[Congressional Record Volume 142, Number 95 (Tuesday, June 25, 1996)]
[House]
[Pages H6725-H6762]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1996
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 3604) to amend title XIV of the Public Health Service Act--
the ``Safe Drinking Water Act''--and for other purposes, as amended.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 3604
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996''.
(b) Table of Contents.--
Sec. 1. Short title and table of contents.
Sec. 2. References; effective date; disclaimer.
TITLE I--PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS
Subtitle A--Promulgation of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
Sec. 101. Selection of additional contaminants.
Sec. 102. Disinfectants and disinfection byproducts.
Sec. 103. Limited alternative to filtration.
Sec. 104. Standard-setting.
Sec. 105. Ground water disinfection.
Sec. 106. Effective date for regulations.
Sec. 107. Risk assessment, management, and communication.
Sec. 108. Radon, arsenic, and sulfate.
Sec. 109. Urgent threats to public health.
Sec. 110. Recycling of filter backwash.
Sec. 111. Treatment technologies for small systems.
Subtitle B--State Primary Enforcement Responsibility for Public Water
Systems
Sec. 121. State primacy.
Subtitle C--Notification and Enforcement
Sec. 131. Public notification.
[[Page H6726]]
Sec. 132. Enforcement.
Sec. 133. Judicial review
Subtitle D--Exemptions and Variances
Sec. 141. Exemptions.
Sec. 142. Variances.
Subtitle E--Lead Plumbing and Pipes
Sec. 151. Lead plumbing and pipes.
Subtitle F--Capacity Development
Sec. 161. Capacity development.
TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO PART C
Sec. 201. Source water quality assessment.
Sec. 202. Federal facilities.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
Sec. 301. Operator certification.
Sec. 302. Technical assistance.
Sec. 303. Public water system supervision program.
Sec. 304. Monitoring and information gathering.
Sec. 305. Occurrence data base.
Sec. 306. Citizens suits.
Sec. 307. Whistle blower.
Sec. 308. State revolving funds.
Sec. 309. Water conservation plan.
TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS
Sec. 401. Definitions.
Sec. 402. Authorization of appropriations.
Sec. 403. New York City watershed protection program.
Sec. 404. Estrogenic substances screening program.
Sec. 405. Reports on programs administered directly by Environmental
Protection Agency.
Sec. 406. Return flows.
Sec. 407. Emergency powers.
Sec. 408. Waterborne disease occurrence study.
Sec. 409. Drinking water studies.
Sec. 410. Bottled drinking water standards.
Sec. 411. Clerical amendments.
TITLE V--ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND WATERSHEDS
Sec. 501. General program.
Sec. 502. New York City Watershed, New York.
Sec. 503. Rural and Native villages, Alaska.
Sec. 504. Acquisition of lands.
Sec. 505. Federal share.
Sec. 506. Condition on authorizations of appropriations.
Sec. 507. Definitions.
TITLE VI--DRINKING WATER RESEARCH AUTHORIZATION
Sec. 601. Drinking water research authorization.
Sec. 602. Scientific research review.
SEC. 2. REFERENCES; EFFECTIVE DATE; DISCLAIMER.
(a) References 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 that section or other
provision of title XIV of the Public Health Service Act
(commonly known as the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C.
300f et seq.).
(b) Effective Date.--Except as otherwise specified in this
Act or in the amendments made by this Act, this Act and 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 (commonly known as 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
such title XIV separately from funding and staffing for the
Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
TITLE I--PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS
Subtitle A--Promulgation of National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
SEC. 101. SELECTION OF ADDITIONAL CONTAMINANTS.
(a) In General.--Section 1412(b)(3) (42 U.S.C. 300g-
1(b)(3)) is amended to read as follows:
``(3) Regulation of unregulated contaminants.--
``(A) Listing of contaminants for consideration.--(i) Not
later than 18 months after the date of the enactment of the
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 and every 5 years
thereafter, the Administrator, after consultation with the
scientific community, including the Science Advisory Board,
after notice and opportunity for public comment, and after
considering the occurrence data base established under
section 1445(g), shall publish a list of contaminants which,
at the time of publication, 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.
``(ii) The unregulated contaminants considered under clause
(i) 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.
``(iii) The Administrator's decision whether or not to
select an unregulated contaminant for a list under this
subparagraph shall not be subject to judicial review.
``(B) Determination to regulate.--(i) Not later than 5
years after the date of the enactment of the Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments of 1996, and every 5 years thereafter,
the Administrator shall, by rule, for not fewer than 5
contaminants included on the list published under
subparagraph (A), make determinations of whether or not to
regulate such contaminants.
``(ii) A determination to regulate a contaminant shall be
based on findings that--
``(I) the contaminant is known to occur or there is a
substantial likelihood that the contaminant will occur in
public water systems with a frequency and at a level of
public health concern; and
``(II) regulation of such contaminant presents a meaningful
opportunity for public health risk reduction for persons
served by public water systems.
Such findings shall be based on the best available public
health information, including the occurrence data base
established under section 1445(g).
``(iii) The Administrator may make a determination to
regulate a contaminant that does not appear on a list under
subparagraph (A) if the determination to regulate is made
pursuant to clause (ii).
``(iv) A determination under this subparagraph not to
regulate a contaminant shall be considered final agency
action and subject to judicial review.
``(C) Priorities.--In selecting unregulated contaminants
for consideration under subparagraph (B), 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 infants, children, pregnant women, the
elderly, individuals with a history of serious illness, or
other subpopulations) that are identifiable as being at
greater risk of adverse health effects due to exposure to
contaminants in drinking water than the general population.
``(D) Regulation.--For each contaminant that the
Administrator determines to regulate under subparagraph (B),
the Administrator shall promulgate, by rule, maximum
contaminant level goals and national primary drinking water
regulations under this subsection. The Administrator shall
propose the maximum contaminant level goal and national
primary drinking water regulation not later than 24 months
after the determination to regulate under subparagraph (B),
and may publish such proposed regulation concurrent with the
determination to regulate. 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 and other actions.--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.''.
(b) Applicability of Prior Requirements.--The requirements
of subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section 1412(b)(3) of title
XIV of the Public Health Service Act (commonly known as the
Safe Drinking Water Act) as in effect before the enactment of
this Act, and any obligation to promulgate regulations
pursuant to such subparagraphs not promulgated as of the date
of enactment of this Act, are superseded by the amendments
made by subsection (a) to such subparagraphs (C) and (D).
SEC. 102. DISINFECTANTS AND DISINFECTION BYPRODUCTS.
Section 1412(b)(3) (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(3)) is amended by
adding at the end the following subparagraph:
``(F) Disinfectants and disinfection byproducts.--
``(i) Information collection rule.--Not later than December
31, 1996, the Administrator shall, after notice and
opportunity for public comment, promulgate an information
collection rule to obtain information that will facilitate
further revisions to the national primary drinking water
regulation for disinfectants and disinfection byproducts,
including information on microbial contaminants such as
cryptosporidium. The Administrator may extend the December
31, 1996, deadline under this clause for up to 180 days if
the Administrator determines that progress toward approval of
an appropriate analytical method to screen for
cryptosporidium is sufficiently advanced and approval is
likely to be completed within the additional time period.
``(ii) Additional deadlines.--The time intervals between
promulgation of a final information collection rule, an
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, a Final
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, a Stage I
Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule, and a Stage
II Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rule shall be in
accordance with the schedule published in volume 59, Federal
Register, page
[[Page H6727]]
6361 (February 10, 1994), in table III.13 of the proposed
Information Collection Rule. If a delay occurs with respect
to the promulgation of any rule in the timetable established
by this subparagraph, all subsequent rules shall be completed
as expeditiously as practicable but no later than a revised
date that reflects the interval or intervals for the rules in
the timetable.''.
SEC. 103. LIMITED ALTERNATIVE TO FILTRATION.
Section 1412(b)(7)(C) is amended by adding the following
after clause (iv):
``(v) As an additional alternative to the regulations
promulgated pursuant to clauses (i) and (iii), including the
criteria for avoiding filtration contained in CFR 141.71, a
State exercising primary enforcement responsibility for
public water systems may, on a case-by-case basis, and after
notice and opportunity for public comment, establish
treatment requirements as an alternative to filtration in the
case of systems having uninhabited, undeveloped watersheds in
consolidated ownership, and having control over access to,
and activities in, those watersheds, if the State determines
(and the Administrator concurs) that the quality of the
source water and the alternative treatment requirements
established by the State ensure greater removal or
inactivation efficiencies of pathogenic organisms for which
national primary drinking water regulations have been
promulgated or that are of public health concern than would
be achieved by the combination of filtration and chlorine
disinfection (in compliance with paragraph (8)).''.
SEC. 104. STANDARD-SETTING.
(a) In General.--Section 1412(b) (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)) is
amended as follows:
(1) In paragraph (4)--
(A) by striking ``(4) Each'' and inserting the following:
``(4) Goals and standards.--
``(A) Maximum contaminant level goals.--Each'';
(B) in the last sentence--
(i) by striking ``Each national'' and inserting the
following:
``(B) Maximum contaminant levels.-- Except as provided in
paragraphs (5) and (6), each national''; and
(ii) by striking ``maximum level'' and inserting ``maximum
contaminant level''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(C) Determination.--At the time the Administrator
proposes a national primary drinking water regulation under
this paragraph, the Administrator shall publish a
determination as to whether the benefits of the maximum
contaminant level justify, or do not justify, the costs based
on the analysis conducted under paragraph (12)(C).''.
(2) By striking ``(5) For the'' and inserting the
following:
``(D) Definition of feasible.--For the''.
(3) In the second sentence of paragraph (4)(D) (as so
designated), by striking ``paragraph (4)'' and inserting
``this paragraph''.
(4) By striking ``(6) Each national'' and inserting the
following:
``(E) Feasible technologies.--
``(i) Each national''.
(5) In paragraph (4)(E)(i) (as so designated), by striking
``this paragraph'' and inserting ``this subsection''.
(6) By inserting after paragraph (4) (as so amended) the
following:
``(5) Additional health risk considerations.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (4), the
Administrator may establish a maximum contaminant level for a
contaminant at a level other than the feasible level, if the
technology, treatment techniques, and other means used to
determine the feasible level would result in an increase in
the health risk from drinking water by--
``(i) increasing the concentration of other contaminants in
drinking water; or
``(ii) interfering with the efficacy of drinking water
treatment techniques or processes that are used to comply
with other national primary drinking water regulations.
``(B) Establishment of level.--If the Administrator
establishes a maximum contaminant level or levels or requires
the use of treatment techniques for any contaminant or
contaminants pursuant to the authority of this paragraph--
``(i) the level or levels or treatment techniques shall
minimize the overall risk of adverse health effects by
balancing the risk from the contaminant and the risk from
other contaminants the concentrations of which may be
affected by the use of a treatment technique or process that
would be employed to attain the maximum contaminant level or
levels; and
``(ii) the combination of technology, treatment techniques,
or other means required to meet the level or levels shall not
be more stringent than is feasible (as defined in paragraph
(4)(D)).
``(6) Additional health risk reduction and cost
considerations.--
``(A) In general.--Notwithstanding paragraph (4), if the
Administrator determines based on an analysis conducted under
paragraph (12)(C) that the benefits of a maximum contaminant
level promulgated in accordance with paragraph (4) would not
justify the costs of complying with the level, the
Administrator may, after notice and opportunity for public
comment, promulgate a maximum contaminant level for the
contaminant that maximizes health risk reduction benefits at
a cost that is justified by the benefits.
``(B) Exception.--The Administrator shall not use the
authority of this paragraph to promulgate a maximum
contaminant level for a contaminant, if the benefits of
compliance with a national primary drinking water regulation
for the contaminant that would be promulgated in accordance
with paragraph (4) experienced by--
``(i) persons served by large public water systems; and
``(ii) persons served by such other systems as are
unlikely, based on information provided by the States, to
receive a variance under section 1415(e) (relating to small
system assistance program);
would justify the costs to the systems of complying with the
regulation. This subparagraph shall not apply if the
contaminant is found almost exclusively in small systems (as
defined in section 1415(e), relating to small system
assistance program).
``(C) Disinfectants and disinfection byproducts.--The
Administrator may not use the authority of this paragraph to
establish a maximum contaminant level in a Stage I or Stage
II national primary drinking water regulation for
contaminants that are disinfectants or disinfection
byproducts (as described in paragraph (3)(F)), or to
establish a maximum contaminant level or treatment technique
requirement for the control of cryptosporidium. The authority
of this paragraph may be used to establish regulations for
the use of disinfection by systems relying on ground water
sources as required by paragraph (8).
``(D) Judicial review.--A determination by the
Administrator that the benefits of a maximum contaminant
level or treatment requirement justify or do not justify the
costs of complying with the level shall be reviewed by the
court pursuant to section 1448 only as part of a review of a
final national primary drinking water regulation that has
been promulgated based on the determination and shall not be
set aside by the court under that section unless the court
finds that the determination is arbitrary and capricious.''.
(b) Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts.--The
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency may use
the authority of section 1412(b)(5) of the Public Health
Service Act (as amended by this Act) to promulgate the Stage
I and Stage II rules for disinfectants and disinfection
byproducts as proposed in volume 59, Federal Register, page
38668 (July 29, 1994). The considerations used in the
development of the July 29, 1994, proposed national primary
drinking water regulation on Disinfection and Disinfection
Byproducts shall be treated as consistent with such section
1412(b)(5) for purposes of such Stage I and Stage II rules.
(c) Review of Standards.--Section 1412(b)(9) (42 U.S.C.
300g-1(b)) is amended to read as follows:
``(9) Review and revision.--The Administrator shall, not
less often than every 6 years, review and revise, as
appropriate, each national primary drinking water regulation
promulgated under this title. Any revision of a national
primary drinking water regulation shall be promulgated in
accordance with this section, except that each revision shall
maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of
persons.''.
SEC. 105. GROUND WATER DISINFECTION.
Section 1412(b)(8) (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(8)) is amended by
striking the first sentence and inserting the following: ``At
any time after the end of the 3-year period that begins on
the date of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1996, but not later than the date on which the
Administrator promulgates a Stage II rulemaking for
disinfectants and disinfection byproducts (as described in
paragraph (3)(F)(ii)), the Administrator shall also
promulgate national primary drinking water regulations
requiring disinfection as a treatment technique for all
public water systems, including surface water systems and, as
necessary, ground water systems. After consultation with the
States, the Administrator shall (as part of the regulations)
promulgate criteria that the Administrator, or a State that
has primary enforcement responsibility under section 1413,
shall apply to determine whether disinfection shall be
required as a treatment technique for any public water system
served by ground water. A State that has primary enforcement
authority shall develop a plan through which ground water
disinfection determinations are made. The plan shall be based
on the Administrator's criteria and shall be submitted to the
Administrator for approval.''.
SEC. 106. EFFECTIVE DATE FOR REGULATIONS.
Section 1412(b)(10) (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(10)) is amended to
read as follows:
``(10) Effective date.--A national primary drinking water
regulation promulgated under this section (and any amendment
thereto) shall take effect on the date that is 3 years after
the date on which the regulation is promulgated unless the
Administrator determines that an earlier date is practicable,
except that the Administrator, or a State (in the case of an
individual system), may allow up to 2 additional years to
comply with a maximum contaminant level or treatment
technique if the Administrator or State (in the case of an
individual system) determines that additional time is
necessary for capital improvements.''.
SEC. 107. RISK ASSESSMENT, MANAGEMENT, AND COMMUNICATION.
Section 1412(b) (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)) is amended by
inserting after paragraph (11) the following:
``(12) Risk assessment, management and communication.--
[[Page H6728]]
``(A) Use of science in decisionmaking.--In carrying out
this section, and, to the degree that an Agency action is
based on science, the Administrator shall use--
``(i) the best available, peer-reviewed science and
supporting studies conducted in accordance with sound and
objective scientific practices; and
``(ii) data collected by accepted methods or best available
methods (if the reliability of the method and the nature of
the decision justifies use of the data).
``(B) Public information.--In carrying out this section,
the Administrator shall ensure that the presentation of
information on public health effects is comprehensive,
informative and understandable. The Administrator shall, in a
document made available to the public in support of a
regulation promulgated under this section, specify, to the
extent practicable--
``(i) each population addressed by any estimate of public
health effects;
``(ii) the expected risk or central estimate of risk for
the specific populations;
``(iii) each appropriate upper-bound or lower-bound
estimate of risk;
``(iv) each significant uncertainty identified in the
process of the assessment of public health effects and
studies that would assist in resolving the uncertainty; and
``(v) peer-reviewed studies known to the Administrator that
support, are directly relevant to, or fail to support any
estimate of public health effects and the methodology used to
reconcile inconsistencies in the scientific data.
``(C) Health risk reduction and cost analysis.--
``(i) Maximum contaminant levels.--When proposing any
national primary drinking water regulation that includes a
maximum contaminant level, the Administrator shall, with
respect to a maximum contaminant level that is being
considered in accordance with paragraph (4) and each
alternative maximum contaminant level that is being
considered pursuant to paragraph (5) or (6)(A), publish, seek
public comment on, and use for the purposes of paragraphs
(4), (5), and (6) an analysis of:
``(I) Quantifiable and nonquantifiable health risk
reduction benefits for which there is a factual basis in the
rulemaking record to conclude that such benefits are likely
to occur as the result of treatment to comply with each
level.
``(II) Quantifiable and nonquantifiable health risk
reduction benefits for which there is a factual basis in the
rulemaking record to conclude that such benefits are likely
to occur from reductions in co-occurring contaminants that
may be attributed solely to compliance with the maximum
contaminant level, excluding benefits resulting from
compliance with other proposed or promulgated regulations.
``(III) Quantifiable and nonquantifiable costs for which
there is a factual basis in the rulemaking record to conclude
that such costs are likely to occur solely as a result of
compliance with the maximum contaminant level, including
monitoring, treatment, and other costs and excluding costs
resulting from compliance with other proposed or promulgated
regulations.
``(IV) The incremental costs and benefits associated with
each alternative maximum contaminant level considered.
``(V) The effects of the contaminant on the general
population and on groups within the general population such
as infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly,
individuals with a history of serious illness, or other
subpopulations that are identified as likely to be at greater
risk of adverse health effects due to exposure to
contaminants in drinking water than the general population.
``(VI) Any increased health risk that may occur as the
result of compliance, including risks associated with co-
occurring contaminants.
``(VII) Other relevant factors, including the quality and
extent of the information, the uncertainties in the analysis
supporting subclauses (I) through (VI), and factors with
respect to the degree and nature of the risk.
``(ii) Treatment techniques.--When proposing a national
primary drinking water regulation that includes a treatment
technique in accordance with paragraph (7)(A), the
Administrator shall publish and seek public comment on an
analysis of the health risk reduction benefits and costs
likely to be experienced as the result of compliance with the
treatment technique and alternative treatment techniques that
are being considered, taking into account, as appropriate,
the factors described in clause (i).
``(iii) Approaches to measure and value benefits.--The
Administrator may identify valid approaches for the
measurement and valuation of benefits under this
subparagraph, including approaches to identify consumer
willingness to pay for reductions in health risks from
drinking water contaminants.
``(iv) Authorization.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Administrator, acting through the Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water, to conduct studies,
assessments, and analyses in support of regulations or the
development of methods, $35,000,000 for each of fiscal years
1996 through 2003.''.
SEC. 108. RADON, ARSENIC, AND SULFATE.
Section 1412(b) is amended by inserting after paragraph
(12) the following:
``(13) Certain contaminants.--
``(A) Radon.--Any proposal published by the Administrator
before the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1996 to establish a national primary drinking
water standard for radon shall be withdrawn by the
Administrator. Notwithstanding any provision of any law
enacted prior to the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1996, within 3 years of such date of enactment,
the Administrator shall propose and promulgate a national
primary drinking water regulation for radon under this
section, as amended by the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments
of 1996. In undertaking any risk analysis and benefit cost
analysis in connection with the promulgation of such
standard, the Administrator shall take into account the costs
and benefits of control programs for radon from other
sources.
``(B) Arsenic.--(i) Notwithstanding the deadlines set forth
in paragraph (1), the Administrator shall promulgate a
national primary drinking water regulation for arsenic
pursuant to this subsection, in accordance with the schedule
established by this paragraph.
``(ii) Not later than 180 days after the date of enactment
of this paragraph, the Administrator shall develop a
comprehensive plan for study in support of drinking water
rulemaking to reduce the uncertainty in assessing health
risks associated with exposure to low levels of arsenic. In
conducting such study, the Administrator shall consult with
the National Academy of Sciences, other Federal agencies, and
interested public and private entities.
``(iii) In carrying out the study plan, the Administrator
may enter into cooperative agreements with other Federal
agencies, State and local governments, and other interested
public and private entities.
``(iv) The Administrator shall propose a national primary
drinking water regulation for arsenic not later than January
1, 2000.
``(v) Not later than January 1, 2001, after notice and
opportunity for public comment, the Administrator shall
promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for
arsenic.
``(vi) There are authorized to be appropriated $2,000,000
for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2001 for the studies
required by this paragraph.
``(C) Sulfate.--
``(i) Additional study.--Prior to promulgating a national
primary drinking water regulation for sulfate, the
Administrator and the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention shall jointly conduct an additional
study to establish a reliable dose-response relationship for
the adverse human health effects that may result from
exposure to sulfate in drinking water, including the health
effects that may be experienced by groups within the general
population (including infants and travelers) that are
potentially at greater risk of adverse health effects as the
result of such exposure. The study shall be conducted in
consultation with interested States, shall be based on the
best available, peer-reviewed science and supporting studies
conducted in accordance with sound and objective scientific
practices.
``(ii) Proposed and final rule.--Notwithstanding the
deadlines set forth in paragraph (1), the Administrator may,
pursuant to the authorities of this subsection and after
notice and opportunity for public comment, promulgate a final
national primary drinking water regulation for sulfate. Any
such regulation shall include requirements for public
notification and options for the provision of alternative
water supplies to populations at risk as a means of complying
with the regulation in lieu of a best available treatment
technology or other means.''.
SEC. 109. URGENT THREATS TO PUBLIC HEALTH.
Section 1412(b) is amended by inserting the following after
paragraph (13):
``(14) Urgent threats to public health.--The Administrator
may promulgate an interim national primary drinking water
regulation for a contaminant without making a determination
for the contaminant under paragraph (4)(C) or completing the
analysis under paragraph (12)(C) to address an urgent threat
to public health as determined by the Administrator after
consultation with and written response to any comments
provided by the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
acting through the director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention or the director of the National
Institutes of Health. A determination for any contaminant in
accordance with paragraph (4)(C) subject to an interim
regulation under this subparagraph shall be issued, and a
completed analysis meeting the requirements of paragraph
(12)(C) shall be published, not later than 3 years after the
date on which the regulation is promulgated and the
regulation shall be repromulgated, or revised if appropriate,
not later than 5 years after that date.''.
SEC. 110. RECYCLING OF FILTER BACKWASH.
Section 1412(b) is amended by adding the following new
paragraph after paragraph (14):
``(15) 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 4 years after the date of the
enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996
unless such recycling has been addressed by the
Administrator's `enhanced surface water treatment rule' prior
to such date.''.
[[Page H6729]]
SEC. 111. TREATMENT TECHNOLOGIES FOR SMALL SYSTEMS.
(a) List of Technologies for Small Systems.--Section
1412(b)(4)(E) (42 U.S.C. 300g-1(b)(4)(E)), is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``(ii) The Administrator shall include in the list any
technology, treatment technique, or other means that is
affordable for small public water systems serving--
``(I) a population of 10,000 or fewer but more than 3,300;
``(II) a population of 3,300 or fewer but more than 500;
and
``(III) a population of 500 or fewer but more than 25;
and that achieves compliance with the maximum contaminant
level or treatment technique, including packaged or modular
systems and point-of-entry or point-of-use treatment units.
Point-of-entry and point-of-use treatment units shall be
owned, controlled and maintained by the public water system
or by a person under contract with the public water system to
ensure proper operation and maintenance and compliance with
the maximum contaminant level or treatment technique and
equipped with mechanical warnings to ensure that customers
are automatically notified of operational problems. If the
American National Standards Institute has issued product
standards applicable to a specific type of point-of-entry or
point-of-use treatment unit, individual units of that type
shall not be accepted for compliance with a maximum
contaminant level or treatment technique requirement unless
they are independently certified in accordance with such
standards.
``(iii) Except as provided in clause (v), not later than 2
years after the date of the enactment of this clause and
after consultation with the States, the Administrator shall
issue a list of technologies that achieve compliance with the
maximum contaminant level or treatment technique for each
category of public water systems described in subclauses (I),
(II), and (III) of clause (ii) for each national primary
drinking water regulation promulgated prior to the date of
the enactment of this paragraph.
``(iv) The Administrator may, at any time after a national
primary drinking water regulation has been promulgated,
supplement the list of technologies describing additional or
new or innovative treatment technologies that meet the
requirements of this paragraph for categories of small public
water systems described in subclauses (I), (II) and (III) of
clause (ii) that are subject to the regulation.
``(v) Within one year after the enactment of this clause,
the Administrator shall list technologies that meet the
surface water treatment rules for each category of public
water systems described in subclauses (I), (II), and (III) of
clause (ii).''.
(b) Availability of Information on Small System
Technologies.--Section 1445 (42 U.S.C. 300j-4) is amended by
adding after subsection (g):
``(h) Availability of Information on Small System
Technologies.--For purposes of sections 1412(b)(4)(E) and
1415(e) (relating to small system assistance program), the
Administrator may request information on the characteristics
of commercially available treatment systems and technologies,
including the effectiveness and performance of the systems
and technologies under various operating conditions. The
Administrator may specify the form, content, and submission
date of information to be submitted by manufacturers, States,
and other interested persons for the purpose of considering
the systems and technologies in the development of
regulations or guidance under sections 1412(b)(4)(E) and
1415(e).''.
Subtitle B--State Primary Enforcement Responsibility for Public Water
Systems
SEC. 121. STATE PRIMACY.
(a) State Primary Enforcement Responsibility.--Section 1413
(42 U.S.C. 300g-2) is amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (a), by amending paragraph (1) to read as
follows:
``(1) has adopted drinking water regulations that are no
less stringent than the national primary drinking water
regulations promulgated by the Administrator under
subsections (a) and (b) of section 1412 not later than 2
years after the date on which the regulations are promulgated
by the Administrator, except that the Administrator may
provide for an extension of not more than 2 years if, after
submission and review of appropriate, adequate documentation
from the State, the Administrator determines that the
extension is necessary and justified;''.
(2) By adding at the end the following subsection:
``(c) Interim Primary Enforcement Authority.--A State that
has primary enforcement authority under this section with
respect to each existing national primary drinking water
regulation shall be considered to have primary enforcement
authority with respect to each new or revised national
primary drinking water regulation during the period beginning
on the effective date of a regulation adopted and submitted
by the State with respect to the new or revised national
primary drinking water regulation in accordance with
subsection (b)(1) and ending at such time as the
Administrator makes a determination under subsection
(b)(2)(B) with respect to the regulation.''.
(b) Emergency Plans.--Section 1413(a)(5) is amended by
inserting after ``emergency circumstances'' the following:
``including earthquakes, floods, hurricanes, and other
natural disasters, as appropriate''.
Subtitle C--Notification and Enforcement
SEC. 131. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION.
Section 1414(c) (42 U.S.C. 300g-3(c)) is amended to read as
follows:
``(c) Notice to Persons Served.--
``(1) In general.--Each owner or operator of a public water
system shall give notice of each of the following to the
persons served by the system:
``(A) Notice of any failure on the part of the public water
system to--
``(i) comply with an applicable maximum contaminant level
or treatment technique requirement of, or a testing procedure
prescribed by, a national primary drinking water regulation;
or
``(ii) perform monitoring required by section 1445(a).
``(B) If the public water system is subject to a variance
granted under subsection (a)(1)(A), (a)(2), or (e) of section
1415 for an inability to meet a maximum contaminant level
requirement or is subject to an exemption granted under
section 1416, notice of--
``(i) the existence of the variance or exemption; and
``(ii) any failure to comply with the requirements of any
schedule prescribed pursuant to the variance or exemption.
``(C) Notice of the concentration level of any unregulated
contaminant for which the Administrator has required public
notice pursuant to paragraph (2)(E).
``(2) Form, manner, and frequency of notice.--
``(A) In general.--The Administrator shall, by regulation,
and after consultation with the States, prescribe the manner,
frequency, form, and content for giving notice under this
subsection. The regulations shall--
``(i) provide for different frequencies of notice based on
the differences between violations that are intermittent or
infrequent and violations that are continuous or frequent;
and
``(ii) take into account the seriousness of any potential
adverse health effects that may be involved.
``(B) State requirements.--
``(i) In general.--A State may, by rule, establish
alternative notification requirements--
``(I) with respect to the form and content of notice given
under and in a manner in accordance with subparagraph (C);
and
``(II) with respect to the form and content of notice given
under subparagraph (D).
``(ii) Contents.--The alternative requirements shall
provide the same type and amount of information as required
pursuant to this subsection and regulations issued under
subparagraph (A).
``(iii) Relationship to section 1413.--Nothing in this
subparagraph shall be construed or applied to modify the
requirements of section 1413.
``(C) Violations with potential to have serious adverse
effects on human health.--Regulations issued under
subparagraph (A) shall specify notification procedures for
each violation by a public water system that has the
potential to have serious adverse effects on human health as
a result of short-term exposure. Each notice of violation
provided under this subparagraph shall--
``(i) be distributed as soon as practicable after the
occurrence of the violation, but not later than 24 hours
after the occurrence of the violation;
``(ii) provide a clear and readily understandable
explanation of--
``(I) the violation;
``(II) the potential adverse effects on human health;
``(III) the steps that the public water system is taking to
correct the violation; and
``(IV) the necessity of seeking alternative water supplies
until the violation is corrected;
``(iii) be provided to the Administrator or the head of the
State agency that has primary enforcement responsibility
under section 1413 as soon as practicable, but not later than
24 hours after the occurrence of the violation; and
``(iv) as required by the State agency in general
regulations of the State agency, or on a case-by-case basis
after the consultation referred to in clause (iii),
considering the health risks involved--
``(I) be provided to appropriate broadcast media;
``(II) be prominently published in a newspaper of general
circulation serving the area not later than 1 day after
distribution of a notice pursuant to clause (i) or the date
of publication of the next issue of the newspaper; or
``(III) be provided by posting or door-to-door notification
in lieu of notification by means of broadcast media or
newspaper.
``(D) Written notice.--
``(i) In general.--Regulations issued under subparagraph
(A) shall specify notification procedures for violations
other than the violations covered by subparagraph (C). The
procedures shall specify that a public water system shall
provide written notice to each person served by the system by
notice (I) in the first bill (if any) prepared after the date
of occurrence of the violation, (II) in an annual report
issued not later than 1 year after the date of occurrence of
the violation, or (III) by mail or direct delivery as soon as
practicable, but not later than 1 year after the date of
occurrence of the violation.
``(ii) Form and manner of notice.--The Administrator shall
prescribe the form and manner of the notice to provide a
clear and
[[Page H6730]]
readily understandable explanation of the violation, any
potential adverse health effects, and the steps that the
system is taking to seek alternative water supplies, if any,
until the violation is corrected.
``(E) Unregulated contaminants.--The Administrator may
require the owner or operator of a public water system to
give notice to the persons served by the system of the
concentration levels of an unregulated contaminant required
to be monitored under section 1445(a).
``(3) Reports.--
``(A) Annual report by state.--
``(i) In general.--Not later than January 1, 1998, and
annually thereafter, each State that has primary enforcement
responsibility under section 1413 shall prepare, make readily
available to the public, and submit to the Administrator an
annual report on violations of national primary drinking
water regulations by public water systems in the State,
including violations with respect to (I) maximum contaminant
levels, (II) treatment requirements, (III) variances and
exemptions, and (IV) monitoring requirements determined to be
significant by the Administrator after consultation with the
States.
``(ii) Distribution.--The State shall publish and
distribute summaries of the report and indicate where the
full report is available for review.
``(B) Annual report by administrator.--Not later than July
1, 1998, and annually thereafter, the Administrator shall
prepare and make available to the public an annual report
summarizing and evaluating reports submitted by States
pursuant to subparagraph (A) and notices submitted by public
water systems serving Indian Tribes provided to the
Administrator pursuant to subparagraph (C) or (D) of
paragraph (2) and making recommendations concerning the
resources needed to improve compliance with this title. The
report shall include information about public water system
compliance on Indian reservations and about enforcement
activities undertaken and financial assistance provided by
the Administrator on Indian reservations, and shall make
specific recommendations concerning the resources needed to
improve compliance with this title on Indian reservations.
``(4) Consumer confidence reports by community water
systems.--
``(A) Annual reports to consumers.--The Administrator, in
consultation with public water systems, environmental groups,
public interest groups, risk communication experts, and the
States, and other interested parties, shall issue regulations
within 24 months after the date of the enactment of this
paragraph to require each community water system to mail to
each customer of the system at least once annually a report
on the level of contaminants in the drinking water purveyed
by that system (hereinafter in this paragraph referred to as
a `consumer confidence report'). Such regulations shall
provide a brief and plainly worded definition of the terms
`maximum contaminant level goal' and `maximum contaminant
level' and brief statements in plain language regarding the
health concerns that resulted in regulation of each regulated
contaminant. The regulations shall also provide for an
Environmental Protection Agency toll-free hot-line that
consumers can call for more information and explanation.
``(B) Contents of report.--The consumer confidence reports
under this paragraph shall include, but not be limited to,
each of the following:
``(i) Information on the source of the water purveyed.
``(ii) A brief and plainly worded definition of the terms
`maximum contaminant level goal' and `maximum contaminant
level', as provided in the regulations of the Administrator.
``(iii) If any regulated contaminant is detected in the
water purveyed by the public water system, a statement
setting forth (I) the maximum contaminant level goal, (II)
the maximum contaminant level, (III) the level of such
contaminant in such water system, and (IV) for any regulated
contaminant for which there has been a violation of the
maximum contaminant level during the year concerned, the
brief statement in plain language regarding the health
concerns that resulted in regulation of such contaminant, as
provided by the Administrator in regulations under
subparagraph (A).
``(iv) Information on compliance with national primary
drinking water regulations.
``(v) Information on the levels of unregulated contaminants
for which monitoring is required under section 1445(a)(2)
(including levels of cryptosporidium and radon where States
determine they may be found).
``(vi) A statement that more information about contaminants
and potential health effects can be obtained by calling the
Environmental Protection Agency hot line.
A public water system may include such additional information
as it deems appropriate for public education. The
Administrator may, for not more than 3 regulated contaminants
other than those referred to in subclause (IV) of clause
(iii), require a consumer confidence report under this
paragraph to include the brief statement in plain language
regarding the health concerns that resulted in regulation of
the contaminant or contaminants concerned, as provided by the
Administrator in regulations under subparagraph (A).
``(C) Coverage.--The Governor of a State may determine not
to apply the mailing requirement of subparagraph (A) to a
community water system serving fewer than 10,000 persons. Any
such system shall--
``(i) inform its customers that the system will not be
complying with subparagraph (A),
``(ii) make information available upon request to the
public regarding the quality of the water supplied by such
system, and
``(iii) publish the report referred to in subparagraph (A)
annually in one or more local newspapers serving the area in
which customers of the system are located.
``(D) Alternative form and content.--A State exercising
primary enforcement responsibility may establish, by rule,
after notice and public comment, alternative requirements
with respect to the form and content of consumer confidence
reports under this paragraph.''.
SEC. 132. ENFORCEMENT.
(a) In General.--Section 1414 (42 U.S.C. 300g-3) is amended
as follows:
(1) In subsection (a):
(A) In paragraph (1)(A)(i), by striking ``any national
primary drinking water regulation in effect under section
1412'' and inserting ``any applicable requirement'', and by
striking ``with such regulation or requirement'' in the
matter following clause (ii) and inserting ``with the
requirement''.
(B) In paragraph (1)(B), by striking ``regulation or'' and
inserting ``applicable''.
(C) By amending paragraph (2) to read as follows:
``(2) Enforcement in nonprimacy states.--
``(A) In general.--If, on the basis of information
available to the Administrator, the Administrator finds, with
respect to a period in which a State does not have primary
enforcement responsibility for public water systems, that a
public water system in the State--
``(i) for which a variance under section 1415 or an
exemption under section 1416 is not in effect, does not
comply with any applicable requirement; or
``(ii) for which a variance under section 1415 or an
exemption under section 1416 is in effect, does not comply
with any schedule or other requirement imposed pursuant to
the variance or exemption;
the Administrator shall issue an order under subsection (g)
requiring the public water system to comply with the
requirement, or commence a civil action under subsection (b).
``(B) Notice.--If the Administrator takes any action
pursuant to this paragraph, the Administrator shall notify an
appropriate local elected official, if any, with jurisdiction
over the public water system of the action prior to the time
that the action is taken.''.
(2) In subsection (b), in the first sentence, by striking
``a national primary drinking water regulation'' and
inserting ``any applicable requirement''.
(3) In subsection (g):
(A) In paragraph (1), by striking ``regulation, schedule,
or other'' each place it appears and inserting
``applicable''.
(B) In paragraph (2), by striking ``effect until after
notice and opportunity for public hearing and,'' and
inserting ``effect,'', and by striking ``proposed order'' and
inserting ``order'', in the first sentence and in the second
sentence, by striking ``proposed to be''.
(C) In paragraph (3), by striking subparagraph (B) and
inserting the following:
``(B) In a case in which a civil penalty sought by the
Administrator under this paragraph does not exceed $5,000,
the penalty shall be assessed by the Administrator after
notice and opportunity for a public hearing (unless the
person against whom the penalty is assessed requests a
hearing on the record in accordance with section 554 of title
5, United States Code). In a case in which a civil penalty
sought by the Administrator under this paragraph exceeds
$5,000, but does not exceed $25,000, the penalty shall be
assessed by the Administrator after notice and opportunity
for a hearing on the record in accordance with section 554 of
title 5, United States Code.''.
(D) In paragraph (3)(C), by striking ``paragraph exceeds
$5,000'' and inserting ``subsection for a violation of an
applicable requirement exceeds $25,000''.
(4) By adding at the end the following subsections:
``(h) Relief.--
``(1) In general.--An owner or operator of a public water
system may submit to the State in which the system is located
(if the State has primary enforcement responsibility under
section 1413) or to the Administrator (if the State does not
have primary enforcement responsibility) a plan (including
specific measures and schedules) for--
``(A) the physical consolidation of the system with 1 or
more other systems;
``(B) the consolidation of significant management and
administrative functions of the system with 1 or more other
systems; or
``(C) the transfer of ownership of the system that may
reasonably be expected to improve drinking water quality.
``(2) Consequences of approval.--If the State or the
Administrator approves a plan pursuant to paragraph (1), no
enforcement action shall be taken pursuant to this part with
respect to a specific violation identified in the approved
plan prior to the date that is the earlier of the date on
which consolidation is completed according to the plan or the
date that is 2 years after the plan is approved.
``(i) Definition of Applicable Requirement.--In this
section, the term `applicable requirement' means--
``(1) a requirement of section 1412, 1414, 1415, 1416,
1417, 1441, or 1445;
[[Page H6731]]
``(2) a regulation promulgated pursuant to a section
referred to in paragraph (1);
``(3) a schedule or requirement imposed pursuant to a
section referred to in paragraph (1); and
``(4) a requirement of, or permit issued under, an
applicable State program for which the Administrator has made
a determination that the requirements of section 1413 have
been satisfied, or an applicable State program approved
pursuant to this part.''.
(b) State Authority for Administrative Penalties.--Section
1413(a) (42 U.S.C. 300g-2(a)) is amended as follows:
(1) In paragraph (4), by striking ``and'' at the end
thereof.
(2) In paragraph (5), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; and''.
(3) By adding at the end the following:
``(6) has adopted authority for administrative penalties
(unless the constitution of the State prohibits the adoption
of the authority) in a maximum amount--
``(A) in the case of a system serving a population of more
than 10,000, that is not less than $1,000 per day per
violation; and
``(B) in the case of any other system, that is adequate to
ensure compliance (as determined by the State);
except that a State may establish a maximum limitation on the
total amount of administrative penalties that may be imposed
on a public water system per violation.''.
SEC. 133. JUDICIAL REVIEW
Section 1448(a) (42 U.S.C. 300j-7(a)) is amended as
follows:
(1) In paragraph (2), in the first sentence, by inserting
``final'' after ``any other''.
(2) In the matter after and below paragraph (2):
(A) By striking ``or issuance of the order'' and inserting
``or any other final Agency action''.
(B) By adding at the end the following: ``In any petition
concerning the assessment of a civil penalty pursuant to
section 1414(g)(3)(B), the petitioner shall simultaneously
send a copy of the complaint by certified mail to the
Administrator and the Attorney General. The court shall set
aside and remand the penalty order if the court finds that
there is not substantial evidence in the record to support
the finding of a violation or that the assessment of the
penalty by the Administrator constitutes an abuse of
discretion.''.
Subtitle D--Exemptions and Variances
SEC. 141. 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 1452, 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 capacity.
``(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) Limited Additional Compliance Period.--At the end of
section 1416(h) insert:
``(5)(A) Notwithstanding this subsection, the State of New
York, on a case-by-case basis and after notice and an
opportunity of at least 60 days for public comment, may allow
an additional period for compliance with the Surface Water
Treatment Rule established pursuant to section 1412(b)(7)(C)
in the case of unfiltered systems in Essex, Columbia, Greene,
Dutchess, Rennsselaer, Schoharie, Saratoga, Washington, and
Warren Counties serving a population of less than 5,000,
which meet appropriate disinfection requirements and have
adequate watershed protections, so long as the State
determines that the public health will be protected during
the duration of the additional compliance period and the
system agrees to implement appropriate control measures as
determined by the State.
``(B) The additional compliance period referred to in
subparagraph (A) shall expire on the earlier of the date 3
years after the date on which the Administrator identifies
appropriate control technology for the Surface Water
Treatment Rule for public water systems in the category that
includes such system pursuant to section 1412(b)(4)(E) or 5
years after the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1996.''.
(c) 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
inserting after ``(a)(3)'' in the second sentence ``or the
determination under subsection (h)(1)(C)''.
(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
1996, 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.
(d) 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. 142. VARIANCES.
(a) BAAT Variance.--Section 1415 (42 U.S.C. 300g-4) 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
section 1412(b)(4)(E) for the applicable category of public
water systems;
``(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 1996, the Administrator shall identify BAAT in any case
where no `best technology or other means' is listed for a
category of public water systems listed under section
1412(b)(4)(E). No such identified BAAT shall require a
technology from a 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
[[Page H6732]]
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 36 months
after the date of the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water
Act Amendments of 1996, the Administrator shall identify BAAT
for all national primary drinking water regulations
promulgated prior to such date of enactment where no best
technology or other means is listed for a category of public
water systems under section 1412(b)(4)(E), 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;
``(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 (1) continue to be met.
``(6) Review.--Any review by the Administrator under
paragraphs (4) and (5) shall be pursuant to subsection
(a)(1)(G)(i).
``(7) Ineligibility for variances.--A variance shall not be
available under this subsection for--
``(A) any maximum contaminant level or treatment technique
for a contaminant with respect to which a national primary
drinking water regulation was promulgated prior to January 1,
1986; or
``(B) a national primary drinking water regulation for a
microbial contaminant (including a bacterium, virus, or other
organism) or an indicator or treatment technique for a
microbial contaminant.''.
(b) Technical and Conforming Changes.--
Section 1415 (42 U.S.C. 300g-4) is amended as follows:
(1) 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) 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 in subsection (a)(1)(A).
(3) By amending the first sentence of subsection (a)(1)(C)
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.''.
(4) By inserting ``under this section'' before the period
at the end of the third sentence of subsection (a)(1)(C).
(5) By striking ``under subparagraph (A)'' and inserting
``under this section'' in subsection (a)(1)(D).
(6) By striking ``that subparagraph'' in each place it
appears and insert in each such place ``this section'' in
subsection (a)(1)(D).
(7) By striking the last sentence of subsection (a)(1)(D).
(8) By striking ``3-year'' and inserting ``5-year'' in
subsection (a)(1)(F) and by amending the first sentence of
such subsection (a)(1)(F) to read as follows: ``Not later
than 5 years after the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water
Act Amendments of 1996, the Administrator shall complete a
review of the variances granted under this section (and the
schedules prescribed in connection with such variances).''.
(9) By striking ``subparagraph (A) or (B)'' and inserting
``this section'' in subsection (a)(1)(G)(i).
(10) By striking ``paragraph (1)(B) or (2) of subsection
(a)'' and inserting ``this section'' in subsection (b).
(11) By striking ``subsection (a)'' and inserting ``this
section'' in subsection (c).
(12) By repealing subsection (d).
Subtitle E--Lead Plumbing and Pipes
SEC. 151. LEAD PLUMBING AND PIPES.
Section 1417 (42 U.S.C. 300g-6) is amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (a)--
(A) by striking paragraph (1) and inserting the following:
``(1) Prohibitions.--
``(A) In general.--No person may use any pipe, any pipe or
plumbing fitting or fixture, any solder, or any flux, after
June 19, 1986, in the installation or repair of--
``(i) any public water system; or
``(ii) any plumbing in a residential or nonresidential
facility providing water for human consumption,
that is not lead free (within the meaning of subsection (d)).
``(B) Leaded joints.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply to
leaded joints necessary for the repair of cast iron pipes.''.
(2) In subsection (a)(2)(A), by inserting ``owner or
operator of a'' after ``Each''.
(3) By adding at the end of subsection (a) the following:
``(3) Unlawful acts.--Effective 2 years after the date of
enactment of this paragraph, it shall be unlawful--
``(A) for any person to introduce into commerce any pipe,
or any pipe or plumbing fitting or fixture, that is not lead
free, except for a pipe that is used in manufacturing or
industrial processing;
``(B) for any person engaged in the business of selling
plumbing supplies, except manufacturers, to sell solder or
flux that is not lead free; or
``(C) for any person to introduce into commerce any solder
or flux that is not lead free unless the solder or flux bears
a prominent label stating that it is illegal to use the
solder or flux in the installation or repair of any plumbing
providing water for human consumption.''.
(4) In subsection (d)--
(A) by striking ``lead, and'' in paragraph (1) and
inserting ``lead;'';
(B) by striking ``lead.'' in paragraph (2) and inserting
``lead; and''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) when used with respect to plumbing fittings and
fixtures, refers to plumbing fittings and fixtures in
compliance with standards established in accordance with
subsection (e).''.
(5) By adding at the end the following:
``(e) Plumbing Fittings and Fixtures.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall provide accurate
and timely technical information and assistance to qualified
third-party certifiers in the development of voluntary
standards and testing protocols for the leaching of lead from
new plumbing fittings and fixtures that are intended by the
manufacturer to dispense water for human ingestion.
``(2) Standards.--
``(A) In general.--If a voluntary standard for the leaching
of lead is not established by the date that is 1 year after
the date of enactment of this subsection, the Administrator
shall, not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of
this subsection, promulgate regulations setting a health-
effects-based performance standard establishing maximum
leaching levels from new plumbing fittings and fixtures that
are intended by the manufacturer to dispense water for human
ingestion. The standard shall become effective on the date
that is 5 years after the date of promulgation of the
standard.
``(B) Alternative requirement.--If regulations are required
to be promulgated under subparagraph (A) and have not been
promulgated by the date that is 5 years after the date of
enactment of this subsection, no person may import,
manufacture, process, or distribute in commerce a new
plumbing fitting or fixture, intended by the manufacturer to
dispense water for human ingestion, that contains more than 4
percent lead by dry weight.''.
Subtitle F--Capacity Development
SEC. 161. CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT.
Part B (42 U.S.C. 300g et seq.) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``SEC. 1419. CAPACITY DEVELOPMENT.
``(a) State Authority for New Systems.--Each State shall
obtain the legal authority or other means to ensure that all
new community water systems and new nontransient,
noncommunity water systems commencing operation after October
1, 1999, demonstrate technical, managerial, and financial
capacity with respect to each national primary drinking water
regulation in effect, or likely to be in effect, on the date
of commencement of operations.
``(b) Systems in Significant Noncompliance.--
``(1) List.--Beginning not later than 1 year after the date
of enactment of this section, each State shall prepare,
periodically update, and submit to the Administrator a list
of community water systems and nontransient, noncommunity
water systems that have a history of significant
noncompliance with this title (as defined in guidelines
issued prior to the date of enactment of this section or any
revisions of the guidelines that have been made in
consultation with the States) and, to the extent practicable,
the reasons for noncompliance.
``(2) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date of
enactment of this section and as part of the capacity
development strategy of the State, each State shall report to
the Administrator on the success of enforcement mechanisms
and initial capacity development efforts in assisting the
public water systems listed under paragraph (1) to improve
technical, managerial, and financial capacity.
``(c) Capacity Development Strategy.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 4 years after the date of
enactment of this section, each State shall develop and
implement a strategy to assist public water systems in
acquiring and maintaining technical, managerial, and
financial capacity.
[[Page H6733]]
``(2) Content.--In preparing the capacity development
strategy, the State shall consider, solicit public comment
on, and include as appropriate--
``(A) the methods or criteria that the State will use to
identify and prioritize the public water systems most in need
of improving technical, managerial, and financial capacity;
``(B) a description of the institutional, regulatory,
financial, tax, or legal factors at the Federal, State, or
local level that encourage or impair capacity development;
``(C) a description of how the State will use the
authorities and resources of this title or other means to--
``(i) assist public water systems in complying with
national primary drinking water regulations;
``(ii) encourage the development of partnerships between
public water systems to enhance the technical, managerial,
and financial capacity of the systems; and
``(iii) assist public water systems in the training and
certification of operators;
``(D) a description of how the State will establish a
baseline and measure improvements in capacity with respect to
national primary drinking water regulations and State
drinking water law; and
``(E) an identification of the persons that have an
interest in and are involved in the development and
implementation of the capacity development strategy
(including all appropriate agencies of Federal, State, and
local governments, private and nonprofit public water
systems, and public water system customers).
``(3) Report.--Not later than 2 years after the date on
which a State first adopts a capacity development strategy
under this subsection, and every 3 years thereafter, the head
of the State agency that has primary responsibility to carry
out this title in the State shall submit to the Governor a
report that shall also be available to the public on the
efficacy of the strategy and progress made toward improving
the technical, managerial, and financial capacity of public
water systems in the State.
``(4) Review.--The decisions of the State under this
section regarding any particular public water system are not
subject to review by the Administrator and may not serve as
the basis for withholding funds under section
1452(a)(1)(H)(i).
``(d) Federal Assistance.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall support the
States in developing capacity development strategies.
``(2) Informational assistance.--
``(A) In general.--Not later than 180 days after the date
of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall--
``(i) conduct a review of State capacity development
efforts in existence on the date of enactment of this section
and publish information to assist States and public water
systems in capacity development efforts; and
``(ii) initiate a partnership with States, public water
systems, and the public to develop information for States on
recommended operator certification requirements.
``(B) Publication of information.--The Administrator shall
publish the information developed through the partnership
under subparagraph (A)(ii) not later than 18 months after the
date of enactment of this section.
``(3) Promulgation of drinking water regulations.--In
promulgating a national primary drinking water regulation,
the Administrator shall include an analysis of the likely
effect of compliance with the regulation on the technical,
financial, and managerial capacity of public water systems.
``(4) Guidance for new systems.--Not later than 2 years
after the date of enactment of this section, the
Administrator shall publish guidance developed in
consultation with the States describing legal authorities and
other means to ensure that all new community water systems
and new nontransient, noncommunity water systems demonstrate
technical, managerial, and financial capacity with respect to
national primary drinking water regulations.''.
TITLE II--AMENDMENTS TO PART C
SEC. 201. SOURCE WATER QUALITY ASSESSMENT.
(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 1996, 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 selected by the State in its
discretion which the State, for the purposes of this
subsection, has determined may present a 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 1452 (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. Compliance
with subsection (g) shall not affect any State permanent
monitoring flexibility program approved under section
1418(b).
``(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.
``(6) Use of other programs.--To avoid duplication and to
encourage efficiency, the program under this section shall,
to the extent practicable, be coordinated with other existing
programs and mechanisms, and may make use of any of the
following:
``(A) Vulnerability assessments, sanitary surveys, and
monitoring programs.
``(B) Delineations or assessments of ground water sources
under a State wellhead protection program developed pursuant
to this section.
``(C) Delineations or assessments of surface or ground
water sources under a State pesticide management plan
developed pursuant to the Pesticide and Ground Water State
Management Plan Regulation (subparts I and J of part 152 of
title 40, Code of Federal Regulations), promulgated under
section 3(d) of the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and
Rodenticide Act (7 U.S.C. 136a(d)).
``(D) Delineations or assessments of surface water sources
under a State watershed initiative or to satisfy the
watershed criterion for determining if filtration is required
under the Surface Water Treatment Rule (section 141.70 of
title 40, Code of Federal Regulations).
``(7) Public availability.--The State shall make the
results of the source water assessments conducted under this
subsection available to the public.''.
(b) 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
section 1418(b) does not meet the applicable requirements of
subsection (l) 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 section 1418(b) shall be deemed to meet the applicable
requirements of subsection (l) 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) In subsection (b), add the following before the period
at the end of the first sentence: ``and source water
assessment programs under subsection (l)''.
(5) In subsection (g)--
(A) insert after ``under this section'' the following:
``and the State source water assessment programs under
subsection (l) for which the State uses grants under section
1452 (relating to State Revolving Funds)''; and
(B) strike ``Such'' in the last sentence and inserting ``In
the case of wellhead protection programs, such''.
SEC. 202. FEDERAL FACILITIES.
(a) In General.--Part C (42 U.S.C. 300h et seq.) is amended
by adding at the end thereof the following new section:
[[Page H6734]]
``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 Penalty Orders.--
``(1) In general.--If the Administrator finds that a
Federal agency has violated an applicable requirement under
this title, the Administrator may issue a penalty order
assessing a penalty against the Federal agency.
``(2) Penalties.--The Administrator may, after notice to
the agency, assess a civil penalty against the agency in an
amount not to exceed $25,000 per day per violation.
``(3) Procedure.--Before an administrative penalty order
issued under this subsection becomes final, the Administrator
shall provide the agency an opportunity to confer with the
Administrator and shall provide the agency notice and an
opportunity for a hearing on the record in accordance with
chapters 5 and 7 of title 5, United States Code.
``(4) Public review.--
``(A) In general.--Any interested person may obtain review
of an administrative penalty order issued under this
subsection. The review may be obtained in the United States
District Court for the District of Columbia or in the United
States District Court for the district in which the violation
is alleged to have occurred by the filing of a complaint with
the court within the 30-day period beginning on the date the
penalty order becomes final. The person filing the complaint
shall simultaneously send a copy of the complaint by
certified mail to the Administrator and the Attorney General.
``(B) Record.--The Administrator shall promptly file in the
court a certified copy of the record on which the order was
issued.
``(C) Standard of review.--The court shall not set aside or
remand the order unless the court finds that there is not
substantial evidence in the record, taken as a whole, to
support the finding of a violation or that the assessment of
the penalty by the Administrator constitutes an abuse of
discretion.
``(D) Prohibition on additional penalties.--The court may
not impose an additional civil penalty for a violation that
is subject to the order unless the court finds that the
assessment constitutes an abuse of discretion by 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
1996 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) Citizen Enforcement.--(1) The first sentence of section
1449(a) (42 U.S.C. 300j-8(a)) is amended--
(A) in paragraph (1), by striking ``, or'' and inserting a
semicolon;
(B) in paragraph (2), by striking the period at the end and
inserting ``; or''; and
(C) by adding at the end the following:
``(3) for the collection of a penalty by the United States
Government (and associated costs and interest) against any
Federal agency that fails, by the date that is 18 months
after the effective date of a final order to pay a penalty
assessed by the Administrator under section 1429(b), to pay
the penalty.''.
(2) Subsection (b) of section 1449 (42 U.S.C. 300j-8(b)) is
amended, by striking the period at the end of paragraph (2)
and inserting ``; or'' and by adding the following new
paragraph after paragraph (2):
``(3) under subsection (a)(3) prior to 60 days after the
plaintiff has given notice of such action to the Attorney
General and to the Federal agency.''.
(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 1447 (42 U.S.C. 300j-6)
is amended as follows:
(1) In subsection (a):
(A) In the first sentence, by striking ``(1) having
jurisdiction over any federally owned or maintained public
water system or (2)''.
(B) In the first sentence, by striking out ``respecting the
provision of safe drinking water and''.
(C) In the second sentence, by striking ``(A)'', ``(B)'',
and ``(C)'' and inserting ``(1)'', ``(2)'', and ``(3)'',
respectively.
(2) In subsection (c), by striking ``the Safe Drinking
Water Amendments of 1977'' and inserting ``this title'' and
by striking ``this Act'' and inserting ``this title''.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
SEC. 301. OPERATOR CERTIFICATION.
Section 1442 is amended by adding the following after
subsection (e):
``(f) Minimum Standards.--(1) Not later than 30 months
after the date of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1996 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 community and
nontransient noncommunity 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) Any State exercising primary enforcement
responsibility for public water systems shall adopt and
implement, within 2 years after the promulgation of
regulations pursuant to paragraph (1), requirements for the
certification of operators of community and nontransient
noncommunity public water systems.
``(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 1996, 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 not substantially
equivalent to such regulations. In making this determination,
such existing State programs shall be presumed to be
substantially equivalent to the regulations, notwithstanding
program differences, based on the size of systems or the
quality of source water, providing State programs meet
overall public health objectives of the regulations. If
disapproved the program may be resubmitted within 6 months
after receipt of notice of disapproval.''.
SEC. 302. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE.
Section 1442(e) (42 U.S.C. 300j-1(e)), relating to
technical assistance for small systems, is amended to read as
follows:
[[Page H6735]]
``(e) Technical Assistance.--The Administrator 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 fiscal years 1997
through 2003. No portion of any State revolving fund
established under section 1452 (relating to State revolving
funds) 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.''.
SEC. 303. PUBLIC WATER SYSTEM SUPERVISION PROGRAM.
Section 1443(a) (42 U.S.C. 300j-2(a)) is amended as
follows:
(1) Paragraph (7) is amended to read as follows:
``(7) Authorization.--For the purpose of making grants
under paragraph (1), there are authorized to be appropriated
$100,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2003.''.
(2) By adding at the end the following:
``(8) Reservation of funds by the administrator.--If the
Administrator assumes the primary enforcement responsibility
of a State public water system supervision program, the
Administrator may reserve from funds made available pursuant
to this subsection, an amount equal to the amount that would
otherwise have been provided to the State pursuant to this
subsection. The Administrator shall use the funds reserved
pursuant to this paragraph to ensure the full and effective
administration of a public water system supervision program
in the State.
``(9) State loan funds.--For any fiscal year for which the
amount made available to the Administrator by appropriations
to carry out this subsection is less than the amount that the
Administrator determines is necessary to supplement funds
made available pursuant to paragraph (8) to ensure the full
and effective administration of a public water system
supervision program in a State, the Administrator may reserve
from the funds made available to the State under section 1452
(relating to State revolving funds) an amount that is equal
to the amount of the shortfall. This paragraph shall not
apply to any State not exercising primary enforcement
responsibility for public water systems as of the date of
enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1996.''.
SEC. 304. MONITORING AND INFORMATION GATHERING.
(a) Review of Existing Requirements.--Paragraph (1) of
section 1445(a) (42 U.S.C. 300j-4(a)(1)) is amended to read
as follows:
``(1)(A) Every person who is subject to any requirement of
this title or who is a grantee, shall establish and maintain
such records, make such reports, conduct such monitoring, and
provide such information as the Administrator may reasonably
require by regulation to assist the Administrator in
establishing regulations under this title, in determining
whether such person has acted or is acting in compliance with
this title, in administering any program of financial
assistance under this title, in evaluating the health risks
of unregulated contaminants, or in advising the public of
such risks. In requiring a public water system to monitor
under this subsection, the Administrator may take into
consideration the system size and the contaminants likely to
be found in the system's drinking water.
``(B) Every person who is subject to a national primary
drinking water regulation under section 1412 shall provide
such information as the Administrator may reasonably require,
after consultation with the State in which such person is
located if such State has primary enforcement responsibility
for public water systems, on a case-by-case basis, to
determine whether such person has acted or is acting in
compliance with this title.
``(C) Every person who is subject to a national primary
drinking water regulation under section 1412 shall provide
such information as the Administrator may reasonably require
to assist the Administrator in establishing regulations under
section 1412 of this title, after consultation with States
and suppliers of water. The Administrator may not require
under this subparagraph the installation of treatment
equipment or process changes, the testing of treatment
technology, or the analysis or processing of monitoring
samples, except where the Administrator provides the funding
for such activities. Before exercising this authority, the
Administrator shall first seek to obtain the information by
voluntary submission.
``(D) The Administrator shall not later than 2 years after
the date of enactment of this sentence, after consultation
with public health experts, representatives of the general
public, and officials of State and local governments, review
the monitoring requirements for not fewer than 12
contaminants identified by the Administrator, and promulgate
any necessary modifications.''.
(b) Monitoring Relief.--Part B is amended by adding the
following new section 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 any
regulated or unregulated contaminants for which monitoring is
required other than microbial contaminants (or indicators
thereof), disinfectants and disinfection byproducts or
corrosion byproducts for an interim period to provide that
any public water system serving 10,000 persons or fewer shall
not be required to conduct additional quarterly monitoring
during an interim relief period for such contaminants if--
``(A) 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
``(B) 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 1996, 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 for chemical
contaminants set forth in 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 (or indicators
thereof), 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 monitoring
requirements under paragraph (1) of this subsection for
chemical contaminants. The Administrator shall publish such
guidelines 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
[[Page H6736]]
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 applicable national primary drinking water regulations
to alter monitoring requirements through waivers or other
existing authorities. The Administrator shall periodically
review and, as appropriate, revise such authorities.''.
(c) Unregulated Contaminants.--Section 1445(a) (42 U.S.C.
300j-4(a)) is amended by striking paragraphs (2) through (8)
and inserting the following:
``(2) Monitoring program for unregulated contaminants.--
``(A) Establishment.--The Administrator shall promulgate
regulations establishing the criteria for a monitoring
program for unregulated contaminants. The regulations shall
require monitoring of drinking water supplied by public water
systems and shall vary the frequency and schedule for
monitoring requirements for systems based on the number of
persons served by the system, the source of supply, and the
contaminants likely to be found.
``(B) Monitoring program for certain unregulated
contaminants.--
``(i) Initial list.--Not later than 3 years after the date
of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1996
and every 5 years thereafter, the Administrator shall issue a
list pursuant to subparagraph (A) of not more than 40
unregulated contaminants to be monitored by public water
systems and to be included in the national drinking water
occurrence data base maintained pursuant to subsection (g).
``(ii) Governors' petition.--The Administrator shall
include among the list of contaminants for which monitoring
is required under this paragraph each contaminant recommended
in a petition signed by the Governor of each of 7 or more
States, unless the Administrator determines that the action
would prevent the listing of other contaminants of a higher
public health concern.
``(C) Monitoring plan for small and medium systems.--
``(i) In general.--Based on the regulations promulgated by
the Administrator, each State shall develop a representative
monitoring plan to assess the occurrence of unregulated
contaminants in public water systems that serve a population
of 10,000 or fewer. The plan shall require monitoring for
systems representative of different sizes, types, and
geographic locations in the State.
``(ii) Grants for small system costs.--From funds
appropriated under subparagraph (H), the Administrator shall
pay the reasonable cost of such testing and laboratory
analysis as are necessary to carry out monitoring under the
plan.
``(D) Monitoring results.--Each public water system that
conducts monitoring of unregulated contaminants pursuant to
this paragraph shall provide the results of the monitoring to
the primary enforcement authority for the system.
``(E) Notification.--Notification of the availability of
the results of monitoring programs required under paragraph
(2)(A) shall be given to the persons served by the system and
the Administrator.
``(F) Waiver of monitoring requirement.--The Administrator
shall waive the requirement for monitoring for a contaminant
under this paragraph in a State, if the State demonstrates
that the criteria for listing the contaminant do not apply in
that State.
``(G) Analytical methods.--The State may use screening
methods approved by the Administrator under subsection (i) in
lieu of monitoring for particular contaminants under this
paragraph.
``(H) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to carry out this paragraph
$10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1997 through
2003.''.
(d) Screening Methods.--Section 1445 (42 U.S.C. 300j-4) is
amended by adding the following after subsection (h):
``(i) Screening Methods.--The Administrator shall review
new analytical methods to screen for regulated contaminants
and may approve such methods as are more accurate or cost-
effective than established reference methods for use in
compliance monitoring.''.
SEC. 305. OCCURRENCE DATA BASE.
Section 1445 is amended by adding the following new
subsection after subsection (f):
``(g) National Drinking Water Occurrence Data Base.--
``(1) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the date of
enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996,
the Administrator shall assemble and maintain a national
drinking water occurrence data base, using information on the
occurrence of both regulated and unregulated contaminants in
public water systems obtained under subsection (a)(1)(A) or
subsection (a)(2) and reliable information from other public
and private sources.
``(2) Public input.--In establishing the occurrence data
base, the Administrator shall solicit recommendations from
the Science Advisory Board, the States, and other interested
parties concerning the development and maintenance of a
national drinking water occurrence data base, including such
issues as the structure and design of the data base, data
input parameters and requirements, and the use and
interpretation of data.
``(3) Use.--The data shall be used by the Administrator in
making determinations under section 1412(b)(3) with respect
to the occurrence of a contaminant in drinking water at a
level of public health concern.
``(4) Public recommendations.--The Administrator shall
periodically solicit recommendations from the appropriate
officials of the National Academy of Sciences and the States,
and any person may submit recommendations to the
Administrator, with respect to contaminants that should be
included in the national drinking water occurrence data base,
including recommendations with respect to additional
unregulated contaminants that should be listed under
subsection (a)(2). Any recommendation submitted under this
clause shall be accompanied by reasonable documentation
that--
``(A) the contaminant occurs or is likely to occur in
drinking water; and
``(B) the contaminant poses a risk to public health.
``(5) Public availability.--The information from the data
base shall be available to the public in readily accessible
form.
``(6) Regulated contaminants.--With respect to each
contaminant for which a national primary drinking water
regulation has been established, the data base shall include
information on the detection of the contaminant at a
quantifiable level in public water systems (including
detection of the contaminant at levels not constituting a
violation of the maximum contaminant level for the
contaminant).
``(7) Unregulated contaminants.--With respect to
contaminants for which a national primary drinking water
regulation has not been established, the data base shall
include--
``(A) monitoring information collected by public water
systems that serve a population of more than 3,300, as
required by the Administrator under subsection (a);
``(B) monitoring information collected by the States from a
representative sampling of public water systems that serve a
population of 3,300 or fewer; and
``(C) other reliable and appropriate monitoring information
on the occurrence of the contaminants in public water systems
that is available to the Administrator.''.
SEC. 306. CITIZENS SUITS.
Section 1449 (42 U.S.C. 300j-8) is amended by inserting ``,
or a State'' after ``prosecuting a civil action in a court of
the United States'' in subsection (b)(1)(B).
SEC. 307. WHISTLE BLOWER.
(a) 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.''.
[[Page H6737]]
(b) Effective Date.--The amendments made by subsection (a)
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. 308. STATE REVOLVING FUNDS.
Part E (42 U.S.C. 300j et seq.) is amended by adding the
following new section after section 1451:
``SEC. 1452. STATE REVOLVING FUNDS.
``(a) General Authority.--
``(1) Grants to states to establish revolving funds.--(A)
The Administrator shall enter into agreements with eligible
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 are specified in this title.
``(B) To be eligible to receive a capitalization grant
under this section, a State shall establish a drinking water
treatment revolving loan fund and comply with the other
requirements of this section.
``(C) Such a grant to a State shall be deposited in the
drinking water treatment revolving fund established by the
State, except as otherwise provided in this section and in
other provisions of this title. No funds 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.
``(D) Such a grant to a State shall be available to the
State for obligation during the fiscal year for which the
funds are authorized and during the following fiscal year,
except that grants made available from funds provided in
Public Law 103-327, Public Law 103-124, and Public Law 104-
134 shall be available for obligation during each of the
fiscal years 1997 and 1998.
``(E) Except as otherwise provided in this section, funds
made available to carry out this part shall be allotted to
States that have entered into an agreement pursuant to this
section in accordance with--
``(i) for each of fiscal years 1995 through 1997, a formula
that is the same as the formula used to distribute public
water system supervision grant funds under section 1443 in
fiscal year 1995, except that the minimum proportionate share
established in the formula shall be 1 percent of available
funds and the formula shall be adjusted to include a minimum
proportionate share for the State of Wyoming; and
``(ii) for fiscal year 1998 and each subsequent fiscal
year, a formula that allocates to each State the proportional
share of the State needs identified in the most recent survey
conducted pursuant to section 1452(h), except that the
minimum proportionate share provided to each State shall be
the same as the minimum proportionate share provided under
clause (i).
``(F) Such grants not obligated by the last day of the
period for which the grants are available shall be reallotted
according to the appropriate criteria set forth in
subparagraph (E).
``(G) 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: 20 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. This subparagraph shall not apply to any State
not exercising primary enforcement responsibility for public
water systems as of the date of enactment of the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996.
``(H)(i) Beginning in fiscal year 1999, the Administrator
shall withhold 20 percent of each capitalization grant made
pursuant to this section to a State if the State has not met
the requirements of section 1419 (relating to capacity
development).
``(ii) The Administrator shall withhold 20 percent of each
capitalization grant made pursuant to this section if the
State has not met the requirements of subsection (f) of
section 1442 (relating to operator certification).
``(iii) All funds withheld by the Administrator pursuant to
clause (i) shall be reallotted by the Administrator on the
basis of the same ratio as is applicable to funds allotted
under subparagraph (E). None of the funds reallotted by the
Administrator pursuant to this paragraph shall be allotted to
a State unless the State has met the requirements of section
1419 (relating to capacity development).
``(iv) All funds withheld by the Administrator pursuant to
clause (ii) shall be reallotted by the Administrator on the
basis of the same ratio as applicable to funds allotted under
subparagraph (E). None of the funds reallotted by the
Administrator pursuant to this paragraph shall be allotted to
a State unless the State has met the requirements of
subsection (f) of section 1442 (relating to operator
certification).
``(2) 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, loan guarantees, or as a
source of reserve and security for leveraged loans, the
proceeds of which are deposited in a State revolving fund
established under paragraph (1), or other financial
assistance authorized under this section to community water
systems and nonprofit noncommunity water systems, other than
systems owned by Federal agencies. 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
funds may also be used to provide loans to a system referred
to in section 1401(4)(B) for the purpose of providing the
treatment described in section 1401(4)(B)(i)(III). Such funds
shall not be used for the acquisition of real property or
interests therein, unless such acquisition is integral to a
project authorized by this paragraph and the purchase is from
a willing seller. Of the amount credited to any revolving
fund established under this section in any fiscal year, 15
percent shall be available solely for providing loan
assistance to public water systems which regularly serve
fewer than 10,000 persons.
``(3) Limitation.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
no assistance under this part shall be provided to a public
water system that--
``(i) does not have the technical, managerial, and
financial capability to ensure compliance with the
requirements of this title; or
``(ii) is in significant noncompliance with any requirement
of a national primary drinking water regulation or variance.
``(B) Restructuring.--A public water system described in
subparagraph (A) may receive assistance under this part if--
``(i) the owner or operator of the system agrees to
undertake feasible and appropriate changes in operations
(including ownership, management, accounting, rates,
maintenance, consolidation, alternative water supply, or
other procedures) if the State determines that such measures
are necessary to ensure that the system has the technical,
managerial, and financial capability to comply with the
requirements of this title over the long term; and
``(ii) the use of the assistance will ensure compliance.
``(b) Intended Use Plans.--
``(1) In general.--After providing for public review and
comment, each State that has entered into a capitalization
agreement pursuant to this part shall annually prepare a plan
that identifies the intended uses of the amounts available to
the State loan fund of the State.
``(2) Contents.--An intended use plan shall include--
``(A) a list of the projects to be assisted in the first
fiscal year that begins after the date of the plan, including
a description of the project, the expected terms of financial
assistance, and the size of the community served;
``(B) the criteria and methods established for the
distribution of funds; and
``(C) a description of the financial status of the State
loan fund and the short-term and long-term goals of the State
loan fund.
``(3) Use of funds.--
``(A) In general.--An intended use plan shall provide, to
the maximum extent practicable, that priority for the use of
funds be given to projects that--
``(i) address the most serious risk to human health;
``(ii) are necessary to ensure compliance with the
requirements of this title (including requirements for
filtration); and
``(iii) assist systems most in need on a per household
basis according to State affordability criteria.
``(B) List of projects.--Each State shall, after notice and
opportunity for public comment, publish and periodically
update a list of projects in the State that are eligible for
assistance under this part, including the priority assigned
to each project and, to the extent known, the expected
funding schedule for each project.
``(c) Fund Management.--Each State revolving fund under
this section 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.
``(d) Assistance for Disadvantaged Communities.--
``(1) Loan subsidy.--Notwithstanding any other provision of
this section, in any case in which the State makes a loan
pursuant to subsection (a)(2) to a disadvantaged community or
to a community that the State expects to become a
disadvantaged community as the result of a proposed project,
the State may provide additional subsidization (including
forgiveness of principal).
``(2) Total amount of subsidies.--For each fiscal year, the
total amount of loan subsidies made by a State pursuant to
paragraph (1) may not exceed 30 percent of the amount of the
capitalization grant received by the State for the year.
[[Page H6738]]
``(3) Definition of disadvantaged community.--In this
subsection, the term `disadvantaged community' means the
service area of a public water system that meets
affordability criteria established after public review and
comment by the State in which the public water system is
located. The Administrator may publish information to assist
States in establishing affordability criteria.
``(e) State Contribution.--Each agreement under subsection
(a) shall require that the State deposit in the State
revolving 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, except that a State shall not be required
to deposit such amount into the fund prior to the date on
which each grant payment is made for fiscal years 1994, 1995,
1996, and 1997 if such State deposits the State contribution
amount into the State fund prior to September 30, 1998.
``(f) Combined Financial Administration.--Notwithstanding
subsection (c), 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 section 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--
``(1) the grants under this section, together with loan
repayments and interest, will be separately accounted for and
used solely for the purposes specified in this section; and
``(2) 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 section 1413.
``(g) Administration.--(1) Each State may annually use up
to 4 percent of the funds allotted to the State under this
section to cover the reasonable costs of administration of
the programs under this section, including the recovery of
reasonable costs expended to establish such a fund which are
incurred after the date of enactment of this section, and to
provide technical assistance to public water systems within
the State. For fiscal year 1995 and each fiscal year
thereafter, each State with primary enforcement
responsibility for public water systems within that State may
use up to an additional 10 percent of the funds allotted to
the State under this section--
``(A) for public water system supervision programs which
receive grants under section 1443(a);
``(B) to administer or provide technical assistance through
source water protection programs;
``(C) to develop and implement a capacity development
strategy under section 1419(c); and
``(D) for an operator certification program for purposes of
meeting the requirements of section 1442(f),
if the State matches such expenditures with at least an equal
amount of State 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 section shall be used by each State to provide technical
assistance to public water systems in such State. Funds
utilized under section 1452(g)(1)(B) shall not be used for
enforcement actions or for purposes which do not facilitate
compliance with national primary drinking water regulations
or otherwise significantly further the health protection
objectives of this title.
``(2) The Administrator shall publish such guidance and
promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out
the provisions of this section, including--
``(A) provisions to ensure that each State commits and
expends funds allotted to the State under this section as
efficiently as possible in accordance with this title and
applicable State laws,
``(B) guidance to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, and
``(C) guidance to avoid the use of funds made available
under this section 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 section, use accounting, audit, and fiscal procedures
that conform to generally accepted accounting standards.
``(3) 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.
``(h) Needs Survey.--The Administrator shall conduct an
assessment of water system capital improvements needs of all
eligible public water systems in the United States and submit
a report to the Congress containing the results of such
assessment within 180 days after the date of the enactment of
the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 and every 4
years thereafter.
``(i) Indian Tribes.--1\1/2\ percent of the amounts
appropriated annually to carry out this section 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
section or assistance from State revolving funds established
under this section. Such grants may only be used for
expenditures by such tribes and villages for public water
system expenditures referred to in subsection (a)(2).
``(j) 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
subsection 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 subsection (a)(2). Such grants
shall not be deposited in revolving funds. The total
allotment of grants under this section 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 section in that fiscal year.
``(k) Set-Asides.--
``(1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (a)(2), a
State may take each of the following actions:
``(A) Provide assistance, only in the form of a loan to one
or both of the following:
``(i) Any public water system described in subsection
(a)(2) to acquire land or a conservation easement from a
willing seller or grantor, if the purpose of the acquisition
is to protect the source water of the system from
contamination and to ensure compliance with national primary
drinking water regulations.
``(ii) Any community water system to implement local,
voluntary source water protection measures to protect source
water in areas delineated pursuant to section 1428(l), in
order to 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. Funds authorized under this clause
may be used to fund only voluntary, incentive-based
mechanisms.
``(B) Provide assistance, including technical and financial
assistance, to any public water system as part of a capacity
development strategy developed and implemented in accordance
with section 1419(c).
``(C) Make expenditures from the capitalization grant of
the State for fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to delineate and
assess source water protection areas in accordance with
section 1428(l), except that funds set aside for such
expenditure shall be obligated within 4 fiscal years.
``(D) Make expenditures from the fund for the establishment
and implementation of wellhead protection programs under
section 1428.
``(2) Limitation.--For each fiscal year, the total amount
of assistance provided and expenditures made by a State under
this subsection may not exceed 15 percent of the amount of
the capitalization grant received by the State for that year
and may not exceed 10 percent of that amount for any one of
the following activities:
``(A) To acquire land or conservation easements pursuant to
paragraph (1)(A)(i).
``(B) To provide funding to implement voluntary, incentive-
based source water quality protection measures pursuant to
paragraph (1)(A)(ii).
``(C) To provide assistance through a capacity development
strategy pursuant to paragraph (1)(B).
``(D) To make expenditures to delineate or assess source
water protection areas pursuant to paragraph (1)(C).
``(E) To make expenditures to establish and implement
wellhead protection programs pursuant to paragraph (1)(D).
``(3) Statutory construction.--Nothing in this section
creates or conveys any new authority to a State, political
subdivision of a State, or community water system for any new
regulatory measure, or limits any authority of a State,
political subdivision of a State or community water system.
``(l) Savings.--The failure or inability of any public
water system to receive funds under this section or any other
loan or grant program, or any delay in obtaining the funds,
shall not alter the obligation of the system to comply in a
timely manner with all applicable drinking water standards
and requirements of this title.
``(m) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out the purposes of this section
$599,000,000 for the fiscal year 1994 and $1,000,000,000 for
each of the fiscal years 1995 through 2003. Sums shall remain
available until expended.
``(n) Health Effects Studies.--From funds appropriated
pursuant to this section for each fiscal year, the
Administrator shall reserve $10,000,000 for health effects
studies on drinking water contaminants authorized by the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. In allocating funds
made available under this subsection, the Administrator shall
give priority to studies concerning the health effects of
cryptosporidium,
[[Page H6739]]
disinfection byproducts, and arsenic, and the implementation
of a plan for studies of subpopulations at greater risk of
adverse effects.
``(o) 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 1996 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.
``(p) Small System Technical Assistance.--The Administrator
may reserve up to 2 percent of the total funds appropriated
pursuant to subsection (m) for each of the fiscal years 1997
through 2003 to carry out the provisions of section 1442(e),
relating to technical assistance for small systems.''.
SEC. 309. WATER CONSERVATION PLAN.
Part E is amended by adding at the end the following:
``SEC. 1453. WATER CONSERVATION PLAN.
``(a) Guidelines.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of
1996, 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 1452, to submit with its application for such loan or
grant a water conservation plan consistent with such
guidelines.''.
TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS
SEC. 401. DEFINITIONS.
(a) Alternative Quality Control and Testing Procedures.--
Section 1401(1)(D) (42 U.S.C. 300f(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.''.
(b) Public Water System.--
(1) In general.--Section 1401(4) (42 U.S.C. 300f(4)) is
amended--
(A) in the first sentence, by striking ``piped water for
human consumption'' and inserting ``water for human
consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances'';
(B) by redesignating subparagraphs (A) and (B) as clauses
(i) and (ii), respectively;
(C) by striking ``(4) The'' and inserting the following:
``(4) Public water system.--
``(A) In general.--The''; and
(D) by adding at the end the following:
``(B) Connections.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A), a
connection to a system that delivers water by a constructed
conveyance other than a pipe shall not be considered a
connection, if--
``(I) the water is used exclusively for purposes other than
residential uses (consisting of drinking, bathing, and
cooking, or other similar uses);
``(II) the Administrator or the State (in the case of a
State exercising primary enforcement responsibility for
public water systems) determines that alternative water to
achieve the equivalent level of public health protection
provided by the applicable national primary drinking water
regulation is provided for residential or similar uses for
drinking, cooking, and bathing; or
``(III) the Administrator or the State (in the case of a
State exercising primary enforcement responsibility for
public water systems) determines that the water provided for
residential or similar uses for drinking, cooking, and
bathing is centrally treated or treated at the point of entry
by the provider, a pass-through entity, or the user to
achieve the equivalent level of protection provided by the
applicable national primary drinking water regulations.
``(ii) Irrigation districts.--An irrigation district in
existence prior to May 18, 1994, that provides primarily
agricultural service through a piped water system with only
incidental residential or similar use shall not be considered
to be a public water system if the system or the residential
or similar users of the system comply with subclause (II) or
(III) of clause (i).
``(C) Transition period.--A water supplier that would be a
public water system only as a result of modifications made to
this paragraph by the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of
1996 shall not be considered a public water system for
purposes of the Act until the date that is two years after
the date of enactment of this subparagraph. If a water
supplier does not serve 15 service connections (as defined in
subparagraphs (A) and (B)) or 25 people at any time after the
conclusion of the two-year period, the water supplier shall
not be considered a public water system.''.
(2) GAO Study.--The Comptroller General of the United
States shall undertake a study to--
(A) ascertain the numbers and locations of individuals and
households relying for their residential water needs,
including drinking, bathing, and cooking (or other similar
uses) on irrigation water systems, mining water systems,
industrial water systems or other water systems covered by
section 1401(4)(B) of the Safe Drinking Water Act that are
not public water systems subject to the Safe Drinking Water
Act;
(B) determine the sources and costs and affordability (to
users and systems) of water used by such populations for
their residential water needs; and
(C) review State and water system compliance with the
exclusion provisions of section 1401(4)(B) of such Act.
The Comptroller General shall submit a report to the Congress
within 3 years after the enactment of this Act containing the
results of such study.
SEC. 402. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.
(a) General.--Part A (42 U.S.C. 300f) 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 7 fiscal years following the enactment of the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. With the exception of
biomedical research, nothing in this Act shall affect or
modify any authorization for research and development under
this Act or any other provision of law.''.
(b) Critical Aquifer Protection.--Section 1427 (42 U.S.C.
300h-6) is amended as follows:
(1) Subsection (b)(1) is amended by striking ``not later
than 24 months after the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water
Act Amendments of 1986''.
(2) The table in subsection (m) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``1992-2003..............................................15,000,000.''.
(c) Wellhead Protection Areas.--The table in section
1428(k) (42 U.S.C. 300h-7(k)) is amended by adding at the end
the following:
``1992-2003..............................................30,000,000.''.
(d) Underground Injection Control Grant.--The table in
section 1443(b)(5) (42 U.S.C. 300j-2(b)(5)) is amended by
adding at the end the following:
``1992-2003..............................................15,000,000.''.
SEC. 403. NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED PROTECTION PROGRAM.
Section 1443 (42 U.S.C. 300j-2) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(d) New York City Watershed Protection Program.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator is authorized to
provide financial assistance to the State of New York for
demonstration projects implemented as part of the watershed
program for the protection and enhancement of the quality of
source waters of the New York City water supply system,
including projects necessary to comply with the criteria for
avoiding filtration contained in 40 CFR 141.71. Demonstration
projects which shall be eligible for financial assistance
shall be certified to the Administrator by the State of New
York as satisfying the purposes of this subsection. In
certifying projects to the Administrator, the State of New
York shall give priority to monitoring projects that have
undergone peer review.
``(2) Report.--Not later than 5 years after the date on
which the Administrator first provides assistance pursuant to
this paragraph, the Governor of the State of New York shall
submit a report to the Administrator on the results of
projects assisted.
``(3) Matching requirements.--Federal assistance provided
under this subsection shall not exceed 35 percent of the
total cost of the protection program being carried out for
any particular watershed or ground water recharge area.
``(4) Authorization.--There are authorized to be
appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this
subsection for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2003
$8,000,000 for each of such fiscal years for the purpose of
providing assistance to the State of New York to carry out
paragraph (1).''.
SEC. 404. ESTROGENIC SUBSTANCES SCREENING PROGRAM.
Part F is amended by adding the following at the end
thereof:
``SEC. 1466. ESTROGENIC SUBSTANCES SCREENING PROGRAM.
``(a) Development.--Not later than 2 years after the date
of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall develop
a screening program, using appropriate validated test systems
and other scientifically relevant information, to determine
whether certain substances may have an effect in humans
[[Page H6740]]
that is similar to an effect produced by a naturally
occurring estrogen, or such other endocrine effect as the
Administrator may designate.
``(b) Implementation.--Not later than 3 years after the
date of enactment of this section, after obtaining public
comment and review of the screening program described in
subsection (a) by the scientific advisory panel established
under section 25(d) of the Act of June 25, 1947 (chapter 125)
or the Science Advisory Board established by section 8 of the
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of
1978 (42 U.S.C. 4365), the Administrator shall implement the
program.
``(c) Substances.--In carrying out the screening program
described in subsection (a), the Administrator--
``(1) shall provide for the testing of all active and inert
ingredients used in products described in section 103(e) of
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9603(e)) that may be found
in sources of drinking water, and
``(2) may provide for the testing of any other substance
that may be found in sources of drinking water if the
Administrator determines that a substantial population may be
exposed to such substance.
``(d) Exemption.--Notwithstanding subsection (c), the
Administrator may, by order, exempt from the requirements of
this section a biologic substance or other substance if the
Administrator determines that the substance is anticipated
not to produce any effect in humans similar to an effect
produced by a naturally occurring estrogen.
``(e) Collection of Information.--
``(1) In general.--The Administrator shall issue an order
to a person that registers, manufactures, or imports a
substance for which testing is required under this subsection
to conduct testing in accordance with the screening program
described in subsection (a), and submit information obtained
from the testing to the Administrator, within a reasonable
time period that the Administrator determines is sufficient
for the generation of the information.
``(2) Procedures.--To the extent practicable the
Administrator shall minimize duplicative testing of the same
substance for the same endocrine effect, develop, as
appropriate, procedures for fair and equitable sharing of
test costs, and develop, as necessary, procedures for
handling of confidential business information.
``(3) Failure of registrants to submit information.--
``(A) Suspension.--If a person required to register a
substance referred to in subsection (c)(1) fails to comply
with an order under paragraph (1) of this subsection, the
Administrator shall issue a notice of intent to suspend the
sale or distribution of the substance by the person. Any
suspension proposed under this paragraph shall become final
at the end of the 30-day period beginning on the date that
the person receives the notice of intent to suspend, unless
during that period a person adversely affected by the notice
requests a hearing or the Administrator determines that the
person referred to in paragraph (1) has complied fully with
this subsection.
``(B) Hearing.--If a person requests a hearing under
subparagraph (A), the hearing shall be conducted in
accordance with section 554 of title 5, United States Code.
The only matter for resolution at the hearing shall be
whether the person has failed to comply with an order under
paragraph (1) of this subsection. A decision by the
Administrator after completion of a hearing shall be
considered to be a final agency action.
``(C) Termination of suspensions.--The Administrator shall
terminate a suspension under this paragraph issued with
respect to a person if the Administrator determines that the
person has complied fully with this subsection.
``(4) Noncompliance by other persons.--Any person (other
than a person referred to in paragraph (3)) who fails to
comply with an order under paragraph (1) shall be liable for
the same penalties and sanctions as are provided under
section 16 of the Toxic Substances Control Act (15 U.S.C.
2601 and following) in the case of a violation referred to in
that section. Such penalties and sanctions shall be assessed
and imposed in the same manner as provided in such section
16.
``(f) Agency Action.--In the case of any substance that is
found, as a result of testing and evaluation under this
section, to have an endocrine effect on humans, the
Administrator shall, as appropriate, take action under such
statutory authority as is available to the Administrator,
including consideration under other sections of this Act, as
is necessary to ensure the protection of public health.
``(g) Report to Congress.--Not later than 4 years after the
date of enactment of this section, the Administrator shall
prepare and submit to Congress a report containing--
``(1) the findings of the Administrator resulting from the
screening program described in subsection (a);
``(2) recommendations for further testing needed to
evaluate the impact on human health of the substances tested
under the screening program; and
``(3) recommendations for any further actions (including
any action described in subsection (f)) that the
Administrator determines are appropriate based on the
findings.
``(h) Savings Clause.--Nothing in this section shall be
construed to amend or modify the provisions of the Toxic
Substances Control Act or the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide,
and Rodenticide Act.''.
SEC. 405. REPORTS ON PROGRAMS ADMINISTERED DIRECTLY BY
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.
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 (which title is commonly known as
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. 406. RETURN FLOWS.
Section 3013 of Public Law 102-486 (42 U.S.C. 13551) shall
not apply to drinking water supplied by a public water system
regulated under title XIV of the Public Health Service Act
(the Safe Drinking Water Act).
SEC. 407. EMERGENCY POWERS.
Section 1431(b) is amended by striking out ``$5,000'' and
inserting in lieu thereof ``$15,000''.
SEC. 408. WATERBORNE DISEASE OCCURRENCE STUDY.
(a) System.--The Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, and the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, shall jointly establish--
(1) within 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act,
pilot waterborne disease occurrence studies for at least 5
major United States communities or public water systems; and
(2) within 5 years after the date of enactment of this Act,
a report on the findings of the pilot studies, and a national
estimate of waterborne disease occurrence.
(b) Training and Education.--The Director and Administrator
shall jointly establish a national health care provider
training and public education campaign to inform both the
professional health care provider community and the general
public about waterborne disease and the symptoms that may be
caused by infectious agents, including microbial
contaminants. In developing such a campaign, they shall seek
comment from interested groups and individuals, including
scientists, physicians, State and local governments,
environmental groups, public water systems, and vulnerable
populations.
(c) Funding.--There are authorized to be appropriated for
each of the fiscal years 1997 through 2001, $3,000,000 to
carry out this section. To the extent funds under this
section are not fully appropriated, the Administrator may use
not more than $2,000,000 of the funds from amounts reserved
under section 1452(n) for health effects studies for purposes
of this section. The Administrator may transfer a portion of
such funds to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
for such purposes.
SEC. 409. DRINKING WATER STUDIES.
(a) Subpopulations at Greater Risk.--The Administrator of
the Environmental Protection Agency shall conduct a
continuing program of studies to identify groups within the
general population that are at greater risk than the general
population of adverse health effects from exposure to
contaminants in drinking water. The study shall examine
whether and to what degree infants, children, pregnant women,
the elderly, individuals with a history of serious illness,
or other subpopulations that can be identified and
characterized are likely to experience elevated health risks,
including risks of cancer, from contaminants in drinking
water.
(b) Biological Mechanisms.--The Administrator shall conduct
studies to--
(1) understand the biomedical mechanisms by which chemical
contaminants are absorbed, distributed, metabolized, and
eliminated from the human body, so as to develop more
accurate physiologically based models of the phenomena;
(2) understand the effects of contaminants and the
biomedical mechanisms by which the contaminants cause adverse
effects (especially noncancer and infectious effects) and the
variations in the effects among humans, especially
subpopulations at greater risk of adverse effects, and
between test animals and humans; and
(3) develop new approaches to the study of complex
mixtures, such as mixtures found in drinking water,
especially to determine the prospects for synergistic or
antagonistic interactions that may affect the shape of the
dose-response relationship of the individual chemicals and
microbes, and to examine noncancer endpoints and infectious
diseases, and susceptible individuals and subpopulations.
(c) Studies on Harmful Substances in Drinking Water.--
(1) Development of studies.--The Administrator shall, after
consultation with the Secretary of Health and Human Services,
the Secretary of Agriculture, and, as appropriate, the heads
of other Federal agencies, conduct the studies described in
paragraph (2) to support the development and implementation
of the most current version of each of the following:
(A) Enhanced surface water treatment rule (59 Fed. Reg.
38832 (July 29, 1994)).
(B) Disinfectant and disinfection byproducts rule (59 Fed.
Reg. 38668 (July 29, 1994)).
(C) Ground water disinfection rule (availability of draft
summary announced at (57 Fed. Reg. 33960; July 31, 1992)).
(2) Contents of studies.--The studies required by paragraph
(1) shall include, at a minimum, each of the following:
[[Page H6741]]
(A) Toxicological studies and, if warranted,
epidemiological studies to determine what levels of exposure
from disinfectants and disinfection byproducts, if any, may
be associated with developmental and birth defects and other
potential toxic end points.
(B) Toxicological studies and, if warranted,
epidemiological studies to quantify the carcinogenic
potential from exposure to disinfection byproducts resulting
from different disinfectants.
(C) The development of dose-response curves for pathogens,
including cryptosporidium and the Norwalk virus.
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $12,500,000
for each of fiscal years 1997 through 2003.
SEC. 410. BOTTLED DRINKING WATER STANDARDS.
Section 410 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (21
U.S.C. 349) is amended as follows:
(1) By striking ``Whenever'' and inserting ``(a) Except as
provided in subsection (b), whenever''.
(2) By adding at the end thereof the following new
subsection:
``(b)(1) Not later than 180 days before the effective date
of a national primary drinking water regulation promulgated
by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency
for a contaminant under section 1412 of the Public Health
Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300g-1), the Secretary shall
promulgate a standard of quality 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. The effective date for any
such standard of quality regulation shall be the same as the
effective date for such national primary drinking water
regulation, except for any standard of quality of regulation
promulgated by the Secretary before the date of enactment of
the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 for which (as
of such date of enactment) an effective date had not been
established. In the case of a standard of quality regulation
to which such exception applies, the Secretary shall
promulgate monitoring requirements for the contaminants
covered by the regulation not later than 2 years after such
date of enactment. Such monitoring requirements shall become
effective not later than 180 days after the date on which the
monitoring requirements are promulgated.
``(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 no less stringent than
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 does not promulgate a regulation
under this subsection within the 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) In the case of a national primary drinking water
regulation that pursuant to subparagraph (A) is considered to
be a standard of quality regulation, the Secretary shall, not
later than the applicable date referred to in such
subparagraph, publish in the Federal Register a notice--
``(i) specifying the contents of such regulation, including
monitoring requirements, and
``(ii) providing that for purposes of this paragraph the
effective date for such regulation is the same as the
effective date for the regulation for purposes of title XIV
of the Public Health Service Act (or, if the exception under
paragraph (1) applies to the regulation, that the effective
date for the regulation is not later than 2 years and 180
days after the date of the enactment of the Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments of 1996).''.
SEC. 411. CLERICAL AMENDMENTS.
(a) Part B.--Part B (42 U.S.C. 300g and following) is
amended as follows:
(1) In section 1412(b)(2)(C) by striking ``paragraph
(3)(a)'' and inserting ``paragraph (3)(A)''.
(2) In section 1412(b)(8) strike ``1442(g)'' and insert
``1442(e)''.
(3) In section 1415(a)(1)(A) by inserting ``the'' before
``time the variance is granted''.
(b) Part C.--Part C (42 U.S.C. 300h and following) is
amended as follows:
(1) In section 1421(b)(3)(B)(i) by striking ``number or
States'' and inserting ``number of States''.
(2) In section 1427(k) by striking ``this subsection'' and
inserting ``this section''.
(c) Part E.--Section 1441(f) (42 U.S.C. 300j(f)) is amended
by inserting a period at the end.
(d) Section 1465(b).--Section 1465(b) (42 U.S.C. 300j-25)
is amended by striking ``as by'' and inserting ``by''.
(e) Short Title.--Section 1 of Public Law 93-523 (88 Stat.
1600) is amended by inserting ``of 1974'' after ``Act'' the
second place it appears and title XIV of the Public Health
Service Act is amended by inserting the following immediately
before part A:
``SEC. 1400. SHORT TITLE AND TABLE OF CONTENTS.
``(a) Short Title.--This title may be cited as the `Safe
Drinking Water Act'.
``(b) Table of Contents.--
``TITLE XIV--SAFETY OF PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS
``Sec. 1400. Short title and table of contents.
``Part A--Definitions
``Sec. 1401. Definitions.
``Sec. 1402. Authorization of appropriations.
``Part B--Public Water Systems
``Sec. 1411. Coverage.
``Sec. 1412. National drinking water regulations.
``Sec. 1413. State primary enforcement responsibility.
``Sec. 1414. Enforcement of drinking water regulations.
``Sec. 1415. Variances
``Sec. 1416. Exemptions.
``Sec. 1417. Prohibition on use of lead pipes, solder, and flux.
``Sec. 1418. Monitoring of contaminants.
``Sec. 1419. Capacity development.
``Part C--Protection of Underground Sources of Drinking Water
``Sec. 1421. Regulations for State programs.
``Sec. 1422. State primary enforcement responsibility.
``Sec. 1423. Enforcement of program.
``Sec. 1424. Interim regulation of underground injections.
``Sec. 1425. Optional demonstration by States relating to oil or
natural gas.
``Sec. 1426. Regulation of State programs.
``Sec. 1427. Sole source aquifer demonstration program.
``Sec. 1428. State programs to establish wellhead and source water
protection areas.
``Sec. 1429. Federal facilities.
``Part D--Emergency Powers
``Sec. 1431. Emergency powers.
``Sec. 1432. Tampering with public water systems.
``Part E--General Provisions
``Sec. 1441. Assurance of availability of adequate supplies of
chemicals necessary for treatment of water.
``Sec. 1442. Research, technical assistance, information, training of
personnel.
``Sec. 1443. Grants for State programs.
``Sec. 1444. Special study and demonstration project grants; guaranteed
loans.
``Sec. 1445. Records and inspections.
``Sec. 1446. National Drinking Water Advisory Council.
``Sec. 1447. Federal agencies.
``Sec. 1448. Judicial review.
``Sec. 1449. Citizen's civil action.
``Sec. 1450. General provisions.
``Sec. 1451. Indian tribes.
``Sec. 1452. State revolving funds.
``Sec. 1453. Water conservation plan.
``Part F--Additional Requirements To Regulate the Safety of Drinking
Water
``Sec. 1461. Definitions.
``Sec. 1462. Recall of drinking water coolers with lead-lined tanks.
``Sec. 1463. Drinking water coolers containing lead.
``Sec. 1464. Lead contamination in school drinking water.
``Sec. 1465. Federal assistance for State programs regarding lead
contamination in school drinking water.
``Sec. 1466. Estrogenic substances screening program.''.
TITLE V--ADDITIONAL ASSISTANCE FOR WATER INFRASTRUCTURE AND WATERSHEDS
SEC. 501. GENERAL PROGRAM.
(a) Technical and Financial Assistance.--The Administrator
may provide technical and financial assistance in the form of
grants to States (1) for the construction, rehabilitation,
and improvement of water supply systems, and (2) consistent
with nonpoint source management programs established under
section 319 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, for
source water quality protection programs to address
pollutants in navigable waters for the purpose of making such
waters usable by water supply systems.
(b) Limitation.--Not more than 30 percent of the amounts
appropriated to carry out this section in a fiscal year may
be used for source water quality protection programs
described in subsection (a)(2).
(c) Condition.--As a condition to receiving assistance
under this section, a State shall ensure that such assistance
is carried out in the most cost-effective manner, as
determined by the State.
[[Page H6742]]
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $50,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 1996 through 2003. Such sums shall
remain available until expended.
SEC. 502. NEW YORK CITY WATERSHED, NEW YORK.
(a) In General.--The Administrator may provide technical
and financial assistance in the form of grants for a source
water quality protection program described in section 501 for
the New York City Watershed in the State of New York.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $8,000,000 for
each of fiscal years 1996 through 2003. Such sums shall
remain available until expended.
SEC. 503. RURAL AND NATIVE VILLAGES, ALASKA.
(a) In General.--The Administrator may provide technical
and financial assistance in the form of grants to the State
of Alaska for the benefit of rural and Alaska Native villages
for the development and construction of water systems to
improve conditions in such villages and to provide technical
assistance relating to construction and operation of such
systems.
(b) Consultation.--The Administrator shall consult the
State of Alaska on methods of prioritizing the allocation of
grants made to such State under this section.
(c) Administrative Expenses.--The State of Alaska may use
not to exceed 4 percent of the amount granted to such State
under this section for administrative expenses necessary to
carry out the activities for which the grant is made.
(d) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $25,000,000.
Such sums shall remain available until expended.
SEC. 504. ACQUISITION OF LANDS.
Assistance provided with funds made available under this
title may be used for the acquisition of lands and other
interests in lands; however, nothing in this title authorizes
the acquisition of lands or other interests in lands from
other than willing sellers.
SEC. 505. FEDERAL SHARE.
The Federal share of the cost of activities for which
grants are made under this title shall be 50 percent.
SEC. 506. CONDITION ON AUTHORIZATIONS OF APPROPRIATIONS.
An authorization of appropriations under this title shall
be in effect for a fiscal year only if at least 75 percent of
the total amount of funds authorized to be appropriated for
such fiscal year by section 308 are appropriated.
SEC. 507. DEFINITIONS.
In this title, the following definitions apply:
(1) Administrator.--The term ``Administrator'' means the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency.
(2) State.--The term ``State'' means a State, the District
of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the
Pacific Islands.
(3) Water supply system.--The term ``water supply system''
means a system for the provision to the public of piped water
for human consumption if such system has at least 15 service
connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals and a
draw and fill system for the provision to the public of water
for human consumption. Such term does not include a for-
profit system that has fewer than 15 service connections used
by year-round residents of the area served by the system or a
for-profit system that regularly serves fewer than 25 year-
round residents and does not include a system owned by a
Federal agency. Such term includes (A) any collection,
treatment, storage, and distribution facilities under control
of the operator of such system and used primarily in
connection with such system, and (B) any collection or
pretreatment facilities not under such control that are used
primarily in connection with such system.
TITLE VI--DRINKING WATER RESEARCH AUTHORIZATION
SEC. 601. DRINKING WATER RESEARCH AUTHORIZATION.
There are authorized to be appropriated to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, in
addition to--
(1) amounts authorized for research under section
1412(b)(13) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (title XIV of the
Public Health Service Act);
(2) amounts authorized for research under section 409 of
the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996; and
(3) $10,000,000 from funds appropriated pursuant to this
section 1452(n) of the Safe Drinking Water Act (title XIV of
the Public Health Service Act),
such sums as may be necessary for drinking water research for
fiscal years 1997 through 2003. The annual total of the sums
referred to in this section shall not exceed $26,593,000.
SEC. 602. SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH REVIEW.
(a) In general.--The Administrator shall assign to the
Assistant Administrator for Research and Development (in this
section referred to as the ``Assistant Administrator'') the
duties of--
(1) developing a strategic plan for drinking water research
activities throughout the Environmental Protection Agency (in
this section referred to as the ``Agency'');
(2) integrating that strategic plan into ongoing Agency
planning activities; and
(3) reviewing all Agency drinking water research to ensure
the research--
(A) is of high quality; and
(B) does not duplicate any other research being conducted
by the Agency.
(b) Report.--The Assistant Administrator shall transmit
annually to the Administrator and to the Committees on
Commerce and Science of the House of Representatives and the
Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate a
report detailing--
(1) all Agency drinking water research the Assistant
Administrator finds is not of sufficiently high quality; and
(2) all Agency drinking water research the Assistant
Administrator finds duplicates other Agency research.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Pursuant to the rule, the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bililey] and the gentleman from California
[Mr. Waxman] each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time for
debate on this bill be extended by 30 minutes, such time to be equally
divided between the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] and myself.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] and
the gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] each will control 35
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley].
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I my consume.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of H.R. 3604, the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996.
More than 3 years ago, at the urging of States and local governments,
I sat down with former Congressman Jim Slattery to consider how the
Safe Drinking Water Act could be fixed.
Both Congressman Slattery and I recognized that the act was not
working. Under the existing law, EPA was on a regulatory treadmill.
We also recognized that the Safe Drinking Water Act afforded no
flexibility in implementation--the act incorporated a one-size-fits-all
philosophy towards monitoring and technology. Unfortunately, if you
weren't the right size--meaning a large public water system--well, that
was your problem.
I regret that we were not able to finish our work in the previous
Congress. But if there is any consolation in the delay--I believe that
we have a far better bill today.
H.R. 3604 contains a balanced package of reforms. The bill gives the
EPA the ability to use common sense in establishing new drinking water
standards. The Agency, for the first time, can set a drinking water
standard which balances the risk of one contaminant against another and
directs limited resources toward those contaminants which present the
greatest threat to public health.
In addition, the bill contains new emphasis on source water
protection, provisions to ensure that operators of public water systems
are properly trained, and a new program to help public water systems
maintain the capacity to meet drinking water standards.
We have also incorporated consumer-right-to-know provisions and have
provided for estrogenic screening.
Importantly, we do not impose all these new requirements on States
and local water systems without providing a source of funding. The
State Revolving Fund--which provides $1 billion per year--is explicitly
tied to Safe Drinking Water Act requirements.
Altogether, I believe we have delivered on our commitment to bring a
consensus bill forward which Members from both sides of the aisle can
support. We have incorporated the concerns of two other committees and
have attempted to put together the broadest possible agreement.
The goal of our effort has been--and always will be--the provision of
safe drinking water to our homes and our communities. I believe the
bill produced by the Commerce Committee lives up to our historic
responsibility to provide for the public health and welfare.
Mr. Speaker, I include the following material for the Record:
[[Page H6743]]
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 25, 1996.
Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed intergovernmental and private sector
mandates cost estimates for H.R. 3604, the Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments of 1996, as reported by the House
Committee on Commerce on June 24, 1996. CBO provided a
federal cost estimate for this bill on June 24, 1996.
This bill would impose new intergovernmental and private
sector mandates as defined in Public Law 104-4. The costs of
these mandates, however, would not exceed the thresholds
established in that law.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill,
Director.
congressional budget office estimated cost of intergovernmental
mandates
1. Bill number: H.R. 3604.
2. Bill title: Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996.
3. Bill status: As reported by the House Committee on
Commerce on June 24, 1996.
4. Bill purpose: H.R. 3604 would amend the Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) to authorize the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) to make grants to states for capitalizing state
revolving loan funds (SRFs). These SRFs would provide low-
cost financing for the construction of facilities to treat
drinking water. In addition, the bill would change the
process for selecting drinking water contaminants for
regulation and would allow costs and benefits to be
considered when setting standards for those contaminants. The
bill would also alter requirements for monitoring, treatment,
and public notification, and would authorize other kinds of
assistance for states and water systems.
5. Intergovernmental mandates contained in bill: H.R. 3604
would impose new mandates on both state and local
governments, but would also change the federal drinking water
program in ways that would lower the costs to public water
systems of complying with existing and future federal
requirements.
The bill would require public water systems, many of which
are publicly owned and operated, to:
adhere to new public notification requirements, including a
requirement to distribute an annual ``consumer confidence
report'' to the customers,
comply with operator certification requirements established
by the states pursuant to EPA regulations, and
provide requested information to EPA on regulated and
unregulated contaminants for a new national drinking water
database.
In addition, the bill would require states to obtain the
legal authority or ``other means'' to ensure that all new
community water systems and new non-transient, non-community
water systems demonstrate technical, managerial, and
financial capacity to comply with federal drinking water
regulations. Within four years of the bill's enactment,
states would have to develop and implement a strategy to
assist public water systems in acquiring and maintaining
technical, managerial, and financial capacity. State agencies
would be required to write reports about their efforts and
submit them to either the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) or the governor of the state.
The bill would ease drinking water requirements on public
water systems by:
changing the procedures that EPA uses to identify
contaminants for regulation under the SDWA in ways that would
likely result in fewer contaminants being regulated.
delaying the effective date of new regulations,
directing EPA to define treatment technologies that are
feasible for small drinking water systems when the agency
issues new contaminant regulations,
allowing operators of small drinking water systems to
obtain variances from drinking water standards under certain
conditions, and
allowing states to establish alternative monitoring
requirements for contaminants in drinking water.
6. Estimated direct costs of mandates to State, local, and
tribal governments:
(a) Is the $50 Million Threshold Exceeded? No.
(b) Total Direct Costs of Mandates: CBO estimates that the
annual costs of new mandates imposed by the bill on state and
local governments would total $30 million to $40 million. CBO
projects that publicly owned water systems would incur costs
of $15 million to $25 million per year to comply with
requirement to mail annual ``consumer confidence reports'' to
their customers. Publicly owned water systems would also
incur annual direct costs of $5 million to $10 million to
comply with the operator-certification requirement, beginning
in fiscal year 2001. CBO further estimates that state
governments would incur costs totaling several million
dollars per year to comply with the requirement to develop
and implement capacity development strategies for water
systems.
These additional costs to state and local governments would
be at least partially offset by a number of other changes to
the federal drinking water program that would significantly
lower the costs of complying with future requirements.
Specifically, the bill would reduce public water systems'
likely costs by changing the federal standard-setting
process, delaying the effective date of new regulations,
allowing operators to obtain variances, and allowing states
to establish alternative monitoring requirements.
(c) Estimate of Necessary Budget Authority: Not applicable.
7. Basis of estimate; The new mandates in the bill would
affect both state and local governments. Municipal water
systems would have to send annual ``consumer confidence
reports'' to their customers and would have to comply with
new operator certification requirements. They would also be
subject to new reporting and information requirements. State
governments would be required to develop and implement
strategies to improve the technical, financial, and
managerial capacities of public water systems. The estimated
impact of each of these provisions on state and local
governments is discussed below.
New mandates of local governments
New Public Notification Requirements.--Section 131 would
require EPA to issue regulations to rural community water
systems to mail an annual ``consumer confidence report'' to
each customer. The reports would contain:
information about the source of the water supplies by the
system,
the levels of any regulated contaminants detected in the
water,
the levels of unregulated contaminants for which monitoring
is required, and in some cases, a brief statement explaining
the health concerns that prompted the regulation of a
contaminant.
The governor of a state could exempt systems serving fewer
than 10,000 people from the requirement to mail the report.
Systems not required to mail the report would instead have to
publish it in local newspapers and make the information
available upon request.
CBO estimates that this new requirement would apply to
about 23,000 publicly owned community water systems that are
not already complying with similar state laws. These systems
serve about 54 million households. Based on information from
water system operators in those states with similar laws, CBO
concluded that most larger systems would be able to insert
the report into a billing statement without incurring
additional postage costs. For smaller systems, CBO assumed
that some systems could use bulk mail and that others would
have to use first-class postage. Including the cost of
printing and staff time needed to write the reports, we
estimate the aggregate national cost to be $15 million to $25
million annually for publicly owned systems.
Based on a small survey of small circulation daily
newspapers, CBO estimates that providing the option for small
systems to publish their report in newspapers would not
significantly reduce the aggregate cost of the requirement.
CBO estimates that, in general, the printing and postage
costs for a system serving 10,000 or fewer people would be
similar to the cost of a display advertisement or legal
notice.
New Operator Certification Requirements.--H.R. 3604 would
require EPA to issue regulations specifying minimum standards
for the certification of operators of community water
systems. This mandate would impose costs totaling $5 million
to $10 million annually on publicly owned systems, primarily
on very small ones. While almost every state now has an
operator certification program, many of them exempt these
small systems. CBO estimates that approximately 33,000
additional systems would be subject to operator certification
requirements as a result of this bill and that about 10,000
of those are owned and operated by local governments.
Based on information provided by EPA officials, state
officials, and associations of state and local officials, CBO
assumed that many of the smallest water systems would utilize
contractors rather than employ certified operators. Other
systems would incur costs for training and testing their
employees.
This estimate is based on a number of factors that are
highly uncertain. The bill would give EPA considerable
latitude in establishing minimum standards, and CBO cannot
predict what those standards would be. Further, we cannot
predict the extent to which EPA would allow states to
continue their current programs in lieu of adopting the new
standards. We have assumed that EPA would not require
substantial changes in existing state requirements for larger
systems. The cost of this mandate could be greater if that
were not the case. Part of the cost we have attributed to the
public sector could be shifted to the private sector if some
small water systems require individual operators to bear the
cost of obtaining their certification.
Information Requirements.--The bill would allow EPA, after
consultation with the states and with water systems, to
require water systems to provide information for use in
establishing new standards for contaminants. Under current
law, EPA can only require this information through a formal
rule-making. The bill would limit the kinds of information
EPA could require without providing funding and would require
the agency to first try to obtain the information
voluntarily. Because of these limitations, CBO does not
expect reporting costs for public water systems to increase
significantly as a result of this change.
New mandate on State governments
H.R. 3604 would require each state to obtain the legal
authority or ``other means'' to
[[Page H6744]]
ensure that all new community water systems and new non-
transient, non-community water systems demonstrate technical,
managerial, and financial capacity to comply with federal
drinking water regulations. Within four years of the bill's
enactment, states would have to develop and implement a
``capacity development strategy'' to assist public water
systems in acquiring and maintaining technical, managerial,
and financial capacity. State agencies would be required to
submit periodic reports to EPA or to the governor of the
state about the success of the strategy.
Although some states are already providing this kind of
assistance to new and existing water systems, CBO expects
that most states would have to devote additional resources to
meet this requirement. Many state agencies that oversee
drinking water systems (usually environmental or public
health agencies) do not currently have expertise in
managerial or financial operations of drinking water systems.
Therefore CBO estimates that as a whole states would have to
spend several million dollars per year to develop and
implement these strategies. How much states spend would
depend on what standard EPA applies in carrying out the
bill's instruction to withhold 20 percent of a state's SRF
grant if it has not complied with this mandate. In any
case, states receiving SRF grants from EPA would be
allowed to use some of the grant money to defray this
cost. This funding would probably offset most of the
additional costs to the states.
Changes likely to reduce compliance costs
Other provisions, discussed individually below, would
reduce the likely costs of complying with future drinking
water regulations. These future regulations, which would be
required under current law, would impose significant costs,
primarily on local public water systems. The number and
stringency of these regulations are likely to be less under
H.R. 3604, and associated cost savings would at least
partially offset the additional costs of new mandates
contained in the bill. However, CBO cannot estimate these
savings on the basis of information we currently have.
New standard-setting procedure.--H.R. 3604 would change the
procedures for selecting drinking water contaminants for
regulation and for determining permissible levels of those
contaminants in ways that would likely lower future
compliance costs for public water systems. First, it would
rescind the requirement that EPA issue rules for 25 drinking
water contaminants every three years. Thus, EPA would not
have to regulate a specific number of contaminants. Although
it is possible that, with this change, EPA would regulate
more contaminants than current law dictates, CBO expects that
the agency would regulate fewer contaminants than currently
required.
Second, the bill would require EPA to conduct a cost-
benefit analysis for national primary drinking water
regulations before they are proposed. The bill also would
require EPA, when proposing a maximum contaminant level, to
determine whether the benefits of the proposed MCL justify
the costs of complying with it. EPA would be given the
discretionary authority to establish less stringent standards
when it determines that the benefits of an MCL set at the
feasible level would not justify the cost of compliance or
when it determines that the contaminant occurs almost
exclusively in small systems. If EPA uses this discretionary
authority, it would have to set the MCL at a level that
maximizes the reduction in health risk at a cost justified by
the benefits. While current law requires EPA to perform cost/
benefit analyses of new regulations, it does not give the
agency the discretion to use those analyses as justification
for changing the standards contained in new regulations. This
change would give EPA greater discretion to set less
stringent standards in future regulations. Any use of that
discretion would lower the cost of compliance for public
water systems.
Effective date of regulations.--The bill would change the
date that primary drinking water regulations become effective
from eighteen months to three years after the date of
promulgation, unless EPA determines that an earlier date is
practicable. This change would give water systems more time
to install new equipment or take other steps necessary to
comply with the new regulation.
Small system technologies and variances.--Current law
allows EPA and the states to provide variances to small
systems if it is too costly for them to meet a standard. Such
provisions are almost never used, however. The bill would
create a Best Available Affordable Technology (BAAT)
variance. States would be allowed to grant BAAT variances to
small systems that can not otherwise afford to meet the
standard. If this variance option is widely used, it could
provide financial relief to small systems, many of which are
publicly owned.
Changes to monitoring requirements.--H.R. 3604 would change
monitoring requirements for local water systems in ways that
probably would lower compliance costs. First, the section
would allow states with primary enforcement authority
(primacy) to modify temporarily the monitoring requirements
for most regulated and unregulated contaminants. States with
primacy would be allowed to relieve water systems serving
10,000 or fewer people of monitoring for a contaminant for up
to three years if certain conditions are met.
Second, the bill would allow states with primary
enforcement authority, in some circumstances, to alter
monitoring requirements for most regulated contaminants
permanently. Third, the section would cap the number of
unregulated contaminants for which EPA could require
monitoring. Under current law, which has no such cap, EPA
requires testing for 33 unregulated contaminants.
Fourth, under ``representative monitoring plans'' developed
by states with primary enforcement authority, public water
systems serving 10,000 or fewer people would probably monitor
for unregulated contaminants less frequently than they do
now. Current law requires all systems to do such monitoring,
but under these plans, only a representative sample of water
systems would have to monitor. Finally, this section would
direct the EPA Administrator to pay the reasonable costs of
testing and analysis that small systems (those serving 3,300
or fewer people) incur by carrying out the representative
monitoring plans.
8. Appropriation or other Federal financial assistance
provided in bill to cover mandate costs:
New Federal Grant Program to Set Up State Revolving
Funds.--The bill would authorize appropriations of $8.4
billion for state and local governments over fiscal years
1997 to 2003. The largest authorization would be $7 billion
for the creation of state revolving funds. In addition, the
bill would make available for spending $725 million that was
appropriated for the SRFs in fiscal years 1994-1996. If the
authorized funds are appropriated, these SRFs would be a
significant source of low-cost infrastructure financing for
many public water supply systems.
In order to receive a federal SRF grant, states would have
to deposit matching funds of 20 percent into their revolving
fund. The bill would instruct EPA to withhold 20 percent of
an SRF grant to a state if the state has not met EPA's
requirements for an operator certification program. EPA would
also be instructed to withhold 20 percent of an SRF grant to
a state if the state has not met federal requirements for
capacity development programs.
The bill would allow states to use a portion of their SRF
grants to help pay for the cost of developing and
implementing capacity development strategies. However, in
order to use that funding, states would have to take steps to
become eligible for an SRF grant and provide the required 20
percent state match to receive the grant.
The bill would allow a state to spend up to 15 percent of
its SRF grant on certain activities, but only up to 10
percent on any one activity. The allowable activities would
include providing assistance to water systems for developing
technical, managerial, and financial capacity. The bill would
also allow a state with primary enforcement authority to
spend up to 10 percent of its SRF grant on four different
kinds of activities, one of which is developing and
implementing a capacity development strategy. In order to do
so, states would have to match such expenditures with an
equal amount of state funds, at least half of which would
have to exceed the amount the state spent supervising public
water systems in fiscal year 1993.
CBO expects that most, if not all, states would apply to
EPA for SRF grant funding and thus would be able to use a
portion of their grant for funding state activities,
including developing and implementing their capacity
development strategies.
Assuming appropriation of the full amounts authorized, CBO
estimates that, if states claim the maximum amounts available
for these activities, about $1.6 billion in SRF funds would
be available to states over the fiscal years 1997 through
2003. While states would be required to provide matching
funds to receive SRF grants and, in some cases, to use the
grant money for purposes other than capitalizing their SRF,
CBO estimates that they would be able to pay for most of
their capacity development activities with federal funding.
Other Authorizations of Appropriations.--Section 302 of the
bill would authorize appropriations of $15 million for fiscal
years 1997 through 2003 to be used by EPA to provide
technical assistance to small public water systems. Such
assistance may include circuit-rider programs, training, and
preliminary engineering evaluations. The purpose of such
assistance would be to enable small public water systems to
achieve and maintain compliance with national primary
drinking water regulations.
Section 303 would extend the authorization for grants to
the states for public water system supervision (PWSS)
programs through fiscal year 2003 at $100 million per year
and in some situations would allow states to supplement their
PWSS grant with money from their SRF capitalization grant.
The PWSS programs implement the Safe Drinking Water Act at
the level through enforcement, staff training, data
management, sanitary surveys, and certification of testing
laboratories.
Section 304 would authorize appropriations of $10 million
annually for fiscal years 1997 through 2003 for EPA to carry
out a monitoring program for unregulated contaminants. Based
on regulations promulgated by EPA, each state would have to
develop a plan for representative sampling of small systems
serving a population of 10,000 or less. The bill would
require EPA to use some of the appropriated funds as grants
for these small systems to pay for the costs of monitoring
unregulated contaminants.
Section 402 would extend the authorization of
appropriations for EPA's sole source aquifer demonstration
program at $15 million for
[[Page H6745]]
each of fiscal years 1997 through 2003. This program provides
50 percent matching grants to states and localities for
projects to protect critical aquifers. This section would
also extend the authorization of appropriations for EPA's
wellhead protection program at $30 million through fiscal
year 2003. This program provides matching grants to states to
fund their efforts to protect the areas around water wells.
Section 403 would authorize appropriations of $15 million
annually through fiscal year 2003 to help fund a watershed
protection program for the city of New York, Federal
assistance for this program would be capped at 35 percent.
9. Other impacts on State, local, and tribal governments:
Several sections of the bill would increase the
responsibilities of states only if they have chosen to accept
primary enforcement responsibility for national drinking
water regulations. Every state except Wyoming currently has
primary enforcement authority. To receive primacy for a
particular regulation, a state must adopt its own regulation
that is at least as stringent as the federal regulation, and
it must have adequate procedures for enforcing that
regulation. If states do not accept primacy, EPA will enforce
the provisions of the SDWA in that state. These additional
responsibilities are not mandates as defined in Public Law
104-4 because states have the option of not accepting primary
enforcement responsibility.
Operator Certification Requirements.--H.R. 3604 would
require state agencies that exercise primary enforcement
responsibility to adopt and implement EPA regulations
requiring the certification of water system operators. Based
on information provided by the Association of State Drinking
Water Administrators, CBO estimates that states could incur
costs totaling about $5 million to comply with this
requirement. These costs would be incurred by the 37 states
that now exempt very small systems from their certification
programs.
The bill would allow states with primary enforcement
authority to use a portion of their SRF grant to defray the
cost of this new primacy condition, but states would still be
required to commit some of their own resources. The bill
would also allow a state with primary enforcement authority
to spend up to 10 percent of its SRF grant on four different
kinds of activities, one of which is implementing an operator
certification program. In order to do so, however, states
would have to match such expenditures with an equal amount of
state funds, at least half of which would have to exceed the
amount the state spent supervising public water systems in
fiscal year 1993.
Representative Monitoring Plan.--The bill would require
states with primary enforcement authority to develop a
``representative monitoring plan'' to assess the occurrence
of unregulated contaminants in small and medium water systems
(those serving 10,000 or fewer people). Under these plans,
only a representative sample of water systems in each state
would be required to monitor for unregulated contaminants.
Current law requires all systems to do such monitoring. While
these plans could reduce the cost of monitoring for the water
systems, they would require extra effort by the states.
10. Previous CBO estimate: None.
11. Estimate prepared by: Pepper Santalucia.
12. Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine (for Paul N.
Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis).
congressional budget office estimate of costs of private-sector
mandates
1. Bill number: H.R. 3604.
2. Bill title: Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996.
3. Bill status: As reported by the House Committee on
Commerce on June 24, 1996.
4. Bill purpose: H.R. 3604 would amend and reauthorize the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The purpose of the SDWA is to
protect the public drinking water supplies from harmful
contaminants. The SDWA is administered through regulatory
programs that establish standards and treatment requirements
for drinking water and ground water. SDWA regulations apply
to both privately and publicly owned systems that serve at
least 25 people (or 15 service connections) at least 60 days
per year. H.R. 3604 would authorize the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to make grants to states for
capitalizing state revolving loan funds (SRFs). These SRFs
would provide low-cost financing for the construction of
facilities to treat drinking water. Other major provisions of
the bill would:
amend the procedures used for the selection of contaminants
for regulation based on an analysis of costs, benefits and
relative risk,
authorize variances for small systems that cannot afford to
comply with national standards,
direct EPA to define treatment technologies that are
feasible for small drinking water systems when the agency
issues new contaminant regulations,
allow states to establish an alternative monitoring program
for contaminants in drinking water,
require states to ensure that new public water systems have
the technical expertise and financial resources to implement
the SDWA, and
authorize appropriations of $100 million a year for state
public water system supervision (PWSS) programs, $15 million
a year for protecting underground drinking water sources, $30
million a year for protecting drinking water wellhead areas,
and $15 million a year for assisting small drinking water
systems.
5. Private-sector mandates contained in bill: H.R. 3604
would impose new mandates on public water systems, businesses
in the plumbing industry, manufacturers of certain chemical
products, and manufacturers of bottled drinking water.
However, the bill also would change the federal drinking
water program in ways that would lower the costs to public
water systems of complying with existing federal requirements
and that would lower the likely cost of complying with future
requirements. Over 50 percent of public water systems are
privately owned. A large portion of privately owned water
systems are relatively small, serving less than 10,000
households. Many provisions of the bill would directly reduce
the compliance costs of these systems and provide for grants
and technical assistance.
The bill contains several new mandates on public water
system. Specifically, the bill would require water systems
to:
comply with operator certification requirements established
by the states pursuant to EPA regulations.
adhere to new public notification requirements, including a
requirement to distribute an annual ``consumer confidence
report'' to their customers, and
provide requested information to EPA for use in
establishing new standards for contaminants.
The bill also contains new mandates on the bottled-water
industry, certain segments of the plumbing industry, and
manufacturers of certain chemicals. H.R. 3640, if enacted,
would:
impose the standards set for tap water under the SDWA as
regulations on the quality of bottled water if the Food and
Drug Administration has not acted within 180 days of the
issuance of the tap water standards by EPA,
expand the ban on the use of materials containing lead in
drinking water systems and home plumbing, and
require businesses that register, manufacture, or import
certain products to screen for substances that may have an
effect on humans that is similar to an effect produced by
naturally occurring estrogen, or other endocrine effects as
directed by EPA.
The bill would reduce public water systems' likely cost of
complying with future regulations by:
changing the procedures that EPA uses to identify
contaminants for regulation under the SDWA in ways that would
likely result in fewer contaminants being regulated,
delaying the effective date of new regulations,
directing EPA to define treatment technologies that are
feasible for small drinking water systems when the agency
issues new contaminant regulations,
allowing operators of small drinking water systems greater
flexibility to obtain variances from drinking water standards
under certain conditions, and
allowing states to establish alternative monitoring
requirements for contaminants in drinking water.
6. Estimated direct cost to the private sector: The net
direct costs of the private-sector mandates identified in
this bill would not likely exceed the $100 million threshold
established in Public Law 104-4. Although mandates become
effective at different dates, CBO estimates that the
aggregate direct cost of mandates in this bill for which we
were able to obtain data would range from $40 million to $60
million annually for the first five years. Greater
uncertainty exists for mandates that become effective in
later years. Specifically, costs for estrogenic testing under
Section 404 could exceed the threshold if more expensive
tests become required. We further estimate that the costs of
these new mandates on the private sector would be at least
partially offset by savings from changes the bill would make
in the standard-setting process and in other aspects of the
federal drinking water program. These changes, which are the
same as those resulting in savings to publicly owned systems,
would significantly lower the costs privately owned systems
would incur to comply with future regulatory requirements.
CBO estimates that privately owned water systems would
incur direct costs of $10 million to $15 million per year to
comply with a new requirement to mail annual ``consumer
confidence reports'' to their customers. Privately owned
water systems would also incur annual direct costs of $15
million to $20 million to comply with the new operator-
certification requirement, beginning in fiscal year 2001. CBO
estimates that the costs to manufacturers and importers of
substances that would be subject to estrogen testing would
initially range from $15 million to $25 million annually. (In
later years, after an initial period of testing, the costs
could be more than $100 million as more sophisticated tests
may be required to determine longer term effects). The
incremental costs of expanding the ban on lead materials to
the plumbing industry would be negligible, as most in the
industry have already started to comply with the increased
ban on lead in plumbing fittings and fixtures. CBO also
estimates that the incremental costs to the bottled-water
industry would be negligible as most manufacturers attempt to
comply with EPA standards for tap water where appropriate for
bottled water.
[[Page H6746]]
New mandates on the private sector
New Operator Certification Requirements.--H.R. 3604 would
require EPA to issue regulations specifying minimum standards
for the certification of operators of community water
systems. This mandate would impose costs totaling $25 million
to $30 million annually on publicly and privately owned
systems, primarily on very small water systems. While almost
every state now has an operator certification program, many
of them exempt these small systems. CBO estimates that
approximately 33,000 additional public water systems would be
subject to operator certification requirements as a result of
this bill and about 23,000 of those are privately owned.
Thus, CBO estimates that the incremental costs to privately
owned water systems would range from $15 million to $20
million per year to comply with the new federal requirements
for operator certification.
Based on information provided by EPA officials, state
officials, and associations of state and local officials, CBO
assumed that many of the smallest water systems would utilize
contractors rather than employ certified operators. Other
systems would incur costs for training and testing of their
employees.
This estimate is based on a number of factors that are
highly uncertain. The bill would give EPA considerable
latitude in establishing minimum standards, and CBO cannot
predict what those standards would be. Further, we cannot
predict the extent to which EPA would allow states to
continue their programs in lieu of adopting the new
standards. We have assumed that EPA would not require
substantial changes in existing state requirements for large
systems. The cost of this mandate could be greater if that
were not the case. Part of the cost we have attributed to the
public sector could be shifted to the private sector if some
small water systems require individual operators to bear the
cost of obtaining their certification.
New Public Notification Requirements.--Section 131 would
require EPA to issue regulations to require community water
systems to mail an annual ``consumer confidence report'' to
each customer. The reports would contain:
information about the source of the water supplied by the
system,
the levels of any regulated contaminants detected in the
water,
the levels of unregulated contaminants for which monitoring
is required, and
in some cases, a brief statement explaining the health
concerns that prompted the regulation of a contaminant.
The governor of a state could exempt systems serving fewer
than 10,000 people from the requirement to mail the report.
Systems not required to mail the report would instead have to
publish it in local newspapers and make the information
available upon request.
CBO estimates that this new requirement would apply to
about 30,000 privately owned community water systems that are
not already complying with similar state laws. These systems
serve about 15 million households. Based on information from
water system operators in those states with similar laws, CBO
estimates that it would cost $10 million to $15 million
annually for these privately owned systems to prepare and
mail these reports. The estimate includes: the cost of
printing a report, the cost of staff time to develop a
report, and the cost of mailing reports to customers. CBO
does not expect that providing the option for small systems
(serving under 10,000) to publish the report in local
newspapers would significantly reduced the aggregate cost of
the requirement.
Information Requirements.--The bill would allow EPA, after
consultation with the states and with water systems, to
require water systems to provide information for use in
establishing new standards for contaminants. Under current
law, EPA can only require this information through a formal
rule-making process. The bill would limit the kinds of
information EPA could require without providing funding and
would require the agency to first try to obtain the
information voluntarily. Because of these limitations, CBO
does not expect reporting costs for public water systems to
increase significantly as a result of this change.
New Bottled Drinking Water Standards.--Section 410 of the
bill would direct the Federal Drug Administration (FDA) to
establish regulations for bottled water for each contaminant
for which the EPA has promulgated a rule for drinking water.
The regulations are to be issued no later than 180 days after
tap water standards have been set and are to be no less
stringent. If FDA fails to act within the 180-day period, the
maximum contaminant levels established for tap water and
would apply to bottled water. Industry representatives claim
that they already meet and most likely exceed federal
standards for drinking water. The likely incremental effect
of this provision would be to influence how quickly federal
rules are promulgated for bottled water. The incremental
compliance costs to the industry of this provision would be
negligible.
New Ban on Lead Plumbing Fixtures.--Section 141 of the bill
would ban the use of plumbing fittings and fixtures that
exceed established lead leaching rates and prohibit the use
and sale of leaded solder and flux unless it is clearly
labeled to prevent its use in plumbing delivering water for
human consumption. Current law already bans the use of pipe,
solder or flux containing lead in public water systems and
residential plumbing intended for human consumption. H.R.
3604 would add a ban on the use of lead plumbing fittings and
fixtures and defines ``lead free'' to be based on a consensus
standard to be established by The National Sanitation
Foundation (a private certifier). Industry experts consulted
by CBO indicate that these provisions codify current activity
in the industry and would not create significant incremental
compliance costs.
New Estrogenic Substances Screening Program.--Section 404
would direct EPA to establish a screening program to
determine whether certain pesticides and other chemicals may
affect the endocrine system in ways similar to the natural
hormone estrogen. After a two-year period to develop
appropriate validated test systems, EPA would require persons
who register pesticides and chemicals, or who manufacture or
import targeted substances to conduct testing in accordance
with the screening program. Based on information provided by
research scientists, industry experts and EPA officials, CBO
assumed that an initial screening period would be necessary
to begin separating out those pesticides and chemicals from
the substances targeted by EPA that would not likely have an
effect on the endocrine system. Experts consulted by CBO
indicated that the initial stage of the screening program
would probably involve a set of short-term tests designed to
screen for an indication of an endocrine-like effect at the
cellular level.
Cost estimates for a set of these tests range from $10,000
to $15,000, depending on the number and types of tests that
would be validated by EPA to be included in an initial
screening program. The group of substances eligible for
testing include active and inert ingredients from pesticides
and industrial chemicals. Experts consulted by CBO indicate
that a range of 1,500 to 1,700 substances could be tested in
an initial screening program. Based on these data, CBO
estimates the cost of testing to manufacturers and importers
could range from $15 million to $25 million. After a period
of initial screening, scientists and EPA officials indicated
that more sophisticated tests would probably be required to
analyze the longer-term effects of the substances that remain
of importance. These tests could be similar in nature to the
multi-generational tests conducted under current law (FIFRA
and TSCA) and could cost on average about $500,000 per test.
If such additional screening were required by EPA, the costs
to the private sector could increase to over $100 million
in years after the initial testing has been completed.
Changes likely to reduce compliance costs
Several provisions in H.R. 3604 should result in savings to
the private sector relative to current law. The additional
costs to the private sector of mandates in the bill would be
at least partially offset by a number of other changes to the
federal drinking water program that would significantly lower
the costs of complying with future requirements.
Specifically, the bill would reduce public water systems'
likely costs by changing the federal standard-setting
process, delaying the effective date of new regulations,
allowing operators to obtain variances, and allowing states
to establish alternative monitoring requirements. Major
provisions that have potential to result in savings are
discussed below.
New Standard-Setting Procedure.--H.R. 3604 would change the
procedures for selecting drinking water contaminants for
regulation and for determining permissible levels of those
contaminants in ways that would likely lower future
compliance costs for public water systems. The bill would
rescind the requirement that EPA issue rules for 25 drinking
water contaminants every three years. Thus, EPA would not
have to regulate a specific number of contaminants. Although
it is possible that, with this change, EPA would regulate
more new contaminants than current law dictates, CBO expects
that the agency would actually regulate fewer new
contaminants than currently required.
Second, the bill would require EPA to conduct a cost-
benefit analysis for national primary drinking water
regulations before they are proposed. The bill also would
require EPA, when proposing a maximum contaminant level
(MCL), to determine whether the benefits of the proposed MCL
justify the costs of complying with it. EPA would be given
the discretionary authority to establish less stringent
standards when it determines that the benefits of an MCL set
at the feasible level would not justify the cost of
compliance or when it determines that the contaminant occurs
almost exclusively in small systems. If EPA uses this
discretionary authority, it would have to set the MCL at a
level that maximizes the reduction in health risk at a cost
justified by the benefits. While current law requires EPA to
perform cost/benefit analyses of new regulations, it does not
give the agency the discretion to use those analyses as
justification for changing the standards contained in new
regulations. This change in current law would give EPA
greater discretion to set less stringent standards in future
regulations. Any use of that discretion would lower the cost
of compliance for public water systems.
Effective Date of Regulations.--The bill would change the
date that primary drinking water regulations become effective
from eighteen months to three years after the date of
promulgation, unless EPA determines that an earlier date is
practicable. This change would give water systems more
[[Page H6747]]
time to install new equipment or take other steps necessary
to comply with the new regulation.
Small System Technologies and Variances.--Current law
allows EPA and the states to provide variances to small
systems if it is too costly for them to meet a standard. Such
provisions are almost never used, however. Section 142 of the
bill would create a Best Available Affordable Technology
(BAAT) variance. States would be allowed to grant BAAT
variances to small systems that can not otherwise afford to
meet the standard. If this variance option is widely used, it
could provide financial relief to small systems, many of
which are privately owned.
Changes to Monitoring Requirements.--H.R. 3604 would change
monitoring requirements for local water systems in ways that
probably would lower compliance costs. First, the section
would allow states with primary enforcement authority
(primacy) to modify temporarily the monitoring requirements
for most regulated and unregulated contaminants. States with
primacy would be allowed to relieve water systems serving
10,000 or fewer people of monitoring for a contaminant for up
to three years if certain conditions are met.
Second, the bill would allow states with primacy, in some
circumstances, to alter monitoring requirements for most
regulated contaminants permanently. Third, the bill would cap
the number of unregulated contaminants for which EPA could
require monitoring. Under current law, which has no such cap,
EPA requires testing for 33 unregulated contaminants.
Fourth, the bill would require states with primacy to
develop a ``representative monitoring plan'' to assess the
occurrence of unregulated contaminants in small and medium
water systems (those serving 10,000 or fewer people). Under
these plans, only a representative sample of water systems in
each state would be required to monitor for unregulated
contaminants. Because current law requires all systems to do
such monitoring, these plans could reduce the cost of
monitoring for the water systems. Finally, this section would
direct the EPA Administrator to pay the reasonable costs of
testing and analysis that small systems incur by carrying out
the representative monitoring plans.
7. Appropriations or other Federal financial assistance:
New Federal Grant Program to Set Up State Revolving
Funds.--The bill would authorize appropriations of $7.8
billion for state and local governments over fiscal years
1997 to 2003 in part to be used in various programs to assist
publicly and privately owned water systems. The largest
authorization would be $7 billion for the creation of state
revolving funds (SRFs). In addition, the bill would make
available for spending $725 million that was appropriated for
the SRFs in fiscal years 1994-1996. If the authorized funds
are appropriated, these SRFs would be a significant source of
low-cost infrastructure financing for many public water
supply systems.
The bill, under section 308, would establish a new State
Revolving Fund (SRF) program for drinking water
infrastructure. The bill authorizes $1 billion per year
through fiscal year 2003 for capitalization grants. The
federal government would provide capitalization grants to
state-run SRFs. States would use these funds to make grants
and loans to public water systems to facilitate compliance
with the Safe Drinking Water Act. Further, the bill would
authorize EPA to reserve up to 2 percent of its annual grant
to provide technical assistance to small water systems
serving a population of 10,000 or less. Assistance may
include financial management, planning and design, source
water protection, or system restructuring.
In order to receive a federal SRF grant, states would have
to deposit matching funds of 20 percent into their revolving
fund. The bill would instruct EPA to withhold 20 percent of
an SRF grant to a state if the state has not met EPA's
requirements for an operator certification program. EPA would
also be instructed to withhold twenty percent of an SRF grant
to a state if the state has not met federal requirements for
capacity development programs.
Other Authorizations of Appropriations.--Section 302 of the
bill would authorize $15 million for fiscal years 1997
through 2003 to be used by EPA to provide technical
assistance to small public water systems. Such assistance may
include circuit-rider programs, training, and preliminary
engineering evaluations. The purpose of such assistance would
be to enable small public water systems to achieve and
maintain compliance with national primary drinking water
regulations.
Section 303 of the bill would extend the authorization for
grants to the states for public water system supervision
(PWSS) programs through fiscal year 2003 at $100 million per
year and in some situations would allow states to supplement
their PWSS grant with money from their SRF capitalization
grant. The PWSS programs implement the Safe Drinking Water
Act at the state level through enforcement, staff training,
data management, sanitary surveys, and certification of
testing laboratories. Some of these funds may be used to pay
for training operators of privately owned systems.
Section 304 of the bill would authorize appropriations of
$10 million annually for fiscal years 1997 through 2003 for
EPA to carry out a monitoring program for unregulated
contaminants. Based on regulations promulgated by EPA, each
state would have to develop a plan for representative
sampling of small systems serving a population of 10,000 or
less. The bill would require EPA to use some of the
appropriated funds as grants for these small systems to pay
for the costs of monitoring unregulated contaminants.
8. Previous CBO estimate: None
9. Estimate prepared by: Terry Dinan and Patrice Gordon.
10. Estimate approved by: Jan Acton, Assistant Director for
Natural Resources and Commerce.
____
Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, June 11, 1996.
Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: I applaud your work and the efforts of
other key members of the Committee on Commerce to reach
bipartisan agreement on a strengthened Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA). As you prepare for Full Committee mark-up and
future steps in the legislative process, I would like to
provide you with the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
initial views on the bill reported by the Subcommittee on
health and Environment, as well as an assessment of EPA's
ability to implement provisions of the bill.
Ensuring the safety of the water we drink every day is one
of the most fundamental responsibilities of government, and
one of President Clinton's top environmental priorities. In
September 1993, the Administration sent to Congress ten
recommendations for SDWA reauthorization. We seek a
reauthorized Act that provides responsible regulatory
improvements coupled with stronger `preventive'' approaches
and public information along with increased State and local
funding--all of which will improve public health protection.
The Committee's bill achieves these goals by drawing on
many of the strongest elements of the Senate bill, S. 1316,
while making essential improvements in several key areas. The
Committee's improvements in the area of ``prevention'' are
perhaps the most significant. The bill reflects the
Administration's recommendations to fundamentally improve the
ability of water systems and States to prevent drinking water
safety problems and avoid public health endangerment in the
future. Preventing pollution of drinking water sources in the
first place can reduce the cost of treating water ``after the
fact.'' The bill provides for the delineation and assessment
of source water areas, as in the Senate bill, but provides
States with extensive flexibility to develop and fund their
own source water protection programs and local protection
projects. We strongly support this flexibility; State and
local initiatives should not be stifled by overly
prescriptive statutory requirements. In addition, the bill
strengthens small system assistance, operator training and
certification, and State programs to encourage greater
technical, financial, and managerial capacity among the
nation's water systems.
We applaud the Commerce for including provisions to improve
consumer awareness. Public access to information on drinking
water safety is long overdue. We are pleased to see the
Committee has included an estrogen screening program that
will advance our understanding of endocrine disrupters and
their potential health effects. These provisions and the
stronger prevention focus in the bill, if passed into law,
would signal a revitalized national commitment to meet the
challenge of safe and affordable drinking water long into the
future.
The Committee's bill, like the Senate bill, includes
several provisions that address current implementation
problems faced by water systems, States, and EPA--most
notably, monitoring flexibility, workable exemptions, small
system assistance, small system technology variances, and
more funding for States. The bill also establishes the
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (SRF) proposed by
President Clinton, which will provide funding to communities
to improve drinking water safety. I am concerned, however,
that the total level of ``taps'' from the SRF to fund
specific activities will limit the availability of dollars
needed for building a permanent source of revolving funds.
Finally, the Committee's bill builds upon the Senate's
balanced framework for selecting contaminants and setting
standards, but eliminates duplicative procedural hurdles that
could cause unnecessary delays in future safety standards.
The bill also has a special provision to preserve the
balanced framework that was agreed upon as part of a
negotiated rulemaking for setting future standards for
disinfection byprodudcts and Cryptosporidium.
The Administration has steadfastly supported improvements
to SDWA along the lines of the bill reported by the
Subcommittee, and EPA has taken a number of steps to prepare
for these improvements. Over the last year we have worked
hard with stakeholders to realign our resources to reflect
priority drinking water concerns. We believe our extensive
outreach effort will bolster future partnerships for
implementing SDWA. In addition, our planned reorganization of
the drinking water program should improve the Agency's
ability to strengthen its scientific work in drinking water
while maintaining other priority activities.
EPA's responsibilities in the bill will present significant
implementation challenges. Important new efforts to boost
stakeholder involvement and strengthen science will
undoubtedly make some time frames
[[Page H6748]]
difficult and strain current Agency resources. Timely
implementation is achievable, however, depending on adequate
levels of future funding. We look forward to working together
to assure there are resources necessary to allow
implementation of the important public health protections in
this bill.
I appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the
bill. We may have additional comments as we conduct a more
detailed review of individual provisions. I look forward to
working with the Committee to secure final passage of SDWA
reauthorization that provides balanced regulatory
improvements, new funding, strong prevention, and public
information.
Sincerely,
Carol M. Browner.
____
June 11, 1996.
Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, U.S. House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We write to express our appreciation for
your hard work in developing H.R. 3604, the bipartisan bill
to reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act reported by the
Health and Environment Subcommittee on June 6. We urge the
Commerce Committee and the House to approve that bill as
expeditiously as possible to keep the legislative process
moving forward.
First and foremost, H.R. 3604 improves the protection of
public health. It represents a significant advance over
current law and over the bill approved by the House in 1994.
Among other significant changes, the measure approved in
subcommittee eliminates the requirement for the Environmental
Protection Agency to regulate 25 new contaminants every three
years and instead focuses attention on contaminants that
actually occur or are likely to occur in drinking water. The
bill improves the current standard setting process by
allowing EPA to balance risks and to consider costs and
benefits in setting most new standard. It also addresses the
technology needs of small water systems, allows some relief
from monitoring requirements when contaminants do not occur
in the drinking water in a given community, and authorizes a
new state revolving fund for much needed investments in
drinking water infrastructure. These changes and others are
important improvements over the current law.
As you know, the bill also includes several expanded
federal authorities and new mandates on states, local
governments, and water suppliers about which we have some
concerns. We await the Congressional Budget Office analysis
of the costs of these mandates.
We will continue to work with you and your colleagues in
the Senate to assure that the Safe Drinking Water Act
reauthorization bill is enacted into law this year, providing
the public with both safe and affordable drinking water.
Sincerely,
Governor Tommy G. Thompson, Chairman, National Governors'
Association;
Gregory S. Lashutka, President, National League Cities;
Norman B. Rice, President, The U.S. Conference of Mayors;
Douglas R. Bovin, President, National Association of
Countries;
James J. Lack, President, National Conference of State
Legislature;
David L. Tippin, President, Association of Metropolitan
Water Agencies;
Karl F. Kohlhoff, President, American Water Works
Association;
Ronald S. Dugan, President, National Association of Water
Companies;
James K. Cleland, President, Association of State
Drinking Water Administrators;
Fred N. Pfeiffer, President National Water Resources
Association.
____
Campaign for Safe and
Affordable Drinking Water,
June 21, 1996.
Hon. Thomas Bliley,
House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Chairman Bliley: We are writing to thank you for your
leadership in negotiating and achieving unanimous Committee
passage of the ``Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996,'' H.R.
3604, and to express our appreciation for your attention to
our views in the legislative process. We do not agree with
all of the decisions that the Committee reached, but we do
believe that our concerns received full and fair
consideration.
Although we did not support S. 1316 as it was passed by the
Senate, we are pleased to be able to endorse H.R. 3604. We
support it on balance because it provides a number of
important public health protections, including:
The right-to-know provision, which requires water systems
to issue drinking water quality reports to consumers.
Prevention provisions, including an improved source water
assessment, operator certification, and capacity development
sections.
A reasonable radon provision that establishes a rational
process for setting a standard for this important cancer-
causing contaminant.
More workable small system provisions. Small system
exemptions and variances would be limited to water systems
serving less than 3,300 customers. These provisions would
encourage and facilitate compliance rather than needlessly
waiving public health protection requirements.
Improved monitoring provisions for unregulated
contaminants, tying monitoring relief to source water
assessments, and requiring a disease monitoring study.
We continue to have, of course, objections to some of the
language included in H.R. 3604, particularly the provisions
affecting citizen suits, standard setting (although we
recognize that the House language improves upon the Senate
proposal), source water program funding, and information
gathering. Accordingly, our continued support for H.R. 3604
will be predicated upon maintaining the important
improvements the Commerce Committee adopted.
Sincerely,
20/20 Vision;
Gary Rose, Aids Action Council;
Susan Polan, American Cancer Society;
Ted Morton, American Oceans Campaign;
Dr. Fernando Trevino, American Public Health Association;
Beth Norcross, American Rivers;
Michael Hirshfield, PhD., Chesapeake Bay Foundation;
Roberta Hazen-Aranson, Childhood Lead Action Project, RI;
Winonah Hauter, Citizen Action;
Mary Clark, Citizen Action of New York;
Paul Schwartz, Clean Water Action;
Ginny Yingling, Clean Water Action Alliance of Minnesota;
Beth Blissman, Lorain Grenado, Steering Committee,
COPEEN, Colorado People's Environmental and Economic
Network;
Diana Neidle, Consumer Federation of America;
Donald Clark, Cornicopia Network of New Jersey, Inc.;
James K. Wyerman, Defenders of Wildlife;
Phil Clapp, Environmental Information Center;
Brian Cohen, Environmental Working Group;
Velma Smith, Friends of the Earth;
Joanne Royce, Government Accountability Project;
Tom FitzGerald, Kentucky Resources Council;
Jan Conley, Lake Superior Greens;
Judy Pannullo, Long Island Progressive Coalition;
Dr. Edward B. Smart, Metropolitan Ecumenical Ministry;
Aisha Ikramuddin, Mothers & Others;
Mary Marra, National Wildlife Federation;
Cleo Manual, National Consumers League;
Erik Olson, Natural Resources Defence Council;
Rev. Albert G. Cohen, Network for Environmental &
Economic Responsibility;
Amy Goldsmith, New Jersey Environmental Federation;
Bruce R. Carpenter, New York Rivers United;
Todd Miller, North Carolina Coastal Federation;
Debbie Ortman, Northern Environmental Network;
Alfonso Lopez, Physicians for Social Responsibility;
Rabbi David Sapperstein; Religious Action Center;
Alison Walsh, Save the Bay, Rhode Island;
Mark Pelavin, Union of American Hebrew Congregations;
Daniel Rosenberg, U.S. PIRG;
Parker Blackmun, WashPIRG;
Robert Hudek, Wisconsin Citizen Action.
____
Clean Water Council,
May 29, 1996.
Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
Chairman, House Commerce Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The undersigned members of the Clean
Water Council represent employers and independent
professionals who finance, design, construct, and maintain
drinking water delivery and treatment facilities. We urge you
to support timely action on legislation to reauthorize the
Safe Drinking Water Act and create a State Revolving Loan
Fund (SRF) Program to help states finance capital investment
and improvements in drinking water infrastructure.
The proposed drinking water SRF program would be an
efficient and cost-effective means of providing capital for
the construction of drinking water delivery and treatment
facilities. The need for the program is well documented.
Growing demands on our aging and sometimes nonexistent
infrastructure often force cash-strapped communities to patch
the leaks and stretch the infrastructure to unsafe limits for
lack of financial resources. Water main breaks, boil water
orders, and dry fire hydrants are routine occurrences and
pose unacceptable risks to our families. A 1990 report
published by the Clean Water Council demonstrated a $2-
billion annual drinking water infrastructure deficit above
and beyond what the states themselves are expected to invest.
Furthermore, clean water infrastructure is essential to
environmental protection, private sector productivity and
profitability, and job creation. Half of the estimated 57,000
jobs created for every $1 billion invested are permanent
jobs. Clean water construction, rehabilitation, and
maintenance also increase the local tax base. A dependable
network of pipes and treatment facilities attracts new homes
and businesses to a community. This is an area where
environmental protection and economic growth go hand-in-hand.
[[Page H6749]]
Your efforts to move safe drinking water legislation this
year are an investment in America's clean water future.
Sincerely,
The Clean Water Council,
American Consulting Engineers Council;
American Portland Cement Alliance;
American Road and Transportation Builders Association;
American Society of Civil Engineers;
American Subcontractors Association;
Associated Equipment Distributors;
Associated General Contractors of America;
Constructed Industry Manufacturers Association;
Council of Infrastructure Financing Authorities;
Equipment Manufacturers Institute;
International Spiral Rib Pipe Association;
National Aggregates Association;
National Constructors Association;
National Precast Concrete Association;
National Ready Mixed Concrete Association;
National Stone Association;
National Utility Contractors Association;
Uni-Bell PVC Pipe Association;
Water and Sewer Distributors of America;
Water and Wastewater Equipment Manufacturers Association.
____
Council of Infrastructure
Financing Authorities,
Washington, DC, June 13, 1996.
Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
Chairman, Commerce Committee, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: We want to extend our congratulations to
you, the members of your Committee and staff for your
skillful legislative effort in fashioning a bi-partisan
consensus bill that moved swiftly through your Committee to
reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act. H.R. 3604 is a good
and carefully constructed piece of legislation that deserves
to be adopted by the House.
We are pleased to advise you of our support for this
legislation, as reported out of your Committee, and
appreciate the extensive effort that you and the other
members of the Commerce Committee devoted to fashioning the
several compromises that have allowed this bill to move
forward. The provisions in the bill creating a new State
Revolving Loan fund will authorize critically needed funds to
finance water system improvements and if expeditiously
enacted, will make already appropriated funds available for
state lending. We are especially appreciative of the
continued efforts by the Committee staff to work with us to
accommodate changes in the State Revolving Loan Fund
financing provisions which will make them more workable when
the bill becomes law.
We look forward to the passage of this legislation, and
offer our support and assistance through the continuation of
the legislative process.
With appreciation,
Sincerely,
Paul Marchetti,
President.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am astounded to hear myself say I am speaking in
opposition to this bill. I have here in my hand a statement in support
of the bill, a statement that commends, appropriately, the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell],
and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], and the members of our
committee for the very long period of negotiations entered into in good
faith to resolve the differences on the Safe Drinking Water Act.
This was a negotiation that literally took place over a matter of
years and the result of our negotiations was a bill supported by
everyone, the water systems, the State and local governments, the
agricultural interests, and the environmentalists. Everybody was
satisfied that the legislation that was reported unanimously out of the
Committee on Commerce was a good bill and this legislation appeared to
be heading to conference and to the President's desk as one of the rare
accomplishments of this legislative session.
The unfortunate fact is I cannot make that statement that ordinarily
is made on a suspension bill, urging all our colleagues to support it.
The reason I cannot make that statement is that this bill was changed
last night. An important part of the drinking water legislation is a
revolving fund that would help drinking water systems throughout this
country to able to draw on money so that they could upgrade their
systems, so that we could be assured that those water systems will be
delivering water that meets the standard to protect the public health.
In the bill now before us, as a result of negotiations behind closed
doors that did not involve any of us on the Democratic side, money has
been earmarked for certain projects to be paid for out of this
revolving fund; $375 million is earmarked for specific areas, specific
water projects. Now, that means there is less money for the rest of the
country. It means that the revolving fund will not be used for the
highest priorities, where we need to clean those systems up or allow
the systems to be modernized so that the water can be cleaned.
This bill should not be coming to the floor under those kinds of
circumstances. We all believe, and the reason we entered the
negotiations is we wanted to accomplish something through a bipartisan
agreement. In accomplishing a bipartisan agreement, there has to be
understandings and the bill was delicately balanced. It certainly was
not the bill I wanted completely. It was not the bill the gentleman
from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] or the gentleman from Florida [Mr.
Bilirakis] wanted in its entirety, but we balanced out the different
concerns and had a compromise bill we all felt we could stand behind.
Part of that balancing out was an understanding that we would all
negotiate with each other, we would all have to agree to changes all
the way through conference. Well, we are not even off the House floor
and changes are being made in this bill without our agreeing to it.
{time} 1245
In fact, without even knowing about it. Bipartisanship and working to
accomplish something in this House has to involve relying on each other
to keep commitments, to be able to rely on each other's understandings
of where we are going with any legislation.
The provisions in this bill now that have been added are arbitrary.
These projects are arbitrarily designated as being ahead of everybody
else, every other water system in the country. It is not for public
health reasons. It is for political reasons that some projects are
being given special treatment.
I feel very sad to have to come here to the floor after all this
effort and urge my colleagues not to support this legislation. It seems
to me a very poor way for us to be moving legislation that should be a
proud accomplishment that all of us should look with pride as having
done something in the public interest.
Mr. Speaker, I will yield to others who may want to speak on this
legislation, but, while we have in the past told all our colleagues to
support the bill, now we have to urge opposition to it. If these
projects are meritorious, let us have a vote on them. Let Members have
a discussion as to those specific projects. If they were presented to
us on the House floor and the Members wanted to go along with it, then
I would really have no complaint, even if I were to oppose it. But to
have special projects that amount to political pork inserted in the
bill and then we have to vote for the whole bill and move those
projects along with a bill that everybody wanted seems to me the
improper way for us to proceed.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Boehlert], chairman of the Subcommittee on Water Resources
and Environment.
(Mr. BOEHLERT asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, we are getting smarter as we go along. We
have developed a very good bill that responds to a legitimate need of
the American people. That is to deal in a responsible manner with safe
drinking water.
The American people have said to us they want smaller, less costly,
less intrusive government, and we are responding. But they do not want
us to dismantle government and they for darn sure want us to be
responsible in protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink,
and the food we eat. This measure, the Safe Drinking Water Act, does
just that.
I would point out to my distinguished colleague from California this
bill does not, let me repeat, this bill
[[Page H6750]]
does not contain any earmarks. The bill does not include any site-
specific provisions. EPA and the States have the authority to select
their own priorities. Let me make that abundantly clear. This bill does
not have any earmarks. This bill has some language making
recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency, but the
Environmental Protection Agency is given free rein to make the best
possible judgments consistent with the objectives of this legislation.
Let me also point out that, if Congress fails to appropriate at least
75 percent of the authorization for the grants program and if the
States and localities do not come up with at least a 50/50 cost sharing
match, two very responsible ways to deal with the legislation, then all
bets are off.
It is important for all my colleagues following this debate very
closely to understand this bill does not include any earmarks. What it
does include is hope for communities all across this country who have
said to us in no uncertain terms, please help us, please give us some
resources so that we can do the job that our constituents have every
right to expect us to do; that is, to protect the water we drink.
We can go all around the world, and there are very few countries
where you can do what I am about to do, reach over and grab a glass of
water from a public water system. This is not any fancy imported water.
This is from the Washington public water system. I can drink it knowing
full well that I am not placing my health in jeopardy. Do you want to
know why? Because we have the Environmental Protection Agency, because
we have Federal employees implementing Federal regulations, operating
under Federal law. Here is to you America. And we are going to do
something more. We are going to protect that water supply.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I do want to take this opportunity to tell the gentleman from New
York that he has played a very important role in fashioning a Safe
Drinking Water Act that we can be proud of. The right-to-know
provisions in this legislation are just one of the areas from an
environmental perspective that we have in this legislation due to his
enormous efforts. On this bill and any others that affect the
environment, the public health, he has been a champion, and I want to
commend him for it.
We do not have a disagreement over this legislation and the substance
of this legislation. My only complaint, and it is not with the
gentleman from New York, is that on our side we were never consulted
about the specific projects. We were never consulted about it. We did
not know about it until it was put in this legislation.
I do want to underscore the points my colleague has made that, after
all the work that has been done, we have a drinking water bill on
substance that is one we should proudly support. My only objections are
the changes were made.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that in our
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, which, incidentally, is
the largest committee of this Congress or, for that matter, any
Congress in the history of the Republic, it passed by unanimous vote,
Republicans and Democrats alike. And we did have some very thorough
consultation.
I can only speak for my committee. We did have some consultation
about our section of the bill, and I see some of my colleagues from the
committee who were very much a part of that consultation on the other
side of the aisle. The point is we have striven mightily to make this
not a partisan thing, although we proudly claim an initiative here, but
to work in concert with our good friends who are Democrats who share
the same vision for America that we all have; that is, we want cleaner
water.
I would further point out that I am very mindful of the fact that the
gentleman has some special needs in Santa Monica, and we have talked
about this and we have exchanged correspondence. This is the ideal
vehicle to go forward with the improvements that my colleague needs for
the water system in Santa Monica.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I do not believe that
anything in Santa Monica is in this legislation. That was on another
matter. The fact of the matter is, my colleague's committee made some
decisions. My complaint is not about that committee making decisions
within its jurisdiction.
My complaint is that, when we agreed in our committee on a drinking
water bill, we agreed that everybody, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr.
Dingell], myself, the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], and the
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley], had to sign off on any changes in
the bill that we had. We feel we were not consulted in the changes that
were made. That is our complaint. Our complaint is not with my
colleague and not with the members of his committee, as to what he may
have pursued within his own committee as it affected the bill that we
all agreed to and had mutual commitments would not be changed.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
know time is precious, just let me say that we are about today
something that I think is going to make the American people very happy.
They watch what goes on down here and they wonder why we cannot come
together, Republicans and Democrats, on something so important as safe
drinking water. We can look the American people in the eye and say, we
have come up with a good program that is going to protect the water
supply for America. I think that is a day's deed well done.
I think the gentleman for his help and for his guidance. He was here
before I. He has been my inspiration on some occasions. We have been
partners dealing with some legislation like acid rain. We are partners
here again today. I hope we march forward together and pass this very
important legislation.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments and I
hope that we will be together on this legislation, if not today, down
the road, because we have been consistently fighting the battle on the
same side.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Bilirakis], chairman of the subcommittee that has worked
very hard on this bill.
Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me, my full committee chairman.
Over 5 months ago, I chaired the Health and Environment Subcommittee
hearing concerning priorities for the reauthorization of the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
The subcommittee heard testimony from public officials, private water
systems, and the environmental community. And, while opinions varied,
no one disputed the essential task before us--the need to overhaul a
well-intentioned, 10-year-old statute which has served us well, but
which has not aged gracefully.
Many have cited the need for flexibility in the administration of the
law. EPA has also estimated that the capital expenditures needed to
comply with current requirements total $8.6 billion. So the question
has not been whether to act, but how to best correct identified
problems.
At first, I must admit the job looked easy, especially given the
action of the other body to vote unanimously in favor of reforms. The
careful review of the Commerce Committee, however, has helped to shape
legislative provisions which are improved and which I believe will
stand the test of time.
We have improved the standard setting language which lies at the
heart of the act, making it more workable and efficient.
In addition, the bill strengthens certain provisions regarding
capacity development and operator training. The bill will directly
improve the human factor in the safe drinking water act.
All of these changes are not universally popular with every
interested party. But a careful balance has been struck in this
legislation between flexibility in administration and certainty in
regulation.
I believe we have a good bill before us. It is a bill which bears the
imprint and hard work of many Members too numerous to mention. I would
urge its approval to help ensure the continued
[[Page H6751]]
safety of the Nation's drinking water supply.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BILIRAKIS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, the chairman of the full Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure is presiding over some very important
hearings at this very hour dealing with aviation safety. Otherwise, he
would be here.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The gentleman from Michigan
[Mr. Dingell] has 25 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Virginia
[Mr. Bliley] has 27 minutes remaining.
Without objection, the gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Dingell] controls
the remainder of the time of the gentleman from California [Mr.
Waxman].
There was no objection.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 8 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, first of all I want to pay my respects and my
compliments to my dear friends, the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Bliley] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis]. They have tried
hard to work with us on a fair and a decent bill. I believe that it had
in that effort a real seed of careful and good legislative work. For
that I commend them and for that I thank them.
But between the time that Mr. Bliley and Mr. Bilirakis, the gentleman
from California, Mr. Waxman, and I agreed with regard to the substance
of the bill, something peculiar happened. All of a sudden, we have
found that the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, well
known for its ability to seize pork wherever that pork might be found,
has done so again.
So we do not bring Members a bill which is going to make safe the
waters only. We bring here a bill which through some curious process
between the time the bill left our committee and the time it came to
the floor came to contain 375 million dollars' worth of pork.
My staff informs me that perhaps a couple of the projects which are
in this area of pork have some merit. Most of them are, quite frankly,
nothing more or less than shameless raids by the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure. Not only are they quite shameless
raids, but they are for projects which are quite lacking in merit. More
importantly, they are an attempt to raid a small fund which is going to
help communities all across this country to make safe the drinking
water upon which their people are dependent.
{time} 1300
They are things for parks and for rehabilitation of water systems,
improvement and restoration of an aquatic system at Pennypack Park.
They are other wonderful programs for water line extensions. They are
programs for construction and activities at a reservoir.
There are other infrastructure water assistance programs, not for
making water safe for the public at large, not for carrying out the
purposes for which this program was set up, but simply to take care of
some political things so that we now have a safe drinking water bill
where the moneys available to assist communities in addressing the
problem of safety of their water simply are being perverted by the
Committee on Public Works to seize a wonderful opportunity to convert
meaningful public expenditures into pork to benefit the members of that
committee and to get around the constraints that are put on by
Republican colleagues over here with regard to how public moneys have
been spent.
This is a sneaky, dishonest effort to get around the requirements of
the Budget Act and the budget. That is all it is. This is not good,
honest, carefully thought-out legislation at all. It has been perverted
by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure in a fashion
which is unique to that committee, and it manifests in a splendid way
fiscal irresponsibility on that side of the aisle from which Members
over here were totally excluded. It also manifests splendid
irresponsibility in seizing and converting funds which should have gone
to communities for making water safe, into pork. Thus has the Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure served this body.
Every Member of this body could look at this piece of legislation and
say my district would have had a chance to get real and meaningful
assistance in terms of cleaning up our water supply, making it safe,
but the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has stolen $375
million out of that fund for their own peculiar, unreported purposes
for which there have been neither hearings nor reports, and they have
done so in a way which evades the Budget Act.
Now, the bill started out to be a responsible effort to clean up the
drinking waters of this country, to avoid the kind of things that
struck Milwaukee where they had a major infestation of an intestinal
parasite which caused a large number of deaths and an even larger
number of sicknesses and illness. It is an attempt to see to it that
water systems in places like Washington, DC, where we have been told
that the waters of this city that are used by the citizens of this city
should be boiled because they are unsafe. But, no, we have gone to
steal money from the State-controlled drinking water fund to fatten
pork projects suggested not on the basis of need, but on the basis of
congressional politics and in a splendid way to escape the constraints
that my Republican colleagues would put on the budget for the Committee
on Public Works.
I think this is clearly wrong. The revolving fund which is raided to
the tune of $375 million is an important assistance to communities
across this country, which desperately need those moneys to carry out
important projects. But some 14 members of the Committee on Public
Works and their friends have decided, no, those moneys are going to be
shortstopped, those moneys are going to be taken off to take care of
their own peculiar special nice interests at the expense of all the
other Members of this body and at the expense of a program which is
already far too small for the cleaning up of the drinking water
supplies of the people of this country.
The only source of money, apparently, that the Committee on Public
Works could find from which they could filch this money was the funding
which is included in this bill for the protection of drinking water
supplies and for the restoration of the safety of those drinking water
supplies. Those moneys are limited, but they are essential, and they
are important to the public health to the safety of the people of this
country, Mr. Speaker, and they are a public expenditure which is very
important to all the people.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to yield to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Boehlert] briefly.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank my distinguished colleague for
yielding, and I do not wish to interrupt his fun, but I do appreciate
his giving me a time to respond to some of his comments. The gentleman
from Michigan is suggesting that what used to be called the Committee
on Public Works which is now called the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, this is the new era----
Mr. DINGELL. I know it by the old name, and they are still up to
their old practices which is pork, pork at all costs, pork at any cost,
pork without responsibility, pork without need, pork. We perhaps should
change their name to the committee on pork.
Mr. BOEHLERT. As my colleagues know, I have only been here 14 years,
so I am still learning, but I am talking now to the master because, as
I look here at the River Rouge project over the past few years, I
notice there are $320 million that has been earmarked at the direction
of the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. DINGELL. That was a wise expenditure, and I thank the gentleman.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Boehlert].
Mr. BOEHLERT. I say that in a spirit, the good spirit of the day. I
just want to point out as we are talking about something, just because
he says it is so does not mean it is so. Let me stress this bill does
not have any earmarks; earmarks, that is, directing the expenditure of
a certain amount of money for any particular project. That is very
important for all my colleagues to understand.
Second, the preceding speaker, the gentleman from Michigan, for whom
I have the greatest respect, could teach us all a lesson on how to get
pork because, as I look at the appropriations
[[Page H6752]]
from 1992 through 1997, I notice $320 million specifically earmarked
for the Rouge River National Wet Weather project. Now, in 1992 it was
$46 million; he was modest that year. In 1993 he got a little more
energized, was up to $82 million, and keep going up. In 1994, $85
million. In 1995, in the spirit of the day, modestly went back to $75
million. In 1996, well, there have been some changes around here, was
only $11\5/8\ million, but in 1997 the committee report already
includes $20 million.
The point is, and I have no quarrel; I used to live in Michigan. I
can understand the importance of cleaning up the Rouge River, and I
want to work with the gentleman to do just that.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Nebraska [Mr. Bereuter].
(Mr. Bereuter asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation that
was reported out of the Committee on Commerce.
Mr. Speaker, this Member would like to engage the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] in colloquy regarding the
provisions of the bill relating to ground water disinfection.
Nebraska is by far the most ground water-dependent State in the
Nation. As this Member made clear in the statement submitted for the
Record, the ground water disinfection rule could place an absolutely
unworkable and untenable burden upon many of our local communities
unless reason prevails. In fact, chlorination of community drinking
water from ground water sources, which may present some health risks,
could be requiring a solution to a nonproblem in most Nebraska
communities.
Is it the committee's intent that communities using groundwater as a
drinking water source will not be required to disinfect the water
unless an actual health threat is present?
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BEREUTER. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, as the gentleman is aware, the bill provides
in section 105 that EPA must issue criteria which a State would be
required to use to determine whether disinfection is necessary for any
public water system served by ground water. In developing such
criteria, the administrator is authorized to use the new authority in
the bill to set a different level if she determines that the benefits
of the regulation do not justify the costs, provided that the level she
establishes maximizes health risk reduction benefits at a cost that is
justified by the benefits.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, would this legislation
also ensure that the potential health risks associated with
chlorination, as well as the costs associated with disinfection be
taken into account when developing the ground water disinfection rule?
Mr. BLILEY. If the gentleman would yield, the answer is ``yes.''
Under this legislation, the administrator is required to conduct an
analysis of the costs and benefits of a proposed regulatory level. This
analysis must include a review of health risk reduction benefits as
well as compliance costs.
Mr. BEREUTER. Reclaiming my time, this gentleman thanks the
distinguished gentleman for this clarification.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North
Carolina [Mr. Burr], a member of the committee.
Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Bliley] for yielding, and I also thank him and the gentleman from
Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] for their leadership on this bill.
This bill seeks to protect public safety by improving the outdated
law that regulates tap water. It is not a perfect bill, but it is a
good bill, it is a bill my colleagues should support. The safe drinking
water bill is well negotiated, bipartisan agreement grounded in three
vital principles:
First, targeting the most dangerous contaminants in our tap water;
second, providing greater resources to small water treatment plants;
and third, making sure consumers know more about the tap water that
they use more so than ever before.
I want to personally thank those people in North Carolina who had
faith in this process. I want to thank key individuals in North
Carolina: Linda Sewall and Rick Durham from the North Carolina
Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources for their help
and their understanding as we went through the process; and I want to
thank Terry Henderson in North Carolina, who heads up the North
Carolina League of Municipalities for his support.
I urge my colleagues' support for the Safe Drinking Water Act. It is
the right thing.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Pallone].
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I just listened to what my colleague from
North Carolina said, and I agree with everything he said, but the
problem is that the bill, as it came out of the Committee on Commerce
on a bipartisan basis, was appropriate this morning for action on the
suspension list. Normally, as we all know, we put bills on the
suspension list if they had been agreed to on both sides, if they are
good government and we want to get them moving in an expedited fashion.
The problem is that somehow when this bill left the Committee on
Commerce, all these pork projects were added to it, and that now
jeopardizes the legislation, which is really sad.
This was a bill that was to be a model for a bill that we could get
together on a bipartisan basis that would help from an environmental
point of view, that would help with the public health. We had the
President's support. the legislation that came out of the Committee on
Commerce was very similar to what passed the Senate. So we were
expediting it because we felt we could get it to the President's desk
and be signed into the law.
All of that is out the window now because of the action that was
taken by the Republican leadership. And I think it is a real shame
because, because of the addition of these particular projects which are
earmarked in the bill and not on an objective basis, that means now
that we jeopardize the possibility of it passing the House on an
expedited basis, we jeopardize the possibility of coming to an
agreement quickly with the Senate and also getting the President to
sign the bill.
And I just wanted to say for those who are saying that it is not true
that there are specific earmarks or pork in this bill, I am just
reading from the report language that says that the administrator is
directed to provide priority consideration to the following projects,
and then 13 or 14 projects are specifically listed as having to be
prioritized.
That goes against the objective criteria that were put in the bill in
the Committee on Commerce. Basically, the money in this fund was
supposed to be divided between the States on an objective formula, and
they would decide to focus the money on projects that address the most
serious health risks. This is no longer the case, and that is why we
have to oppose this bill on the suspension list.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
Jersey [Mr. Saxton], who has been very helpful on the right-to-know
provision on this bill.
Mr. SAXTON. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to just take 1
minute to say to my friends on the other side of the aisle we have
worked together so well through this process I would certainly hope
that we could bring it to a successful conclusion here today.
The gentleman, the chairman of the subcommittee, the gentleman from
California [Mr. Waxman], and I in particular worked together on the
community right-to-know provisions so that everyone who reaches up and
turns on the tap water in their home or in their place of business will
know that it is good, clean water without contaminants that will be
harmful to them or their families. This is a consumer-friendly bill,
therefore, which will provide our constituents with more information
than ever before.
{time} 1315
When this bill become law, violations of the water standards will be
reviewed and be reported to customers within 24 hours of any violation,
and every year every member of the community, every consumer in the
community, will be
[[Page H6753]]
provided with a consumer confidence report listing all foreign
materials. I think this is an excellent bill and I urge passage today.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that some of the groups supporting
this bill are the National Governors Association, National League of
Cities, U.S. Council of Mayors, National Association of Counties,
National Conference of State Legislatures, Association of Metropolitan
Water Agencies, and the list goes on and on.
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following list of
organizations in support of the legislation.
The material referred to is as follows:
Groups Supporting H.R. 3604
The National Governors' Association.
National League of Cities.
U.S. Conference of Mayors.
National Association of Counties.
National Conference of State Legislatures.
Association of Metropolitan Water agencies.
American Water Works Association.
National Association of Water Companies.
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators.
National Water Resources Association.
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies.
Clean Water Action Project.
National Wildlife Federation.
Natural Resources Defense Council.
U.S. PIRG.
Citizen Action.
Physicians for Social Responsibility.
Consumer Federation of America.
Friends of the Earth.
AIDS action Council.
Environmental Working Group.
American Public Health Association.
American Cancer Society.
American Oceans Campaign.
American Rivers.
Chesapeake Bay Foundation.
Childhood Lead Action Project, RI.
Citizen Action of New York.
Clean Water Action.
Clean Water Action Alliance of Minnesota.
Colorado People's Environmental and Economic Network.
Consumer Federation of America.
Cornicopia Network of New Jersey, Inc.
Defenders of Wildlife.
Environmental Information Center.
Government Accountability Project.
Kentucky Resources Council.
Lake Superior Greens.
Long Island Progressive Coalition.
Metropolitan Ecumenical Ministry.
Mothers & Others.
National Consumers League.
Network for Environmental & Economic Responsibility.
New Jersey Environmental Federation.
New York Rivers United.
North Carolina Coastal Federation.
Northern Environmental Network.
Religious Action Center.
Save the Bay, RI.
Union of American Hebrew Congregations.
WashPIRG.
Wisconsin Citizen Action.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Waxman].
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking Member for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the gentleman from New Jersey [Mr.
Saxton] what an important contribution he played in this bill. One of
the very significant features of this bill is the right to know section
that will give people clear information about any risks they are
taking. I think that is important for people to have. We ought to
empower people with that kind of information. I want the Members of
this body to know that the gentleman from New Jersey, who introduced
his own legislation, has worked with me and others and was responsible
for this.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to yield 1 minute to
the gentleman from Iowa [Mr. Ganske], a valuable member of the
committee.
Mr. GANSKE. Mr. Speaker, I speak in favor of this bill. This
legislation not only protects the environment and human health, but it
does so in a way that is smarter and better than before. Gone are many
of the costly and inflexible command and control mandates. For the
first time, true risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis is brought
to this statute. We have made more manageable the requirements of the
EPA in determining new contaminants. Greater flexibility has been given
to local systems, which have vastly different needs and concerns from
each other. We have increased the technical assistance provided to
smaller systems in order to ensure that they can deliver the best and
safest drinking water possible.
One area of particular concern to me in my home State of Iowa is
adequate and fair source water protection. The measure we are debating
today contains an honest and fair source water program. Up to 10
percent of the State revolving fund can be used by water systems to
enter into voluntary incentive-based source water protection programs
with willing upstream neighbors, whether they are farmers or
businesses. This is a very good addition. I urge its prompt adoption.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois [Mr. Poshard].
Mr. POSHARD. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a few moments to address the merits
of the Safe Drinking Water Act, which we are discussing today. I am
very concerned about the continued ability of rural parts of this
country to have access to water. This might come as a surprise to some,
but there are many areas in this country, including central and
southeastern Illinois, that are just now being reached by rural water
cooperatives, just now receiving the benefits of full water service.
This has not happened overnight. It has taken a lot of hard work by
people at the local, State, and Federal level.
Mr. Speaker, I am a cosponsor of this bill, H.R. 3406, because it
strikes a necessary balance between environmental protection and relief
from brudensome regulations for many of our small communities. There
are provisions that recognize the particular needs and constrictions of
these locales, and I would hate to see an opportunity for such forward-
thinking legislation be missed. The Safe Drinking Water Act has
received bipartisan support throughout the committee process and has
been endorsed by the administration as well as environmental groups.
Moreover, our cities, towns, and constituents have repeatedly voiced
their support for this action. Let us do the right thing, the necessary
thing, and pass this legislation and ensure the ability of all
Americans to drink clean water.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York [Mr. Boehlert].
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman and my
colleague for yielding time to me.
Mr. Speaker, I wish to come back to something that is very important,
that we repeat several times to make certain all clearly understand
this. This bill does not have any earmarks. That is very important. The
funding for the grants program, incidentally, is in response to the
demand, the cry, the plea from our Governors, our county officials, and
our mayors that we come up with a grants program.
The grants program is contingent on Congress first appropriating at
least 745 percent of the amount authorized for the revolving loan fund.
They are intended for hardship communities. Mr. Speaker, I think my
colleagues on both sides of the aisle should be working hand in glove,
as the gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] has with me on this
subcommittee as we have brought this out on a bipartisan basis, because
we recognize there are communities that have legitimate needs and just
do not have the wherewithal to address those needs. Thus, the creation
of this grants program. It is a good program, and I urge my colleagues,
on a bipartisan basis, to join me in supporting it.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Michigan [Mr. Stupak].
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
Mr. Speaker, I sit on the Subcommittee on Health and Environment of
the Committee on Commerce, and this bill has been held up repeatedly as
an example of bipartisanship. That is the way it started. That is the
way it started. It went through the Senate 99 to nothing. It went
through our full committee 44 to nothing.
Then, a funny thing happened as it came over here. There are 375
pages that have been added, that no one has had a chance to see. I ask
every Member, have they read the 375 pages? No, they have not. They are
going to vote on something they have never read, they have never seen,
we have never had a hearing on, we never had a chance to debate. I
worked long and hard with the Members on this bill. We had a good bill.
It has now gone down the drain.
Take a look at it. Title V, go to title V. That is where all the
changes are.
[[Page H6754]]
This bill was a good bill. Title V will now jeopardize the public
health, and I believe it will undermine the State revolving fund by
limiting the States' flexibility to prioritize. That flexibility we
have heard about for the last 2 years, giving it back to the States,
has just gone out the window in the last 24 hours. There is no
flexibility.
Mr. Speaker, the bill at the current level of funding, with the set-
asides for designated, we do not want to say earmarked projects, let us
call them designated activities, continue to limit the availability of
funds needed for a permanent revolving fund. We worked so hard to get
the money in there, the State revolving fund, the technical assistance
program with the EPA. It was all in here to help areas, small areas
like mine in northern Michigan.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, Mr. Speaker.
Let us not overstate this revolving fund. We are offended by it. But
this bill is a good bill. One of the reasons it is a good bill is the
provision the gentleman has authored to be sure we had estrogenic
review of any impurities in the drinking water, any kind of pollutants
that would have a causal effect on breast cancer. This is a very good
bill. Let us not forget it is a very good bill. Let us not ignore that
we have something we can be very proud of.
It is unfortunate that we have the disagreement, and we are stating
our disagreements about the result of putting in these earmarkings of
the water systems. That is something we will debate and will go to
conference on and talk further about, but I wanted, while the gentleman
is speaking, to make the point that his contribution led to this being
a much better bill in a very fundamental way.
The American people are worried about impacts on them from chemicals.
The idea that in their drinking water there might be something that
could be a cause of breast cancer is a horrifying thought. We will now
measure that, we will screen for it, and make sure that does not
happen.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, my question to the gentleman from New York
is, there have been a lot of questions about the State revolving loan
fund. The gentleman from California [Mr. Waxman] has pointed out a
number of parts about it.
I would ask the gentleman from New York, can we agree and promise the
American people and Members of this body that when it goes to the
conference committee, that the 57-percent trigger that protects the
State revolving loan fund will stay in there? Because without that
trigger, this thing becomes more a pork barrel project than what has
been added to it. The only way to protect this bill and those 375
earmarks that are there is that we have some protection that that 75
trigger remains in. I know the gentleman will be in the conference
committee. Can he promise that to the Members and the American people?
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. STUPAK. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, let me tell my colleagues I helped author
that provision, so I am going to be very supportive.
Just let me say, despite what anyone might suggest, no one can
convince me that this is a glass of vintage wine. This is a glass of
water. We may call it vintage wine, we may repeat it over and over, but
it does not change the fact it is still water. The fact of the matter
is there is no pork in this bill. There are no earmarks.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record this statement of
administration policy.
The statement referred to is as follows:
Statement of Administration Policy
h.r. 3604--safe drinking water act amendments of 1995
The Administration strongly supports H.R. 3604 as reported
by the House Commerce Committee. Ensuring the safety of the
Nation's drinking water is one of the Administration's top
environmental priorities.
H.R. 3604, which is the result of a bipartisan effort,
reflects the Administration's recommendations for
strengthening public health protections by: (1) establishing
a State Revolving Fund (SRF) to subsidize community efforts
to improve drinking water safety; (2) providing a flexible
framework to promote the protection of drinking water
sources; (3) providing responsible regulatory reforms
including the appropriate use of cost-benefit analysis in
standards setting; and (4) strengthening State programs for
improving the capability of water systems to provide safe
water. These provisions coupled with the bill's improved
consumer awareness provisions will help meet the challenge of
providing safe and affordable drinking water.
The Administration, however, strongly opposes the
provisions added in Title V which jeopardize public health
and undermine the SRF by limiting the States' flexibility to
prioritize project funding. Furthermore, the Administration
recommends that H.R. 3604 be modified in conference to
minimize the number of earmarks on State Revolving Funds. The
bill's current level of Fund set-asides for designated
activities would limit the availability of funds needed for a
permanent revolving fund. The Administration may also propose
several technical corrections in conference.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Pennsylvania [Mr. Borski] to speak on behalf of pork.
(Mr. BORSKI asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BORSKI. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding time
to me.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to support H.R. 3604, the Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments of 1996, as amended by Chairman Bliley.
I wish to commend the chairman and the ranking Democrat of the
Commerce Committee for their fine work in developing this important,
bipartisan legislation for the benefit of States and local water
suppliers and the customers they serve. This bill demonstrates the way
in which we in the House can work on a bipartisan basis to resolve a
serious need facing the States and local interests.
Mr. Speaker, while the Transportation Committee has been very
interested in the financing provisions of this bill, I also wish to
indicate my support for the regulatory reforms contained in the bill.
The bill makes important modifications to the drinking water programs.
The bill modifies the way in which EPA sets drinking water standards to
better meet the needs of local communities. It also enhances State
flexibility on monitoring requirements and assures improved capacity to
meet drinking water standards. I am also pleased that the bill includes
provisions on right to know. I have always strongly supported measures
to assure that citizens are adequately informed about the condition of
their environment.
Mr. Speaker, I know that there have been issues raised about
additions which have been made to the Commerce Committee bill as
ordered reported. Several of these changes were made to accommodate the
interests and concerns of the Transportation Committee. I am
particularly pleased that the bill includes the Transportation
Committee provisions to establish a separate grant program to aid
communities in developing adequate water supply infrastructure.
These provisions were developed in the Transportation Committee on a
bipartisan basis, and reflect the fair and full consideration of the
committee. The separate grant program represents the Transportation
Committee's view, based upon numerous hearings, of how to best meet the
overall drinking water needs of the Nation. While I support the intent
of the Commerce Committee bill to assure that funds are used toward
compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act, the overall needs of
States and local governments to provide a safe and reliable source of
drinking water dwarf the needs solely related to that act. We on the
Transportation Committee have determined that there is a Federal role
in responding to those greater needs as well.
The infrastructure needs of the country are enormous, and no less so
in the area of drinking water. Recent estimates of need for drinking
water infrastructure are as high as $23 billion, just to meet needs
which are known to exist over the next 5 years. While it has been
fashionable of late to blame water supply infrastructure needs on so-
called unfunded Federal mandates, the truth is that only about $3
billion of the $23 billion in needs, or less than 15 percent of the
needs are associated with Federal drinking water standards. The vast
majority of needs are associated
[[Page H6755]]
with basic infrastructure which is necessary to provide adequate water
supplies to the public.
These needs are great and know no political or regional boundaries.
In my State there are needs to remove harmful pollutants from what
should be pristine waters. In older urban areas, the water supply
infrastructure is badly in need of rehabilitation and repair.
Mr. Speaker, this bill demonstrates the good which the Congress can
do if it works together, in a bipartisan manner to address the Nation's
problems. It also demonstrates the ability for multiple committees in
the House to work to reach a common goal.
When President Clinton first proposed Federal assistance to assist
States and localities in providing safe, reliable drinking water
supplies, the Public Works and Transportation Committee responded by
quickly drafting and reporting to the House legislation which would
establish such a program. We modeled it after the highly successful
State revolving loan fund program of the Clean Water Act. I am pleased
that the bill before us includes many of the same elements as were in
that proposal.
With Chairman Bliley's amendment, this bill now also includes the
very important authority for the Administrator to make grants, in
addition to the State revolving loan fund program, for drinking water
needs.
Mr. Speaker, this additional grant-making authority is crucial to
meeting the Nation's overall drinking water needs. In our committee's
experience with the Clean Water Act, we have learned that there are
times when even very low or no interest loans are just not sufficient
to provide affordable, adequate basic infrastructure. While the
overwhelming majority of assistance under this bill will be provided
through the revolving loan program, the modest grant program fashioned
in the Transportation Committee, and which has been included in the
chairman's amendment, will help complete the package of financial
assistance for communities who need such assistance. By way of example,
the Appropriations Committee just completed action on legislation for
EPA which will provide grant assistance for a variety of projects such
as the Texas Colonias, Boston, Massachusetts, New Orleans, Louisiana,
and the Rouge River in Michigan.
This bill promises much in the way of meeting drinking water
infrastructure needs. I hope that the majority will be committed to
assuring the authorizations in this bill do not become illusory. If
this bill is to be the success which it should be, we must assure that
the appropriation levels match the authorization levels. Unfortunately,
that very same appropriations bill which will fund this legislation
provides less than one-half of the authorized amount for fiscal year
1997. I hope that before there are too many congratulatory remarks
about meeting infrastructure needs for drinking water, that the
majority revisits their priorities in responding to local needs. A $1
billion authorization, appropriated at only $450 million, is still only
a $450 million program. Let's watch what the majority does, as well as
what they say. I am prepared to work on a bipartisan basis to achieve
full funding for this important program.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation is the culmination of a proposal first
made by the Clinton administration more than 3 years ago. It is time to
get this bill to the President for his signature. I hope that we will
be able to resolve quickly any differences with the Senate and assure
its speedy enactment.
I am pleased to support the bill, as modified by the chairman. I urge
my colleagues to join me with their support as well.
{time} 1330
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California [Mr. Bilbray].
Mr. BILBRAY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this bipartisan
bill, and I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia [Mr.
Bliley] and the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Bilirakis] for addressing
this issue in such an open manner.
This bill represents a triumph for commonsense and science-based
environmental strategies; it focuses on the product, rather than the
process, and values the outcome of the regulations above the
regulations themselves.
Our bill will refocus our priorities toward the most immediate
threats to the public health, provide EPA and local water authorities
with greater flexibility in how they can administer this act, and place
new emphasis on making sure that public water systems have the
technical and financial resources they need to meet the standards of
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
I can't emphasize enough the progressiveness of this bipartisan
bill--we moving forward toward a need and outcome-based strategy, and
working together in cooperation instead of confrontation. This will
help us to better serve the public health needs of the American people,
and provide us all with a cleaner and safer environment.
Mr. Speaker, I ask that my statement be included in the Record and I
urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in strong support of H.R. 3604, the
bipartisan Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, which will
achieve for the American people vast improvements over the existing
inflexibilities of the existing outdated Safe Drinking Water Act
[SDWA]. This reauthorization of the SDWA will provide a commonsense,
science-based blueprint for how to most effectively determine and
implement the regulation and protection of our drinking water supply.
This bill will be a significant step forward, away from an outdated
and ineffective process that places higher value on the regulation
itself, toward a more progressive and outcome-based process which will
allow us to best serve the public health needs of the American people.
I am very proud to have been able to play a close role in strengthening
and improving such an important statute as the SDWA. These amendments
will provide for sensible and much-needed reforms in how the SDWA is
implemented. H.R. 3604 will help to refocus EPA's resources toward
those contaminants which present the greatest and most immediate threat
to public health, provide EPA and local water authorities with greater
flexibility in administering the law, and place new emphasis on
ensuring that public water systems have the necessary technical,
managerial, and financial resources available to comply with the SDWA.
Mr. Speaker, this also marks a significant achievement in our ability
to recognize and address flaws or gaps in our existing environmental or
public health strategies. Laws such as the SDWA were clearly well-meant
at the time of their inception--in this case, the 1972-era SDWA has not
been reauthorized since 1986. However, the passage of time invariably
exposes weaknesses or shortcomings in the strongest of our statutes. In
the past, it has often been easier to confront problems by simply
blaming a law, instead of focusing closely on whether the law in
question is being properly implemented, or whether it is still
effective in serving its intended purpose. These laws need to be as
dynamic and flexible as the rapidly changing environments we intend for
them to protect.
This means that occasionally such laws must be revisited and renewed,
in order to reflect its original goals. I firmly believe that we ought
not to cling to the conventional wisdom that our public health and
environmental laws are ``set in stone,'' and incapable of being
improved. In order to maintain their effectiveness, we have the
responsibility to see to it that when modern science and technology can
be applied to improve these laws, we act to do so. Many of our crown
jewel environmental laws were written over 20 years ago, and it is
incumbent upon us to make these needed improvements when necessary.
With this comprehensive reauthorization, we complete a challenging but
needed task on behalf of all of our constituents nationwide, and I
commend my chairman, Mr. Bliley and Mr. Bilirakis and my other
colleagues who worked hard together, in a bipartisan manner, to bring
us to this point.
There are two aspects of this bill which are of particular interest
to me, and upon which I would like to elaborate. Under current law,
there is no standard for radon that occurs in drinking water. H.R. 3604
requires that, within 3 years, EPA must promulgate a standard for radon
in drinking water using the new standard setting provisions of the
bill, which require the use of the best available science and the risk
assessment process. I had several specific concerns about this
provision, due to the unique challenges radon presents as a contaminant
in our environment. Radon is an odorless, colorless gas which occurs
naturally, and rises from the soil. Man has been exposed to varying
levels of radon since the beginning of time, which makes it more
difficult to focus on ample margins of safety within the context of the
SDWA. Because it is a natural element, there is no way to alter its
occurrence level in outdoor air, which is where humans receive their
greatest exposure to radon.
[[Page H6756]]
My concerns were that under this provision, it could be feasible for
the EPA to promulgate a standard for radon which would require water
systems to treat for radon in drinking water at a level well below the
level of radon which is already occurring in ambient air; in other
words, focusing considerable financial resources on mitigating a
relatively small percentage of our total overall exposure to radon. For
small water systems especially, such a scenario could result in scarce
financial resources being diverted from other, more pressing health
considerations, such as crytosporidium and other microbial
contaminants. Additionally, since radon occurs at widely varying levels
across the country, I was concerned that by allowing up to 3 years for
the EPA to set a standard, areas which might have a more immediate need
to address radon occurrence might not be provided with a standard as
swiftly as could be.
During our committee's consideration of the SDWA bill, I prepared an
amendment to assist in these discussions with my colleagues, and which
I was prepared to offer to the bill. It would have required EPA to link
its level of treatment of radon occurring in water to the level of
radon occurrence in ambient air; as mentioned previously, I believe it
is important to consider the overall exposure risk of any potential
contaminant, including radon. Additionally, providing EPA with this
kind of direction would enable them to establish a standard faster, for
areas that might have higher occurrence levels. Finally, my amendment
would have specified that States may set more restrictive levels for
radon, if it were determined that such a level would provide more
health protection than the Federal standard. I ultimately chose to not
offer the amendment, opting to focus instead on working on a dialog to
address this with other of my colleagues who shared my concerns, and
which I am confident will continue as this bill moves into conference.
Clearly, radon is a complicated part of the SDWA puzzle. I worked
closely with several Members, including my California colleague, Henry
Waxman, to try and find a solution which would address these radon
question adequately. We were able to recognize and identify several
potential alternatives, and discussions as to how to best implement
them will no doubt continue as we move into the conference committee. I
would point out that these discussions were on several occasions
mistakenly and inaccurately labeled as attempts to weaken the bill's
radon standards. In truth, those of us here in Congress who have some
experience in administering public health programs, myself included,
are intent on providing the best possible strategies for protecting the
public health, and our dialog was focused on that goal alone.
Additionally, Mr. Speaker, there is one section of the bill of which
I am particularly proud. Section 410 of H.R. 3604 consists of language
from a bill I introduced last year--H.R. 2601--to require that Federal
standards for bottled water keep pace with our standards for tapwater.
Because bottled water is considered a food item, the Food and Drug
Administration [FDA] regulates its production and sale to protect the
public health. The EPA, on the other hand, has jurisdiction over public
drinking water standards. However, the FDA has not always been timely
in issuing its regulations for elements in bottled water, after EPA has
published its regulations for the same elements in public drinking
water. As an example, on December 1, 1994, FDA published a final rule
for 35 elements in bottled water; however, nearly 4 years earlier, EPA
had issued its regulations for the same elements in public drinking
water.
My language will simply require that any EPA regulation which sets a
maximum contaminant level for tapwater, and any FDA regulation setting
a standard of quality for bottled water for the same contaminant take
effect at the same time. If the FDA does not promulgate a regulation
within a realistic timeframe established by section 410, the regulation
established by the EPA for that element in tapwater will be considered
the applicable regulation for the same element in bottled water. This
will provide consumers with the health assurances that the water they
can purchase off the shelf meets at least the same standards as their
tapwater.
Mr. Speaker, I have several supporting documents which I would like
to have inserted into the Record along with my statement.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, in my hometown of San Diego, we are
fortunate to already enjoy an extremely high standard of quality in our
drinking water; a study by a national environmental group found that
water systems in the San Diego region reported zero health advisories
over the last 3 years. By comparison, the same study found that an
alarmingly high percentage of water systems in some regions of the
country--including Washington, D.C.--reported health advisories or
compliance failures during the same time period. Our safe drinking
water amendments will strengthen existing law, and help bring these
high levels of health and environmental quality which we appreciate in
San Diego to other communities nationwide. Again, and I can't emphasize
it enough, this is a progressive step forward, away from a 1970's-era
process which places higher value on process and regulation itself,
toward a more responsible and outcome-based approach which focuses on
the product that is generated. This will help us reinforce our common
goals of better serving the public health needs of the American people,
and providing us with a cleaner and safer overall environment.
County of San Diego, Department of Environmental Health,
San Diego, CA, June 24, 1996.
Hon. Brian P. Bilbray,
Congressman, 49th District,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Bilbray: This letter is in response to
your request to provide technical input regarding draft
language that you may propose related to the maximum
contaminant level [MCL] for radon in drinking water. The
Department of Environmental Health supports efforts to
establish a maximum contaminant level [MCL] for radon in
drinking water that is based on an analysis of the hazards
that radon poses to human health.
Your proposed amendment is based on the Conference of
Radiation Control Program's recommendation to establish a
realistic standard for radon in drinking water. We concur
with this recommendation. It has been estimated that the
nationwide average concentration of radon in groundwater is
351 pci, but ranges from 24 pci to 10,000 pci. Establishing
the level at 200 pci is not practical. In order to reduce
radon levels to 200 pci, the water must be treated. One
treatment method, using granulated activated carbon filters,
produces a radioactive waste. The cost of homeowners and
water districts could be significant.
The significant routes of exposure, the risks of those
exposures, and the available water treatment technologies to
reduce those risks should all be considered in the
establishment of an MCL that protects public health. The
literature is lacking information on the ingestion health
effects of radon. Therefore, we recommend that further
studies be conducted to define this hazard.
If you have any questions, or need additional information,
please call me at (619) 338-2211.
Sincerely,
Daniel J. Avera,
Director,
Department of Environmental Health.
____
Alliance for Radon Reduction,
Washington, DC, June 25, 1996.
Dear Representative Bilbray: On behalf of the Alliance for
Radon Reduction, I would like to express our appreciation for
your recent public statements regarding radon in drinking
water. As you stated during committee consideration, humans
have been exposed to varying levels of radon since the
beginning of time, and radon presents unique challenges from
a public health perspective.
Our national organization is comprised of water agencies
and municipalities with members from fourteen states. Since
1992, we have been working with the Environmental Protection
Agency [EPA] and Congress to formulate as reasonable and
cost-effective ``radon in drinking water'' strategy that
protects the public health.
The House Safe Drinking Water Act [SDWA] reauthorization
bill takes the approach that radon should be regulated like
other drinking water standards and directs EPA to promulgate
a standard within 3 years. Under the House bill, the radon
standard would be based on the standard setting and risk/
benefit cost analysis process that is being established for
all other drinking water contaminants. The House bill also
directs EPA ``to take into account the costs and benefits of
control programs for radon from other sources.''
The Senate SDWA reauthorization bill would direct EPA to
promulgate a standard for radon in drinking water no later
than 180 days after enactment at a concentration level of
3,000 pCi/L. This level was selected to assure that the risk
from radon in drinking water was comparable to the risk from
radon in outdoor air. (A level of 3,000 pCi/L equates to the
lower end of the range of national average outdoor radon
concentrations as determined by EPA.)
While the Senate bill recognizes the need for radon to be
regulated under a framework different than the standard
setting process applicable for all other drinking water
contaminants, the House bill does not make this distinction
except with respect to recognizing the importance of non-
drinking water sources of exposure.
The primary question for Congress to consider is: Should
radon be regulated directly from other drinking water
contaminants?
1. EPA has been trying to set a radon standard for more
than fifteen years. EPA's difficulty in setting a standard
has been largely rooted in the challenges of using
the standard setting process applicable to all other
drinking water contaminants. Given that radon is unique
among drinking water contaminants, traditional standard
setting approaches should not be applied.
2. Radon is naturally occurring and the public is
continuously exposed to radon. While compounds such as lead
and arsenic are also naturally occurring and therefore the
public may be exposed, there is not the
[[Page H6757]]
continuous, passive, unavoidable exposure that the public
experiences with radon.
3. The risk from radon exposure at the naturally occurring
unavoidable level can not be assessed from the same vantage
point as other drinking water contaminants, or for that
matter other environmental hazards. According to EPA
estimates, the cancer risk from exposure to radon in outdoor
air is in the 1/1,000 risk range. The risk from indoor air
exposure has been estimated to be in the 1/100 risk range.
These risks are orders of magnitude greater than the risks
from other environmental pollutants. EPA's policy has been to
set standards in the 1/100,000 to 1/1,000,000 risk range.
Such a framework for standard setting should not be applied
to radon because the natural background level for radon in
air is orders of magnitude greater than the level found in
water.
4. The establishment of an unnecessarily stringent radon
drinking water standard will divert resources away from other
radon public health programs. The Conference of Radiation
Control Program Directors [CRCPD], a national organization of
state radiation protection directors, recently stated support
for the approach taken in S. 1316 because ``it would rougly
result in water contributing no more radon to indoor air than
is present in outdoor air'' (May 3, 1996 CRCPD letter to the
Alliance for Radon Reduction). In an earlier August 30, 1990,
letter to then EPA Administrator Reilly, CRCPD notes that:
``A low MCL for radon in water will probably have an
adverse effect on the overall effort of EPA to reduce deaths
from radon exposure because resources that would otherwise be
used to address the much more serious problems of radon in
air will be diverted to address the much less serious
problems of radon in water. It is difficult to conceive of a
cost/benefit analysis which would support this decision.''
In conclusion, we believe that radon should not be
regulated like other drinking water contaminants. Radon's
characteristics suggest that a non-traditional approach is
needed for the establishment of a standard that considers the
public's overall exposure to radon from all sources. The
approach adopted by the U.S. Senate would provide the public
health protection necessary to address radon in drinking
water and allow the EPA to move forward expeditiously to
estalish a standard. If the Agency is compelled to use a
traditional risk/cost-benefit approach for controlling radon
in drinking water, it is likely that we will be without a
radon standard for many years.
We hope that the conferees will consider these points
during the process of reconciling the House and Senate
versions. If you need further information regarding radon in
drinking water, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Sincerely,
David Reynolds,
Executive Director.
____
Conference of Radiation
Control Program Directors, Inc.,
Frankfort, KY, May 3, 1996.
David Reynolds,
Executive Director, Alliance for Radon Reduction, Washington,
DC.
Dear Mr. Reynolds: I understand that your organization is
interested in a radon provision that would be included in the
House Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) legislation. I would
like to provide you with the perspective of the Board of
Directors of the Conference of Radiation Control Program
Directors, Inc. (CRCPD).
The CRCPD is comprised of the program directors and their
staffs who are responsible for radiation protection matters
in each of the states (excluding Wyoming), and certain local
radiation control agencies. These radiation control programs
have primary responsibility for protecting the public from
unnecessary exposure from all man-made and certain naturally
occurring sources of radiation, including those which occur
through the various environmental pathways.
In the past we have expressed our concerns with the EPA
proposed Maximum Contaminant Level [MCL] for radon. Under the
SDWA, as currently written, the EPA has maintained it would
be required to set a standard as low as 200 or 300 pCi/1.
As radiation control professionals, members of our
organizations are committed to protecting human life and the
environment from the harmful effects of radiation. However,
we must be practical in our approach to providing this
protection and we therefore question EPA's proposed MCL for
radon in drinking water. In addition to placing an
unacceptable financial burden on individual homeowners
without providing commensurate health benefits, the EPA's
proposed MCL would result in significant administrative and
financial burdens on affected state programs.
Simply stated, we believe that an MCL in the range of 200
pCi/1 is neither practical nor justified. A more realistic
standard would be in the range of 5,000 to 10,000 pCi/1. The
Senate bill would set a water standard at 3,000 pCi/1 that
could be revised based on sound science. This is a reasonable
approach because it would roughly result in water
contributing no more radon to indoor air than is present in
outdoor air.
On behalf of the CRCPD, I would appreciate your
consideration of our concerns. If you have any questions,
please feel free to contact me directly.
Sincerely,
Ruth E. McBurney,
Chairperson.
____
Conference of Radiation
Control Program Directors, Inc.,
Frankfort, KY, August 30, 1990.
William Reilly,
Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Reilly: This letter relates to U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's [EPA] consideration of appropriate
standards for acceptable radon levels in drinking water and
is written on behalf of the Executive Board of the Conference
of Radiation Control Program Directors, Inc. [CRCPD].
The CRCPD is made up of the program directors and their
staffs who are responsible for radiation protection matters
in each of the fifty states. These radiation control programs
have primary responsibility for protecting the public health
from all sources of avoidable radiation exposure, including
those which occur through the various environmental pathways.
The EPA has proposed (Advanced Notice for Proposed
Rulemaking, FR 51,189, 34836) revisions to regulations under
the Safe Water Drinking Act which would provide for a Maximum
Contaminant Level [MCL] for public drinking water systems.
The MCL suggested for radon in water is in the range of 200-
2,000 pCi/1. The Executive Board of the CRCPD is concerned
with the rationale being used by EPA in proposing these radon
limits for drinking water. To illustrate these concerns, I
bring to your attention the following points:
The Radon Abatement Act of 1988 has the goal of lowering
indoor radon concentration to the same as ambient levels. The
EPA Citizen's Guide to Radon uses 0.2pCi/1 as the background
for ambient radon. Using the rule-of-thumb of 10,000 to 1 for
dissolved radon going from water to house air, one would
calculate a radon in water concentration of no less than
2,000 pCi/1.
EPA estimates that 5% of the general population's exposure
to radon progeny comes from radon derived from water. The
number of deaths prevented per year is 18 from an MCL of
2,000 pCi/1 and 94 for an MCL of 200 pCi/1 respectively.
However, EPA estimates that 21,000 deaths per year are caused
by exposure to airborne radon progeny derived from soil, but
there is no effort to develop an equivalent MCL for radon in
air. The public will be totally confused in trying to compare
the EPA airborne radon action level of 4 pCi/1 with the
suggested MCL radon in water level of 200-2,000 pCi/1.
An MCL of 2,000 pCi/1 will cost an estimated 35 million
dollars per year for public water suppliers. For this 35
million dollars the total estimated general public exposure
from radon in water will be reduced by less than 1%, or
approximately 18 lives saved.
An MCL for public water supplies will likely become a
defacto standard for homeowners with private wells.
An estimated 30% of private well water owners
(approximately 3 million homes) would exceed an MCL of 2,000
pCi/1. The typical cost to each homeowner to correct his or
her well to meet the suggested standard is estimated at
$2,000. To correct the problem nationally is estimated to
require over 1 billion dollars annually. Correcting all
private wells which are estimated to exceed 2,000 pCi/1 would
reduce the total estimated exposure from radon in water to
the general public by less than 10%.
A routine and inexpensive analytical method for dissolved
radon is not available.
A low MCL for radon in water will probably have an adverse
effect on the overall effort of EPA to reduce deaths from
radon exposure because resources that would otherwise be used
to address the more serious problems of radon in air will be
diverted to address the much less serious problems of radon
in water. It is difficult to conceive of a cost/benefit
analysis which would support this decision.
The approximate indoor radon in air level across the nation
is 1.0 pCi/1. It is assumed that this is the risk, or
exposure level, which the public is willing to accept for the
benefit of living in a home. This risk would equate to having
a radon in water value of 10,000 pCi/1, assuming all the
radon in water would become airborne.
A panel of radiation protection experts, assembled by EPA
at the National Workshop for Radioactivity in Drinking Water,
1985, made the following recommendation:
``Based on these considerations of estimated Rn exposures
in the United States, a derived practical limit on radon
concentrations in water is not less than 10,000 pCi/1. A
20,000 pCi/1 value is reasonable and conservative from the
standpoints of limiting cost of remedial action to a more
manageable number of houses.''
Under the Inactive Uranium Processing Sites Regulations,
EPA standards for buildings specify the objective is to
achieve an indoor Rn-progeny concentration of 0.02 WL. This
would equate to an MCL of 40,000 pCi/1, assuming all radon
would become airborne.
These two standards, which are both designed to address
risks from radon and its progeny, would place the EPA in a
position of making inconsistent risk management decisions.
As radiation control professionals we are committed to
protecting human life and the environment from the harmful
effects of radiation. However, we must be practical in our
approach to providing this protection, and we have much
concern that the MCL's under discussion (200-2000 pCi/1) will
place an unacceptable financial burden on individual
homeowners, e.g., $2,000 per system. These limits would also
place large administrative
[[Page H6758]]
and financial burdens on affected state programs. A major
concern to regulatory agencies is the shear magnitude of
addressing a regulatory issue in every household in the
land.--Resources just do not exist for such an endeavor.
Based on the above discussion, the recommendations of the
Executive Board of the CRCPD are as follows:
1. An MCL in the range of 200 pCi/1 is neither practical
nor justified, and the MCL should be no less than 2,000 pCi/
1. A more realistic standard is in the range of 5,000 to
10,000 pCi/1.
2. EPA should be consistent in its risk management
decisions to the maximum extent possible.
3. Since the entire radon issue is bound up with an
extended statistical argument based upon epidemiological
findings (for underground miners) which may or may not give a
true picture for a low level indoor environment, EPA should
carefully evaluate any proposed MCL's for radon in air or
water.
Attached with this letter is a report prepared by the CRCPD
Radon Program Implementation Committee which addresses these
concerns in more detail.
On behalf of the Executive Board of the CRCPD, I would
appreciate your consideration of our concerns and request
your response to these concerns at your earliest convenience.
Yours very truly,
Diane E. Tefft,
Chairperson.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Minge] to speak against pork.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in the chorus of others
who are praising the work of the committees in reporting out a bill
that actually addresses problems that many communities around this
country have had in maintaining a safe drinking water system and doing
so in a way that fits within a budget and reasonable mandates.
There are two issues here that affect the legislation that I would
like to briefly address. The first is the issue of pork, and I only
wish that I had time to read 300 pages and know exactly what the
architecture of the grant arrangement is. Let me say, if there is a 75
percent trigger figure or level that has to be reached before any
earmarks are implemented, that does not detract, in my opinion, from
the adverse nature of earmarking in legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I would certainly hope that in the conference committee
process this matter is cleaned up. It is nice to have safe drinking
water. We want clean drinking water; let us have a clean bill.
A second point that I would like to raise has to do with the public
right to know. In a community that is in my congressional district, we
ran into a rather unfortunate situation. In the context of transferring
a home, there was a test of tap water that was run. It was discovered
that there was lead in the tap water. The State agency administrating
the Federal program at that point told the municipality: You must
publish a notice in the local and the regional paper that you have lead
in the drinking water in your city.
The municipality said: This is not the case. the lead came from that
home, and we can show from other tests that this lead was not from our
municipal system, it is from the home itself.
I would like to ask the distinguished chairman of the committee if he
is aware if there is anything in this legislation that would simplify
the situation so a municipality would be able to distinguish in any
right-to-know publication between lead that comes from its system as
opposed to lead that may came from household plumbing.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. MINGE. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I understand the gentleman's frustration. As
a former mayor, I know that the contaminant is just as likely to come
from household plumbing as from the public water system itself. I must
advise the gentleman, however, that the bill does not change the way in
which lead violations are determined. The bill does give States more
flexibility in how the public is notified about violations. I would be
happy to work with the gentleman to make sure in the conference as best
I can that his concerns are addressed.
Mr. MINGE. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that greatly, and I would like
to again compliment the distinguished chairman of the committee and the
ranking member for the work that they have done in bringing to the
floor of his House a substantive measure which truly meets the needs of
this Nation with respect to preserving the safe drinking water supply.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from North Dakota [Mr. Pomeroy].
Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I grew up 3 miles out of a small town in North Dakota, and our water
was not fit to drink. We literally carried water to our town. This is
the state of thousands and thousands of homes today. The happy news is
that literally thousands and thousands of homes that did not have
drinkable water now do have because of the reach of rural water systems
and improvements in small town water systems that afford them drinkable
water where they did not have drinkable water before.
Mr. Speaker, the present law needs to be changed because it is
threatening the viability of some of these rural water systems imposing
too many one-size-fits-all requirements out of Washington, most
notoriously the requirement that 25 new contaminants be identified to
be tested for every single year, which is ludicrous, and not even
having a requirement that that be related to the public health concerns
of the area. This is a bad law and needs to be changed.
The bill before us makes positive changes. Specifically, the new
revolving loan fund will help small communities fund improvements, huge
improvements. There is greater flexibility to allow localities to
address local concerns and special treatment recognizing the
difficulties small systems have in maintaining absolutely sound water,
but dealing with the high costs of treatment.
One the other hand, I must note two great disappointments about this
bill. The bill coming out of committee by unanimous vote was one I
think we all could have been proud to vote for. To have the revolving
loan fund earmarked by the Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure in the fashion that has unfolded in the legislation
before us is a bitter disappointment. I think all systems ought to
compete for that money fair and square, not have some public works
earmarks grafted in by report language, and I think that that amendment
has indeed been highly regrettable.
The Senate passed their safe drinking water bill unanimously. We
could have on the House side. It is unfortunate that this change was
made.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this legislation but also to
express my disappointment about the recent controversy surrounding this
bill. It is unfortunate that once again the normal committee process
has been circumvented and in the process, passage of this bill--which
enjoyed broad bipartisan support--is in jeopardy. In the interest of
providing desperately needed relief to rural water systems throughout
the country, I will be supporting this bill.
Mr. Speaker, since my election to Congress, I have visited with
mayors and community leaders who consider reform of the Safe Drinking
Water Act to be one of their top priorities. It is no wonder. The Safe
Drinking Water Act is one of the most expensive unfunded mandates
facing North Dakota communities.
Water systems throughout the country are forced to test for an
arbitrary number of contaminants regardless of the threat to public
health. Many small and rural water systems simply cannot comply with
these madates--they don't have the technology and they don't have the
resources. This law has driven the water systems of some communities to
the edge of viability, while others have had to ignore the law in order
to survive financially.
A National Rural Water Association report found that rural
communities will spend over $639 million for redundant monitoring
between 1994 and 1996. In order to comply with these regulations, 80
percent of small communities surveyed will be forced to forego plans to
hookup more families, improve water treatment, operate wells, and other
critical functions.
In order to help move this issue forward, I introduced the
unanimously passed Senate version in March. Many of the provisions
contained in that bill are also contained in this legislation. It
reduces the regulatory burden imposed on States and public water
systems, increases State flexibility, provides financial assistance for
unfunded mandates, and requires that the EPA consider costs and
benefits when setting new standards.
The fundamental flaw of the current law is its one-size-fits-all
approach. What makes
[[Page H6759]]
more sense is allowing water systems to focus their scarce resources on
the real risks to human health in their communities. With passage of
this bill, what is affordable will no longer be governed by what
Chicago or New York can afford--system size will be taken into
consideration when determining affordability.
In this case, less regulation can actually mean safer drinking water.
This legislation will not undermine the importance of the current
drinking water laws. Rather, it will ensure safe drinking water without
bankrupting our communities.
I am concerned about the expansion of EPA autority into operator
certification programs. I believe the North Dakota Department of Health
should retain primacy over this program, because they are better suited
to understand the certification needs of North Dakota system operators.
As this legislation goes to conference, I will continue to work to
see that this and other issues impacting small and rural water systems
are addressed. I remain hopeful that we can enact a reform bill still
this session.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remainder of my time.
It was observed to me that pigs cannot fly, but they can swim, and
they are in our drinking water. The Committee on Public Works, or now,
I gather, the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure is it, has
never forgotten how to put pigs in the drinking water. They have never
forgotten how to take a fund which would benefit all of the Members of
Congress, all of the people of the country and convert it into a
proposal which will take care of just a few congressional districts,
with, quite frankly, a very shameless raid upon a fund which is already
too small to do what it has to do.
Now, I am not going to defend the situation which triggered this. I
am sure the natural instinct of that committee was to do exactly what
they did, regardless of how large or how small the fund is. Because the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, is it, yes, the
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure has never seen a pile of
money that they did not want to use for pork, and that is what has
transpired here.
So I would say to my colleagues in the House, if we do not have money
to deal with the problems of clean water and safe drinking water in our
districts, it is the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure
which has very carefully extorted from us and from our districts the
funds which would make that possible.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Colorado [Mr. Schaefer].
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is considering
this bipartisan environmental legislation.
The existing Safe Drinking Water Act's intent is important and
vitally necessary--ensuring the public has a clean water supply.
Unfortunately, the existing law provides this public health protection
through unnecessarily rigid mandates.
This bipartisan legislation validates that the same level of public
health protection can be provided, but at a lower financial cost to the
public and those who operate water systems.
I would like to take this chance to specifically address the Federal
facilities provisions in title II of the bill. Ensuring the Federal
Government's compliance with environmental laws has been a longtime
campaign of mine.
Historically, the Federal Government has been the Nation's biggest
polluter. It has sought to assert sovereign immunity to escape
accountability for its environmental violations. This is simply wrong.
Not only does the Federal Government have the duty to follow the laws
it enacts, but citizens living on or near Federal facilities deserve
the same environmental protections afforded to those on private lands.
Congress has sought to hold the Federal Government accountable in the
context of other environmental statutes. In 1992, after years of
effort, we won enactment of the Federal Facilities Compliance Act,
which gave States the ability to enforce Resource and Conservation
Recovery Act standards at Federal facilities. And, last year, we were
able to incorporate similar provisions in the Clean Water Act
amendments now pending in the Senate.
I am pleased that H.R. 3604 contains the parallel provisions
necessary to ensure that Federal facilities will adhere to the Safe
Drinking Water Act.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of this
legislation. I am specifically encouraged that Congress is taking
another step toward ensuring full compliance by Federal facilities with
environmental laws.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. SCHAEFER. I yield to the gentleman from Minnesota.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, just by way of observation, the Safe
Drinking Water Act amendments were reported from the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure on a bipartisan basis. We concur in
the language in the bill, and we support the legislation and urge its
adoption by the House.
Mr. SCHAEFER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman very much. I am also
pleased to be an original cosponsor and encouraged that Congress has
taken another step forward in fulfilling compliance by the Federal
facilities in this country the same that private industry does.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Massachusetts [Mr. Blute].
(Mr. BLUTE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BLUTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Safe Drinking
Water Act reform and urge its passage.
Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the legislation which
was originally reported out of the Commerce Committee. Indeed, 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 common sense in
orientation, and less costly. Although certainly not perfect, H.R. 3604
represents a very large improvement over the current law and this
Member hopes that it can be further improved in conference with the
other body.
In particular, this Member is concerned about the Federal approach,
H.R. 3604 takes with regard to issues such as operator certification
and capacity development. A Federal one-size-fits-all approach is not
the proper way to address these concerns. These are clearly matters
better left to the States.
This Member is further concerned with this bill's radon provisions.
It is critical for communities throughout Nebraska and the rest of the
country that a reasonable radon standard be developed. Without a common
sense approach, communities across the Nation will be forced to spend
billions of dollars to implement a regulation which would result in
minimal health benefits since water contributes very little to the
public exposure to radon. This Member expresses his strong desire that
the conference acquiesce to the other body's more reasonable radon
provisions which would provide adequate protection without
unnecessarily burdening communities.
Despite these flaws, this Member believes H.R. 3604 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. 3604 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.
Clearly, most Members and the informed American public now support an
assessment of risks during the regulatory process. Clearly, some
applications of environmental regulation has 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. 3604 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
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
[[Page H6760]]
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. 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.
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 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
made 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 nationwide
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.
Mr. Speaker, 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 1,395 public water
supply entities in the State use any surface water. In a great many
Nebraska communities, individual wells are located at various points in
a community without being interconnected. 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 source or cause of illness.
Mr. Speaker, this Member is pleased that the House is taking action
on this important issue and hopes that the legislation will be further
improved in conference and that includes a deletion of the earmarked or
recommended projects which were added after the legislation was
reported originally from the Commerce Committee.
Mrs. LINCOLN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate all parties,
particularly Messrs. Bliley, Dingell, Bilirakis, and Waxman, in
reaching an agreement on the reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water
Act. This is a truly bipartisan bill which establishes good public
policy.
I am only sorry that in the final days before today's vote that the
bipartisan nature of this bill was strained by jurisdictional
disagreements. This bill should have passed by a unanimous vote with
praise from both sides of the aisle. Instead, the debate exhibited the
partisan nature that has become all too familiar during the 104th
Congress--all over some additional district-specific provisions that
could diminish the State revolving fund [SRF] as much as $375 million
in grants.
I hope that we can resolve the differences that were outlined today
to ensure the enactment of a comprehensive Safe Drinking Water Act this
year. This is a good bill that sets forth solid public policy. H.R.
3604 grants long needed regulatory relief for small systems and
provides needed financial resources for rural water circuit rider
programs and for purely voluntary, incentive-based, and community-
driven source water protection programs.
Let's resolve the remaining controversies and move towards a
conference with the Senate. Because this bill has broad-based support,
it would be terrible to lose this opportunity to pass comprehensive
legislation into law this Congress.
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 3604, the
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. This bill, as amended by
the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, will help meet the
mandates for environmental infrastructure and a cleaner, safer, and
healthier environment.
First, I must congratulate and thank the leadership of the Commerce
Committee, particularly the gentleman from Virginia, Chairman Tom
Bliley, and the gentleman from Florida, Subcommittee Chairman Michael
Bilirakis, for their efforts regarding H.R. 3604 and their willingness
to work with the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. Working
together, we have combined provisions from their bill and from our
bill, H.R. 2747, the Water Supply Infrastructure Assistance Act of
1996, to produce a strong, bipartisan package.
A lot of the credit also goes to the membership of the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee, particularly the gentleman from
Minnesota, Ranking Democrat James Oberstar, the gentleman from New
York, chairman of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee,
Sherry Boehlert, and the gentleman from Pennsylvania, Ranking Democrat
of the Water Resources and Environment Subcommittee, Robert Borski. Our
efforts resulted in a broadly-supported, bipartisan bill authorizing a
new State revolving fund [SRF] for drinking water and source water
quality protection, as well as grants for additional, related
assistance. The bill also helped build momentum for broader legislation
reauthorizing and reforming the Safe Drinking Water Act within the
Commerce Committee.
Last week, with the assistance of the House Republican leadership,
the two committees combined portions from both bills--H.R. 2747 and
H.R. 3604--to help move improved legislation to the floor as soon as
possible.
The resulting package of amendments contains the regulatory and
financing provisions, including the SRF, from H.R. 3604 and certain
water infrastructure and watershed protection provisions from H.R.
2747. The bill's new title V, Additional Assistance for Water
Infrastructure and Watersheds, is straight from H.R. 2747 and
authorizes $50 million a year to EPA for grants to States for drinking
water infrastructure and source water quality protection. The
authorization is contingent on Congress appropriating 75 percent or
more of the amount authorized each year for the SRE--reflecting the
policy that Congress should give priority to capitalizing the SRF. The
package also includes provisions from H.R. 2747 to address regional
needs in Alaska and the New York City watershed. Provisions and
concepts from H.R. 2747 on the makeup and use of a national SRF are
also either already part of H.R. 3604 or part of the Senate-passed
drinking water bill.
Mr. Speaker, because the legislative history may not be entirely
clear, it is important to elaborate on some of the bill's provisions--
particularly those from the Transportation and Infrastructure
committee's bill, H.R. 2747. House Report 104-515, the committee report
accompanying H.R. 2747, describes the provisions in and intent behind
section 15 of H.R. 2747. Essentially the only changes from section 15
and the new title V of H.R. 3604 relate to the authorization dates and
levels. The generic grants program is now authorized through fiscal
year 2003, rather than fiscal year 2000, to be consistent with
authorization dates throughout the reported version of H.R. 3604.
Authorization dates and levels for the New York City watershed program
are also slightly modified: The program is authorized through fiscal
year 2003, like comparable provisions in the reported version of H.R.
3604, and the authorization level is reduced to $8 million per year to
reflect a comparable change made to the reported version of H.R. 3604.
There has been considerable discussion surrounding the generic grants
program and the mention of projects in the committee report. The
committee believes the Administrator of EPA and the affected States
should determine their own priorities under this program. Based on
testimony and other information submitted to the committee, however,
the committee urges that priority consideration be given to communities
listed in the committee report. In no way, however, is this intended to
preclude assistance for other communities. In fact, since the filing of
the report, additional needs have come to our committee's attention.
For example, Madison, OH, has waterline replacement and booster station
needs. These, like other infrastructure projects throughout the Nation,
could benefit from the program.
The Transportation and Infrastructure Committee report also adds
important language regarding land acquisition provisions and the
requirement that they be from willing sellers.
[[Page H6761]]
Page 17 of the report elaborates further on the committee's intent; all
of those provisions continue to apply to the provisions added from H.R.
2747 to H.R. 3604.
Some additional comments on the eligibilities and uses of the new SRF
might be helpful. Both H.R. 2747 and H.R. 3604 have SRF's with
provisions on eligibilities. From the perspective of the Transportation
and Infrastructure Committee, our intent is that the construction,
rehabilitation, and improvement of water systems could certainly
include work related to pipes and that, in limited circumstances,
assistance from the SRF and from title V could be used to refinance
loans as described in the report on H.R. 2747.
I congratulate members of both committees, as well as the members of
the Science Committee, for working together on this bipartisan
legislation. Beyond a doubt, it will significantly improve our
country's water infrastructure and drinking water protection efforts.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in both the House and
the Senate as H.R. 3604 moves further down the road toward enactment.
Mr. WALKER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 3604, the
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996. H.R. 3604 is a sound bill,
and I would like to compliment Chairman Bliley on his committee's fine
work.
H.R. 3604 was referred to the Committee on Science for consideration
of its drinking water research provision. The Science Committee has for
the last two decades authorized drinking water research as part of the
Environmental Research, Development, and Demonstration Authorization
Act.
During this Congress, the committee authorized the Environmental
Protection Agency's [EPA] drinking water research in both the Omnibus
Civilian Science Authorization Act of 1995, H.R. 2405, and 1996, H.R.
3322. Both these measures passed the House of Representatives.
It was my intent, Mr. Speaker, to have the Science Committee mark up
H.R. 3604 in order to reconcile its drinking water research provisions
with those which passed the House on May 30, 1996, as part of H.R.
3322. However, due to the looming August 1, 1996, deadline for the
enactment of a Safe Drinking Water Act reauthorization, and based on a
request from Chairman Bliley, the Science Committee has agreed to
discharge H.R. 3604.
In exchange, the Commerce Committee has agreed to include a new
research title in the bill, title VI, and support the appointment of
Science Committee conferees to the House-Senate conference for those
House or Senate provisions which involve drinking water research. Title
VI reconciles the drinking water research provisions in H.R. 3604 with
the authorization level in H.R. 3322.
As amended by the Science Committee's new title, H.R. 3604 authorizes
$26,593,000 a year for fiscal years 1997 through 2003 for drinking
water research. Contained within this authorization are specific
authorizations for section 1412(b)(13) of the Safe Drinking Water Act,
arsenic research, section 409 of H.R. 3604, drinking water research on
harmful substances, and section 1452(n) of the Safe Drinking Water Act,
research on the health effects of pathogens such as cryptosporidium and
disinfection byproducts.
Title VI also places the Assistant Administrator for Research and
Development in charge of the quality of all drinking-water-related
research conducted by the agency. Under the provision, the Assistant
Administrator will be required to report to Congress on any duplicative
or low-quality drinking water research conducted by the agency.
Centralizing the responsibility for the quality of all drinking water
research conducted by EPA should help ensure that the agency relies on
the highest quality science when it promulgates future drinking water
regulations.
Mr. Speaker, title VI makes a good bill better, and I encourage all
my colleagues to suspend the rules and pass H.R. 3604.
Mr. TATE. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the Safe
Drinking Water Act amendments. I commend my colleagues for their strong
bipartisan cooperation, continuing the tradition of bipartisanship that
has characterized the Safe Drinking Water Act since it was originally
signed into law by President Ford and reauthorized during the Reagan
Presidency.
Today, the Safe Drinking Water Act is revitalized by a Republican
Congress that has put policies aside, rolled up its collective sleeves,
and gone to work to deliver to the American people safe and pure
drinking water. Governors, State and county legislators and mayors,
alongside local and State water authorities, have endorsed the Safe
Drinking Water Act amendments as representing a significant advance
over current law.
In Washington State, there are over 4,000 separate water systems
impacted by the Safe Drinking Water Act and approximately 2,000 of
these have less than 100 families connected to them. Local authorities
can and will find effective ways of providing safe drinking water to
their residents--if they are allowed to do so.
The Safe Drinking Water Act amendments establish clear priorities,
concentrating safe drinking water programs on those contaminants that
pose the greatest threat to human health. No longer will local water
systems be forced to test for contaminants that responsible authorities
have never found, and are unlikely ever to find, in the water supply.
Instead, local water authorities will be able to harness their
knowledge, expertise, and dedication, and focus their resources where
it is needed the most.
Arbitrary requirements calling for regulations on 25 new contaminants
every 3 years are removed. Instead, the best available scientific
evidence will be utilized to target real and documented threats to the
public, including enhanced testing for estrogenic substances and a
screening program for pesticides and chemicals.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation ensures that water systems will be able
to obtain the financial and technical expertise they need to implement
Federal water standards. The EPA is required to proactively assist
water systems as they struggle to comply with Federal regulations by
identifying new technologies best suited to meet their needs. Special
technical assistance is also extended to small water systems.
This legislation provides the resources our drinking water systems
need. A State revolving fund of $7.6 billion is established to help
public water systems implement drinking water standards. Funding for
the public water State supervision grants, for use in the
implementation and enforcement of State drinking water programs, is
more than doubled to $100 million annually. Also, $80 million is
provided for scientific research on the health affects and treatment of
arsenic, radon, and cryptosporidium.
Most important, the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments vigorously
enforces the public's right to know. The EPA is required to track
unregulated contaminants and annually provide a consumer confidence
report detailing each water system's compliance with safe drinking
water standards. In addition, the public must be notified of violations
within 24-hours rather than the current 14 days.
The Safe Drinking Water Act amendments harnesses sound and objective
scientific practices, local expertise, and common sense in order to
produce real public health benefits. Science, local flexibility, and
common sense--rather than redtape--will help ensure the purity and
safety of our Nation's drinking water. I urge all my colleagues to vote
in support of the Safe Drinking Water Act amendments.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of these important
reforms to the Safe Drinking Water Act. The fact that we need to
protect our environment and ensure the public health is indisputable,
and this debate focuses on how best to achieve these goals.
H.R. 3604 demonstrates a commitment to effective, commonsense
regulations that will guarantee safe drinking water within the confines
of achieving a balanced budget. The bill focuses attention on those
contaminants that pose the great risk to health and requires public
notification of water safety violations.
Equally important is the bill's addition of a State revolving loan
fund to provide capitalization grants to States to further the health
protection objectives of this bill. Without this funding source, many
municipalities and States would face environmental mandates with which
they could not possibly comply. I was pleased to be an original
cosponsor of the portion of this legislation that established this
revolving loan fund and strongly support its inclusion as part of our
overall proposal to ensure safe drinking water.
This legislation takes an important step beyond the campaign-oriented
rhetoric that we have been hearing on environmental issues and moves
toward actually ensuring the protection of our environment and health.
Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I strongly support H.R. 3604, the Safe
Drinking Water Act amendments, and will vote for passage of the bill.
Under our current Safe Drinking Water Act, communities do not have
adequate resources, both financial and technical, to comply with
Federal water standards. This legislation will provide $7.6 billion for
grants and loans to local water authorities for compliance, activities,
training of new operators, and development of solutions to water
pollution. These measures will help our communities provide clean, safe
drinking water to their residents.
The legislation also includes a community right-to-know provision,
requiring water systems to mail every consumer an annual report
concerning the levels of regulated contaminants in their water.
Consumers need to know that their water is clean and pure. Parents need
to know that the water they give their children is safe to drink. These
reports will put more information into the hands of consumers and
parents, and allow them to better monitor the resources in their
communities.
This bill ends the one-size-fits-all safe drinking water policies
that our current law dictates.
[[Page H6762]]
It returns the decisionmaking power to the State and local water
authorities, who know best the needs of their community water system.
Communities will be better able to monitor the purity of their water
than bureaucrats in Washington, DC. Rural water system officials in
mid-Michigan have contacted me in support of this bill, because they
realize that less Federal control means more local control, and
ultimately cleaner water for Michigan's communities.
This legislation is the product of over 2 years of negotiations
between Congress, State, and local officials, and representatives of
virtually every public water system in the country. The Commerce
Committee deserves credit for fashioning a bipartisan bill that reforms
a Safe Drinking Water Act that is broken. This legislation will go far
toward insuring safe drinking water and efficient allocation of
Federal, State, and local resources. I urge my colleagues to vote for
this important piece of environmental legislation.
Mr. ENSIGN. Mr. Speaker, I would like to express my strong support
and intent to vote for H.R. 3604, the Safe Drinking Water Act
amendments. Despite the inclusion of nonrelated grants under the Safe
Drinking Water Act, I feel that it is vital to the American people that
we pass this legislation. It will enhance the safety of Americans'
drinking water by focusing regulatory efforts on the most dangerous
health contaminants and giving States and local water systems the
financial and technical resources they need.
H.R. 3604 provides $7.6 billion in direct grants and loans to public
water systems for compliance activities, enhancement of water system
capacities, operator training, and development of solutions to source
water pollution. It also authorizes $80 million for scientific research
on the health effects of cryptosporidium, as well as radon and arsenic,
and to develop new methods for its treatment. In addition, H.R. 3604
includes a community right-to-know provision which requires water
systems to mail an annual report to every consumer concerning the
levels of regulated contaminants.
The safe drinking water amendments is a carefully crafted, bi-
partisan bill that deserves support. It provides ample resources and
power to local communities to provide safe and clean water to their
residents. It provides local control over local issues.
I commend the Commerce Committee for their hard work. I am hopeful
that differences between the Senate-passed bill can be worked out
quickly to send this important environmental legislation to the
President.
Mr. BLILEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Virginia [Mr. Bliley] that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 3604, 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.
____________________