not hesitate to call me or have 
     your staff contact Mr. Robert Perciasepe, Assistant 
     Administrator for Water, at (202) 260-5700.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Carol M. Browner.
       Enclosure.


                               enclosure

       Several years ago the Agency conducted a comparative risk 
     assessment of all pollutants being considered by the Agency. 
     Radon ranked in the highest category among all the pollutants 
     considered. The scientific evidence amassed to support the 
     risk assessment of radon is among the strongest EPA has used 
     to assess the health effects of an environmental pollutant. 
     Radon is the most prevalent of all the radionuclides covered 
     under EPA's proposed radionuclides rule which also includes 
     radium, uranium, gross alpha, beta and photon emitters. Radon 
     in drinking water poses the greatest health risk of all 
     contaminants in this rule.


                       questions regarding radon

       (A) Describe the radon standard proposed by the EPA.
       The 1986 amendments to the SDWA require EPA to develop an 
     MCL for radon. In July 1991, EPA proposed a drinking water 
     standard for radon at 300 pCi/l. The total annual cost for 
     all public ground water systems to comply was estimated to be 
     $272 million. At 300 pCi/l, the Agency estimated that 26,000 
     systems would be affected.
       (B) Indicate the States and the water systems subject to 
     the standard.
       All States are subject to the standard. Those States where 
     systems are likely to find concentrations exceeding the 
     proposed radon in drinking water MCL of 300 pCi/l are located 
     in the northeastern, midwest and western United States.
       Radon is a problem only for ground water dependent systems. 
     A large percentage of the affected systems are small (an 
     estimated 85 percent serve fewer than 500 people). Systems 
     relying solely on surface water are not required to monitor 
     for radon, because radon is a highly volatile gas and is not 
     expected to be found in surface water.
       (C) Explain the need for this particular standard from a 
     health standpoint and the risks.
       At the proposed radon in drinking water standard of 300 
     pCi/l, the Agency estimates that 84 cancer cases, would be 
     avoided annually. The estimated health benefit of regulating 
     radon in water in the range of 500 to 200 pCi/l is estimated 
     to be saving 57-100 cancer cases a year, respectively.
       The health hazard posed by radon in water is due both 1) to 
     its volatilization from water during household water use, and 
     enrichment of indoor air radon levels, thereby contributing 
     to increased risk of lung cancer, and 2) direct ingestion of 
     radon contributing to risk of stomach and other cancers. 
     While on average water makes a small contribution to indoor 
     air radon (about 5% for houses served by ground water), it is 
     prevalent in drinking water from ground water wells and does 
     contribute to the very substantial risks posed by radon in 
     the household environment overall. Because it is a volatile 
     gas, very little radon is expected to be found in surface 
     water, and surface water systems are not anticipated to 
     require treatment. EPA estimated that 30,000 or more public 
     water systems serving 30 million or more people may have 
     radon in water at levels exceeding an estimated 110-4 
     risk level (150 pCi/l water).
       Outdoor background levels of radon in air (about 0.1 to 0.5 
     pCi/l air) present estimated lifetime lung cancer risks of 
     about 1 in 1,000, a risk level above those generally accepted 
     in EPA regulatory programs. Typical indoor air radon levels 
     (1-2 pCi/l air) pose estimated lifetime lung cancer risks 
     near 1 in 100. Radon from all sources is estimated to cause 
     7,000 to 30,000 lung cancer deaths annually, of which about 
     40-400 may be attributed to radon from drinking water. While 
     the average water contribution to indoor air radon is small 
     relative to the contribution of soil gas (for most houses), 
     it does represent a substantial estimated number of annual 
     cancer cases and in many communities poses individual 
     lifetime risks above EPA's historical lifetime cancer risk 
     goal for drinking water regulations of 10-4 to 
     10-6. While these risk estimates have inherent 
     uncertainties, they are less here than for other contaminants 
     regulated by EPA because this risk assessment is based on 
     human data whereas most EPA risk assessments are based on 
     animal studies.
       (D) Explain whether the statute requires this particular 
     standard or whether a less stringent standard is authorized.
       Regulatory standards prepared under the SDWA are based on 
     two parts. The first part is a Maximum Contaminant Level Goal 
     (MCLG) which is a health based regulatory goal and is not 
     enforceable. Radon is classified as a (known human) 
     carcinogen by EPA and other organizations such as the 
     International Agency for Research on Cancer. MCLGs for 
     carcinogens are set at zero in accordance with EPA policy. 
     The MCLG for radon is zero given that persons have a high 
     risk of lung and internal organ cancer due to radon exposure.
       The second part is a Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) which 
     is established as close to the MCLG as is technically 
     feasible, taking cost into consideration, and is enforceable 
     on this basis. The MCL (standard) for radon in drinking water 
     was proposed at 300pCi/1.
       (E) Explain the time allowed to meet the standard and 
     explain whether that time is reasonable for all of the 
     affected systems taking into consideration the availability 
     of the technology, the risks, and the costs.
       (F) Explain the means, measures and technology for 
     compliance by all types of systems and the expected initial 
     costs and operating costs.
       The statute currently requires rules to become effective 18 
     months after signature by the EPA Administrator. Within the 
     first three years, all public water systems need to complete 
     the initial round of testing. The initial monitoring 
     requirements for radon are for ground water systems and mixed 
     ground and surface water systems to obtain four consecutive 
     quarterly samples for one year.
       The current statute requires EPA to set best available 
     technology. Technologies are judged to be BAT based upon the 
     following factors: high removal efficiency, general 
     geographic applicability, cost, reasonable service life, 
     compatibility with other water treatment processes, and the 
     ability to bring all of the water in a system into 
     compliance.
       The Agency proposed that, of the technologies capable of 
     removing radon from source water, only aeration fulfills the 
     requirements of the SDWA as BAT for radon removal. Aeration 
     has demonstrated radon removal efficiencies in excess of 99.9 
     percent. Aeration technology is currently available, and has 
     been installed in public water supplies, and is compatible 
     with other water treatment processes in different regions.
       Legislative history focuses on feasibility considerations 
     for large systems. The Administration's SDWA proposal 
     envisions granting greater flexibility to small systems.
       Implementation of this rule allows States to grant 
     monitoring waivers to systems that demonstrate compliance 
     with the MCL reliably and consistently in the initial 
     compliance period, allowing systems to collect only one 
     sample per three year compliance period for the remainder of 
     the nine year compliance cycle. Systems relying solely on 
     surface water are not required to monitor for radon, because 
     radon is a highly volatile gas and is not expected to be 
     found in surface water. Laboratories would be expected to 
     accurately measure radon down to levels of the final radon 
     standard at the time of sampling.
       The Agency estimates the total annual cost (including 
     treatment and operations and maintenance) to comply with the 
     proposed radon standard of 300 pCi/1 to be $272 million for 
     the estimated 26,000 systems affected. The total capital 
     investment for all systems meeting this standard would be 
     approximately $1.6 billion.
       (G) Please summarize the public criticism of this standard 
     in the rulemaking.
       Since the radionuclides rule was proposed, EPA received 
     comments from more than 600 persons. A large majority of 
     these commenters commented on the radon portion of the rule.


                          major comments were

       1. Indoor air radon risk should receive higher priority 
     than radon in drinking water.
       2. EPA should give greater consideration to uncertainties 
     in risk assessment.
       3. EPA costs are significantly underestimated.
       4. The role of cost effectiveness should be better 
     evaluated in the decision making process regarding its 
     priority status as well as the impact on setting a standard 
     that will protect drinking water.
       5. Analytical laboratories lack capacity to implement the 
     monitoring requirements.
       6. Monitoring requirements should be phased-in to give 
     small systems a chance to comply.
       The Agency is currently analyzing the public comments and 
     preparing responses to all public comments. Responses will be 
     provided in the Agency's final radionclides rule Response to 
     Comments Document.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, on the other side of the coin, the 
environmentalists and the EPA also believed that changes in the law are 
needed to make it more effective, particularly in the area of 
enforcement.
  Two bills were introduced in the House--H.R. 3392 and H.R. 4314. The 
administration did not propose a bill, but did provide a list of 10 
principles for changes in the act. In early March, we began to work 
with the coalition of States and the public water systems, the 
agricultural interests, the environmentalists, and the EPA. In the 
beginning, the general discussions with these various interests 
indicted that differences, while significant, were not insurmountable. 
However, as time wore on and the discussions by the Members and the 
staff evolved, it soon became apparent that the differences were quite 
large. On several occasions, as I noted in an August 9, 1994 letter to 
the Appropriations Committee, I doubted that a timely resolution would 
be possible.
  During the course of these discussions, the other body passed in May 
1994 their version of amendments to the act, S. 2019. However, that 240 
page bill was not really a help, because it contained so many 
extraneous amendments on such matters as the EPA cabinet bill, the 
Council on Environmental Quality, and private property rights. It was 
quickly recognized that S. 2019 involved jurisdictional interest of at 
least six committees.
  Despite all of this, the subcommittee and the committee, working with 
these interests, devised a bipartisan amendment to H.R. 3392 that 
gained the enthusiastic support of all these interests. Regrettably, 
resolution took several months. But, we believe it is sound in that it 
does not weaken existing health based requirements for drinking water, 
while providing needed relief as the Congressional Budget Office 
indicates in item No. 7 of the following CBO letter:

                                  Congressional Budget Office,

                               Washington, DC, September 23, 1994.
     Hon. John D. Dingell, 
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce,
       House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
     prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3392, the Safe 
     Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994.
       Enactment of the bill would affect direct spending and 
     receipts. Therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply.
       If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be 
     pleased to provide them.
           Sincerely,
                                             Robert D. Reischauer,
                                                         Director.
       Enclosure.


               congressional budget office cost estimate

       1. Bill number: H.R. 3392.
       2. Bill title: Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994.
       3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee 
     on Energy and Commerce on September 20, 1994.
       4. Bill purpose: The bill would amend the Safe Drinking 
     Water Act (SDWA) to require the Environmental Protection 
     Agency (EPA) to make grants to states for capitalizing state 
     revolving loan funds (SRFs) that would finance facilities for 
     the treatment of drinking water. The bill would authorize 
     appropriations of $1 billion annually over the 1995-1997 
     period for these capitalization grants. In addition, major 
     provisions of the bill would: amend the procedures EPA uses 
     to identify contaminants for regulation under the SDWA; 
     require EPA to establish an alternative monitoring program 
     for drinking water; allow operators of small drinking water 
     systems to obtain variances and exemptions from drinking 
     water standards under certain conditions; direct EPA to 
     define treatment technologies that are feasible for small 
     drinking water systems when the agency issues new contaminant 
     regulations; require states to ensure that public water 
     systems have the technical expertise and financial resources 
     to implement the SDWA; and establish an alternative standard 
     for radon in drinking water.
       5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                   1995    1996    1997    1998    1999 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Authorizations of                                                       
 appropriations:                                                        
  Specific authorizations.......   1,000   1,000   1,000       0       0
  Estimated authorizations......      30      31      32   1,070   1,105
                                 ---------------------------------------
      Total authorizations......   1,030   1,031   1,032   1,070   1,105
  Estimated outlays.............      41     200     550     875   1,000
Revenues........................   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)
Direct spending:                                                        
  Estimated budget authority....       0   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)
  Estimated outlays.............       0   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)   (\1\)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\Less than $500,000.                                                  

       The costs of this bill fall within budget function 300.
       Basis of estimate: For purposes of this estimate, CBO 
     assumes that the bill will be enacted by October 1994, and 
     that all funds authorized by the bill will be appropriated 
     for each year. Estimated authorizations are based on 
     information provided by EPA. Estimated outlays are based on 
     historical spending patterns of ongoing SDWA programs 
     administered by EPA and of its grant program for waste water 
     treatment SRFs. A discussion of the estimated costs for 
     significant provisions of each section of the bill follows.
       Section 19 Funds for Safe Drinking Water. This section of 
     the bill would authorize the appropriation of $599 million 
     for 1994, $1 billion annually over the 1995-1997 period, and 
     such sums as are necessary after 1997, for capitalization 
     grants to states for new drinking water revolving loan funds. 
     For this estimate, CBO assumes that the SRF capitalization 
     grants would continue at $1 billion annually in 1998 and 
     1999, adjusted for inflation. Starting in 1996, states would 
     be required to provide a 20 percent match to receive the 
     federal grant. Each state would be authorized to make loans 
     or offer other kinds of financial assistance to 
     communities for capital projects that would facilitate 
     compliance with national drinking water regulations.
       The bill also would direct states to set aside specific 
     amounts of their grants to pay for administration of the 
     program, provide funds to establish and implement source 
     water protection programs, and also pay for part of the 
     public water system supervision program.
       EPA Drinking Water Program Costs. EPA's ongoing drinking 
     water research and regulatory activities have been funded 
     annually through the appropriations process, even though the 
     authorization for these programs expired in 1991. In 1994, 
     EPA estimates it will spend about $74 million on this 
     program, including: $31 million for implementing drinking 
     water regulations, $20 million for research on drinking water 
     contaminants, $16 million on protecting ground water, and $7 
     million for enforcing regulations.
       While this bill would not specifically authorize additional 
     appropriations for research and regulatory activities, based 
     on information from EPA, CBO estimates that enactment of this 
     bill would require the agency to increase its base funding 
     for drinking water by about $15 million annually over the 
     1995-1999 period. This increase is largely for writing 
     regulations and providing guidance and training to state 
     programs.
       In addition, section 19 would authorize the appropriation 
     of $15 million for 1994 and such sums as are necessary for 
     subsequent years for EPA to provide technical assistance to 
     small drinking water systems. Based on the 1994 
     authorization, adjusted for inflation in subsequent years, we 
     estimate this provision would cost $80 million over the 1995-
     1999 period, assuming appropriation of the necessary amounts.
       Civil Penalties. The bill would strengthen the 
     Administrator's ability to assess existing penalties and it 
     also would make violators of certain regulations regarding 
     the operation of public water systems subject to additional 
     civil, administrative, and criminal penalties. Based on 
     information provided by EPA, CBO expects that increases in 
     federal government receipts from these changes would be 
     insignificant.
       Any criminal fines collected would be deposited in the 
     Crime Victims Fund and spent in the following year. Thus, 
     direct spending from the fund would match the increase in 
     revenues from criminal fines with a one-year lag. Because 
     collections from criminal fines are expected to be 
     insignificant, increased direct spending from the fund would 
     also be insignificant.
       Bottled Drinking Water Regulations. The bill specifies that 
     an EPA regulation regarding drinking water would apply to 
     bottled water if the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) does 
     not issue a regulation on bottled drinking water within 180 
     days. This provision may require the FDA to expedite 
     review of regulations on bottled drinking water, and to 
     increase inspections of bottled drinking water facilities. 
     These activities may require additional resources, but CBO 
     cannot estimate the cost of these activities because the 
     FDA could not provide the necessary information.
       6. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the 
     Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 
     sets up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting 
     direct spending or receipts through 1998. Enactment of this 
     bill would increase governmental receipts from civil and 
     criminal penalties, as well as direct spending from the Crime 
     Victims Fund, but CBO expects that the amounts involved would 
     be insignificant.
       Section 16 would explicitly waive any federal immunity from 
     administrative orders or civil or administrative fines or 
     penalties assessed under SDWA, and would clarify that federal 
     facilities are subject to reasonable service charges assessed 
     in connection with a federal or state program. This provision 
     of SDWA may encourage states to seek to impose fines and 
     penalties against the federal government under SDWA. If 
     federal agencies contest these fines and penalties, it is 
     possible that payments would have to be made from the 
     government's Claims and Judgments Fund, if not otherwise 
     provided from appropriated funds. The Claims and Judgments 
     Fund is a permanent, open-ended appropriation, and any 
     amounts paid from it would be considered direct spending. CBO 
     cannot predict the number or the dollar amount of judgments 
     against the government that could result from enactment of 
     this bill. Further, we cannot determine whether those 
     judgments would be paid from the Claims and Judgments Fund or 
     from appropriated funds.
       7. Estimated cost to State and local governments:
     Summary
       CBO estimates the bill would authorize appropriations of $1 
     billion annually over the 1995-1999 period for EPA grants to 
     states to help public water supply systems comply with 
     drinking water regulations. In 1994, EPA had about $75 
     million to promote to states for this purpose.
       In addition to authorizing substantially greater 
     appropriations to assist states with compliance, the bill 
     would relieve many drinking water systems of the need of take 
     significant steps to comply with regulations concerning radon 
     in drinking water. (Estimates of the nationwide cost of 
     complying with EPA's proposed maximum contaminant level (MCL) 
     for randon in drinking water range from $0.3 billion to $2.5 
     billion annually.) Other provisions of the bill could lower 
     the cost of complying with drinking water regulations for 
     some systems, though CBO cannot qualify these savings. 
     Finally, the bill would require states to take on some added 
     responsibilities for water supply supervision, but states 
     could use some federal funds to help offset the costs of 
     these activities.
     Current law
       Information from the U.S. Bureau of the Census indicates 
     that the public drinking water industry\1\ has spent about 
     $25 billion annually in recent years to fulfill its basic 
     water service delivery mission and to comply with the SDWA. 
     Of this amount, EPA has estimated that the costs of complying 
     with the SDWA are about $1.4 billion annually. This annual 
     cost includes annual operations and maintenance costs, water 
     monitoring, and annual debt service on an estimated $8.6 
     billion in capital investments necessary to comply with the 
     SDWA. A 1993 study prepared for the American Water Works 
     Association (AWWA) estimates annual SDWA compliance costs at 
     $2.3 billion. This study assumed a higher cost of capital 
     financing than the EPA estimate did, and also assumed that 
     many water utilities require multiple treatment sites for 
     water contaminants. Neither of these estimates includes costs 
     for complying with regulations governing radon or 
     disinfection/disinfectant by-products, because they are not 
     currently in effect. The study prepared for AWWA estimates 
     that these two regulations could require a capital investment 
     of $10 billion.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     \1\There are about 200,000 public water systems regulated 
     under the SDWA serving 243 million Americans. About 85 
     percent of the population is served by publicly owned 
     drinking water systems. The estimates of the cost of SDWA 
     compliance that are cited by CBO combine the costs to 
     publicly owned and privately owned systems. Most of these 
     costs are public spending.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
       State public water supply supervision (PWSS) programs 
     implement the SDWA at the state level. These programs perform 
     critical functions, including enforcement, staff training, 
     data management, sanitary surveys, and certification of 
     testing laboratories. In 1994, EPA had about $64 million 
     available for state PWSS grants. State funding for this 
     activity is approximately $85 million. EPA and the 
     Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) 
     have estimated that these programs are inadequate to meet 
     current law requirements and that they are underfunded by 
     about $160 million annually.
     Changes that would be made by the bill
       State Revolving Funds. This bill would create state 
     drinking water revolving funds (SRFs), which would be a 
     significant new source of low-cost infrastructure financing 
     for many public water supply systems. Although local water 
     systems would have to repay SRF loans, each state could 
     decide what level of financial assistance is appropriate for 
     the communities in the state. Depending on how each state 
     manages its SRF, these funds could potentially become 
     independent and self-sustaining sources of capital for SDWA 
     investments.
       Compliance with Radon Standard. Section 4 would direct EPA 
     to issue an alternative maximum contaminent level (MCL) for 
     radon in drinking water within two years. EPA's draft MCL for 
     radon is 300 picocuries per liter of water (pCi/Lwater). 
     Under current law, the agency expects to issue its standard 
     in April, 1995. The bill would direct the agency to establish 
     an alternative radon standard of 1,000 (pCi/Lwater).
       EPA estimates that public drinking water systems serving 17 
     million people would be required to comply with its draft 
     radon MCL (300 pCi/Lwater) at an annual cost of $275 
     million. A study prepared for the AWWA estimates that about 
     33,000 systems would need to meet this standard at an annual 
     cost of $2.5 billion. The biggest difference between these 
     estimates involves the cost of systems and technologies to 
     treat water for radon. EPA believes that many water systems 
     can rely on off-the-shelf packaged systems to comply with 
     this regulation. The study done for AWWA assumes that more 
     systems would face unique needs and would spend more on 
     design and engineering costs to comply with this standard.
       At an alternative radon standard of 1,000 pCi/Lwater, 
     EPA estimates that the nationwide costs for mitigating radon 
     in drinking water would be reduced by roughly 75 percent. The 
     study prepared for AWWA indicates cost savings of 
     approximately 65 percent if the standard were 1,000 pCi/
     Lwater. Therefore, CBO expects that establishing the 
     alternative radon MCL would eliminate much of the costs water 
     systems would incur under current law to deal with radon 
     problems. We estimate that savings from this provision would 
     be between $200 million and $1.5 billion annually, depending 
     on what these systems would otherwise spend to correct radon 
     problems under current law.
       Other Compliance Costs. Other provisions of the bill could 
     result in lower compliance costs for future SDWA regulations, 
     but CBO does not have sufficient information to quantify 
     these savings. (In particular, we do not know what 
     contaminants EPA will decide to regulate in the future.) 
     Section 11 would authorize states to give small water systems 
     variances from compliance with EPA regulations if such 
     systems install appropriate alternative treatment 
     technologies as defined by EPA. Section 12 would allow states 
     to exempt small systems from certain drinking water 
     regulations if cannot afford to install the best available 
     affordable technology defined by EPA. Section 15 would allow 
     states to provide interim relief from contaminant monitoring 
     for certain small water systems. Finally, the bill would 
     amend the method EPA uses to select drinking water 
     contaminants for regulation so that, over the long term, 
     systems are likely to face fewer regulations than they would 
     under current law.
       State Supervision Costs. The bill would require PWSS 
     programs to undertake important new functions. Under section 
     13, each state would be required to establish a program to 
     ensure the technical and financial viability of water systems 
     in the state.
       Section 8 would require states to certify the proficiency 
     of drinking water system operators and testing laboratories. 
     CBO estimates that the cost of these provisions would be less 
     than $20 million a year. The bill would authorize states to 
     use part of their drinking water SRF grant funds to pay for 
     the water system viability programs.
       8. Estimate comparison: None.
       9. Previous CBO estimate: On April 29, 1993, CBO prepared a 
     cost estimate for H.R. 1865, the Water Supply Construction 
     Assistance Act of 1993, as ordered reported by the House 
     Committee on Public Works and Transportation. This bill 
     established an SRF for drinking water and authorized 
     appropriations of $2.6 billion over the 1994-1996 period to 
     capitalize these funds.
       On May 3, 1993, CBO prepared a cost estimate for H.R. 1701, 
     the Drinking Water and Public Health Enhancement Amendments 
     of 1993, as ordered reported by the House Committee on Energy 
     and Commerce. This bill established an SRF for drinking water 
     and authorized appropriations of $4.6 billion over the 1994-
     1998 period to capitalize these funds.
       On April 13, 1994, CBO prepared a cost estimate for S. 
     2019, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994, as 
     ordered reported by the Senate Committee on Environment and 
     Public Works on March 28, 1994. S. 2019 would establish an 
     SRF for drinking water systems, and would authorize the 
     appropriation of $1 billion annually over the 1995-2000 
     period to capitalize these funds. In addition, S. 2019 would 
     authorize appropriations of $243 million annually over the 
     1995-2000 period for other EPA drinking water grant programs.
       10. Estimate prepared by: Kim Cawley, Connie Takata, and 
     Melissa Sampson.
       11. Estimate approved by: C.G. Nuckols, Assistant Director 
     for Budget Analysis.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I believe the bill is sound and I hope it 
will be viewed favorably by the Senate. We do not intend upon passage 
of H.R. 3392 to join with S. 2019 and request a conference because of 
the many non-germane amendments to S. 2019. To do so, would involve too 
many other House committees. It would doom any chance for final passage 
of this needed bill in the 103d Congress. The issues related to safe 
drinking water are difficult enough. Hopefully, the Senate will accept 
this balanced bill or find another mechanism for resolution of any 
differences. Of course, I caution all that our compromise is fragile as 
noted by the environmentalists. Changes to one provision can reopen 
others and result in no bill. I feel sure that is not the outcome we 
all seek.
   Before closing, I want to make clear that the committee, in our 
efforts to finalize the legislation, did not engage in an extensive 
discussion for legislative history purposes of the reported bill. 
Clearly, we did not have time to do so. The sparse legislative history 
in the committee's report represents the views of the committee. To the 
extent others address matters on the House floor, I want to make clear 
that they may not represent the committee's views, unless they are also 
a part of the report.
  Finally, I include at this point a letter from the chairman of the 
Committee on Public Works and Transportation, my good friend Chairman 
Norman Mineta.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I wish to agree with Chairman Mineta that 
the bill and their process does not prejudice future jurisdiction 
determination over the construction portion of such funds.
  I urge adoption of the bill.
                                         Committee on Public Works


                                           and Transportation,

                               Washington, DC, September 27, 1994.
     Hon. John D. Dingell,
     Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of 
         Representatives, Rayburn HOB, Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Chairman: it is my understanding that the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce has reported an amendment in 
     the nature of a substitute to H.R. 3392, the ``Safe Drinking 
     Water Act Amendments of 1993''. That amendment would, in 
     part, authorize funds for states to establish drinking water 
     treatment revolving funds. As you know, H.R. 1865, the 
     ``Water Supply Construction Assistance Act of 1993'', which 
     was referred exclusively to the Committee on Public Works and 
     Transportation and which was reported without amendment on 
     May 17, 1993, would also authorize funds to states for the 
     purpose of establishing drinking water revolving loan funds 
     to provide assistance for the construction, rehabilitation, 
     and improvement of water supply systems. We believe that the 
     use of funds to construct safe drinking water facilities and 
     systems for the filtration, disinfection and distribution of 
     water for human consumption is basically a water supply 
     construction assistance program and within the purview of our 
     Committee. We understand that your Committee does not 
     necessarily share that view.
       Our Committee has no objection to this request pending your 
     Committee's acknowledgement that nothing in the amendment, or 
     in the legislative process this Congress on the issue of new 
     safe drinking water state revolving funds, prejudges future 
     jurisdictional determinations over the construction portion 
     of such funds.
       In addition, our Committee reserves its right to pursue 
     conferees on the bill should the situation so dictate.
       Lastly, I would appreciate your including our exchange of 
     correspondence in the Record during consideration of the 
     bill. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Norman Y. Mineta,
                                                            Chair.

  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to at this time congratulate and thank for 
her hard work the senior staff member on our side, Margaret Durbin, and 
also my own legislative director, James Derderian, for the work they 
put into this bill.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Washington [Mrs. Unsoeld].
  (Mrs. UNSOELD asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Mrs. UNSOELD. Mr. Speaker, I rise in enthusiastic support of the 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3392, the Safe Drinking 
Water Act of 1994. I have received numerous letters and phone calls 
from my constituents stressing the urgent need to amend and reauthorize 
the Safe Drinking Water Act this year. This legislation is very 
important to the people of southwest Washington who are concerned about 
maintaining high quality drinking water, but are struggling with the 
financial burdens created by the 1986 amendments to the act.
  The 1986 amendments established a system to regulate an increasing 
list of contaminants without providing the funding necessary for 
communities to meet these mandatory requirements. This letter concern 
is of particular importance to the smaller communities in Southwest 
Washington which have a limited financial capacity to respond to these 
Federal obligations. No one disputes the responsibility of communities 
to provide safe drinking water to its citizens, but the way the act was 
working, towns trying to do the right thing have been hamstrung by lack 
of funds and unable to meet all of their Federal regulatory 
requirements.
  H.R. 3392 is a carefully crafted bill designed to respond to 
compelling health and safety risks and address important economic 
considerations. This bill will meet the needs of the communities of 
southwest Washington and the communities around the Nation. I urge my 
colleagues to pass this bill today.
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. This legislation passed the Senate in May, and it has been 
awaiting House action. It is a bipartisan bill that is the result of 
months of negotiations. Environmentalists, the EPA, State and local 
governments, and many other concerned groups have been part of the 
debate to write a bill that will ensure the quality of our nation's 
drinking water.
  My own State of Maryland has played a role in the effort to reach an 
agreement that all parties could support. And the State does benefit 
from the current bill. Direct benefits include $14 million in Federal 
funds each year to be used for a State revolving loan fund for 
improving public water systems, monitoring relief for Maryland's nearly 
1,000 small water systems serving less than 3,300 people, and funds for 
a new effort to preserve and protect sources of water supply for towns 
and cities. Among these cities is Rockville, the second largest city in 
the State, and a part of Maryland's Eighth Congressional District, 
which I represent.
  Mr. Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
legislation. We cannot take safe drinking water for granted. 
Milwaukee's water problems resulted in illness and death. The boil-
water advisory in Washington, DC and parts of northern Virginia alerted 
us to potential problems here. Let us assist State and local 
governments in providing safe drinking water. I urge a ``yes'' vote.
  Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3392, the Safe 
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994. Many people are responsible for 
bringing this bill to the floor today and I would like to thank the 
gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] for his tireless efforts over 
the past several months to forge the compromises necessary to achieve 
this bill. I also want to take a moment to thank the gentleman from 
Oklahoma [Mr. Synar] for his role in drafting this legislation, and so 
many other good bills during his tenure in Congress. He will be missed.
  While drinking water treatment in the United States is among the most 
sophisticated in the world, many people continue to drink water that is 
contaminated with biological pathogens, heavy metals and possible 
cancer-causing agents. According to the Environmental Protection Agency 
[EPA], waterborne disease-causing pathogens, such as cryptosporidium 
which killed more than 100 people in Milwaukee in 1993, kill about 
1,800 and cause another 1.8 million Americans to get sick every year. 
Currently, the EPA does not regulate cryptosporidium. Some water 
supplies are also contaminated with suspected cancer-causing agents 
such as arsenic and nitrates.
  Another problem with our current drinking water supply system is the 
large number of small systems, usually defined as those serving fewer 
than 3,300 people. Small systems often lack the financial resources 
necessary to install the latest treatment technology. Small systems 
almost uniformly serve rural areas of the country. These systems need 
financial and technical assistance to upgrade or consolidate to ensure 
that rural Americans have drinking water which meets the highest 
standards.
  The bill before us today addresses these and other important issues. 
It implements a more manageable framework for EPA to select 
contaminants which might pose a threat to human health, study them and 
issue regulations to protect the public. The EPA must immediately act 
to review at least 15 unregulated contaminants which might be present 
in water systems to determine whether regulation is required. Over the 
long term, H.R. 3392 requires the EPA Administrator, within 5 years of 
enactment and every 4 years thereafter, to develop a list of 12 
contaminants which may require regulation. After the list is finalized, 
regulations must be promulgated which set maximum contaminant levels 
[MCL] in drinking water and specify treatment techniques. Importantly, 
the Administrator is instructed to develop a MCL for cryptosporidium 
and radon and enter into an agreement with the National Academy of 
Sciences [NAS] to conduct a comprehensive study of the possible health 
effects of arsenic in drinking water. It is vitally important that 
cryptosporidium be regulated to reduce the likelihood of another 
disaster like the one in Milwaukee. Moreover, when setting drinking 
water standards, the Administrator must pay special attention to the 
possible effects of contaminants of certain groups, such as children, 
pregnant women and the elderly. It is essential that standards are 
stringent enough to protect these, and other, vulnerable groups.

  The bill requires States, using guidance from the EPA, to develop 
programs to certify laboratories and system operators. This is 
necessary to guarantee that lab analysis is accurate and that operators 
have the technical expertise to run systems properly. One inaccurate 
test or human error at a treatment plant can have serious consequences 
for those consuming the water. Possible human error lead to a boil 
water order in the District and parts of northern Virginia this spring. 
In addition, States are required to establish system viability 
assessment programs to gauge which systems have the technical, 
managerial and financial capability to meet all the requirements of the 
act. This is especially important because many small systems can not 
meet the full range of the act's requirements, but have not been 
adequately supervised under the current statute. States risk losing 
financial assistance if they fail to establish a viability program.
  Finally, H.R. 3392 provides for Federal grants to States to establish 
SDWA State Revolving Funds [SRF]. States will make loans and grants to 
systems to upgrade and install new treatment technology. The bill 
authorizes $1 billion for contributions to SRF's in fiscal year 1995, 
1996 and 1997 and such sums as may be necessary thereafter. In fiscal 
year 1995, the Congress has appropriated $700 million for this purpose 
and $599 million remains available from fiscal year 1994. These funds 
will help systems across the country to upgrade treatment technology. 
The bill prohibits loans and grants to small systems for any 
expenditures which could be avoided through consolidation with other 
small systems, but funds may be used for such consolidation. The goal 
of this restriction is to reduce the number of small systems which are 
not viable and often fail to protect public health.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a bipartisan bill which is backed by a wide 
range of interests, including the National Governors' Association, 
Conference of State Legislatures, water system representatives and 
members of the environmental community. To ensure that every American 
has safe, healthy drinking water, it is essential that we pass this 
bill today.
  Mr. SLATTERY. Mr. Speaker, 11 months ago, I met with the chairman of 
the Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, Mr. Waxman, to discuss 
the many problems of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as well as the bill 
which Representative Thomas Bliley and I were preparing to introduce to 
reform that act. In that meeting, we agreed to work together to advance 
reauthorization legislation. We have moved beyond that initial goal and 
have achieved a consensus bill.
  We are here today to consider legislation which enjoys the support 
from the public interest community, State and local government 
associations, water industry associations, and the Administration, as 
well as from all of the principal negotiators of this bill. This bill 
is a tribute to the hard work over the last 6 months of all parties 
involved in reaching this consensus.
  As we consider the shortcomings of the current law, we will be able 
to judge the effectiveness of this legislation in addressing those 
shortcomings by measuring first, whether the bill will better protect 
and assure the safety of the drinking water supplies of this country, 
and second, whether the programs responsible for the delivery of 
drinking water have been made more reasonable and more efficient. On 
both counts, I am confident that the reforms incorporated in this bill 
will be successful.
  When the Coalition of State and Local Government and Water Industry 
Associations first approached me regarding the reauthorization of the 
Safe Drinking Water Act, they criticized the current law for:
  First, being inflexible with regard to the selection of new 
contaminants for regulation and to the setting of standards for those 
contaminants,
  Second, being insensitive to the effect of the act's requirements on 
small systems,
  Third, being overly prescriptive and unnecessarily costly with regard 
to the requirements for monitoring,
  Fourth, underfunded with regard to the contribution by the Federal 
Government to State and local governments for the costs of 
administering the act, and
  Fifth, simply unworkable with regard to variances and exemptions.
  The conclusion these groups led me to is that the current law indeed 
is causing the wasteful spending of public resources.
  On all of these issues, this bill proposes responsible reforms which 
will lead to vastly improved systems for the delivery of safe drinking 
water across this country.
  Additionally, the public interest community is able to point to 
provisions in this bill which reform existing programs and create new 
programs with the intent of improving the quality and safety of our 
drinking water. The objective of these programs is to avoid the recent 
water quality problems experienced in Milwaukee and here in the 
Nation's Capital.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank Chairman Dingell for his 
leadership and perseverance in negotiating this bill, and also to thank 
Representative Waxman, Representative Bliley, Representative Studds, 
Representative Synar, and Representative Lambert, as well as 
Administrator Browner, for their commitment to crafting a bill which 
truly offers a balance of reforms which we are all proud to support.
  Finally, I want to recognize the tremendous effort made by my 
colleague--the other original cosponsor of the Slattery/Bliley Safe 
Drinking Water bill--Tom Bliley, and that of the minority staff. 
Throughout this process, Representative Bliley worked with me in a 
bipartisan manner toward our mutual goal of enacting responsible 
reforms to the drinking water laws during this Congress. He has 
expended enormous amounts of energy on this bill, and the fact that 
this legislation is here before us for a vote is a tribute to his 
commitment to this process.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge the House to favorably pass H.R. 3392.
  Mr. STUDDS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3392, the 
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994. the lengthy negotiations 
that went into this legislation have resulted in a bill that is 
endorsed by a wide range of interests--State and local government, 
environmental and agricultural organizations, and water suppliers.
  They support this bill because it is a vast improvement over current 
law. It reduces the statute's burden on public water systems by 
providing more flexibility and--for the first time--financial 
assistance in the form of a State revolving loan fund program. At the 
same time, H.R. 3392 maintains and adds public health protections that 
are essential to a comprehensive overhaul of this law.
  As a participant in the negotiations that produced this bill, I can 
state with assurance that it fairly and constructively balances the 
interests of the wide range of groups that will be affected by it.
  The final agreement that was negotiated includes provisions that are 
similar in many respects to H.R. 4314, legislation that I introduced to 
update the Safe Drinking Water Act. These include a State revolving 
loan fund program, extended timeframes for compliance with drinking 
water standards, a more sensible method of choosing new contaminants to 
regulate, a new program allowing small water systems to use 
alternative, less costly technologies, and several others.
  In addition, the bill contains a requirement--which mirrors a 
provision of my legislation--that States assess their source waters to 
identify potential contamination threats. We learned the hard way on 
Cape Cod that preventing pollution in the first place is a lot cheaper 
than cleaning it up after it's too late.
  This bill offers monitoring relief to systems in States with source 
water assessment programs, saving them millions of dollars--as 
Massachusetts has done with a similar program it already has in place. 
While I would have preferred to have seen an even stronger source water 
protection program, this bill takes an important first step in that 
direction.
  This bipartisan compromise agreement goes a long way toward 
addressing the concerns expressed to me by the water suppliers in my 
district and State and I urge my colleagues to give it their strong 
support.
  Mr. LEHMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to the 
Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization. The bill includes another one 
of those illogical unfunded mandates that could have been avoided by 
reasonable risk assessment.
  Instead of granting water systems the flexibility to address the true 
contaminants in our water supply, this bill requires cities like 
Fresno, CA, to spend nearly $20 million a year to lower the level of 
radon in water, when it is widely known that radon in water only 
contributes 5 percent to the overall radon risk.
  Simply put, this legislation forces local governments to spend 
millions of dollars on something that will have little or no impact on 
public health. By doing so, we are actually hindering efforts to remove 
the true contaminants in our drinking water. Clearly, Congress needs to 
enact risk-assessment legislation.
  The legislation should establish a radon in drinking water standard 
to be driven by the background level of radon in outdoor air. The 
Senate supported this level in a vote of 94-6.
  Tragically, water agencies, and ultimately our constituents, will 
bear the very high cost of this mandate for little benefit. If you are 
concerned about senseless unfunded mandates that are constantly 
bankrupting local and State governments, I strongly encourage you to 
vote ``no'' and send this legislation back to committee to change the 
radon provisions.
  Mr. BAKER of California. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3392, 
the Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA] amendments.
  The United States is in dire need of Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA] 
reform. In my home district in California, water providers in Contra 
Costa and Alameda counties need flexibility to address the specific 
water safety threats facing our part of the county. We owe it to water 
customers, taxpayers, and ratepayers to ensure that we get the most 
bang for our buck. This bill helps us achieve this important goal.
  I commend members of the Energy and Commerce Committee on both sides 
of the aisle for drafting a bill acceptable to all parties. I have 
heard from concerned citizens and various groups throughout the east 
bay area expressing the need for SDWA reform.
  I'm pleased that a broad coalition of organizations has come together 
in support of the bill before us. These groups include numerous State 
and local water agencies, Clean Water Action, Gov. Pete Wilson, and the 
National Governors Association, various other environmental groups, the 
California American Farm Bureau, and many others.
  This bill: Establishes a new regulatory regime to ensure that new 
regulations focus on contaminants that pose the greatest health 
threats; gives the EPA greater flexibility in considering both 
incremental compliance costs and incremental public health risk 
reduction benefits afforded by alternatives; establishes a source water 
petition program to encourage States and localities to work together to 
prevent contamination problems before they occur; directs the EPA to 
establish a new standard for the contaminant chryptosporidium; provides 
additional training for operators of public water systems; gives 
smaller water systems greater flexibility; and creates a program to 
reduce lead contamination.
  I will continue to support constructive efforts like this one that 
bring differing parties together to solve our Nation's problems. It is 
only in talking with one another and truly understanding our individual 
concerns that we can undertake lasting solutions to our problems.
  Again, I commend all who took part in discussions and look forward to 
similar efforts in the future.
  Mr. ROBERTS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to voice my concerns with the 
legislation being debated and the way in which the House is considering 
this legislation. While I recognize the need for reform of the current 
law, the desire reduce costs, and bring regulatory relief--this is not 
the bill nor the way to accomplish those goals.
  It is agreed by all parties--including organizations representing 
health and consumer interests, environmentalists, industry and 
agricultural groups--that our Nation's drinking water law is broken and 
must be fixed. Under existing laws, limited financial resources are 
being drained by costly testing and regulatory procedures that provide 
little or no safety or health benefit. Recognizing this situation, 
efforts began in the House and Senate during the 103d Congress to 
provide financial relief to municipalities and enhance health and 
safety issues contained in the law. Last year, the Senate was able to 
report a bill and now the House is considering passage of this bill--a 
far more detailed and far more reaching piece of legislation.
  I applaud the efforts of all interests in working toward a common 
goal. I recognize the difficulty in fashioning such a compromise from 
such diverse interests and purposes. However, I feel I cannot support 
this legislation for the following reasons:
  First, House procedures: no perfecting floor amendments allowed;
  Second, radon language: overly restrictive radon provisions;
  Third, EPA retroactive review not included: intended to provide real 
relief from nitrate and other testing requirements; and
  Fourth, unfunded mandates: When is the Federal Government going to 
stop passing such costly regulations?


                      suspension versus open rules

  In bringing H.R. 3392 to the House floor for consideration, 
proponents have argued that time is running out in the 103d Congress 
and every procedural effort must be taken to ensure its quick passage. 
In forcing the immediate consideration of the bill, the Democratic 
House leadership has allowed this bill to be brought to the House floor 
for debate as a suspension.
  In other words, the bill is considered as drafted, no amendments are 
allowed. House rules specifically outline when and if a bill should or 
would be qualified to be considered as a suspension. H.R. 3392 clearly 
should not be allowed as a suspension if House rules were applied.
  In forcing this procedural move, proponents have been able to repress 
all perfecting amendments that would have been normally offered during 
floor consideration of this or any other bill. In doing so, they have 
successfully prevented me or any other Member from representing an 
opposing or other viewpoint. I was working with colleagues on offering 
two or three amendments to address issues of cost and contaminant 
standard setting. The House will not have the benefit of openly 
debating and considering those issues.
  For that reason alone, I believe my colleagues should oppose this 
bill. If the bill were defeated today, I would support efforts to bring 
the bill back for floor debate tomorrow under an open rule that would 
allow all amendments, including mine, to be considered in a timely and 
thorough fashion.


                             radon section

  My second concern with H.R. 3392 is the provisions regarding radon 
testing and the establishment of a 1,000 picocuries/liter tolerance 
threshold. I believe this threshold is far too low and should and could 
be increased without increasing any health or safety risk. Under the 
bill's language, the Kansas Department of Health and Environment 
estimates that 10 to 15 percent of all wells in Kansas would be out of 
compliance. With scientific data showing that this standard level could 
be increased without jeopardizing health or safety considerations, I 
would be supportive of amendments to increase the level to 1,500 or 
2,000 pCis/liter.
  The risk of radon contamination in water is an inhalation concern 
(i.e. showing, etc.). In water, the conversion rate of radon to air is 
10,000 pCis/liter in water to 1 pCis/part in air. In other words, water 
would have to be contaminated by 10,000 pCis/liter to increase the air 
radon level by 1 pCi or 40,000 pCis/liter to reach the EPA indoor radon 
safety threshold of four picocuries.
  It was agreed by several experts that an earlier EPA recommendation 
of 200 PCis/liter for water was excessive and would have caused 
impossible economic requirements on communities. Based upon the EPA's 
recommendation of 200 pCis/liter for water, KDHE estimates that 70 to 
80 percent of all Kansas wells would be out of compliance. At an EPA 
rate of 300 pCis/liter, roughly 50 percent of wells would be out of 
compliance.
  Unfortunately, a widely supported amendment to correct this situation 
will not be considered today during debate of H.R. 3392.


                   RETROACTIVE REVIEW--NITRATE LEVELS

  My third reason for opposing this bill has to do with the practical 
effects of the current law and the administrative determinations made 
by the Environmental Protection Agency. Under existing legal 
requirements, municipal governments and water companies are forced to 
do regular testing for 110 elements. EPA was given the authority to 
establish the allowable standard levels for these elements taking into 
account scientific information and health and safety considerations. 
Prior to the 1986 enactment of this legislation, state governments 
regulated and established such standard levels. This law was intended 
to replace State authority by creating a national set of standards.
  The practical impact by transferring this authority to EPA was the 
creation of standard levels that were consistently lower than the 
tolerance levels established earlier by the State of Kansas. In 
particular, the EPA established a standard level of 10 parts per 
million for nitrates, a level half the earlier Kansas-established 
standard of 20 ppm. As a result, several communities in Kansas became 
out of compliance with the EPA requirements and are being forced 
into spending millions of dollars to locate new water sources and 
construct new treatment facilities.

  Why was the EPA level so much lower than that State level? Only EPA 
knows.
  Yes, I agree, it is important that nitrates be monitored. When 
consumed in very high quantities, nitrates block the oxygen-carrying 
ability of our blood. While adults are unharmed by this effect, in 
infants it can lead to blue baby syndrome. This syndrome is not fatal 
and is easily reversed when diagnosed.
  Since the 1950's, there have only been two cases of blue baby 
syndrome in Kansas. Both cases were of situations where bottle-fed 
infants were fed out of private wells with several hundred parts of 
nitrates per million. There has never been a documented case of blue 
baby syndrome caused by a municipal water source in Kansas.
  In addition, as the EPA nitrate safety level was being put into 
effect, Jack Burris, a Kansas Department of Health and Environment--the 
agency in charge of health safety--said that contamination levels of 
below 20 parts per million were ``not dangerous to either children or 
adults. The EPA level of 10 parts/million is ridiculous.'' Yet, several 
communities in Kansas are out of compliance and forced to take drastic 
action.
  This situation is not corrected in this bill. I would have preferred 
that an amendment be considered during consideration of this bill to 
force the EPA to review the nitrate level and the other 109 contaminant 
standards established by the EPA to ensure that they are based on sound 
science. I have been working on such an amendment. Unfortunately, it 
will not be considered.


                           UNFUNDED MANDATES

  Finally, I would like to comment on the overall cost of the existing 
SDWA law and this legislation. Yes, some financial relief will be 
provided to ease the regulatory burdens facing towns and cities, but 
not enough.
  The Safe Drinking Water Act is one of the largest Federal mandates 
facing our local communities. Today, we are considering a bill that 
does provide limited relief, including a loan program to help pay the 
costs. Yes, a loan, not a grant. Yes, it has to be paid back. I don't 
believe that it true relief.
  More importantly, as a member of the Congressional Caucus on Unfunded 
Mandates, I have strongly argued Congress should pay 100 percent of all 
costs associated Federal mandates. If the Federal Government wants to 
monitor it and require it, then we should be prepared in Congress to 
pay for it. Better stated, no money, no mandate. If Congress doesn't 
pay for it, then it should become voluntary.
  On November 22, 1993, I introduced H.R. 3686, a bill requiring that 
Congress pay the full costs of the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
Unfortunately, we do not do that in this legislation.
  Again, I wish to congratulate and commend my colleagues for all their 
work. I wish I could support this bill. My hope is that these issues 
can be resolved in a conference between the House and Senate should 
this bill move forward.
  I will be continuing my efforts to see that effective and true relief 
for communities is provided.
  Thank you.
  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member rises in strong support of 
H.R. 3392, the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1994.
  This Member would begin by expressing his sincere appreciation to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan, the chairman of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, Mr. Dingell, for his outstanding leadership in 
bringing this bill to the Floor.
  This Member also commends the distinguished gentleman from Kansas 
[Mr. Slattery], and the distinguished gentleman from Virginia [Mr. 
Bliley], for their introduction of this legislation and their work in 
reaching this compromise version.
  Mr. Speaker, there is general agreement that the current drinking 
water law is badly broken and needs to be fixed. There is an urgent 
need to make the Safe Drinking Water Act's regulations more flexible 
and less costly. H.R. 3392 presents a workable solution without 
compromising the safety of our Nation's water supply. This legislation 
helps correct some of the serious problems and reduces the substantial 
local costs created by the current law. Clearly, many of the current 
SDWA requirements result in prohibitive costs without any real health 
benefit or increase in water quality. This is an issue on which this 
Member has been speaking out and seeking corrective actions by the EPA 
for some time, but without results. However, in large part, it is 
Congress which is to blame for the statutory direction we have given to 
the EPA.
  H.R. 3392 injects more reasonableness and common sense on this issue 
and allows States and communities to identify and focus on those 
contaminants which present an actual health risk in a particular area. 
Legislation enacted by Congress simply must take into account the 
economic and budgetary realities faced by States and communities. 
Blanket Federal legislation for this yet very diverse Nation is usually 
ineffective, overreaching, inflexible, and expensive for States and 
communities of all sizes. That surely is the case with various parts of 
the current Safe Drinking Water Act.
  As the defeat earlier this year of the rule for consideration of the 
EPA cabinet-level bill demonstrated, most Members and the informed 
American public now support an assessment of risks during the 
regulatory process. Clearly, some applications of environmental 
regulation have entered a phase of diminishing returns. Although great 
progress has been made in meeting threats to health and safety, a point 
has been reached where each new environmental regulation should undergo 
a cost/benefit estimate based on an analysis of risk.
  H.R. 3392 gives State and local officials greater responsibility in 
tailoring a safe drinking water program based on sound science. These 
officials certainly have a powerful incentive to provide safe drinking 
water since they and their constituents will be drinking that water and 
they know full well where the buck stops. They certainly would not 
subject themselves and their family and friends to harmful water. 
Instead, they will focus their time and money on the problems unique to 
their community.
  Mr. Speaker, there is a growing financial crisis for small 
communities that becomes more evident each year as new testing and 
treatment deadlines are imposed. Many Federal officials are now 
recognizing the dangers of an inflexible Federal approach to this 
problem. In fact, during a speech at the annual conference for the 
National Association of Towns and Townships last September, EPA 
Administrator Carol Browner stated her support for ``more flexibility, 
more local and regional decision-making.''
  This Member's experience in visiting with local officials and 
listening to constituents at town hall meetings indicates that the 
regulations promulgated to enforce the Safe Drinking Water Act have 
become a major Federal irritant to local government officials and 
terribly expensive--for no real benefit. These regulations often result 
in diverting scarce local dollars to address problems or contaminants 
which do not exist. One of the most flagrant examples of a requirement 
which results in higher costs involves testing across the whole Nation 
for a pesticide used for Hawaiian pineapples, even though it is 
currently banned in the continental United States.

  It costs nearly as much for a very small community to go through the 
mandated testing procedures as it does for a large community. In most 
cases, therefore, residents in smaller communities will be forced to 
pay much more per person, since the costs cannot be spread out over a 
larger population. Without changes in the current law, though, 
communities of all sizes will be severely impacted.
  This Member would like to cite several examples of the problems 
facing communities in Nebraska's First District.
  Wahoo (population 3,681) recently instituted a 10-percent rate 
increase due to increased testing costs. The community is expecting an 
annual increase in excess of $20,000 to pay for water testing 
requirements.
  Homer (population 553) estimates that monthly water rates may nearly 
triple over the next several years as a result of the testing 
requirements. Just recently, water rates for customers were about $9 
per month. Within a few years, this may jump to $25 per month.
  Unadilla (population 294) is projecting that by 1997 each of its 120 
households will have to pay an incredible $100 per year just for water 
testing costs.
  Even a city the size of Lincoln (population 191,972) will face 
problems. The city is estimating that over the next 6 years, total 
costs for capital improvements and operation and maintenance due to 
proposed regulations for water quality may be as high as $185 million.
  Communities throughout Nebraska and the United States are confronting 
similar predicaments. In addition to the costs of outrageously 
overreaching testing requirements, it is clear that the cost of water 
will skyrocket if truly unnecessary treatment is required. While the 
EPA sets its standards as close to zero risk as technologically 
possible, incredibly it takes costs into consideration only for water 
systems serving more than 1 million people. Also, this required 
treatment will often result in no actual health benefit.
  The Slattery-Bliley bill recognizes that, consistent with sound 
health considerations, required technology should be based on the size 
of the community. The legislation reforms the current standard setting 
procedures by requiring the Environmental Protection Agency [EPA] to 
establish technologies suitable for use by small systems.
  The bill also removes many of the rigid and arbitrary requirements of 
the current safe drinking water law. For instance, it eliminates the 
notorious and ridiculous current statutory mandate that EPA identify 25 
contaminants every 3 years for regulation and replaces it with a system 
based on contaminants that, first, represent a public health concern 
and, second, actually occur in drinking water. The legislation also 
allows States to tailor monitoring requirements to particular 
circumstances, with responsible flexibility and reasonable exemptions 
more easily available.
  Mr. Speaker, while everyone certainly recognizes the importance of 
providing safe drinking water for everyone, this Member believes it 
should be done in a realistic manner which does not inappropriately 
burden the communities affected. As stated previously, this Member does 
not support taking any action that will cause drinking water to become 
unsafe--for instance, where there is a problem with biological 
contamination, yes, treatment is obviously necessary. However, the 
Federal Government should provide more discretion to States so that 
they can use common sense and not be subject to arbitrary Nation-wide 
standards that have no relevance in a particular State. For instance, 
the nature of water testing in Nebraska should reflect the State's 
uniquely strong ground water dependency. This Member has consistently 
conveyed these views to current and former EPA administrators.
  Nebraska relies far more heavily on ground water sources for both 
drinking water and commercial uses than any other State in the Nation. 
For example, only 6 or 7 of the more than 700 public water supply 
entities in the State use any surface water. Chlorination of community 
drinking water from ground water sources could be requiring a solution 
to a nonproblem in most Nebraska communities, and in fact, it now 
appears, add a health hazard through chlorination itself where none now 
exists.
  In a great many Nebraska communities, individual wells are located at 
various points in a community without being interconnected. This makes 
certain treatment requirements much more difficult than they may be for 
communities not using ground water. Since most Nebraska communities 
incorporate water from their wells directly into their distribution 
systems, a requirement for chlorination would have the effect of 
requiring centralization of their water supply systems or chlorination 
would sometimes have to be provided at each separate well site--an 
action which would be almost economically impossible for many Nebraska 
communities.
  It is also important to note that Nebraska has not had a water-borne 
disease outbreak attributed to a public water supply system since at 
least 1969. That particular situation involved a transient population 
with an undetermined location or cause of illness.
  Mr. Speaker, this Member urges his colleagues to support passage of 
H.R. 3392, which represents a responsible approach to providing safe 
drinking water. It will protect the health of individuals as well as 
communities.
  Mrs. MINK of Hawaii. Mr. Speaker, it is Congress' duty to protect the 
Nation's vital resources and preserve public health and safety. Our 
duty sets an imperative before us--to vote today to reauthorize the 
Safe Drinking Water Act. It is important for us to act now and not 
allow the essential provisions in this act to wait another year; we 
have already left it unauthorized since 1991.
  If we do not act on this bill today, our States and local governments 
will continue to bear enormous burdens of strict and costly monitoring 
and treatment criteria. They will continue to be unable to adequately 
address ongoing threats of waterborne disease and chemical pollutants 
in their piped water supply. In this greatly bipartisan act, the 
creation of new revolving loan funds would assist States and small 
communities to fulfill an essential right of their residents--the right 
to enjoy drinking water that will not make them sick.
  For the numbers of small water systems serving my State of Hawaii, 
instead of having to comply with an additional 25 contaminants every 3 
years, an easier list of 12 contaminants will be required from the EPA 
every 4 years. This act would allow small systems greater flexibility 
to evaluate and implement the best available affordable technologies. 
And small systems will be granted some relief from impractical 
monitoring requirements.
  The amendments in H.R. 3392 include good compromises and solid 
changes to the currently outdated Safe Drinking Water Act. I urge you 
to approve this bill. It would be a shame to leave this act 
unauthorized any longer. Our water systems must be made safer, but with 
requirements that are realistic and reachable for our States and local 
governments.
  Mr. FAZIO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3392, the 
Safe Drinking Water Act amendments. I urge my colleague to support this 
important legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before the House is a significant 
improvement of the Safe Drinking Water Act. I want to call attention to 
the strong bipartisan support for this measure. Mr. Waxman and Mr. 
Bliley, the chairman and the ranking member of the subcommittee urge 
your support for this measure so they can go forward to work with the 
Senate on this bill. Mr. Dingell and Mr. Moorhead have also worked hard 
to bring this bill to the floor.
  Their bipartisan efforts and their spirit of cooperation are to be 
applauded by the membership of this House. The bill is supported by the 
National Governors' Association, the National Associations of Counties, 
the League of Cities, and other State and local organizations.
  I congratulate this bipartisan coalition for their help in resolving 
the many complex issues raised by this bill. Just reading a list of the 
issues resolved by the subcommittee and the committee would take the 
balance of my time, but I do want to highlight some of the more 
important provisions of this bill.
  First, the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments establish a new State 
revolving fund to provide loans and grants for local water purveyors. 
That's important to the small, rural water districts I represent.
  Next, the bill also streamlines the regulation of contaminants by 
focusing on contaminates associated with the greatest health threats. 
In short, the bill establishes a selection process for unregulated 
contaminates that incorporates good science.
  In addition, the bill incorporates risk assessment principles to give 
EPA greater flexibility to consider both the costs of compliance and 
the health benefits associated with monitoring for contaminants.
  Mr. Speaker, while Members representing agricultural and rural 
communities still have some concerns about the proposed radon 
standards, I believe this reauthorization bill needs to move forward. 
Passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments will also allow the 
House and Senate conferees to begin crafting radon language acceptable 
to all. The committee has put together an excellent bill. Their hard 
work deserves your support. I urge my colleagues to vote ``aye.''
  Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Fields of Louisiana). The question is on 
the motion offered by the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] that 
the House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3392, as amended.
  The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor 
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill, as amended, was passed.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________