[House Report 104-632]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
104th Congress Rept. 104-632
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
2d Session Part 1
_______________________________________________________________________
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1996
_______________________________________________________________________
June 24, 1996.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Bliley, from the Committee on Commerce, submitted the following
R E P O R T
together with
ADDITIONAL VIEWS
[To accompany H.R. 3604]
[Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]
The Committee on Commerce, to whom was referred the bill
(H.R. 3604) to amend title XIV of the Public Health Service Act
(the ``Safe Drinking Water Act'') and for other purposes,
having considered the same, report favorably thereon with
amendments and recommend that the bill as amended do pass.
CONTENTS
Page
The Amendment.................................................... 2
Purpose and Summary.............................................. 4
Background and Need for Legislation.............................. 6
Hearings......................................................... 18
Committee Consideration.......................................... 19
Rollcall Votes................................................... 19
Committee Oversight Findings..................................... 20
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight..................... 20
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures........................ 20
Committee Cost Estimate.......................................... 20
Congressional Budget Office Estimate............................. 20
Inflationary Impact Statement.................................... 25
Advisory Committee Statement..................................... 25
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation................... 25
Agency Views..................................................... 60
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............ 62
Additional Views................................................. 128
Appendix......................................................... 133
Amendment
The amendments (stated in terms of the page and line numbers
of the introduced bill) are as follows:
Page 10, beginning in line 16, strike section 103 and insert:
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)).''.
Page 20, line 1, strike ``in carrying out this title''.
Page 27, after line 14, insert the following new clause:
``(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.
Page 41, line 16, strike ``1997'' and insert ``1998''.
Page 42, line 10, strike ``1997'' and insert ``1998''.
Page 43, line 13 strike ``system to'' and all that follows
down to ``mail'' in line 17 and insert ``system to''.
Page 44, line 4, strike ``a'' and insert ``an Environmental
Protection Agency'' before ``toll-free''.
Page 46, lines 11 and 16, strike ``(ii)''.
Page 46, strike lines 20 and 21 and insert:
``(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.
Page 55, line 9, strike both commas.
Page 76, line 10, after ``nants'' insert ``selected by the
State in its discretion''.
Page 76, lines 11 and 12, strike ``to present a substantial
threat'' and insert ``may present a threat''.
Page 79, lines 18, 19, 24, and 25, after ``subsection (l)''
each place it appears, insert ``or section 1418(b)''.
Page 86, after line 21, insert:
(2) In subsection (b), 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.''.
Page 86, line 19, strike ``1 year'' and insert ``18 months''.
Page 86, line 21, strike ``section 1447(d)'' and insert
``section 1429(b)''.
Page 89, line 19, strike ``in accordance with section
1428(c)'' and insert ``within 6 months after receipt of notice
of disapproval''.
Page 90, line 18, strike ``In paragraph (7)'' and all that
follows through ``the purpose'' on line 19, and insert
``Paragraph (7) is amended to read as follows:
`(7) Authorization.--For the purpose' ''.
Page 90, line 22, strike ``1994'' and insert ``1997''.
Page 95, line 20, strike ``specified in the'' and all that
follows through ``monitoring framework'' on line 21.
Page 95, line 22, strike ``and'' and insert ``set forth in''.
Page 96, line 16, after ``alternative'' insert
``monitoring''.
Page 96, line 17, strike ``to the standardized monitoring
framework'' and insert ``under paragraph (1) of this
subsection''.
Page 96, line 19, strike ``framework'' and insert
``guidelines''.
Page 98, line 17, strike ``the standard monitoring'' and all
that follows through ``and under'' on line 18.
Page 100, line 25, strike ``subparagraph (G)'' and insert
``subparagraph (H)''.
Page 101, line 23, strike ``subsection (g)'' and insert
``subsection (i)''.
Page 103, line 15, strike ``(1)'' and insert ``(3)''.
Page 108, line 23, strike ``No portion of funds authorized to
be'' and all that follows through ``this section or'' in line
24 and insert ``No funds''.
Page 111, lines 11 and 15, strike ``unless the State has
met'' and insert ``if the State has not met''.
Page 116, line 22, strike ``of the State or of the United
States''.
Page 118, line 20, strike ``subsection (a)'' and insert
``this section''.
Page 119, line 16, after ``grams'' insert ``which receive
grants''.
Page 126, line 7, strike ``by section 1442'' and insert ``by
the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996''.
Page 133, line 14, after the first period insert ``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.''.
Page 134, line 15, after ``system'' insert ``, including
projects necessary to comply with the criteria for avoiding
filtration contained in 40 CFR 141.71''.
Page 134, line 19, strike ``and shall include'' and all that
follows through ``organizations'' on page 135, line 7.
Page 135, line 9, strike ``these''.
Page 135, lines 22 and 23, strike ``such sums as are
necessary''.
Page 135, line 24, strike ``including''.
Page 136, line 2, strike ``(2)'' and insert ``(1)''.
Page 143, line 1, strike ``Funding.--The'' insert
``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''.
Page 143, line 4, strike `this section and'' and insert
``this section. The Administrator''.
Page 143, line 6, strike ``There are'' and all that follows
down through line 8.
Page 145, strike ``(A) In General.--''.
Page 145 and 146, strike clauses (i), (iv), (v), and (vi) and
redesignate the remaining clauses accordingly.
Page 147, strike lines 3 through 11.
Page 150, line 21, after ``is'' insert ``not later than''.
Purpose and Summary
H.R. 3604 amends Title XIV of the Public Health Service Act
(generally known as the ``Safe Drinking Water Act'' and
hereinafter referred to as ``the Act'') to provide for: (1)
revisions to the procedures, process, and criteria for
regulating contaminants in drinking water to protect the public
health; (2) improvements in existing enforcement provisions;
(3) provisions to promote cost-effectiveness in new drinking
water regulations; (4) increased flexibility for water
suppliers where consistent with public health; (5) special
programs to help small public water systems meet the
requirements of the Act; (6) new programs to promote the proper
operation of public water system; (7) substantial new Federal
financial and technical assistance to help water suppliers meet
the requirements of the Act and to help States in carrying out
programs under the Act; (8) refinements and new programs to
improve protection of public health from drinking water
contamination. A brief summary of the major provisions follows:
Selection of New Contaminants. The bill eliminates the ``25
every 3 years'' mandate and gives the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) the authority to decide which contaminants to
regulate based on several criteria, including whether the
contaminants ``present the greatest public health concern.''
Standard-Setting. The bill requires EPA to publish an
analysis of health risk reduction benefits and costs associated
with new or revised national drinking water standards. The bill
also provides the Administrator with the authority to use the
cost-benefit analysis to set a level that maximizes health risk
reduction benefits at a cost that is justified by the benefits
based on the best-available, peer-reviewed science.
Disinfectant By-Products (DBPs). The bill would allow for
``risk-risk'' analysis to be applied to the DBP rulemaking and
allow the EPA in Stage II to use the same considerations used
in the Stage I rulemaking (e.g., risk, cost, affordability,
feasible technology, and health benefits).
Other Contaminants. Arsenic. The bill requires EPA to study
the health risks associated with exposure to low levels of
arsenic and promulgate a national drinking water standard by
January 1, 2001. Radon. The bill requires that EPA's current
radon proposal (which would set a standard of 300 picocuries/
liter) be withdrawn and requires that EPA promulgate a radon
standard under the new standard setting provisions established
by the bill, taking into account risks from other sources of
radon in the environment. Sulfate. The bill would require
additional study to determine a reliable dose-response level
for sulfate and allow EPA to promulgate a national standard.
Public Notification. The bill modifies the public
notification requirements of current law, reducing from 14 days
to 24 hours the time that a public water system has to notify
the public of violations which have the potential to have
serious adverse effects on human health.
Consumer Right-To-Know. The bill requires an annual report
to consumers on the source of water provided, contaminant
levels, and brief statements on health concerns.
State Revolving Loan Fund (SRF). The bill creates a State
revolving loan fund (SRF) for drinking water systems
(authorized at $1 billion per year through Fiscal Year 2003).
SRF funds are to be used for providing grants and loans to
''significantly further the health protection objectives'' of
the Act.
Source Water Assessment. The bill creates a new program
under which States exerting primacy must conduct an assessment
of source water areas and, to the extent practical, identify
the origins of any contaminants within each delineated area.
Monitoring Flexibility. The bill provides for monitoring
relief where a public water system can show that a contaminant
is not present in a drinking water supply or, if present, it is
reliably and consistently below national drinking water
standards.
Small System Technology. The bill requires that EPA
identify feasible technologies that are available for small
public water systems serving between 25 and 10,000 people. The
bill separately provides $10,000,000 per year for technical
assistance.
Capacity Development. States must ensure that new and
existing water systems have the technical, financial, and
managerial capacity to comply with the Act.
Operator Certification. The bill requires EPA to promulgate
regulations to specify minimum standards for operator
certification, but presumes that preexisting State programs are
substantially equivalent to EPA regulations.
Variances and Exemptions. The bill provides for a variance
from a drinking water standard for systems serving under 3,300
people on the condition that the system install the best
available affordable technology (BAAT). The bill also requires
a review of a system's technical, financial, and managerial
capabilities before issuing an exemption.
Bottled Water. The bill requires the promulgation of
bottled water standards no less protective of public health
than standards applied to public water systems.
Estrogenic Substances Screening Program. The bill adopts
the D'Amato amendment with modifications to improve the
``workability'' of the measure. The bill requires the
Administrator of EPA (the Administrator), within 2 years, to
develop a validated screening program to determine whether
substances may have an effect in humans that is similar to the
effect produced by naturally occurring estrogen and authorizes
appropriate action under existing law.
The Committee stresses that the purpose of the legislation
is to help make more effective and more cost-effective Federal
regulation of drinking water and to help small communities pay
for improvements to their public water systems, while ensuring
that health protections are maintained or improved. The bill
does not amend or affect the Federal Water Pollution Control
Act, provide new research and development authorities, or
change existing research and development authorities.
Background and Need for Legislation
background
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) has developed as a
partnership between States, localities, and the Federal
government. The responsibility for providing safe drinking
water was first and primarily a State and local responsibility.
The first State board of health was established in
Massachusetts in 1869, largely in response to serious public
health risks from drinking water. For example, during the
decade 1880-1890, the average typhoid mortality for populations
in 47 American cities was 58 per 100,000. Through the
development and implementation of various treatment
technologies, including disinfection, the rate for an expanded
list of 78 cities had fallen to 20.5 per 100,000 by 1910. In
1938, the rate had fallen further to 0.67 deaths per 100,000
population.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ G. William Page, ``Water and Health,'' Public Health and the
Environment: The United States Experience, at 110 (Michael R.
Greenberg, PH.D. ed., 1987).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Federal government first became involved in the
provision of safe drinking water with the establishment of the
Public Health Service Hygienic Laboratory in 1901.\2\ The
purpose of the laboratory was to investigate infectious and
contagious diseases. In 1914, the U.S. Public Health Service,
under section 361 of the Public Health Service Act, promulgated
16 Drinking Water Standards (DWSs) including arsenic, copper,
lead, selenium, and total dissolved solids. The DWSs applied
only to water purveyed to customers of interstate carriers.
Federal enforcement authority was limited only to those systems
from which interstate carriers obtained potable water
(approximately 650 of 30,000 systems).\3\ However, States and
municipalities began to follow the DWSs, and courts began to
recognize the DWSs as the legal standard for safe drinking
water. The DWSs were revised in 1925, 1946 and 1962.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Act of March 3, 1901, ch. 31 Stat. 1137 (1901).
\3\ Thomas J. Douglas, ``Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974--History
and Critique,'' Environmental Affairs, vol. 5:501, n.28 (1976).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1969, the Public Health Service undertook a
comprehensive survey of the quality of drinking water provided
to the American public. The survey, published in 1970 as the
Community Water Supply Study (CWSS),\4\ found that of the 969
water systems surveyed, only 59 percent were delivering water
that satisfied all the DWSs.\5\ The study also found that 56
percent of the water treatment facilities had a major physical
deficiency.\6\ The results of the CWSS made it clear that
States were not able to provide the necessary financial and
technical assistance to public water systems to ensure safe
drinking water.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Id. note 3, at 501.
\5\ Id. note 39, at 507.
\6\ Id. note 41, at 507.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
In 1970, Congress transferred responsibility for
implementation and enforcement of the DWSs from the Public
Health Service to the newly created Environmental Protection
Agency. On December 17, 1974, President Gerald Ford signed into
law the Safe Drinking Water Act. The purpose of the Safe
Drinking Water Act was to assure that the water supply systems
serving the public meet minimum national standards to protect
consumers from harmful contaminants. The Act directed EPA to
develop the following: (1) ``national primary drinking water
regulations'' (NPDWRs) that establish numerical ``maximum
contaminant levels'' (MCLs) or ``treatment techniques;'' (2)
underground injection control regulations to protect
underground sources of drinking water; and (3) groundwater
protection grant programs for the administration of sole source
aquifer demonstration projects and wellhead protection area
programs. The Act permitted these activities to be implemented
by the States.
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974
The Safe Drinking Water Act was amended in 1977, 1979, and
1980. The 1977 amendments to the Act were adopted to provide
continuing, increasing assistance to States, and to permit more
time for States to achieve primary enforcement responsibility.
Specifically, the amendments extended authorization for two
additional years, promoted training of drinking water
personnel, and provided for additional studies.
The 1979 amendments to the Act authorized appropriations
for three fiscal years for the following EPA activities:
abatement and control of contamination of drinking water
sources; assistance to States in creating and sustaining public
water systems supervision programs; and creation and
maintenance of underground water source protection programs.
In 1980, Congress amended the Act to adjust deadlines, to
improve Federal-State coordination, or to modify program
coverage. Specifically, these amendments provided for the
following: extended for three years the State's power to grant
temporary case-by-case exemptions from the interim primary
drinking water regulations; proposed an alternative means for
States to receive primary enforcement authority to regulate
underground injection related to oil and gas production and
recovery; deleted the underground storage of natural gas from
the underground injection program; authorized EPA to make
grants to a single public water system for the purpose of
developing and demonstrating a new or improved means of meeting
State turbidity standards that are stricter than standards
under the Federal SDWA; and made various technical changes in
the Act.
The 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act
Twelve years after its enactment, the Safe Drinking Water
Act had not been fully implemented. Members of Congress were
especially critical of EPA's failure to establish regulations
for new contaminants. For example, from 1974 to 1986, only 1 of
22 interim regulations had been revised and no new regulations
had been promulgated since 1976.
In 1986, Congress adopted amendments to the Safe Drinking
Water Act. President Reagan signed these amendments into law on
June 19, 1986.
The 1986 amendments made significant changes to the Act.
The 1986 amendments included the following:
Required EPA to establish national primary drinking
water regulations for a specified list of 83
contaminants within three years (by June 1989);
Directed EPA to issue regulations for at least 25
additional contaminants every three years thereafter;
Required EPA to review every contaminant regulation
at least once every three years;
Directed EPA to mandate filtration and disinfection,
or steps equally protective of water supplies, as
appropriate treatment techniques for all systems to
remove contaminants including contaminants for which
national standards had not been set;
Authorized programs to provide technical and
financial assistance to small systems for conducting
monitoring and implementing treatment techniques;
Provided new programs to protect groundwater resources;
Directed EPA to promulgate rules for monitoring wells
that inject wastes below a drinking water source; and
Strengthened EPA's enforcement authority for
violations of both drinking water standards and
underground injection control requirements by adding
administrative enforcement orders and penalties,
increasing civil penalties, and simplifying the process
EPA used to take enforcement action where States with
primary enforcement responsibility have failed to take
appropriate action.
The 1986 amendments represent the last time that the SDWA
was substantially amended and reauthorized.
The 1988 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act
The SDWA was most recently amended in 1988 with the
enactment of the Lead Contamination Control Act which added a
new Part F to the SDWA. Part F was intended to reduce exposure
to lead in drinking water by requiring the recall of lead-lined
water coolers, and requiring EPA to issue a guidance document
and testing protocol to assist schools and day care centers in
identifying and correcting lead contamination in school
drinking water. However, this Act did not affect the
establishment of drinking water standards for public water
systems.
need for the legislation
Over the past several years, the Committee has received
numerous reports and voluminous testimony supporting the need
for: a more streamlined and flexible approach to controlling
drinking water contamination consistent with continued
protection of the public health; flexibility in monitoring of
contaminants; new financial assistance to help State and local
governments comply with the requirements of the Safe Drinking
Water Act; better training of public water system operators;
and attention to whether public water systems have the capacity
to operate in compliance with the Act.
As required by the 1986 amendments to the Act, EPA has
promulgated standards for more than 80 contaminants in drinking
water and is attempting to comply with the requirement to
regulate 25 additional contaminants every three years. These
mandates have imposed significant burdens at the State, local
and Federal level, and have led to questions about whether the
Act is focused on the most significant risks to public health.
While increasing flexibility under the Safe Drinking Water
Act, it is also apparent that the Act must maintain a public
health focus. In recent years, EPA and others, including EPA's
Science Advisory Board, have done several studies comparing the
relative risk to public health from various ``environmental''
sources. The risks attributed to drinking water have always
ranked high in these studies relative to other health threats
addressed by EPA programs. A number of serious contaminants
remain unregulated and other contaminants are in serious need
of review.
Using a resource-needs model developed by the EPA and the
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators, the EPA has
estimated, that the gap between States' Safe Drinking Water Act
program needs and the available resources was approximately
$162 million in 1993.\7\ Increasingly, States have indicated
that they are unable to implement core elements of their
programs effectively, much less the new and more stringent
requirements of the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act. While the
Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes EPA to pay up to 75 percent
of the costs of administering State programs, the EPA
contribution has been substantially less. On the basis of EPA
Fiscal Year 1990 data, the Federal share of State program costs
averaged 45 percent and accounted for less than 25 percent in
nine States.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ United States Environmental Protection Agency, Officer of
Water, ``Technical and Economic Capacity of States and Public Water
Systems to Implement Drinking Water Regulations: Report to Congress,''
EPA, Office of Water (810-R-93-001), at i (1993).
\8\ United States General Accounting Office; ``Drinking Water:
Widening Gap Between Needs and Available Resources Threatens Vital EPA
Program'' (GAO/RCED-92-184), at 6 (1993).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act also
have imposed a significant burden on public water systems. In
1993, EPA estimated annual compliance costs of water systems of
$1.48 billion. It is estimated that these costs could more than
triple if proposed rules are passed in their current form.\9\
At the Subcommittee's hearing on January 31, 1996, Mr. Ronald
Dungan, President of the National Association of Water
Companies, made the following observation:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ ``The Safe Drinking Water Act: A Case Study of an Unfunded
Mandate'' (CBO 9 1995).
Customers will pay for safe drinking water * * *
[b]ut are not willing to pay for complying with
drinking water rules that provide only marginal
increases in health protection at significant costs,
particularly when there is so much uncertainty
concerning both the occurrence and real threat to
public health of many contaminants.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Testimony of Ronald Dungan, President of the National
Association of Water Companies, before the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment, House Committee on Commerce, on January 31, 1996.
Increased compliance costs have the most dramatic effect on
small public water systems. EPA has found that for systems
serving 25-100 persons, the average incremental household costs
for compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act are $145 as
compared to $12 for systems serving between 100,000 and 500,000
persons.\11\ EPA has estimated that 68 percent of total
compliance costs for drinking water regulations being
implemented between now and the year 2000 will fall on the 90
percent of systems which serve fewer than 3,300 people.\12\
These increased costs make it more difficult for small public
water systems to comply with the requirements of the Act. EPA
recently found that 77 percent of ``significant noncompliers''
were systems serving fewer than 500 persons.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ EPA 810-R-93-001, supra, at 66.
\12\ Id. at 5.
\13\ Id. at 116.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
There is a concern among many that the Act is not
sufficiently focused on protecting the public from contaminants
in drinking water that pose the most significant risks to human
health. At a January 31, 1996, hearing conducted by the
Subcommittee on Health and the Environment, EPA Assistant
Administrator Robert Perciasepe stated:
The current requirement to regulate 25 new
contaminants every 3 years needs to be replaced with a
scientifically defensible, risk-based approach. The
current regulatory treadmill dilutes limited resources
on lower priority contaminants, and as a consequence
may hinder more rapid progress on high priority
contaminants.\14\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ Testimony of Robert Perciasepe, EPA Assistant Administrator
Office of Water, before the Subcommittee on Health and Environment,
House Committee on Commerce, on January 31, 1996.
Most of the focus of EPA regulation under the 1986
amendments to the Act has been on chemical substances.
According to a number of critics, less emphasis has been placed
on the regulation of microbial contaminants that pose more
immediate health risks ranging from gastrointestinal disorders
to cholera and typhoid. Despite the implementation of the
Surface Water Treatment Rule, a number of serious waterborne
disease outbreaks have occurred, including an outbreak of
cryptosporidium contamination in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which
killed more than one hundred individuals and caused illness in
as many as 400,000 others.
Others are concerned that the Act does not provide
sufficient flexibility to States and public water systems to
meet particular geographical and other circumstances. Small
public water systems in particular have faced increased
monitoring costs under the 1986 amendments to the Act.
According to a representative of the National Rural Water
Association:
Seasonal monitoring may be necessary in surface
water, the dynamics of groundwater is significantly
different * * * In small communities 90% of water
systems rely on groundwater. Small communities are
confused because there is negligible benefit to
monitoring quarterly even though the cost is
significant.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ Testimony of Steve Levy, Executive Director of Maine Rural
Water Association on behalf of the National Rural Water Association,
before the Subcommittee on Health and Environment, House Commerce
Committee, on January 31, 1996.
A number of commentators have identified the need for the
establishment of a revolving loan fund program for drinking
water projects necessary to comply with the mandates imposed by
the Safe Drinking Water Act. Such a fund, capitalized with
Federal funds to finance loans and other types of financial
assistance to public water systems, would assist such systems
in complying with the increasingly complex and expensive
requirements of the Act. Under the SRF program, EPA would
provide grants to capitalize the States' funds while the States
identify investment priorities and manage the loan program. As
loans are repaid, the fund is replenished, and loans can be
made for other eligible Safe Drinking Water Act compliance
projects. According to EPA Assistant Administrator Robert
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perciasepe:
The drinking water State Revolving Fund (SRF) may be
one of the most important changes in the nation's
drinking water program contemplated by Congress since
passage of the original Act in 1974. An SRF is critical
to helping States assist communities in upgrading
treatment facilities to ensure that they can provide
safe drinking water to the public.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ Testimony of Robert Perciasepe, EPA Assistant Administrator
Office of Water, before the Subcommitee on Health and Environment,
House Committee on Commerce, on January 31, 1996.
This legislation attempts to address these concerns.
Following are letters from several organizations representing
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
the diversity of support for the legislation.
June 11, 1996.
Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce, House of Representatives, Rayburn
House Office Building, 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 signficant 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 forcuses 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 more new
standards. 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
comnmunity, 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,
Gov. Tommy G. Thompson, Chairman, Natinal
Governor's Association; Gregory S.
Lashutka, President, National League of
Cities; Norman B. Rice, President, The U.S.
Conference of Mayors; Douglas R. Bovin,
President, National Association of
Counties; James J. Lack, President,
National Confernece of State Legislatures;
David L. Tippin, President, Association of
Metropolitan Water Agencies; Karl F.
Kohlhoff, President, American Water Works
Association; Ronald S. Dungan, 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, Rayburn House Office Building, 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 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 predicted 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, Ph.D.,
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 Manuel, National Consumers League; Erik Olson,
Natural Resources Defense Council; Rev.
Albert G. Cohen, Network for Environmental
& Economic Reponsibility; 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,
Arlington, VA, 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 productive 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.
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,
Construction 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.
The Committee has received the following correspondence on
the important issues of the regulation of disinfectants and
disinfection byproducts.
American Medical Association,
Chicago, IL, May 2, 1996.
Hon. Henry A. Waxman,
House of Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building, Washington,
DC.
Dear Congressman Waxman: The American Medical Association
(AMA) understands that the Health and Environment Subcommittee
may soon consider the Reauthorization of the Safe Drinking
Water Act. Specifically, the AMA is concerned about language in
the draft legislation that would exempt disinfection by-
products (DBPs) of water chlorination from the cost-benefit
analysis.
Consistent with our policy, the AMA urges caution in
changing current drinking water regulations without a through
evaluation of the risks, costs, and benefits of using chlorine
or alternative disinfectants in the water purification process.
Such an evaluation is essential considering that much of the
increase in the lifespan of Americans, from about 45 years in
the early 1900s to about 76 at present, and the decrease in
infant mortality, from about 100 per 1000 in the early 1900s to
8.2 in 1992, is attributed to public health measures, such as
the chlorination of drinking water.
In June 1994, the AMA House of Delegates passed a
resolution encouraging the EPA to base its evaluation of health
and environmental risks from exposures to organic compounds,
industrial compounds, or manufacturing processes that include
or involve chlorine on reliable data specific to the compounds
or processes. With potential human health risks and estimated
price tag of nearly $4 billion a year, the AMA believes that
any rule revisions affecting our nation's drinking water should
be based on sound scientific knowledge. Therefore, we would
urge the Subcommittee to reconsider its position on this
provision, instead allowing the EPA to use cost/benefit
analysis when setting standards to control DBPs and other
contaminants regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Thank you for your attention to this important public
health matter.
Sincerely,
P. John Seward, M.D.
------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, May 17, 1996.
Hon. Henry Waxman,
House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representative Waxman: Thank you for your May 10, 1996
letter to Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator
Carol Browner requesting a response to charges made in a May 2,
1996 letter you received from Dr. P. John Seward, Executive
Vice President of the American Medical Association (AMA). In
this letter, Dr. Seward expressed, on behalf of the AMA,
concern about language in a staff draft of the House Commerce
Committee's Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) reauthorization bill
affecting EPA's proposed drinking water standard for
disinfectants and disinfection byproducts (D/DBPs). We
appreciate the opportunity to correct the substantial
misunderstanding reflected in this letter of both EPA's
proposed rule for D/DBPs and the Agency's policies and actions
to reduce health risks from waterborne pathogens.
EPA has for over two decades strongly supported the vital
role of drinking water disinfection for protecting public
health from microbial risks. In 1989, EPA issued a rule
requiring surface water and certain ground water systems to
disinfect. A high priority of EPA's drinking water program is
to complete work, in consultation with representatives of
affected state and local governments and water utilities, on a
proposal to expand disinfection rules to cover other ground
water supplies that may pose unacceptable microbial risks.
The control of microbial contaminants is complicated,
however, because byproducts of commonly used disinfectants
(such as chlorine and chloramines) may pose serious health
risks. Due to the scientific complexity of maintaining or
strengthening microbial control while simultaneously
controlling risks from disinfection byproducts, EPA convened in
1992 a negotiated rulemaking involving public health officials,
representatives of states, local governments, water utilities,
and environmental and community groups. The negotiators agreed
on a fundamental precept of the negotiation: that while new
safeguards to reduce the risk from D/DBPs were warranted, any
such safeguards must fully maintain or improve protection
against waterborne pathogens. The negotiators subsequently
agreed that any D/DBP rules must be accompanied by affordable
measures to strengthen protection from Cryptosporidium, which
is resistant to many conventional disinfectants such as
chlorine.
It is important to understand the process, endorsed in the
negotiated rulemaking, under which these regulations are being
developed. Consistent with the negotiated agreement, EPA
proposed in July 1994 that the standards for D/DBPs and
microbial contamination be addressed in two Stages. In Stage I,
the standard for Total Trihalomethanes (TTHMs) has been
proposed to be reduced from the current level of 100 ppb to 80
ppb, and a new standard for haloacetic acids proposed to be set
at 60 ppb.
Before this Stage I Rule (and an accompanying rule to
ensure microbial protection) can be finalized, however, many
water systems and EPA will engage in a massive effort to
collect and analyze new nationwide data on D/DBP and microbial
occurrence, human exposure, and potential treatments. This
effort, included in the terms of the negotiated agreement, was
formally launched with EPA's promulgation of an Information
Collection Rule (ICR) this month. In addition, EPA is embarking
jointly with the American Water Works Research Foundation and
other organizations on a multi-year, multi-million dollar
research initiative on D/DBPs and Cryptosporidium, with a
substantial emphasis on risks and health effects. These efforts
will greatly improve the scientific basis for future actions
and thus meet the objective of the AMA's House of Delegates'
1994 Resolution concerning improved science, as described by
Dr. Seward.
Under the negotiated agreement, the levels proposed for
Stage I may be changed, if appropriate, in the final Stage I
rule. The Stage I levels do not appear to be contentious; even
the Chlorine Chemistry Council acknowledged in October 1994
that ``most utilities will be able to achieve the 80-ppb MCLs
with moderate modifications to their systems.'' While the
proposed Stage II numbers of 40 ppb (for TTHMs) and 30 ppb (for
haloacetic acids) are considerably more stringent, they do not
represent a final agreement by the stakeholders or EPA. The
negotiators agreed that the negotiations would recommence after
the IRC results and complementary research become available. A
new Stage II proposal will be made, by agreement among the
negotiators, to reflect those results. Thus, EPA's
implementation of the terms of the agreement signed two years
ago assure that Stage II will be founded on the most sound
scientific base obtainable.
When considering the Stage II rule, the regulatory
negotiation will continue to be grounded, as it was in Stage I,
in the principle that any rule to control D/DBP risks must
fully maintain protection against microbial risk (if necessary,
through a simultaneous microbial rule). These negotiated rules
would be based on technology which is both practically
available and affordable for large systems. (For small water
systems, all three SDWA bills approved by the House or the
Senate in the 103rd and 104th Congress require EPA to list
approved technologies specifically affordable for small
systems.) Costs and benefits were extensively analyzed and
addressed in a manner satisfactory to all signatories of the
agreement. Thus, there is no basis for concern that this D/DBP-
microbial rulemaking process will fail to maintain or improve
protection against microbial contaminants, or result in
unaffordable costs to public water systems.
Moreover, it is important to understand that the
negotiators and EPA have agreed to governing principles (for
developing the D/DBP-microbial rules) which ensure greater
certainty that protection against waterborne disease will be
maintained or improved, at an affordable cost, than would a
cost-benefit framework. Potential weakening of such protection
is not categorically ruled out within the cost-benefit
framework advocated by Dr. Seward.
Congress has repeatedly recognized the great complexity and
public health implications of the D/DBP-microbial rules, as
well as the fragility of the balance reached in the negotiated
rulemaking. In approving SDWA reauthorization bills--S. 2019
and H.R. 3392 in the 103rd Congress, and S. 1316 in the 104th
Congress--each chamber of Congress has sought to preserve that
balance, as well as the strong and affordable protections for
public health that the balance provides. Any provision
disturbing the negotiated agreement could lead to delay in
additional, much-needed public health protections.
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the concerns
expressed in Dr. Seward's letter on this vital issue. If I can
be of further assistance in this matter, please do not hesitate
to contact me.
Sincerely,
Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator.
Hearings
On January 31, 1996, the Subcommittee on Health and the
Environment held a hearing on the Priorities for the
Reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Testimony was
given by twelve witnesses, including: The Honorable Gerald
Solomon and the Honorable Gerald D. Kleczka, Members of the
U.S. House of Representatives; the Honorable Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator, Office of Water, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; Mr. Randy Wood, Director of the Nebraska
Department of Environmental Quality, on behalf of the National
Governors Association; The Honorable Jeffrey Wennberg, Mayor of
Rutland, Vermont, on behalf of the National League of Cities;
The Honorable Larry Mancini, Deputy Mayor of Lake George, New
York; Dr. David Spath, Chief, Division of Drinking Water and
Environmental Management for the State of California, on behalf
of the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators; Mr.
Karl Kohlhoff, Assistant Utilities Manager for the Utilities
Department of Mesa, Arizona, on behalf of the American Water
Works Association; Mr. David Tippin, Director, Tampa Water
Department, Tampa, Florida, on behalf of the Metropolitan Water
Agencies; Mr. Ronald Dungan, Senior Vice President of the
United Water Management and Service Company of Wayne,
Pennsylvania, on behalf of the National Association of Water
Companies; Mr. Steve Levy, Executive Director of the State of
Maine Rural Water Association on behalf of the National Rural
Water Association; and Mr. Greg Wetstone, Legislative Director,
Natural Resources Defense Council, Washington, D.C.
In the 103rd Congress, the Committee considered a
predecessor bill H.R. 3392. The Subcommittee on Health and the
Environment held a hearing on drinking water contamination
problems, resources shortfalls in the effort to carry out the
Safe Drinking Water Act, and on H.R. 1701 (legislation
authorizing appropriations for State revolving funds) on April
19, 1993. Testimony was provided by Martha G. Prothro, Acting
Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; Paul W. Nannis, Commissioner of Health, City
of Milwaukee; Peter F. Guerrero, Associate Director,
Environment Protection Issues, General Accounting Office,
Washington, D.C.; Dennis D. Juranek, DVM, Chief, Epidemiology
Activity, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta,
Georgia; David Tippin, Vice President, Association of
Metropolitan Water Agencies, Director, Tampa Water Department,
Tampa, Florida; William F. Parrish, Program Administrator,
Maryland Water Supply Program, on behalf of the Association of
State Drinking Water Administrators, Dundalk, Maryland; Erik
Olson, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council,
Washington, D.C.; James S. McInerney, President, Bridgeport
Hydraulic Company, on behalf of the National Association of
Water Companies, Washington, D.C.; Kathleen Stanley, Executive
Director, Rural Community Assistance Program, Leesburg,
Virginia; John H. Montgomery, Association Representative,
National Rural Water Association, Washington, D.C.; and Robert
L. Wubbena, Vice President, American Water Works Association,
Washington, D.C.
On May 10, 1991, the Committee's Subcommittee on Health and
the Environment held a hearing on progress in carrying out the
Safe Drinking Water Act's provisions for control of drinking
water contamination. Testimony was provided by the Honorable
William K. Reilly, Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency; Donald E. Elliot, General Counsel, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency; and LaJuana Wilcher, Assistant Administrator
for Water, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
Committee Consideration
On June 6, 1996, the Subcommittee on Health and Environment
met in open markup session and considered a Subcommittee Print
entitled the ``Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996''.
The Subcommittee approved the introduction of a clean bill for
Full Committee consideration, by a rollcall vote of 24 yeas to
0 nays. H.R. 3604 was introduced in the House as the clean bill
on June 10, 1996.
On June 11, 1996, the Full Committee met in open markup
session and ordered H.R. 3604, the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1996, reported to the House, as amended, by a
rollcall vote of 42 yeas to 0 nays, a quorum being present.
Rollcall Votes
Clause 2(l)2(B) of rule XI of the Rules of the House
requires the Committee to list the recorded votes on the motion
to report legislation and amendments thereto. The following are
the recorded votes on the motion to report H.R. 3070 and on
amendments offered to the measure, including the names of those
Members voting for and against.
rollcall vote no. 131
Bill: H.R. 3604, Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of
1996.
Motion: Motion by Mr. Bliley to order H.R. 3604 reported to
the House, as amended.
Disposition: Agreed to, by a rollcall vote of 42 yeas to 0
nays.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Representative Aye Nay Present Representative Aye Nay Present
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Bliley..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Dingell...... X ........ .........
Mr. Moorhead................... X ........ ......... Mr. Waxman....... X ........ .........
Mr. Tauzin..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Markey....... X ........ .........
Mr. Fields..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Collins...... X ........ .........
Mr. Oxley...................... ........ ........ ......... Mr. Hall......... X ........ .........
Mr. Bilirakis.................. X ........ ......... Mr. Richardson... X ........ .........
Mr. Schaefer................... X ........ ......... Mr. Bryant....... X ........ .........
Mr. Barton..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Boucher...... X ........ .........
Mr. Hastert.................... ........ ........ ......... Mr. Manton....... X ........ .........
Mr. Upton...................... X ........ ......... Mr. Towns........ X ........ .........
Mr. Stearns.................... X ........ ......... Mr. Studds....... X ........ .........
Mr. Paxon...................... ........ ........ ......... Mr. Pallone...... X ........ .........
Mr. Gillmor.................... ........ ........ ......... Mr. Brown........ X ........ .........
Mr. Klug....................... X ........ ......... Mrs. Lincoln..... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Franks..................... X ........ ......... Mr. Gordon....... X ........ .........
Mr. Greenwood.................. X ........ ......... Ms. Furse........ X ........ .........
Mr. Crapo...................... X ........ ......... Mr. Deutsch...... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Cox........................ X ........ ......... Mr. Rush......... ........ ........ .........
Mr. Deal....................... X ........ ......... Ms. Eshoo........ X ........ .........
Mr. Burr....................... X ........ ......... Mr. Klink........ X ........ .........
Mr. Bilbray.................... X ........ ......... Mr. Stupak....... X ........ .........
Mr. Whitfield.................. X ........ ......... Mr. Engel........ X ........ .........
Mr. Ganske..................... X ........ .........
Mr. Frisa...................... X ........ .........
Mr. Norwood.................... X ........ .........
Mr. White...................... X ........ .........
Mr. Coburn..................... X ........ .........
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
voice votes
Bill: H.R. 3604, Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of
1996.
Amendment: Amendment by Mr. White and Mrs. Furse re:
alternative source water protection strategies for the
Northwest.
Disposition: Agreed to by a voice vote.
Amendment: En bloc amendment by Mr. Bilirakis re:
miscellaneous provisions of the bill.
Disposition: Agreed to by a voice vote.
Committee Oversight Findings
Pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(A) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the Committee held an oversight
hearing and made findings that are reflected in this report.
Committee on Government Reform and Oversight
Pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(D) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, no oversight findings have been
submitted to the Committee by the Committee on Government
Reform and Oversight.
New Budget Authority and Tax Expenditures
In compliance with clause 2(l)(3)(B) of rule XI of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the Committee states
that H.R. 3604 would result in no new or increased budget
authority or tax expenditures or revenues.
Committee Cost Estimate
The Committee adopts as its own the cost estimate prepared
by the Director of the Congressional Budget Office pursuant to
section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Congressional Budget Office Estimate
Pursuant to clause 2(l)(3)(C) of rule XI of the Rules of
the House of Representatives, the following is the cost
estimate provided by the Congressional Budget Office pursuant
to section 403 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974:
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, June 24, 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 cost estimate for H.R. 3604, the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996.
Enacting H.R. 3604 would affect both direct spending and
receipts; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures would apply.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them.
Sincerely,
June E. O'Neill, Director.
Enclosure.
congressional budget office cost estimate
1. Bill number: H.R. 3604.
2. Bill title: Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996.
3. Bill status: As ordered reported by the House Committee
on Commerce on June 11, 1996.
4. Bill purpose: The bill 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 finance the
construction of facilities for the treatment of drinking water.
The bill would authorize appropriations of $1 billion annually
over the 1997-2003 period for these capitalization grants. In
addition, major provisions of the bill would:
amend the procedures that EPA uses to identify
contaminants for regulation under the SDWA;
allows states to establish an alternative monitoring
program for contaminants in drinking water;
allow operators of small drinking water systems to
obtain variances from drinking water standards under
certain conditions;
direct EPA to define treatment technologies that are
feasible for small drinking water systems when the
agency issues new contaminant regulations;
require states to ensure that public water systems
have the technical expertise and financial resources to
implement the SDWA;
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; and
authorize appropriations of $15 million a year to the
state of New York for demonstration projects
implemented as part of the program for protecting the
source water of the New York City water system.
5. Estimated cost to the Federal Government: Assuming
appropriation of the entire amounts authorized for
discretionary programs, enacting H.R. 3604 would lead to fiscal
year 1997 funding for safe drinking water programs about $0.6
billion above the 1996 appropriation. CBO estimates that the
bill would authorize appropriations totaling about $7.8 billion
over the 1997-2002 period.
The authorization for most of EPA's safe drinking water
activities expired in 1991, but the program has been continued
through annual appropriations. In 1996, $184 million was
appropriated to EPA for safe drinking water program
implementation, research, and grants. In addition to this
amount, $500 million was appropriated in 1996, $700 million was
appropriated in 1995, and $599 million was appropriated in 1994
for EPA capitalization grants to safe drinking water state
revolving loan funds (SRFs). Spending of these SRF funds was
made contingent upon enactment of legislation authorizing safe
drinking water SRFs. Public Law 104-19 rescinded all but $225
million of the 1995 and 1994 SRF appropriations.
Enacting H.R. 3604 would have a small effect on revenues
from civil and criminal penalties and on direct spending, which
results from the use of such penalty receipts. Finally,
enacting the bill could increase direct spending for the
payments of judgments against the federal government resulting
from claims made by states under SDWA; however, CBO cannot
predict the number or amount of any such judgments that might
result from enacting the bill. The estimated budgetary effects
of H.R. 3604 are summarized in the following table.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS
Spending under current law:
Budget authority.................................... 684 ...... ...... ...... ...... ...... ......
Estimated outlays................................... 180 83 204 252 154 70 22
Proposed changes:
Estimated authorization level....................... ...... 1,304 1,305 1,307 1,309 1,310 1,307
Estimated outlays................................... ...... 238 595 967 1,181 1,279 1,308
Spending under H.R. 3604:
Estimated authorization level \1\................... 684 1,304 1,305 1,307 1,309 1,310 1,307
Estimated outlays................................... 180 321 799 1,219 1,335 1,349 1,330
ADDITIONAL REVENUES AND DIRECT SPENDING
Revenues:
Estimated revenues.................................. ...... (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\)
Direct spending:
Estimated budget authority.......................... ...... ...... (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\)
Estimated outlays................................... ...... ...... (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\) (\2\)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The 1996 level is the amount appropriated for that year.
\2\ Less than $500,000.
The costs of this bill fall within budget function 300.
6. Basis of estimate: Spending Subject to Appropriations.
For purposes of this estimate, CBO assumes that the bill will
be enacted before 1997 appropriations for EPA are provided and
that all funds authorized by H.R. 3604 will be appropriated for
each year. Over the 1997-2003 period, the bill would authorize
appropriations totaling $8.8 billion, including $7 billion for
grants to safe drinking water SRFs. Estimated outlays are based
on historical spending patterns of ongoing EPA drinking water
programs and its grant program for waste water treatment SRFs.
In addition to the bill's specified authorization amounts,
CBO has estimated that $50 million to $60 million a year would
be necessary to pay for activities authorized by the bill
without specific dollar authorizations. These activities
include EPA's general oversight, administrative costs,
enforcement and implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act,
and mandated studies for the safe drinking water program.
Estimated costs for these activities are based on information
provided by EPA.
Revenues and Direct Spending. Enactment of this bill would
increase governmental receipts from civil and criminal
penalties, as well as direct spending from the Crime Victims
Funds, but CBO expects that the amounts involved would be
insignificant. Any additional amounts deposited into the Crime
Victims Fund would be spent in the following year.
In addition, section 202 of the bill would explicitly waive
any federal immunity from administrative orders or civil or
administrative fines or penalties assessed under SDWA, and
would clarify that federal facilities are subject to reasonable
service charges assessed in connection with a federal or state
program. This provision of SDWA may encourage states to seek to
impose fines and penalties on the federal government under
SDWA. If federal agencies contest these fines and penalties, it
is possible that payments would have to be made from the
government's Claims and Judgments Fund, if not otherwise
provided from appropriated funds. The Claims and Judgments Fund
is a permanent, open-ended appropriation, and any amounts paid
from it would be considered direct spending. CBO cannot predict
the number of judgments against the government that could
result from enactment of this bill. Further, we cannot
determine whether those judgments would be paid from the claims
and Judgments Fund or from appropriated funds. The exact amount
of such judgment payments is highly uncertain, but CBO expects
that payments from the Claims and Judgments Fund are unlikely
to exceed $500,000 a year.
7. Pay-as-you-go considerations: Section 252 of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 sets
up pay-as-you-go procedures for legislation affecting direct
spending or receipts through 1998. Enacting H.R. 3604 would
increase governmental receipts from civil and criminal
penalties, and the spending of such penalties; hence, pay-as-
you-go procedures would apply. Direct spending could also
increase because of payments for judgments against the
government. The following table summarizes CBO's estimate of
the bill's pay-as-you-go effects.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
1996 1997 1998
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays...................... 0 0 0
Change in receipts..................... 0 0 0
------------------------------------------------------------------------
8. Estimated impact on State, local, and tribal
governments: H.R. 3064 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. CBO estimates that annual costs imposed
by the bill would not exceed the $50 million threshold
established in Public Law 104-4.
CBO projects that publicly owned water systems would incur
direct 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 development
implement capacity development strategies for eater 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.
CBO will provide a more detailed analysis of the costs of
this bill to state and local governments under separate cover.
9. Estimated impact on 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. 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 annual for the
first five years that mandates are effective. 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
that privately owned systems would incur to comply with future
regulatory requirements. CBO will provide a more detailed
estimate of the private-sector mandates under separate cover.
10. Previous CBO estimate: On November 7, 1995, CBO
prepared a cost estimate for S. 1316, the Safe Drinking Water
Act Amendments of 1995, as ordered reported by the Senate
Committee on environment and Public Works on October 24, 1995.
The estimated budgetary effects of these bills are very
similar, though total authorizations in the Senate bill are
slightly higher. Both bills would authorize $1 billion annually
for grants to state revolving loan funds, and both bills would
explicitly waive any federal immunity under the Safe Drinking
Water Act.
11. Estimate prepared by: Federal Cost Estimate: Kim Cawley
and Stephanie Weiner. State and Local Government Cost Estimate:
Pepper Santalucia. Private-Sector Impact: Patrice Gordon and
Terry Dinan.
12. Estimate approved by: Robert A. Sunshine for Paul N.
Van de Water, Assistant Director for Budget Analysis.
Inflationary Impact Statement
Pursuant to clause 2(l)(4) of rule XI of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, the Committee finds that the bill
would have no inflationary impact.
Advisory Committee Statement
No advisory committees within the meaning of section 5(b)
of the Federal Advisory Committee Act were created by this
legislation.
Section-by-Section Analysis of the Legislation
Section 1. Short title and table of contents
This section sets forth the short title of the bill, the
``Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996,'' and the bill's
table of contents.
Section 2. References; effective date; disclaimer
This section provides for references to Title XIV of the
Public Health Service Act (commonly known as the Safe Drinking
Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300f et seq.). It provides that, except as
otherwise noted, the amendments made by this Act shall take
effect on the date of enactment of this Act. This section also
makes the disclaimer that this Act is not intended to affect
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the duties and
responsibilities of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
under that Act, or the regulation or control of point or
nonpoint sources of pollution discharged into waters covered by
that Act. This section further requires the Administrator to
identify in the Agency's annual budget all funding and full-
time equivalents for Title XIV of the Public Health Service Act
separately from funding and staffing for the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act.
TITLE I--PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS
Section 101. Selection of additional contaminants
Section 101(a) repeals the requirement that EPA publish
regulations for not fewer than 25 contaminants every three
years and makes other changes to section 1412(b)(3). Not later
than 18 months after enactment and every 5 years thereafter,
EPA, after consulting with the scientific community, soliciting
public comment, and considering the occurrence data base
established under section 305 of this Act, must publish a list
of contaminants that may require regulation. The
Administrator's decision whether or not to select a contaminant
for listing will not be subject to judicial review.
Not later than 5 years after enactment and every 5 years
thereafter, EPA must make a determination, by rule, whether or
not to regulate at least 5 of the listed contaminants. A
determination to regulate is to be based on findings that a
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 that regulation presents a meaningful opportunity
for public health risk reduction. Findings must be based on the
best available public health information including information
from the newly-established occurrence data base. Additionally,
the Administrator may make a determination to regulate a
contaminant that does not appear on the list so long as the
Administrator makes the necessary findings under section
1412(b)(3)(B)(ii). A determination not to regulate is to be
considered a final agency action and subject to judicial
review.
Section 101(a) further provides that in selecting
unregulated contaminants for regulatory consideration, EPA must
select contaminants that present the greatest public health
concern, taking into consideration, among other factors of
public health concern, the effect of contaminants upon
sensitive subpopulations that comprise a meaningful portion of
the population. For each contaminant that the Administrator
determines to regulate, the Administrator must propose a
maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) and a national primary
drinking water regulation within 2 years of making a
determination to regulate, and must promulgate a final rule
within 18 months after it is proposed. The Administrator may
extend the deadline for promulgation of a national primary
drinking water regulation by up to nine months by publication
of notice in the Federal Register. Section 101(a) also
authorizes the Administrator to publish nonregulatory health
advisories or take other appropriate actions for unregulated
contaminants.
Section 101(b) provides that the requirements of
subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section 1412(b)(3) of the Safe
Drinking Water Act which are in effect before the date of
enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996,
including deadlines for promulgation of regulations which are
not promulgated by the date of enactment of the Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments of 1996, are superseded by the amendments
made by subsection 101(a).
Section 102. Disinfectants and disinfection byproducts
This section adds a new subparagraph to section 1412(b)(3)
of the Act establishing deadlines for the Administrator to
issue regulations for the collection of information and for
disinfectants and disinfection byproducts and an enhanced
surface water treatment. It directs the Administrator to
promulgate an information collection rule (ICR) to obtain
information to facilitate further revisions to the disinfectant
and disinfection byproducts regulation, including information
on cryptosporidium, no later than December 31, 1996. The bill
establishes the same time intervals between the final ICR, 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 that are established in the
schedule for the proposed ICR published in the Federal Register
(59 FR 6361) on February 10, 1994. If any rule is delayed, the
subsequent rules must be completed as quickly as practicable,
but no later than the revised date that reflects the relevant
interval or intervals.
Section 103. Limited alternative to filtration
This section modifies section 1412(b)(7)(C) to provide an
additional alternative to the regulations promulgated pursuant
to clause (i) and (iii) of section 1412(b)(9)(C). On a case-by-
case basis, and after public notice and comment, a State with
primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems may
establish treatment requirements as an alternative to
filtration for systems having undeveloped and uninhabited
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 alternative
requirements ensure greater removal or inactivation
efficiencies of pathogens than would be achieved by filtration
in combination with chlorination.
The limited alternative to filtration requirements
established by this section is intended to provide an
alternative to, but not supersede, the existing filtration
requirements that have been promulgated pursuant to subsection
1412(b)(7)(C), including the filtration avoidance criteria
contained in 40 C.F.R. Sec. 141.71. Thus this language will not
alter the status of those entities that currently need not
filter their water. Instead, the new language merely
establishes an additional circumstance in which the
Administrator may permit a utility to select an alternative
treatment technique in lieu of filtration.
The bill requires as a condition of using alternative
treatment measures that the watershed of the affected utility
be in ``consolidated ownership.'' By this the Committee does
not mean to imply that there must be only one owner of the
total watershed. The committee recognizes that the watersheds
of the cities of San Francisco, California; Portland, Oregon;
and Seattle and Tacoma, Washington are in consolidated
ownership. Further, consistent with the current filtration
alternatives criteria, the utility must be able to demonstrate
that there are effective controls on human activities that may
have an adverse effect on the microbiological quality of the
source water and that the controls apply to all land in the
watershed, no matter what its ownership status. Such controls
may be exercised through statute, regulation, or written
agreements with land owners.
In establishing this new alternative to filtration
requirements, the Committee does not necessarily intend to
imply that systems having uninhabited, undeveloped watersheds
in consolidated ownership, and having control over access to,
and activities in, those watersheds have water quality that is
in any way superior to other systems' source water quality or
that the ownership or acquisition of watershed land, which is
one of many tools available to public water systems for the
protection of source water quality, is necessarily the
principal or preferred alternative for source water protection.
The Committee understands that there is some concern with a
filtration project affecting the Croton Watershed in New York.
The Committee urges EPA to assist the State to find solutions
that are acceptable and protect public health.
Section 104. Standard-setting
This section retains the basic standard setting process,
including existing provisions for health-based maximum
contaminant level goals (MCLGs). The maximum contaminant level
(MCL) are revised to give the Administrator new flexibility to
consider risk reduction benefits and costs of compliance when
formulating new and revised drinking water regulations.
The Committee has determined not to make any changes to the
maximum contaminant level goal provisions of the Safe Drinking
Water Act, which provide that the Administrator is required to
establish a maximum contaminant level goal at a level ``at
which no known or anticipated adverse effects on the health of
persons occur and which allows an adequate margin of safety.''
(See section 1412(b)(4).) In discussing this provision, the
1974 Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee Report
accompanying the original adoption of this language stated that
the maximum contaminant goal ``must include an adequate margin
of safety, unless there is no safe threshold for a contaminant.
In such a case, the recommended maximum contaminant level
should be set at the zero level.'' \17\ The Administrator has
interpreted this language to authorize the establishment of
MCLGs at a level above zero when the scientific evidence
indicates that a safe level is present. The Committee believes
that this formulation remains viable and should continue to
govern EPA's decisions regarding the proper maximum contaminant
level goal.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ (H.R. Rpt. No. 1185, 93d Cong., Sess. (1974)); Senate Comm. on
Environment and Public Works, 97th Cong., 2d Sess., A Legislative
History of the Safe Drinking Water Act 552 (Comm. Print 1982).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Section 104(a) amends section 1412(b) of the Act to require
the Administrator, when proposing a national primary drinking
water regulation, to publish a determination as to whether the
benefits of the maximum contaminant level (MCL) justify, or do
not justify, the costs, based on a health risk reduction and
cost analysis prepared under section 107 of this Act. This new
requirement is set forth in section 1412(b)(4)(C).
Section 104(a) amends section 1412(b) to authorize the
Administrator to set the MCL at a level other than the feasible
level if use of the technology, treatment techniques or other
means at the feasible level would increase health risks by
increasing concentrations of other contaminants or by
interfering with the efficacy of existing treatment techniques.
This new authority is set forth in new section 1412(b)(5). If
the Administrator uses this authority, the level or levels or
treatment technique must minimize the overall health risk.
Section 104(a) also authorizes EPA to promulgate a national
primary drinking water regulation that is less stringent than
the level that would be established under paragraph 1412(b)(4),
if the Administrator determines that the benefits of a standard
would not justify its compliance costs. If the Administrator
uses this authority, he or she must set the standard at the
level that maximizes health risk reduction benefits at a cost
that is justified by the benefits. The Administrator is to
consider not only the costs and benefits that may be
experienced by all systems, but is also to look at the systems
that are actually expected to implement the standard to
determine whether benefits justify the costs for these systems.
If most small systems are likely, based on information provided
by the States, to receive a variance from a particular standard
and the benefits of a standard at the feasible level
(authorized by section 1412(b)(4)) experienced by consumers
served by large systems (and other systems that do not receive
a variance) justify the costs, then the Administrator is not to
use the authority of section 1412(b)(6) to set a standard. This
exception to the discretionary authority to set standards under
section 1412(b)(6) does not apply where the contaminant occurs
almost exclusively in small systems.
Section 104(a) also provides that the Administrator may not
use this authority for setting standards under Stage 1 or Stage
2 of the Disinfectants and Disinfection Byproducts Rules, or
for establishing a standard or treatment technique for
cryptosporidium. However, the Administrator may use this
authority to establish regulations for groundwater disinfection
as required by section 1412(b)(8).
Judicial review of the Administrator's determination as to
whether the benefits of a given maximum contaminant level or
treatment requirement justify or do not justify the cost of
complying with the level or treatment requirement shall occur
only as part of a review of a final national primary drinking
water regulation that is based on this determination. The
Administrator's determination may not be set aside unless the
court finds that the determination is arbitrary or capricious.
Except as specified for the determination under section
1412(b)(4)(C), this judicial review provision is not intended
to change the standard of review otherwise applicable to a
national primary drinking water regulation, including the
requirements for the regulation to comply with the procedural
provisions of this section.
Section 104(b) addresses the application of amended section
1412(b)(5) to the Agency's proposed Stage 1 and Stage 2
regulations for disinfectants and disinfection byproducts.
Public water systems use disinfectants to kill harmful
microbial contaminants that can cause serious illness or even
death. However, disinfectants and their resulting byproducts
also may pose risks, including potential increases in cancer
rates and liver and kidney damage. The regulation of both risks
from microbial contaminants and risks from disinfectants and
disinfection byproducts presents EPA with a unique challenge.
Nonetheless, controls for cryptosporidium and disinfection
byproducts are widely considered to be a pressing and high
priority for improving drinking water safety.
In November 1992, EPA convened a negotiated rulemaking to
examine both the proper strategy for combating cryptosporidium
and other microbial contaminants and to consider threats to
human health from the use of disinfectants commonly employed to
combat microbial contaminants. EPA had determined to use the
negotiated rulemaking process because the Agency believed that
``the available occurrence, treatment and health effects data
were inadequate to address EPA's concern about the tradeoff
between risks from disinfectants and disinfection byproducts
and microbial pathogen risk, and wanted all stakeholders to
participate in the decision-making on setting proposed
standards.'' (59 Fed. Reg. 38670, July 29, 1994).
Representatives from EPA, State and local government, water
suppliers, public health organizations and environmental
groups, among others, worked for nearly two years to reach
agreement on a framework for regulating both microbial
contaminants and disinfection byproducts. The framework will
result in rules for controlling disinfection byproducts and an
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule to address risks posed
from microbial organisms. The package of rules when fully
implemented is expected to minimize exposures to harmful
microbial contaminants while reducing exposure to disinfection
byproducts that present a health risk by optimizing the use of
disinfectants and other means of water treatment.
The negotiating committee agreed that a two-step process
was necessary to address the microbial and disinfection and
disinfection byproducts issues. The July 29, 1994, Federal
Register notice thus proposes both Stage 1 and Stage 2 levels
of control. The Stage I provisions set limits for two principal
classes of chlorination byproducts, as well as limits for
specific byproducts resulting from other disinfection
processes, at levels deemed appropriate as a first step
standard based on current information. More stringent Stage 2
controls were also proposed for the two classes of chlorination
byproducts but a second round of negotiations is envisioned. In
the meantime, EPA is conducting an agreed-upon regime of health
effects research and water quality monitoring which will be
used both to finalize the disinfection byproduct rule and the
Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (as provided for by the
parties' agreement) and for the second round of negotiations.
``Based on this information and new data generated through
research,'' EPA ``will reevaluate the Stage 2 regulations and
repropose, as appropriate, depending on criteria agreed on in a
second regulatory negotiation (or similar rule development
process)'' (59 Fed. Reg. 38743).
The Committee acknowledges the delicate balance that was
struck by the parties in structuring the settlement of these
complicated and difficult issues, and encourages the parties to
continue according to the negotiated agreement. The negotiated
agreement contains an over-arching set of principles to guide
the individual rulemakings which incorporated consideration of
various factors. The Committee intends that all additional
negotiations weigh the same factors that guided the development
of the proposed rule. Specifically, all further negotiations
for the Stage II regulations for the control of disinfection
byproducts should follow and be consistent with the
consideration s that led to an agreement regarding the proposed
rule for Stage 1.
In order to preserve the progress made, there has been
considerable care taken to ensure that the new provisions of
this bill not conflict with the parties' agreement nor disrupt
the implementation of the regulatory actions. To do otherwise
would substantially disrupt, if not destroy, the next round of
negotiations and lead to unne cessary delays in protecting
public health. For this reason, the bill precludes the use of
the new authority in section 1412(b)(6) to establish maximum
contaminant levels for the Stage 1 and Stage 2 rulemakings for
disinfectants or disinfection byproducts or to establish a
national primary drinking water maximum contaminant level or
treatment technique for cryptosporidium. (See new section
1412(b)(6)(C).)
The Committee recognizes, however, that the development of
this regulatory package has required the negotiators to
consider complex issues of risk, costs, affordability, feasible
technology, and health benefits. It is the Committee's view
that the proposed rule that has been produced is consistent
with the ``risk-risk'' provision set out in new section
1412(b)(5). Therefore, Section 104(b) makes clear that the
Administrator may use the authority of section 1412(b)(5) to
promulgate Stage 1 and Stage 2 rules. However, it is also the
Committee's intent that no provision of Section 1412(b)(5) be
interpreted to force an alteration of the negotiated agreement.
Finally, Section 104(b) provides that for the purpose of
promulgating Stage 1 and Stage 2 regulations for disinfection
and disinfection byproducts, the consideration that the
Administrator used in the development of the July 29, 1994
proposal for such regulation are to be considered consistent
with section 1412(b)(5). These considerations included risk,
cost, affordability, feasible technology, and health benefits.
The Committee intends with this language to ensure that the
negotiators and ultimately the Administrator are authorized to
consider these factors in the same manner as these
considerations were used in developing the Stage I proposed
rule.
Section 104(c) amends the current requirement that EPA
review, and if appropriate, revise each regulation every 3
years (section 1412(b)(9)). The bill extends the review period
to 6 years, and specifies that revisions are to be done using
the standard setting procedures under this section and are to
maintain or provide for greater public health protection. This
subsection does not alter the Administrator's authority to
review the scientific basis of national primary drinking water
regulations and, where appropriate, revise regulations
accordingly. Thus, the level necessary to maintain public
health protection may change as new or additional information
becomes available. Where the Agency makes a determination
regarding human health effects that are inconsistent with
determinations on which the Administrator has relied in
establishing a national primary drinking regulation, the
Administrator is encouraged to revise the standard to reflect
the more recent information.
Section 105. Ground Water Disinfection
Section 105 amends the current requirement under section
1412(b)(8) that the Administrator promulgate regulations
requiring disinfection by all public water systems (including,
as necessary, groundwater systems) by 1989. The bill requires
the Administrator to promulgate disinfection regulations any
time in the period beginning 3 years after enactment of these
amendments and up to the date on which EPA promulgates a Stage
II D/DBP rule. The Administrator must consult with States and
promulgate criteria that States must apply to determine for
each public water system served by ground water whether
disinfection would be required. Primacy States must use these
criteria to develop plans for making ground water disinfection
determinations and submit the plans to the Administrator for
approval.
Section 106. Effective date for regulations
This section amends section 1412(b)(10) to make national
primary drinking water regulations effective 3 years after
promulgation unless the Administrator determines that an
earlier date is practicable. The Administrator may establish an
earlier effective date, or may allow up to 2 additional years
to comply, if he or she or a State (in the case of individual
systems) determines that more time is needed for capital
improvements.
Section 107. Risk assessment, management, and communication
This section further amends section 1412(b) to address the
scientific basis of regulatory decisionmaking and risk
communication in drinking water regulations. The Administrator
is directed to use the best available, peer-reviewed science
and supporting studies conducted in accordance with sound and
objective scientific practices; and data collected by accepted
methods in carrying out science-based actions under this
section. The Committee encourages the Administrator to obtain
and use appropriate peer review for other significant agency
actions under this title where scientific studies or assessment
are important for those actions. The Committee also expects the
Administrator and the States implementing State programs under
this Title to use sound and objective scientific practices in
assessing and characterizing scientific information or studies.
The bill also requires the Administrator to present health
effects information in a comprehensive, informative, and
understandable manner. The Administrator is required to make
publicly available a document that includes information about
populations addressed by health effects estimates, expected
risk, upper- or lower-bound risk estimates, significant
uncertainties and studies that would help resolve them, peer-
reviewed studies that do or do not support the estimates of
health effects, and the methodology used to reconcile
inconsistencies in the data.
Section 107 establishes in new subsection 1412(b)(12)(C)
the requirement that the Administrator prepare a health risk
reduction and cost analysis for new regulations. When proposing
any national primary drinking water regulation that includes a
maximum contaminant level or a treatment technique, the
Administrator must publish, seek public comment, and use for
the purposes of paragraphs 1412(b)(4), 1412(b)(5) and
1412(b)(6) for an analysis of:
Quantifiable and nonquantifiable health risk
reduction benefits expected to result from
implementation of the standard;
Any benefits likely to occur from reductions in co-
occurring contaminants attributed to compliance with
the MCL;
Quantifiable and nonquantifiable costs likely to
occur with compliance, including monitoring, treatment,
and other costs;
Incremental costs and benefits associated with each
alternative MCL considered;
Effects of the contaminant on the general population
and subgroups likely to be at greater risk;
Any increased risk that may occur as a result of
compliance (including risks associated with co-
occurring contaminants); and
Quality of information and uncertainties in the
analyses and the degree and nature of the risk.
Section 107 authorizes $35 million per year for Fiscal
Years 1996 through 2003 for EPA's Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water to perform the analyses and assessments required
to support the development of drinking water regulations.
Section 108. Radon, arsenic, and sulfate
This section amends section 1412(b) to establish separate
regulatory provisions and schedules for radon, arsenic, and
sulfate.
Radon. New section 1412(b)(13)(A) requires the
Administrator to withdraw the existing proposed radon
regulation. Within 3 years of the date of enactment of these
amendments, the Administrator must repropose and promulgate a
radon regulation using the new standard setting procedures
established by these amendments. In performing the required
risk and benefit cost analyses for the radon rule, the
Administrator must consider the costs and benefits of control
programs for radon from other sources.
Arsenic. New section 1412(b)(13)(B) requires the
Administrator, within 180 days of enactment, to develop a plan
for reducing the uncertainty in assessing risks associated with
exposure to low levels of arsenic. Arsenic in drinking water is
currently regulated at a level of 50 parts per billion. This
standard was established in 1942 and does not take into account
any possible carcinogenic effect from exposures to arsenic.
While EPA was required to promulgate a new arsenic standard
under the 1986 Amendments, it failed to do so due to the
uncertainties surrounding the health effects of arsenic at low
exposures. Because of this, the bill provides that the
Administrator must develop a plan to assess the health risks
associated with exposures to low levels of arsenic. This plan
must be prepared within 180 days of enactment. The plan must be
carried out in consultation with the National Academy of
Science, other Federal agencies, and interested public and
private parties. The Administrator must propose a national
primary drinking water regulation for arsenic not later than
January 1, 2000, and must promulgate a final regulation no
later than January 1, 2001. The section authorizes $2 million
per year, for Fiscal Years 1997 through 2001, for studies
required by the plan concerning the effects of exposure to low
levels of arsenic to human health.
Sulfate. New section 1412(b)(13)(C) directs the
Administrator, and the Director of the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, to jointly conduct a study to establish
a reliable dose-response relationship for the adverse health
effects from exposure to sulfate in drinking water, prior to
establishing a national primary drinking water standard for
sulfate. The study must be conducted in consultation with
interested States and must be based on the best available,
peer-reviewed science and scientifically sound studies. The
subparagraph creates no deadline for a sulfate standard. If the
Administrator promulgates a regulation for sulfate, the
regulation must include public notification requirements and
options for provision of alternative water supplies to groups
at risk as a means of complying in lieu of treatment.
Section 109. Urgent threats to public health
This section amends Section 1412(b) for the purpose of
addressing urgent public health threats. The Committee
contemplates that such threats are those which would require
immediate or near-immediate action on the part of the
Administrator in order to protect public health. In these
exceptional circumstances, the bill authorizes the
Administrator to promulgate an interim drinking water
regulation for a contaminant without making a determination as
to whether or not the benefits justify the costs (under new
section 1412(b)(4)(C)) and without performing a health risk
reduction and cost analysis (under new section 1412(b)(12)(C))
in order to address an urgent threat to public health. The
Administrator is required to publish the determination and
analysis for such a contaminant within 3 years after the
interim regulation is promulgated, and to repromulgate or
revise the regulation within 5 years of that date.
Section 110. Recycling of filter backwash
This section further amends section 1412(b) to require EPA
to promulgate, within 4 years, a regulation governing the
recycling of filter backwash water within the treatment process
of public water systems, unless such recycling has been
addressed by the enhanced surface water treatment rule.
Section 111. Treatment technologies for small systems
Section 111(a) amends section 1412(b)(4)(E) to require that
when EPA lists in regulations feasible treatment technologies
for meeting national primary drinking water regulations, the
Administrator must include technologies, treatment techniques,
or other means that are affordable for three specified size
categories of small public water systems. Listed small system
technologies must achieve compliance with the maximum
contaminant level or treatment technique and may include point-
of-entry and point-of-use treatment units. Such units must be
owned, controlled and maintained by the public water systems or
a person under contract with the system to ensure proper
operation and maintenance and compliance.
Within two years after enactment, the Administrator must
issue a list of technologies affordable for small public water
systems for existing regulations. Notwithstanding this
deadline, the Administrator must list affordable small system
technologies for the surface water treatment rule within one
year.
Section 111(b) adds new subsection 1445(g) to authorize the
Administrator to request information from manufacturers, States
and others on commercially available treatment systems and
technologies for the purpose of developing regulations or
guidance for the small systems assistance program under
sections 1412(b)(4)(E) and 1415(e).
The Committee is aware that the Administrator has recently
entered into a cooperative agreement with the National
Sanitation Foundation to develop and implement a package
drinking water treatment technology performance verification
program. By providing objective and verifiable performance
data, this program will help to reduce costly and repetitive
State pilot testing requirements for package technologies. The
Committee encourages the Administrator to pursue this and other
means of facilitating the approval by States of affordable
drinking water treatment technologies.
The Committee points to Galena Knolls Water Company,
located in Chillicothe, Illinois, as an example of the type of
small water system that section 111 is intended to help. The
Galena Knolls Water Company serves about 70 customers and
clearly falls within the population requirements set forth in
section 111. Because this water system cannot achieve the
economics of scale that larger systems can, it has been unable
to afford more expensive treatment systems. However, point-of-
use filters would be affordable for Galena Knolls.
Section 121. State primacy
Section 121(a) modifies section 1413 to extend, from 18
months (in current law) to two years after promulgation, the
deadline for States to submit regulations for approval by the
Administrator. The bill authorizes the Administrator to extend
the deadline by up to two years if the Administrator determines
that the extension is necessary and justified. The bill also
specifies that States with primacy are to be considered to have
primary enforcement authority for a new regulation for the
period during which EPA is making a determination with regard
to primacy for that new regulation.
Section 121(b) amends section 1413(a)(5) on emergency
planning to include reference to specific types of natural
disasters.
Section 131. Public notification
This section revises the Safe Drinking Water Act's public
notification requirements in section 1414(c). New subsection
1414(c) (1) retains the requirements that a public water system
notify customers of violations of an MCL and other events
specified by existing subsections 1414(c) (1) and (2). New
subsection 1414(c)(2) directs the Administrator, in
consultation with States, to issue regulations prescribing the
form, manner, frequency, and content for giving notice. Such
regulations are to include different notification frequencies
that reflect the frequencies and seriousness of violations. The
bill permits States to establish alternative notification
requirements. For violations with the potential to have serious
adverse health effects from short-term exposure, a system must
notify customers and the State or EPA within 24 hours of the
violation. Notices must provide a clear explanation of the
violation, potential adverse health effects, steps being taken
to address the violation, and the necessity of seeking
alternative water supplies in the interim. For such violations,
States may vary the form, content and manner (e.g., broadcast
media, newspaper, or door-to-door) of notice.
For other violations, the EPA regulations must require
public water systems to give written notice of violations to
customers and prescribe the form and manner of the notice. For
these violations, States may vary only the form and content of
the notice. EPA also may require a public water system to give
notice to customers of levels of an unregulated contaminant
monitored under section 1445.
New paragraph 1414(c)(3) requires primacy States to make
available to the public and submit to EPA annual reports for
the preceding Federal fiscal year on violations by public water
systems in the States beginning no later than January 1, 1998.
The Administrator is required to prepare and make available to
the public annual reports summarizing and evaluating the State
reports and similar information provided by Indian Tribes,
beginning no later than July 1, 1998.
New paragraph 1414(c)(4) requires each community water
system to issue an annual ``consumer confidence report'' to its
customers. Under existing law, community water systems are
required to notify their customers when the system fails to
comply with an applicable maximum contaminant level or
treatment technique requirement of, or a monitoring procedure
prescribed by, a national primary drinking water regulation.
Also under existing law, community water systems are required
to provide notification of the availability of the results of
monitoring for unregulated contaminants required by section
1445(a)(2). The ``consumer confidence report'' required by this
paragraph will require community water systems to provide
customers with information on whether they are, or are not,
complying with the national primary drinking water regulations.
Nothing in this new paragraph is intended to modify other
public notification requirements of section 1414(c).
New subparagraph 1414(c)(4)(A) requires the Administrator,
within 24 months after the date of enactment of these
amendments, in consultation with public water systems,
environmental groups, public interest groups, risk
communication experts, the States, and other interested
parties, to issue regulations implementing the requirements of
new paragraph 1414(c)(4).
New subparagraph 1414(c)(4)(B) sets out the requirements
for the contents of a consumer confidence report. The report
must contain information on the source of the water purveyed,
brief and plainly worded definitions of the terms ``maximum
contaminant level goal'' and ``maximum contaminant level,'' as
provided by Administrator's regulations, information on levels
of regulated and certain unregulated contaminants in the water
purveyed, a brief statement in plain language on the health
effects of the contaminant for which there has been a violation
of the maximum contaminant level during the year concerned,
information on compliance with national primary drinking water
regulations, information on the levels of unregulated
contaminants for which monitoring is required under section
1445(a)(2), and a statement referring consumers to an EPA
``hot-line'' for more information.
The Committee expects that the Administrator will
promulgate regulations that ensure risks from exposure to
contaminants in drinking water will be communicated in an
accurate and understandable manner.
The Committee also expects that the Administrator will
promulgate regulations that allow community water systems to
provide the required information in the most cost-effective
manner possible. The Committee expects that in most cases, the
reports will be one-page reports which can be included in
ordinary mailings. Therefore, the statements which the
Administrator is required to develop, and water systems are
required to use, concerning the definition of terms and the
explanation of health effects, should be as simple and
straightforward as possible.
New section 1414(c)(4)(B) further provides that a public
water system may include such additional information as it
deems appropriate for public education. A number of public
water systems already provide their customers with an annual
compliance report. These reports take many forms. A public
water system may include such additional information as it
deems appropriate for public education. The Committee
encourages community water systems to use their expertise and
experience to present the information required by this
paragraph in the most accurate and effective manner.
New paragraph 1414(c)(4)(C) provides that a Governor of a
State may determine not to apply the mailing requirement of the
paragraph to community water systems serving fewer than 10,000
persons. Any such system which is exempt shall inform its
customers that the system has been exempt from the mailing
requirements of the paragraph, make information available upon
request to the public regarding the quality of the water
supplied by the system, and publish the report required by the
paragraph in one or more local newspapers serving the area in
which customers of the system are located.
Paragraph 1414(c)(4)(D) provides that a State with primary
enforcement responsibility for public water systems may
establish, by rule, after notice and public comment,
alternative requirements with respect to the form and content
of the reports required by new paragraph 1414(c)(4). The
Committee expects that States will use this authority, among
other things, to adapt the annual reports to State requirements
and to the particular circumstances of individual States.
Section 132. Enforcement
Section 132(a)(1) amends section 1414(a) to specify that
enforcement authority under the Act applies to ``any applicable
requirement.'' An ``applicable requirement'' is defined in
section 132(a)(4), infra.
Section 132(a)(1) further amends 1414(a) to require the
Administrator to notify an appropriate local elected official,
if any, with jurisdiction over the public water system when
taking an enforcement action in a nonprimacy State.
Section 132(a)(2) amends section 1414(b) to authorize EPA
to bring a civil action to require compliance with ``any
applicable requirement.''
Section 132(a)(3) amends section 1414(g) to streamline the
process for taking administrative enforcement action and to
apply this authority to violations of ``applicable''
requirements. This provision eliminates the requirement that
the Administrator issue a proposed order and hold a public
hearing prior to issuing a final compliance order. The revised
language authorizes the Administrator to issue a compliance
order after notifying the State and giving the State the
opportunity to take action.
Section 132(a)(4) adds new section 1414(h) to provide
enforcement relief for certain noncomplying systems. Under new
subsection (h), the new owner or operator of a public water
system may submit a plan for the consolidation or transfer of
ownership of the system. If the plan is approved by the State
or the Administrator, enforcement action may not be taken for a
violation identified in the approved plan for a period of two
years or until consolidation is completed, whichever date is
earlier.
Section 132(a)(4) defines, in new subsection 1414(i), the
term ``applicable'' requirement to include requirements of:
section 1412 (primary drinking water regulations); section 1414
(public notification); section 1415 (variances); section 1416
(exemptions); section 1417 (prohibition on use of lead pipe,
solder, and flux); section 1441 (chemical supplies); or 1445
(records and inspections). The term ``applicable requirement''
is further defined to include: regulations promulgated under
these sections; schedules or requirements imposed under these
sections; and a requirement of, or permit issued under, an
approved, applicable State program.
Section 132(b) amends section 1413(a) to add a new
condition for States to receive primary enforcement authority;
i.e., States must adopt authority for administrative penalties,
unless prohibited by the State constitution. The authority must
allow a maximum penalty for systems serving more than 10,000
people of $1,000 per day per violation, and for smaller
systems, an amount 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.
Section 133. Judicial review
This section amends section 1448(a) to specify that
judicial review is available only for final Agency actions. It
further provides that a court shall set aside and remand an EPA
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.
Section 141. Exemptions
Section 141(a) establishes in new section 1416(h) exemption
conditions and requirements for public water systems serving
fewer than 3,300 persons. These systems may be granted an
exemption for a maximum term of four years if the State has
primacy and determines that the system cannot meet the MCL or
install Best Available Affordable Technology (BAAT) and cannot
comply through use of an alternative water source, and the
system will still provide a drinking water supply that is
protective of public health given the duration of the
exemption. Prior to issuing an exemption, the State must
examine whether the system has the capacity to comply with SDWA
requirements, and determine if management or restructuring
changes could result in compliance or improve drinking water
quality. If the State determines that management or
restructuring changes can reasonably be made, the State must
make the adoption of such changes and a schedule for adopting
such changes a condition of the exemption. State decisions
regarding management changes or restructuring are not subject
to review by the Administrator except as part of EPA's normal
review of State exemptions under subsection (d). Conditions for
exemptions on subsections 1416(a) (1) and (3) do not apply to
exemptions under new section 1416(h). Small system exemptions
may be renewed for additional four year periods. Exemptions are
not available for microbiological contaminants.
Section 141(b) further provides in section 1416(h) that the
State of New York may allow limited additional time for
compliance with the Surface Water Treatment Rule for certain
systems in specified counties that meet certain stated
criteria.
Section 141(c) amends section 1416(b)(2)(A)(ii) to extend
the term of an exemption, issued under section 1416(a), from 12
months (under current law) to four years. The final date of
compliance may not be extended for more than four years after
the initial exemption has expired.
Section 142. Variances
This section adds new section 1415(e) to allow variances
for systems serving 3,300 persons or fewer provided that the
system installs the Best Available Affordable Technology (BAAT)
and other specified conditions are met. BAAT is defined to be
the most effective technology or other means available and
affordable to small systems. EPA is required to identify any
BAAT in regulations where ``best technology or other means'' is
not listed for small systems under subsection 1412(b)(4)(E).
The BAAT must come as close to achievement of such maximum
contaminant level as practical or as close to the level of
health protection provided by such treatment techniques as the
case may be. To the extent possible, within 36 months after
enactment, the Administrator must identify BAAT for existing
regulations and give priority to evaluating several specified
contaminants. BAAT must be installed within two years after a
variance is granted. The term of a variance may not exceed five
years, but may be renewed for additional five year periods if
the State determines that the necessary conditions are met.
Variances are not available for regulations issued before 1986
or for microbial contaminants.
Section 151. Lead plumbing and pipes
Section 151 revises section 1417 to expand the lead ban
provisions to prohibit the use of any pipe, pipe or plumbing
fitting or fixture, solder or flux in the installation or
repair of any public water system or any plumbing in a facility
providing water for human consumption that is not lead free. In
addition, the provision provides that two years after
enactment, it shall be unlawful to sell (or otherwise introduce
into commerce) pipes and pipe or plumbing fittings or fixtures
that are not lead free, except for pipes that are used in
manufacturing or industrial processing. The provision also bans
persons in the business of selling plumbing supplies, except
manufacturers, from selling solder or flux that is not lead
free and requires any person selling solder or flux to label
the product to indicate that it is illegal to use this solder
or flux in the installation or repair of any plumbing providing
water for human consumption.
The focus of these changes is to prevent the contamination
of the drinking water supply by lead that has leached from
pipes, faucets and other fixtures incidental to the delivery of
potable water. It is the intent of the Committee that the terms
pipe and plumbing fittings and fixtures in the legislation are
in reference to drinking water applications. The ban on lead
pipes or plumbing fittings or fixtures does not apply to
manufacturing or industrial uses which do not involve the
delivery of potable water, such as sewer systems or
manufacturing processors or production units.
New section 1417(e) provides that if voluntary standards
for lead leaching from new plumbing fittings and fixtures are
not established within one year after enactment of the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, then the Administrator,
within two years, must issue regulations setting a performance
standard establishing maximum leaching levels for fixtures
intended to dispense water for human consumption.
Alternatively, if regulations are required but not issued
within five years of enactment, the bill bans the use of such
plumbing fitting or fixtures that contain more than four
percent lead.
Section 161. Capacity development
The Committee recognizes the importance of efforts to
ensure that public water systems maintain the technical,
managerial, and financial capacity to comply with the
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Currently, some
public water systems do not have the capacity to comply with
existing health and safety requirements. Many systems will need
to further develop their capacity to meet future challenges,
including both new treatment requirements and repair of
deteriorating distribution systems.
The Committee notes that some States have already
undertaken a broad array of strategies to provide for the
capacity development of public water systems. As demonstrated
by these States, there are many options available to address
the problems experienced by public water systems, including
operator training, financial planning, changes in the source of
water supply, and restructuring.
In general, the bill requires each State to adopt legal
authority or other means to ensure that new community and non-
transient, non-community water system have the technical,
financial, and managerial capacity to comply with the Act, to
maintain a list of the systems that are in significant
noncompliance with requirements of the Act, and to develop and
implement a capacity development strategy to assist public
water systems in acquiring and maintaining the technical,
managerial, and financial means to comply with the requirements
of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
This section adds new section 1419 to assist States in
ensuring the capacity of community and nontransient,
noncommunity water systems to comply with the Act. States are
required to obtain legal authority to ensure that new systems
commencing operation after October 1, 1999, have the technical,
managerial, and financial capacity to comply with drinking
water regulations.
Beginning one year after enactment, States are required to
submit to EPA a list of systems that have a history of
significant noncompliance. Within five years after enactment,
States must report to EPA on the success of enforcement actions
and capacity development efforts to improve capacity. Within
four years after enactment, States must develop and implement a
strategy to assist systems in developing and maintaining
compliance capacity. State agencies must submit to their
Governors, and make available to the public, periodic reports
on the strategy and progress being made toward improving the
capacity of systems in the State.
As set forth in section 1419(c), a State capacity
development strategy includes criteria to identify systems that
need assistance, methods to improve capacity and the means to
measure progress in developing capacity. Under section
1419(c)(3), the State agency with primary enforcement
responsibility is to report to the Governor on the
effectiveness of the strategy two years after it has been
adopted and every three years thereafter.
The capacity development strategy required by new section
1419(c) is intended to encourage States to continue to focus
resources on proven capacity development initiatives. Under
section 1419(c)(2), States are required to consider, solicit
public comment on, and include as deemed appropriate by the
State, a number of elements and criteria.
The Committee does not expect that every State will adopt
the same capacity development strategy and does not expect
States to include elements in section 1419(c) that the State
determines are not appropriate. It is not expected that every
State will give the same consideration to each of the elements
listed in section 1419(c). Rather, the Committee expects that,
as suggested by existing State capacity development programs,
State capacity development strategies developed under this
section will vary according to the unique needs of the State.
The Committee encourages this diversity and indicates that EPA
should give deference to a State's determination as to content
and manner of implementation of a State plan, so long as the
State has solicited and considered public comment on the listed
elements and has adopted a strategy that incorporates
appropriate provisions.
To underscore the importance of the capacity development
tasks included in these provisions and to ensure that SRF funds
are focused on States where capacity development is being
addressed, the Committee has linked capacity development to the
SRF in two ways: First, the Committee has included set aside
funding to support State capacity programs. This funding will
augment funds that are already available to States to carry out
primacy responsibilities. Second, the Committee also is
including in the SRF title a provision which allows EPA to
withhold 20 percent of a State's SRF funds unless a State has
met the requirements of section 1418 relating to capacity
development. However, to clarify EPA's role in this regard, the
bill includes specific language providing that the decisions of
a State regarding whether any particular public water system
should take certain actions under the State's capacity
development plan are in the sole discretion of the State and
are not subject to review by EPA and may not serve as the basis
for withholding funds under section 1452(a)(1)(H)(i).
The section also places several burdens on EPA to assist
States in the development of their capacity development
programs. This section further directs the Administrator to
provide informational assistance to support States in
developing strategies, and to include in drinking water
regulations an analysis of the likely effect of a new or
revised national primary drinking water regulation on public
water systems' compliance capacity. Within two years, the
Administrator is also required to issue guidance, developed in
consultation with the States, describing legal authorities and
other means that States can use to ensure that all new systems
demonstrate capacity to comply with the Act.
title ii--amendments to part c
Section 201. Source water quality assessment
The Committee recognizes that source water protection can
be a cost-effective strategy for ensuring safe drinking water
supplies. Development of a new water supply may be expensive
and time-consuming. Poor source water supplies also increase
the costs of treatment for both large and small water systems.
To address source water protection, the bill creates a new
program in which States with primacy will conduct an
assessment, coordinated with existing information and programs,
to determine the vulnerability of sources of drinking water
with State boundaries. A separate provision in the SRF section
provides that SRF funds may be used, subject to the limitations
contained in section 1452, to administer State source water
protection programs except for enforcement actions, to provide
loans for public water systems to acquire land or conservation
easements from a willing seller or grantor for source water
protection, and to provide loans to voluntary, incentive-based
programs designed to protect source water from threats
identified during the assessment.
To avoid duplication and encourage efficiency, source water
assessment programs shall be coordinated with other existing
programs to the extent practicable, and may make use of
information in these programs, such as delineations of ground
water sources under a State wellhead protection program, State
pesticide management plan, or State watershed initiative.
Section 201(a) adds a new subsection to section 1428. The
new subsection provides that within 12 months of enactment, EPA
is to publish guidance for States that exercise primary
enforcement responsibility for public water systems to carry
out a source water assessment program. As part of the program,
the State shall delineate the boundaries of areas from which
one or more public water systems in the State receive supplies
of drinking water and identify, to the extent practical, the
origin of regulated drinking water contaminants to determine
the susceptibility of public water systems to contaminants. The
State may include in its assessment the origin of any
unregulated contaminant selected by the State in its sole
discretion and which the State, for purposes of this
subsection, determines may present a threat to public health.
Within 18 months after issuance of the EPA guidance, States
are required to submit a source water assessment program to the
Administrator for approval. States shall immediately implement
a source water assessment program following approval. States
have two years from the date of approval for completion of the
assessment of delineated source water areas. In setting a
timetable for a State to complete assessments, EPA shall
consider the availability of State Revolving Funds and may
extend the time allowed by an additional 18 months. The State
shall make the result of source water assessments available to
the public. Public water systems shall be eligible for
monitoring relief under section 1418(a) only after assessments
are completed for areas from which they receive supplies of
drinking water.
New subsection 1428(l)(5) requires the Administrator to
conduct a demonstration program concerning the most effective
means of assessing and protecting source waters serving large
metropolitan areas and located on Federal lands.
Section 201(b) amends section 1428 to provide procedures
for EPA approval and disapproval of State source water
assessment programs. A State program shall be approved unless
the Administrator determines within nine months that the
program does not meet the applicable requirements of section
1428(l).
Section 202. Federal facilities
The Federal Government owns or operates more than 4,200
public drinking water systems at military bases, National parks
and other Federal facilities. The number of Federal systems
cited for violations increased from 830 in FY 1991 to 946 in FY
1994.
Federal agencies also own or operate facilities in wellhead
protection areas. These facilities--both civilian and
military--routinely generate, manage and dispose of large
quantities of hazardous waste containing acids, nitrates,
solvents, radioactive materials and heavy metals which can
impact the safety of drinking water supplies. The Committee's
efforts to ensure the compliance of Federal facilities with
various Federal environmental statutes extends back several
Congresses.
Section 202(a) adds a new section 1429 to the Act to
reaffirm in more explicit language the original intent of
Congress that each department, agency, and instrumentality of
the United States be subject to all of the provisions of
Federal, State, interstate and local laws with respect to
drinking water and protection of wellhead areas. This broad
waiver is modeled on the waiver of sovereign immunity for
Federal agencies under Section 6001 of the Solid Waste Disposal
Act as adopted in the Federal Facility Compliance Act of 1992
(P.L. 102-386).
This waiver subjects the Federal government to the full
range of available enforcement tools, including, but not
limited to, the mechanisms specifically listed in the language
of new section 1429, to penalize isolated, intermittent or
continuing violations as well as to coerce future compliance.
By subjecting the Federal government to penalties and fines for
isolated, intermittent, or continuing violations, the waiver
also makes it clear that the Federal government may be
penalized for any violation of Federal, State, interstate, or
local law whether a single or repeated occurrence,
notwithstanding the holding of the Supreme Court in Gwaltney of
Smithfield, LTD v. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, Inc., 484 US 49
(1987).
The Committee intends that any penalties or fines assessed
are to be paid from the Agency's appropriations and not from
the Judgement Fund. This will assure the proper measure of
accountability for Federal agencies and assist in deterring
future violations of drinking water laws and regulation.
New section 1429 further provides that agents, employees,
or officers of the United States shall not be personally
subject to civil penalties but shall not be immune from
enforcement of injunctive relief or criminal sanctions.
New section 1429 provides that the President may exempt a
Federal facility from requirements covered by this Act but may
not do so due to lack of appropriation.
The Administrator is given new authority under this section
to assess administrative penalties, not to exceed $25,000 per
day per violation, against Federal agencies found to be in
violation after the effective date of the Act, of the specified
requirements of the Act. EPA is required to provide the Agency
with notice and an opportunity for a hearing prior to issuance
of an administrative penalty. The section authorizes any
interested person to obtain judicial review of an
administrative penalty in the U.S. District Court. The District
Court may impose an additional civil penalty for a violation
that is subject of the order only if the court finds that the
assessment constitutes an abuse of discretion by the
Administrator but the District Court is not authorized to
reduce any such penalty.
Fines and penalties collected by a State for enforcement of
this Act against a Federal facility are to be used only for
projects to improve or protect the environment or to defray the
costs of environmental protection or enforcement.
Section 202(b) amends the citizen enforcement provisions of
the Act, Section 1449, to permit citizen suits against Federal
agencies that fail to pay a penalty assessed by EPA under the
new administrative penalty provisions of the law.
TITLE III--GENERAL PROVISIONS REGARDING SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
Section 301. Operation certification
Section 301 adds new subsection 1442(f) setting forth
operator certification requirements. Under this new subsection,
the Administrator, in consultation with States, is required to
issue regulations specifying minimum standards for
certification of operators of community and nontransient
noncommunity public water systems, taking into account existing
State programs, the complexity of the system, reasonable costs,
system size, and other factors. States are given two years to
implement EPA regulations following their promulgation. The
regulations must allow primacy States with substantially
equivalent programs in effect on the date of enactment of this
Act to enforce that program in lieu of EPA regulations.
Existing State programs are presumed to be substantially
equivalent, notwithstanding differences based on size or the
quality of source water.
The Committee recognizes that all of the 50 States
currently have operator certification programs in place,
although the specific requirements of programs vary from State
to State. Such programs have developed out of a recognition by
States and public water systems that properly trained operators
are an important and cost-effective part of providing safe
drinking water to the public. In a similar fashion, the
Committee recognizes that operator certification programs are
an important element in the effective implementation of the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
The differences in State programs are due to the fact that
State programs have developed at different rates and in
response to different needs, including variations in the size
of systems, the quality of source water available to systems,
and resources available to develop and maintain such programs.
New section 1442(f) provides that EPA's regulations for
operator certification must take into account existing State
programs, the complexity of the system, and other factors
designed to provide an effective program at reasonable costs to
States and public water systems, taking into account the size
of the system. The Committee anticipates that such regulations
will provide States with a great deal of flexibility in
ensuring that operators of community and non-transient
noncommunity public water systems are properly trained.
New section 1442(f)(3) provides that EPA shall presume that
an existing State program is substantially equivalent to the
minimum requirements developed under new section 1442(f)(1),
notwithstanding program differences based on the size of
systems or the quality of source water, providing that State
programs meet the overall public health objectives of the
regulations. The Committee intends that EPA should not require
every State program to meet the same requirements with respect
to such items as operator training, the qualification of
operators, continuing education, and operator certification,
providing State programs meet the overall public health
objectives of the regulations promulgated under 1442(f)(1). The
requirements promulgated by EPA under this section are to
provide a framework with which State operator certification
programs can, where necessary, be improved to help ensure that
all systems are operated by appropriately trained individuals.
In addition, the requirements promulgated by EPA should not be
construed to require that all community water systems and non-
transient, noncommunity water systems must have a certified
operator on site at all times. Where it is appropriate, the
Committee intends that States shall consider other mechanisms
such as sharing of operator expertise among several systems or
requiring periodic visits to a system by a certified operator.
It should also be recognized that for some systems,
particularly small systems that do not provide treatment, it
may be sufficient for the State to determine that a person need
only to be ``qualified'' not ``certified'' to conduct necessary
sampling or perform other activities.
To underscore the importance of the operator certification
requirements included in these provisions, the Committee has
linked operator certification to the State Revolving Fund in
two areas. First, section 308 includes set-aside funding to
support State operator certification and training programs.
This funding augments funds that are already available to
States to carry out primacy requirements. Second, section 308
allows EPA to withhold 20 percent of a State's capitalization
grant if a State has not met the requirements of subsection (f)
of section 1442.
Section 302. Technical assistance
This section amends section 1442(e) to authorize EPA to
provide technical assistance for small public water systems
(including circuit-rider programs, training, and preliminary
engineering evaluations) in the amount of $15 million for
Fiscal Years 1997 through 2003. Of the appropriated amount, 3
percent must be used for technical assistance to systems owned
or operated by Indian tribes. No portion of funds provided
under this subsection or under section 1452 (relating to SRF
funds) may be used either directly or indirectly for lobbying
expenses.
Section 303. Public water system supervision program
This section amends section 1443(a)(7) to reauthorize State
public water system supervision (PWSS) program grants in amount
of $100 million for each of Fiscal Years 1997 through 2003. New
paragraph (8) provides that EPA may use a State's PWSS funds if
EPA assumes primary enforcement responsibility for a State
program. New paragraph (9) authorizes EPA to reserve a portion
of SRF funds from such a State if the PWSS grant appropriation
is insufficient for EPA to fully administer a program in such a
State. This authority to reserve SRF funds does not apply to
any State not exercising primary enforcement responsibility as
of the date of enactment of these amendments.
Section 304. Monitoring and information gathering
This section revises monitoring and information gathering
requirements under the Act.
Section 304(a) amends section 1445(a) concerning the
Administrator's authority to gather information. New
subparagraph 1445(a)(1)(B) gives the Administrator authority to
obtain information in a case-by-case basis, to determine
whether a person who is subject to a national primary drinking
water regulation under section 1412 has acted or is acting in
compliance with such requirements. Such person is required to
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) to determine, on a
case-by-case basis, whether such person has acted or is acting
in compliance with this title.
New subparagraph 1445(a)(1)(C) requires every person who is
subject to a national primary drinking water regulation under
section 1412 to provide such information as the Administrator
may reasonably require to assist the Administrator in
establishing regulations under section 1412 of this title. The
amendments contained in this Act will impose on the
Administrator new prerequisites for issuing regulations. This
new authority is intended to allow the Administrator to gather
some of the necessary information without issuing a regulation.
To insure that the Administrator's requests for information
under this authority are appropriate, the bill requires the
Administrator to consult with the States and suppliers of water
before exercising this authority and to first seek to obtain
the information by voluntary submission. In order not to impose
significant burdens on persons covered by this new authority,
the Administrator may not require 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 funding for
such activities. The Committee believes that the Agency will
receive the most useful information in the most timely manner
if the Administrator and the person work together voluntarily.
Nothing in the new authority in subparagraph 1445(a)(1)(C)
is intended to waive any requirement of the Paperwork Reduction
Act.
Section 304(a) also amends section 1445(a) to require EPA
to review monitoring requirements for at least 12 contaminants
and make any necessary changes within two years.
Section 304(b) adds a new section 1418 to the Act on
contaminant monitoring. Subsection 1418(a) authorizes States to
modify monitoring requirements for systems serving 10,000 or
fewer persons for contaminants (other than microbial
contaminants, disinfectants and disinfection byproducts, or
corrosion byproducts). A State may provide this interim
monitoring relief if the contaminant is not detected in initial
monitoring, and the State determines (considering the
hydrogeology of the area and other relevant factors) that the
contaminant is not likely to be detected in further monitoring.
The interim relief is available for 3 years following enactment
or until the State has adopted permanent relief, whichever is
sooner.
New subsection (b) authorizes a primacy State with an
approved wellhead protection program and a source water
assessment program to adopt permanent alternative monitoring
requirements for chemical contaminants. A State alternative
monitoring program must be consistent with EPA guidelines and
ensure compliance with drinking water regulations. In order to
qualify for alternative monitoring, a public water system must
show a State that a contaminant is not present in a drinking
water supply or, if present, it is reliably and consistently
below the MCL.
The provision defines ``reliably and consistently below the
maximum contaminant level'' to mean that, even though the State
has detected a contaminant, the State has sufficient knowledge
to predict that the MCL will not be exceeded. In making this
determination, the State must consider: (1) the quality and
completeness of the data; (2) the length of time covered and
the volatility or stability of monitoring results during that
time, and; (3) 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 meet this standard.
New subsection (c) specifies that all monitoring relief
granted by a State shall be treated as part of the drinking
water regulation for that contaminant.
Section 304(c) further amends section 1445(a) provisions
governing monitoring for unregulated contaminants. Within 3
years after enactment and every 5 years thereafter, EPA must
issue a list 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. EPA must include
on the list any contaminants recommended in a petition signed
by the Governors of at least 7 States unless the Administrator
determines the listing of contaminants recommended by the
Governors would prevent this listing of other contaminants of a
higher public health concern. States may develop representative
monitoring plans for systems serving fewer than 10,000 people,
and EPA shall make funds appropriated under section
1445(a)(2)(H) to pay for testing and analysis costs under these
plans. Subparagraph (H) authorizes $10 million for each of
Fiscal Years 1997 through 2003. Public water systems are
required to report the results of monitoring for unregulated
contaminants to the State, and notification of the availability
of the results must be given to the system's customers and EPA.
The Administrator shall waive monitoring requirements for an
unregulated contaminant if the State demonstrates that the
criteria for listing the contaminant do not apply in that State
(subparagraph (F)). Subparagraph (G) authorizes States to use
screening methods approved by the Administrator (under section
304(d)) in lieu of monitoring for particular unregulated
contaminants.
Section 304(d) requires EPA to review new analytical
methods to screen for regulated contaminants and authorizes EPA
to approve such methods that are more accurate or cost-
effective than the established reference methods for use for
compliance monitoring.
Section 305. Occurrence data base
In recognition of the need to develop comprehensive and
reliable information regarding the occurrence of contaminants
in drinking water, the bill establishes a national occurrence
data base to be developed and operated by EPA. Specifically,
the section adds new subsection 1445(g) to direct EPA, within
three years of enactment of these amendments, to assemble and
maintain a national drinking water occurrence data base that
includes information derived from public water system
monitoring of regulated and unregulated contaminants and from
other sources. The provision provides that EPA shall use the
data base as a factor 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. In
establishing the occurrence data base, the Administrator is
required to 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. The
Committee believes that the solicitation of recommendations on
these and related issues is important to ensure that the
Administrator develops and maintains an occurrence data base
which is both useful and manageable.
New subsection 1445(g) also requires EPA periodically to
solicit recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences
and the States for contaminants that should be included in the
data base. Any person may also submit recommendations. All such
recommendations shall be accompanied by reasonable
documentation that the contaminant occurs or is likely to occur
in drinking water and the contaminant poses a risk to public
health. The bill also explicitly states that information in the
data base be made available to the public in a readily
accessible form.
Section 306. Citizens suits
This section amends section 1449 to indicate that pending
State, as well as Federal, court actions to require compliance
may serve as a bar to civil actions.
Section 307. Whistle blower
This section amends subsection 1450(i) to extend from 30
days to 180 days the timeframe for an employee to file a
discrimination complaint and to make other changes. It provides
that the Secretary of Labor, upon conclusion of a hearing and
the issuance of a recommended decision that the complaint has
merit, shall issue a preliminary order providing relief under
clause (ii) (e.g., reinstatement, back pay) but may not order
compensatory damages pending a final order. It further directs
the Secretary to dismiss a complaint and not conduct an
investigation unless the complainant has made a prima facie
showing that the complainant's role in an enforcement action
was a contributing factor in the alleged unfavorable personnel
action. The Secretary may determine that a violation has
occurred only if the complainant has demonstrated that the
involvement in an enforcement action was a contributing factor
alleged in the unfavorable personnel action. The bill further
provides that relief may not be ordered if the employer
demonstrates that it would have taken the same personnel action
in the absence of such behavior.
Section 307(b) establishes that this provision applies to
complaints filed on or after the date of enactment of these
amendments.
Section 308. State revolving funds
This section establishes a new section 1452 of the Act
creating a State Revolving Fund (SRF) program to provide
financial assistance to facilitate compliance with national
primary drinking water standards and for projects to further
the health protection objectives of the Safe Drinking Water
Act.
The Administrator is directed to enter into capitalization
grant agreements with eligible States. Before receiving a
grant, States are to establish a drinking water treatment
revolving loan fund, into which Federal capitalization grants
will be deposited. States must agree to deposit in the fund an
amount of State funds equal to 20 percent of the total amount
of the capitalization grant. State matching funds are to be
deposited on or before the date of a grant payment, except that
matching funds for Fiscal Years 1994, 1995, 1996, and 1997 must
be deposited the earlier of the date on which a grant payment
is made or no later than September 30, 1998.
The bill authorizes $599 million annually for Fiscal Years
1994 and 1995 and $1 billion annually in Fiscal Years 1996
through 2003 for capitalization grants under this section.
Federal capitalization grants shall be available to the
State for obligation for a period of 2 fiscal years (the year
of the award and the following fiscal year). Grants made
available from funds appropriated prior to enactment of this
bill shall be available for obligation during Fiscal Years 1997
and 1998.
Each SRF shall be established, maintained and credited with
repayments and interest so that the fund balance is available
in perpetuity. Funds not required for current obligation are to
be invested in interest-bearing obligations.
For Fiscal Years 1995, 1996, and 1997, capitalization
grants are to be distributed to States using the same formula
used to distribute public water system supervision grant funds
in Fiscal Year 1995. No State shall receive less than 1 percent
of available funds. For Fiscal Years 1998 and thereafter,
capitalization grants are to be allocated to States
proportional to needs identified in the needs survey required
by this section. Subject to certain conditions, grants not
obligated within the time period specified in the bill are to
be reallotted to other States using the same criteria that
governed allocation of the grants originally.
In States which do not exercise primary enforcement
responsibility for public water systems, funds shall be
allotted by the Administrator. The Administrator shall allot 20
percent of the State's allotment for purposes of exercising
primary enforcement responsibility and shall allot the
remaining funds to other primary enforcement States for deposit
in those States' SRFs. If the Administrator makes a final
determination that a State is not meeting the requirements of
section 1413(a) of the Act, additional grants to that State are
to be immediately terminated.
Beginning in Fiscal Year 1999, the Administrator is
required to withhold 20 percent of capitalization grants to a
State which has not met the requirements of the Act concerning
capacity development. The Administrator must withhold an
additional 20 percent if a State has not met the requirements
of the Act concerning operator certification. All funds
withheld are to be reallotted by EPA to other States on the
basis of the same ratio of funds that governed allocation of
the grants originally.
A State may use amounts in the Revolving Fund only to make
loans, loan guarantees, or as a source of reserve and security
for leveraged loans, or other authorized assistance to
community water systems and nonprofit noncommunity water
systems, other than systems owned by Federal agencies.
Financial assistance provided by the SRF may be used by a
public water system to facilitate compliance with applicable
national primary drinking water regulations or to otherwise
significantly further the health protection objectives of the
Act. Loans (including loan guarantees) also may be provided to
systems which are not public water systems (as defined in new
section 1401(4)(B) of the Act) in order to provide water for
residential uses that is equivalent to that provided by the
applicable national primary drinking water regulation.
Capitalization grant funds may not be used for monitoring,
operation, and maintenance expenditures and may be used for
acquisition of real property only to the extent the property is
integral to a project and is purchased from a willing seller.
States are required to reserve 15 percent of available funds to
provide loan assistance to public water systems which serve
fewer than 10,000 persons.
Section 1452(a)(3)(A) provides that financial assistance
shall not be provided to a public water system under two
circumstances, without first meeting the requirements of
section 1452(a)(3)(B). First, funds may not go to a public
water system which is in significant noncompliance with any
requirement of a national primary drinking water regulation or
variance. Second, assistance may not be provided to a public
water system that does not have the technical, managerial, and
financial capability to ensure compliance with requirements of
the Act.
Section 1452(a)(3)(B) provides that the prohibition on
funding in section 1452(a)(3)(A) will not apply if two
conditions can be met. First, the use of the assistance will
ensure compliance. Second, the owner or operator of the system
agrees to undertake feasible and appropriate changes to ensure
that the system has the capability to comply with the
requirements of the Act over the long term (if the State
determines that such measures are necessary).
Each State is required to prepare a plan for the intended
uses of amounts available in the Revolving Fund. The plan shall
include a list of projects to be assisted, criteria and methods
established for distribution of funds, and a description of the
financial status of the SRF and its short-term and long-term
goals. To the maximum extent practicable, the plan must give
priority to projects that address the most serious risk to
human health, are necessary to ensure compliance with the Act,
and will assist systems with the greatest financial need. In
preparing its intended use plan, the State may take into
account the readiness of projects for financing. The State must
provide an opportunity for public comment on the use of the
funds and must publish and periodically update a list of
projects in the State that are eligible for assistance, their
priority, and expected funding schedule.
A State may provide additional subsidization (including
forgiveness of principal) on loans made to a disadvantaged
community (according to affordability criteria established by
the State) or to a community that the State expects to become
disadvantaged as a result of a proposed project. Loan subsidies
resulting from this provision may not exceed 30 percent of the
amount of capitalization grant received by the State for that
year.
For administrative convenience and where not prohibited by
other law, States may combine the financial administration of a
drinking water Revolving Fund with that of any other revolving
fund established by the State, so long as grants, loan
repayments and interest are accounted for separately and
oversight responsibility is maintained by the State agency
responsible for public water system supervision under the Act.
Under section 1452(g)(1), States may reserve annually up to
4 percent of allotted capitalization grant funds to cover the
reasonable costs of administering programs under this section
and to provide technical assistance to public water systems.
Beginning with Fiscal Year 1995, States with primary
enforcement responsibility may use up to an additional 10
percent of allotted funds for public water system supervision
programs, to administer and provide technical assistance
through source water protection programs, operator
certification programs, and to develop and implement a capacity
development strategy.
Funds for source water protection under subsection
1452(g)(1)(B) shall not be used for purposes which do not
facilitate compliance with drinking water standards or
otherwise significantly further the health protection
objectives of the Safe Drinking Water Act. States may not use
such funds for enforcement actions. Rather, the Committee
encourages the implementation of voluntary incentive-based
measures where local communities, farmers, and upstream
entities can work together.
To use the additional funds under 1452(g)(1) for the
described activities, the State is to match such expenditures
with an equal amount of State funds, and at least one-half of
the matched funds must be additional to amounts expended by the
State for public water supervision in Fiscal Year 1993.
Additionally, States are to reserve annually 1 percent of
allotted funds to provide technical assistance to public water
systems.
The Administrator is directed to publish guidance and
promulgate regulations as necessary to carry out section 1452.
Such guidance or regulations must include provisions to ensure
that each State commits and expends funds as efficiently as
possible in accordance with this Title and applicable State
law. The Administrator must publish guidance to prevent waste,
fraud and abuse. Additionally, due to the limited funding
available for capitalization grants compared with the need of
many systems for funds simply to comply with the requirements
of this Act, the Administrator is required to publish guidance
to avoid the use of funds to finance the expansion of any
public water system in anticipation of future population
growth.
Under section 1452(k), a State may reserve 15 percent of
the capitalization grant amounts for certain set-asides.
However, no more than 10 percent of a State's grant may be used
for any single activity. Funds can be used to acquire land or
conservation easements for the purpose of source water
protection from willing sellers or grantors, to implement
local, voluntary, incentive-based source water quality
protection measures, to provide assistance as part of a
capacity development strategy, to make expenditures to conduct
a source water assessment in accordance with 1428(l), and to
make expenditures to establish and implement wellhead
protection programs.
As discussed above, the Committee recognizes that source
water protection can be a cost-effective strategy for ensuring
safe drinking water supplies. Therefore, subparagraph
1452(k)(1)(A)(ii) provides that a State may use up to 10
percent of its annual capitalization grant to provide loans to
fund local, voluntary, incentive-based mechanisms for source
water protection.
Funds provided under subparagraph 1452(k)(1)(A)(ii) may be
used only for voluntary, incentive-based mechanisms whose
purpose is to prevent the contamination of drinking water
supplies. The purpose of this new authority is to encourage
voluntary partnerships formed for the purposes of minimizing
the contamination of drinking water supplies. For this reason,
such funds may not be used to impose new regulatory
requirements on potential sources of drinking water
contamination. Likewise, such funds may not be used to enforce
existing regulatory requirements on potential sources of
drinking water contamination. Furthermore, nothing in this
subsection is intended to create or convey any new regulatory
authority to a State, political subdivision of a State, or a
public water system, nor limit any authority such State,
political subdivision or public water system may have under any
other Federal, State or local authorities.
For example, major potential resources exist in a number of
existing water quality-related programs through which
technical, financial and other non-regulatory forms of
assistance could be brought to bear in helping local
partnerships address source water problems. Too often, either
localities are unaware of these programs; or managers of such
programs are unaware of local needs that may exist in source
water areas. States could play an invaluable leadership role in
facilitating local partnership efforts by (1) compiling and
disseminating information profiling the various Federal and
State water quality-related programs which may be potential
sources of technical, financial and other non-regulatory forms
of assistance; and (2) helping overcome barriers and coordinate
such programs so that pressing local source water needs are
taken into consideration when program managers make critical
decisions among competing priorities regarding where to
allocate or redirect scarce resources.
The Administrator is directed to publish guidance and
promulgate regulations necessary to carry out this section,
including with respect to use accounting, audit, and fiscal
procedures that conform to generally accepted accounting
standards.
Each State must make a complete report to the Administrator
every two years concerning the use of the fund, findings of the
most recent audit of the fund, and the State allotment. Also,
the Administrator shall periodically conduct an audit of all
Revolving Funds established by and amounts allotted to the
States under this section in accordance with procedures
established by the Comptroller General.
Within 180 days of enactment and every four years
thereafter, the Administrator is to conduct an assessment and
report to Congress on water system capitalization improvement
needs of all eligible public water systems.
The Administrator may reserve one and one-half percent of
amounts appropriated annually to make grants to Indian Tribes
and Alaskan Native Village which are not otherwise eligible to
receive assistance under this section. Not more than one
percent of all SRF funds are to be reserved by EPA for drinking
water infrastructure grant assistance to the District of
Columbia, the Virgin Islands, Commonwealth of the Northern
Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Republic of
Palau. EPA also may reserve up to two percent of amounts
appropriated annually for technical assistance for small
systems.
The State of Virginia is authorized to conduct an
alternative demonstration program by providing loans from an
SRF to a regional endowment fund to finance new drinking water
facilities in certain southwestern Virginia communities that
are experiencing economic hardship subject to approval by the
Virginia General Assembly and EPA.
From funds appropriated, the Administrator is to reserve
$10,000,000 per year for health effects studies, with priority
given to studies of cryptosporidium, disinfection byproducts,
arsenic, and studies of subpopulations at greater risk of
adverse effects from exposure to drinking water contaminants.
Section 309. Water Conservation Plan
This section establishes a new section 1453 of the Act
concerning water conservation. Within two years of enactment,
the Administrator is to publish guidelines for water
conservation plans for public water systems serving fewer than
3,300 persons, serving between 3,300 and 10,000 persons, and
serving more than 10,000 persons. With in one year thereafter,
a State may require a public water system seeking a loan or
grant from an SRF to submit a water conservation plan
consistent with the EPA guidelines.
TITLE IV--MISCELLANEOUS
Section 401. Definitions
Section 401(a) amends section 1401(1)(D) of the definition
of `primary drinking water regulation' to authorize EPA, at any
time after promulgating a regulation, to issue guidance
allowing the use of other equally effective methods to comply
with the monitoring requirements of the regulation.
Section 401(b) modifies the definition of a public water
system to include the supplying of water for human consumption
through pipes and ``other constructed conveyances.'' The term
``constructed conveyance'' refers to transport systems such as
ditches, canals, culverts, waterways and similar delivery
systems that are man-made and that transport large quantities
of water in a utility network. The term does not include water
delivered by bottle or in other package units, by vending
machines or coolers and does not include water that is trucked
or delivered by a similar vehicle.
Section 401(b) further modifies the definition of a public
water system by excluding from consideration certain
connections that might otherwise qualify a system as a public
water system. Except as noted below, these exclusions only
apply where the water is delivered by a constructed conveyance
other than a pipe.
The first exclusion applies when water delivered by the
constructed conveyance is used exclusively for purposes other
than residential uses (consisting of drinking, bathing, and
cooking) or other similar uses (Section 1401(4)(B)(i)(f)). The
water supplied, in this case, is not allowed nor intended to be
used for residential or simi lar uses; and, therefore the water
system is excluded from this provision.
The second exclusion applies when water is provided by the
system for residential or similar uses from another source such
as bottled water or trucked water (Section 1401(4)(B)(i)(II)).
To qualify for this exclusion, the alternative source of water
for these uses must be provided (not merely be available). By
requiring the altern ative supply of water to be ``provided,''
the Committee does not intend the water to be provided for free
of charge. As with a public water system, the water system may
charge users for the reasonable costs of the water supplied.
The third exclusion applies where the water delivered by
constructed conveyances is used for residential or similar
uses, but the water is treated prior to use (See new section
1401(4)(B)(i)(III)). In this instance, the water may be treated
centrally or at the point-of-entry to a residence or other
facility where similar uses occur by the system, by a pass-
through entity or by the consumer. As a general principle, the
Safe Drinking Water Act does not allow a pubic water system to
place the burden of compliance on the customer. However, the
Committee recognizes that in several situations it may be
appropriate to allow customers to assume this obligation.
First, in some instances, customers who receive water from
constructed conveyances have already taken it upon themselves
to install point-of-entry units. In this case, a water system
should not have to replace the unit or duplicate treatment.
Second, in many rural areas, a water system that is constructed
principally for irrigation or other agricultural and industrial
uses may not desire to be regulated as a public water system
and would decline to provide water to residential users if the
system were required to provide the treatment centrally.
Therefore, the obligation to treat the water to a level of
public health protection equivalent to the applicable national
primary drinking water regulation may be assumed by the
consumer to assure that people living in rural areas are not
precluded from obtaining the best quality water at an
affordable cost.
To qualify for either of the two latter exclusions, the
State (or the Administrator in the case of a State without
primacy) must make the factual determination that the
alternative water or treated water used for residential or
similar uses actually achieves the equivalent level of public
health protection provided by the applicable national primary
drinking water regulation. This determination is distinct from
the question of who may bear the responsibility for actually
providing treatment.
Generally, the bill excludes these two types of connections
from consideration only where the connection is to a water
system that conveys water by means other that pipes. Piped
water systems may not avoid regulation as public water systems
by providing bottled water or by treating at the point of
entry. However, an exception is made for some piped water
delivery systems that were in operation prior to May 18, 1994,
and that were constructed principally for the purpose of
agricultural service with only incidental use for human
consumption. These piped systems are not to be considered
public water systems if they comply with the requirements
applicable under one or the other of the exclusions for
alternative water or point of entry treatment available under
section 401(b).
The Committee anticipates that this statutory scheme will
result in the most economical supply of safe drinking water to
consumers. The Committee anticipates, however, that the
adoption of point-of-entry or other treatment, while perhaps
providing an economical supply of drinking water over the long-
term, may impose significant short-term costs on systems and
consumers. Thus, section 1452(a)(2) makes providers eligible
for loans for the purpose of providing the treatment described
in section 1401(4)(B)(i)(III). With the availability of such
assistance, providers may be able to obtain technology at lower
cost and pass those savings on to the customer.
The amendments to section 1401 concerning the definition of
a ``public water system'' are not intended to alter the
criteria for the related section 1411 ``coverage'' provision of
the Safe Drinking Water Act. However, the Committee recognizes
that some applications of section 1411 could inadvertently
cause duplicative or unnecessary compliance activities for some
systems that purchase finished water that is then submetered to
encourage consumers to utilize a lesser volume of such water.
The Committee agrees with the letter received from the
Environmental Protection Agency, provided in the Appendix, that
the current statutory language provides States with the
flexibility to avoid duplication of compliance activities.
Further, the Committee encourages EPA to review its guidance on
such matters to prevent duplicative or unnecessary regulations
that do not further public health protection and which could
inhibit other goals which would reduce the volume of finished
water needed.
Section 401 also requires the General Accounting Office to
undertake a study to determine the number of individuals and
households served by systems using the alternatives in new
section 1401(4)(B), as well as the sources and costs of potable
water they are provided. In addition, the GAO is to review
State and water system compliance with the exclusion
provisions. A report based on this effort is due within three
years after enactment.
Section 402. Authorization of appropriations
This section authorizes appropriations to carry out the
Act. Subsection (a) adds a new section 1402 which authorizes
such sums as necessary to carry out provisions of the Act for
the first 7 fiscal years following enactment of these
amendments.
Subsection (b) authorizes $15,000,000 annually for Fiscal
Years 1992 through 2003 for sole source aquifer demonstrations
programs under section 1427. It also deletes the limitation
that critical aquifer protection areas covered by this
provision must be approved by EPA within 24 months of enactment
of the 1986 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments.
Subsection (c) authorizes $30,000,000 annually for Fiscal
Years 1992 through 2003 for State wellhead protection programs
under section 1428, and subsection (d) authorizes $15,000,000
annually for the same period for underground injection control
program grants under section 1443(b).
The 1980 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act
established section 1425 in response to Congressional concerns
about EPA proposed regulations regarding Class II injection
wells, including stripper wells. Stripper wells, such as those
found throughout Appalachia, are particularly sensitive to
increased regulatory costs. On March 29, 1996, President
Clinton signed Public Law 104-121 that, among other things,
required greater flexibility and scrutiny of regulatory burdens
respecting small business. The Committee expects that if EPA
proposes additional injection well requirements, it should
require a separate evaluation and subcategory for stripper
wells operated by small businesses.
Section 403. New York City watershed protection program
This section adds a new subsection 1443(d) to authorize
$15,000,000 per year annually for Fiscal Years 1997 through
2003 as financial assistance to the State of New York for
demonstration projects to implement a watershed protection
program for the New York City water supply system. Federal
assistance under this subsection is limited to not more than 35
percent of total cost for any particular watershed or ground
water recharge area.
In providing funds to the State of New York under this
section, the Administrator is strongly encouraged to give
priority to projects that demonstrate, assess, or provide for
comprehensive monitoring, surveillance, and research with
respect to the efficacy of various source water protection
activities, or that establish watershed or basin-wide
coordinating planning or governing organizations.
Section 404. Estrogenic substances screening program
This section amends Part F by adding a new section 1470
that mandates development and implementation of a program to
identify and regulate pesticides that may have effects on
humans similar to effects produced by naturally occurring
estrogen or other endocrine effects. The bill also provides
additional authority to require testing of other substances
where such substances may be found in sources of drinking water
and the Administrator determines that a substantial population
may be exposed to the substance. It requires EPA to develop a
screening program, using appropriate validated test systems and
other scientifically relevant information, within two years
and, after public comment and review by EPA's Scientific
Advisory Board or the Scientific Advisory Panel, to implement
the program within three years. Validation ensures that a test
measures the end-point that it claims to measure and is
repeatable by other laboratories. Testing for endocrine effects
would apply to all active and inert ingredients in pesticide
products that may be found in drinking water sources. EPA may
exempt a substance from testing by order if it is not
anticipated to produce an estrogenic effect in humans.
The Committee understands that scientific screening tests
are generally used in laboratory evaluations of substances to
determine if further analyses are warranted. Typically, a
positive result from a screening test does not by itself
confirm or deny that a substance will demonstrate the target
characteristic. Different screening tests have different
confidence limits and lower confidence limits than more
complete evaluations. Further evaluations are necessary to
characterize the significance and likelihood of adverse health
effects, modes of exposure, biological mechanisms and dose-
response relationships. The Administrator should ensure that
risk communication involving information from screening tests
convey the accurate meaning of the results of the screening
test.
The bill directs EPA to order registrants, manufacturers,
or importers to conduct tests under the screening program and
to submit results to EPA. EPA can fulfill the order requirement
by entering into enforceable consent agreements. EPA is to
minimize duplicative testing to the extent practicable;
develop, as appropriate, procedures for fairly and equitably
sharing test costs; and develop, as necessary, procedures for
handling confidential business information.
The bill provides for suspension of the sale or
distribution of a substance by any registrant who fails to
comply with a test order under this section concerning that
substance. Unless the registrant complied fully with the order
or requested a hearing, a suspension would become final in 30
days. Any hearing must be conducted in accordance with the
formal adjudicatory hearing process of the Administrative
Procedure Act (5 USC 554). Its only purpose would be to
determine whether the person failed to comply with an EPA test
order. Suspension must be terminated if the registrant fully
complies with the test order.
Any other person subject to a test order who fails to
comply with that test order is liable for penalties and
sanctions as provided in the Toxic Substances Control Act
(TSCA) section 16 (15 USC 2615). These penalties may include up
to $25,000 per day in fines and, if the person knowingly or
willfully violates an order, imprisonment for up to one year. A
person assessed a fine may request a hearing and, if ordered to
pay the fine after the hearing, may file a petition for
judicial review of EPA's order.
If a substance is found to have an endocrine effect as a
result of validated tests and evaluations, and as necessary to
ensure protection of public health, Section 1470(f) requires
EPA to take, as appropriate, action under existing statutory
authority. This provision is not intended in any way to provide
additional regulatory autho rity. Nor does the provision
replace, modify, or expand any other provision of existing
authorities. Hence no standard of protection under existing
authority is changed in any way by this provision. Appropriate
action may be, or include, further testing or study.
EPA must report to Congress within 4 years on its findings
from the screening program and any recommendations for further
testing and actions. Finally, the bill states that the section
does not amend or modify TSCA or the Federal Insecticide,
Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA, 7 USC 136 et seq.).
Section 405. Reports on programs administered directly by Environmental
Protection Agency
This section requires EPA to report every two years to
Congress on the implementation of this Act for States and
Indian Tribes where EPA has revoked primary enforcement
responsibility.
Section 406. Return flows
This section clarifies that water supplies from a public
water system regulated under this Act shall not be used in
connection with operation of residential and commercial
geothermal heat pumps.
Section 407. Emergency powers
This section amends section 1431(b) of the Act to increase
the existing penalty for violating an emergency order issued
under this section from $5,000 per day to $15,000 per day.
Section 408. Waterborne disease occurrence study
This section requires EPA and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention (CDC) to establish pilot waterborne
disease occurrence studies for at least five major U.S.
communities or public water systems and report on findings. EPA
and CDC also are required to establish a training and public
education campaign for professional hea lth care providers
about waterborne diseases that may be caused by infectious
agents.
Funds totaling $3,000,000 annually for Fiscal Years 1997
through 2003 are authorized to carry out these studies, and EPA
is authorized to use not more than $2,000,000 annually out of
funds reserved under new section 1452(n) (the SRF provisions of
the Act), to the extent funds under this section are not fully
appropriated. EPA may transfer a portion of funds to the CDC.
Section 409. Drinking water studies
This section authorizes several specific health effects
studies.
Subsection (a) directs EPA to conduct a continuing program
of studies to identify groups within the general population at
greater risk of adverse health effects from exposure to
contaminants in drinking water.
Subsection (b) directs EPA to study the biomedical
mechanisms by which chemical contaminants cause adverse effects
among humans, especially subpopulations at greater risk. These
studies also are to develop new approaches for studying complex
mixtures, synergistic and antagonistic interactions, and
noncancer endpoints and infectious diseases.
Subsection (c) directs EPA to conduct studies which the
parties to the negotiated rulemaking agreed are necessary to
support the development and implementation of the enhanced
surface water treatment rule, disinfectant and disinfection
byproduct rule, and ground water disinfection rule.
Funds totaling $12,500,000 annually for Fiscal Years 1997
through 2003 are authorized in this section to carry out the
required drinking water studies. In addition, funds for the
studies are authorized in new section 1452, State Revolving
Funds for drinking water infrastructure.
Section 410. Bottled drinking water standards
This section modifies section 410 of the Federal Food, Drug
and Cosmetic Act to add a new subsection (b) to require the
Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (the
Secretary) to establish standard of quality regulations for
bottled water for each contaminant for which a national primary
drinking water regulation is issued by the Administrator,
unless the Secretary determines that such a standard of quality
regulation is not necessary because the contaminant is
contained in water in public water systems but not in water
used for bottled drinking water.
New subsection (b) provides that not later than 180 days
before the effective date of a national primary drinking water
regulation (not including extensions under section
1412(b)(10)), the Secretary shall either promulgate a standard
of quality regulation for that contaminant or contaminants,
including monitoring requirements, or make a determination that
such a regulation is not necessary.
The effective date for any standard of quality regulation
promulgated under this subsection shall be the same as the
effective date for the national primary drinking water
regulation for the contaminant, except for any standard of
quality 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 March 1996, the Secretary promulgated
standard of quality regulations for 22 contaminants. However,
the Secretary stayed the effective date for nine of these
contaminants in order to gather additional information on the
appropriate monitoring requirements. Under new subsection (b),
the Secretary is required to promulgate monitoring requirements
for the contaminants covered by such regulations not later than
two years after the date of enactment of these amendments.
These monitoring requirements would become effective not later
than 130 days after the date on which the monitoring
requirements are promulgated.
New subsection (b) requires the Secretary to establish a
level for the contaminant in bottled water which is no less
stringent than the maximum contaminant level provided in the
national primary drinking water regulations for the same
contaminant or requirements which are no less protective of
public health than those applicable to water provided by public
water systems using the treatment technique required by the
national primary drinking water regulation.
Finally, if the Secretary does not promulgate a standard of
quality regulations within the time period described above, the
national primary drinking water regulation for such contaminant
shall be considered as the regulation applicable under this
subsection to bottled water. In the case of a national primary
drinking water regulation that is considered to be a standard
of quality regulation pursuant to new subsection 410(b)(4)(A),
the Secretary is required to publish a Federal Register notice
specifying the contents of such regulations, including
monitoring requirements, and providing that the effective date
for such regulation shall be the effective date of the national
primary drinking water regulation (except for standard of
quality regulations promulgated before the date of enactment of
these amendments but for which the effective date was stayed,
in which case the effective date shall be not later than two
years and 180 days after the date of enactment of these
amendments).
Section 411. Clerical amendments
This section provides miscellaneous clerical amendments to
the Act.
Agency Views
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, June 11, 1996.
Hon. Thomas J. Bliley, Jr.,
Chairman, Committee on Commerce,
House of Representatives, 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 Committee for including provisions to
improve consumer awareness. Public access to information on
drinking water safety is long overdue. We are also pleased to
see the Committee has included an estrogen screening program
that will advance our understanding of endocrine disruptors 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
byproducts 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
implementation challenges. Important new efforts to boost
stakeholder involvement and strengthen science will undoubtedly
make some time frames 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.
Changes in Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with clause 3 of rule XIII of the Rules of the
House of Representatives, changes in existing law made by the
bill, as reported, are shown as follows (existing law proposed
to be omitted is enclosed in black brackets, new matter is
printed in italic, existing law in which no change is proposed
is shown in roman):
TITLE XIV OF THE PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE ACT
(Commonly known as the Safe Drinking Water Act)
TITLE XIV--SAFETY OF PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS
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========================================================
__________________________________________________
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.
Part A--Definitions
definitions
Sec. 1401. For purposes of this title:
(1) The term ``primary drinking water regulation''
means a regulation which--
(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(D) contains criteria and procedures to
assure a supply of drinking water which
dependably complies with such maximum
contaminant levels; including quality control
and testing procedures to insure compliance
with such levels and to insure proper operation
and maintenance of the system, and requirements
as to (i) the minimum quality of water which
may be taken into the system and (ii) siting
for new facilities for public water systems. 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.
* * * * * * *
[(4) The]
(4) Public water system.--
(A) In general.--The term ``public water
system'' means a system for the provision to
the public of [piped water for human
consumption] water for human consumption
through pipes or other constructed conveyances,
if such system has at least fifteen service
connections or regularly serves at least
twenty-five individuals. Such term includes
[(A)] (i) 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)] (ii)
any collection or pretreatment storage
facilities not under such control which are
used primarily in connection with such system.
(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.
* * * * * * *
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.
Part B--Public Water Systems
* * * * * * *
national drinking water regulations
Sec. 1412. (a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
(2)(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C) Any contaminant referred to in paragraph (1) for which a
substitution is made, pursuant to subparagraph (A) of this
paragraph shall be included on the priority list to be
published by the Administrator not later than January 1, 1988,
pursuant to paragraph [(3)(a)] (3)(A).
(D) The Administrator's decision to regulate a contaminant
identified pursuant to this paragraph in lieu of a contaminant
referred to in paragraph (1) shall not be subject to judicial
review.
[(3)(A) The Administrator shall publish maximum contaminant
level goals and promulgate national primary drinking water
regulations for each contaminant (other than a contaminant
referred to in paragraph (1) or (2) for which a national
primary drinking water regulation was promulgated) which, in
the judgment of the Administrator, may have any adverse effect
on the health of persons and which is known or anticipated to
occur in public water systems. Not later than January 1, 1988,
and at 3-year intervals thereafter, the Administrator shall
publish a list of contaminants which are known or anticipated
to occur in public water systems and which may require
regulation under this Act.
[(B) For the purpose of establishing the list under
subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall form an advisory
working group including members from the National Toxicology
Program and the Environmental Protection Agency's Offices of
Drinking Water, Pesticides, Toxic Substances, Ground Water,
Solid Waste and Emergency Response and any others the
Administrator deems appropriate. The Administrator's
consideration of priorities 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.
[(C) Not later than 24 months after the listing of
contaminants under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall
publish proposed maximum contaminant level goals and national
primary drinking water regulations for not less than 25
contaminants for the list established under subparagraph (A).
[(D) Not later than 36 months after the listing of
contaminants under subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall
publish a maximum contaminant goal and promulgate a national
primary drinking water regulation for those contaminants for
which proposed maximum contaminant level goals and proposed
national primary drinking water regulations were published
under subparagraph (C).]
(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.
(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 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.
[(4) Each]
(4) Goals and standards.--
(A) Maximum contaminant level goals.--Each maximum
contaminant level goal established under this
subsection shall be set at the level at which no known
or anticipated adverse effects on the health of persons
occur and which allows an adequate margin of safety.
[Each national]
(B) Maximum contaminant levels.--Except as provided
in paragraphs (5) and (6), each national primary
drinking water regulation for a contaminant for which a
maximum contaminant level goal is established under
this subsection shall specify a [maximum level] maximum
contaminant level for such contaminant which is as
close to the maximum contaminant level goal as is
feasible.
(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).
[(5) For the]
(D) Definition of feasible.--For the purposes of this
subsection, the term ``feasible'' means feasible with
the use of the best technology, treatment techniques
and other means which the Administrator finds, after
examination for efficacy under field conditions and not
solely under laboratory conditions, are available
(taking cost into consideration). For the purpose of
[paragraph (4)] this paragraph, granular activated
carbon is feasible for the control of synthetic organic
chemicals, and any technology, treatment technique, or
other means found to be the best available for the
control of synthetic organic chemicals must be at least
as effective in controlling synthetic organic chemicals
as granular activated carbon.
[(6) Each national]
(E) Feasible technologies.--
(i) Each national primary drinking water
regulation which establishes a maximum
contaminant level shall list the technology,
treatment techniques, and other means which the
Administrator finds to be feasible for purposes
of meeting such maximum contaminant level, but
a regulation under this paragraph shall not
require that any specified technology,
treatment technique, or other means be used for
purposes of meeting such maximum contaminant
level.
(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).
(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.
(7)(A) * * *
* * * * * * *
(C)(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(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)).
(8) [Not later than 36 months after the enactment of the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986, the Administrator shall
propose and promulgate national primary drinking water
regulations requiring disinfection as a treatment technique for
all public water systems.] 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. The Administrator shall
simultaneously promulgate a rule specifying criteria that will
be used by the Administrator (or delegated State authorities)
to grant variances from this requirement according to the
provisions of sections 1415(a)(1)(B) and 1415(a)(3). In
implementing section [1442(g)] 1442(e) the Administrator or the
delegated State authority shall, where appropriate, give
special consideration to providing technical assistance to
small public water systems in complying with the regulations
promulgated under this paragraph.
[(9) National primary drinking water regulations shall be
amended whenever changes in technology, treatment techniques,
and other means permit greater protection of the health of
persons, but in any event such regulations shall be reviewed at
least once every 3 years. Such review shall include an analysis
of innovations or changes in technology, treatment techniques
or other activities that have occurred over the previous 3-year
period and that may provide for greater protection of the
health of persons. The findings of such review shall be
published in the Federal Register. If, after opportunity for
public comment, the Administrator concludes that the
technology, treatment techniques, or other means resulting from
such innovations or changes are not feasible within the meaning
of paragraph (5), an explanation of such conclusion shall be
published in the Federal Register.
[(10) National primary drinking water regulations
promulgated under this subsection (and amendments thereto)
shall take effect eighteen months after the date of their
promulgation. Regulations under subsection (a) shall be
superseded by regulations under this subsection to the extent
provided by the regulations under this subsection.]
(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.
(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.
(11) No national primary drinking water regulation may
require the addition of any substance for preventive health
care purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.
(12) Risk assessment, management and communication.--
(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.
(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.
(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.
(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.
* * * * * * *
state primary enforcement responsibility
Sec. 1413. (a) For purposes of this title, a State has
primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems
during any period for which the Administrator determines
(pursuant to regulations prescribed under subsection (b)) that
such State--
[(1) has adopted drinking water regulations which are
no less stringent than the national primary drinking
water regulations in effect under such sections 1412(a)
and 1412(b);]
(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;
* * * * * * *
(4) if it permits variances or exemptions, or both,
from the requirements of its drinking water regulations
which meet the requirements of paragraph (1), permits
such variances and exemptions under conditions and in a
manner which is not less stringent than the conditions
under, and the manner in, which variances and
exemptions may be granted under sections 1415 and 1416;
[and]
(5) has adopted and can implement an adequate plan
for the provision of safe drinking water under
emergency circumstances[.] including earthquakes,
floods, hurricanes, and other natural disasters, as
appropriate; and
(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.
* * * * * * *
(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.
enforcement of drinking water regulations
Sec. 1414. (a)(1)(A) Whenever the Administrator finds during
a period during which a State has primary enforcement
responsibility for public water systems (within the meaning of
section 1413(a)) that any public water system--
(i) for which a variance under section 1415 or an
exemption under section 1416 is not in effect, does not
comply with [any national primary drinking water
regulation in effect under section 1412] 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 thereto,
he shall so notify the State and such public water system and
provide such advice and technical assistance to such State and
public water system as may be appropriate to bring the system
into compliance [with such regulation or requirement] with the
requirement by the earliest feasible time.
(B) If, beyond the thirtieth day after the Administrator's
notification under subparagraph (A), the State has not
commenced appropriate enforcement action, the Administrator
shall issue an order under subsection (g) requiring the public
water system to comply with such [regulation or] applicable
requirement or the Administrator shall commence a civil action
under subsection (b).
[(2) Whenever, on the basis of information available to him,
the Administrator finds during a period during which a State
does not have primary enforcement responsibility for public
water systems that a public water system in such State--
[(A) for which a variance under section 1415(a)(2) or
an exemption under section 1416(f) is not in effect,
does not comply with any national primary drinking
water regulation in effect under section 1412, or
[(B) for which a variance under section 1415(a)(2) or
an exemption under section 1416(f) is in effect, does
not comply with any schedule or other requirement
imposed pursuant thereto, the Administrator shall issue
an order under subsection (g) requiring the public
water system to comply with such regulation or
requirement or the Administrator shall commence a civil
action under subsection (b).]
(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.
(b) The Administrator may bring a civil action in the
appropriate United States district court to require compliance
with [a national primary drinking water regulation] any
applicable requirement, with an order issued under subsection
(g), or with any schedule or other requirement imposed pursuant
to a variance or exemption granted under section 1415 or 1416
if--
(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(c) Each owner or operator of a public water system shall
give notice to the persons served by it--
[(1) of any failure on the part of the public water
system to--
[(A) 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
[(B) perform monitoring required by section
1445(a), and
[(2) if the public water system is subject to a
variance granted under section 1415(a)(1)(A) or
1415(a)(2) for an inability to meet a maximum
contaminant level requirement or is subject to an
exemption granted under section 1416, of--
[(A) the existence of such variance or
exemption, and
[(B) any failure to comply with the
requirements of any schedule prescribed
pursuant to the variance or exemption.
The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe the form,
manner, and frequency for giving notice under this subsection.
Within 15 months after the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water
Act Amendments of 1986, the Administrator shall amend such
regulations to provide for different types and frequencies of
notice based on the differences between violations which are
intermittent or infrequent and violations which are continuous
or frequent. Such regulations shall also take into account the
seriousness of any potential adverse health effects which may
be involved. Notice of any violation of a maximum contaminant
level or any other violation designated by the Administrator as
posing a serious potential adverse health effect shall be given
as soon as possible, but in no case later than 14 days after
the violation. Notice of a continuous violation of a regulation
other than a maximum contaminant level shall be given no less
frequently than every 3 months. Notice of violations judged to
be less serious shall be given no less frequently than
annually. The Administrator shall specify the types of notice
to be used to provide information as promptly and effectively
as possible taking into account both the seriousness of any
potential adverse health effects and the likelihood of reaching
all affected persons. Notification of violations shall include
notice by general circulation newspaper serving the area and,
whenever appropriate, shall also include a press release to
electronic media and individual mailings. Notice under this
subsection shall provide a clear and readily understandable
explanation of the violation, any potential adverse health
effects, the steps that the system is taking to correct such
violation, and the necessity for seeking alternative water
supplies, if any, until the violation is corrected. Until such
amended regulations are promulgated, the regulations in effect
on the date of the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments of 1986 shall remain in effect. The Administrator
may also require the owner or operator of a public water system
to give notice to the persons served by it of contaminant
levels of any unregulated contaminant required to be monitored
under section 1445(a). Any person who violates this subsection
or regulations issued under this subsection shall be subject to
a civil penalty of not to exceed $25,000.]
(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 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.
* * * * * * *
(g)(1) In any case in which the Administrator is authorized
to bring a civil action under this section or under section
1445 with respect to any [regulation, schedule, or other]
applicable requirement, the Administrator also may issue an
order to require compliance with such [regulation, schedule, or
other] applicable requirement.
(2) An order issued under this subsection shall not take
[effect until after notice and opportunity for public hearing
and,] effect, in the case of a State having primary enforcement
responsibility for public water systems in that State, until
after the Administrator has provided the State with an
opportunity to confer with the Administrator regarding the
[proposed] order. A copy of any order [proposed to be] issued
under this subsection shall be sent to the appropriate State
agency of the State involved if the State has primary
enforcement responsibility for public water systems in that
State. Any order issued under this subsection shall state with
reasonable specificity the nature of the violation. In any case
in which an order under this subsection is issued to a
corporation, a copy of such order shall be issued to
appropriate corporate officers.
(3)(A) Any person who violates, or fails or refuses to comply
with, an order under this subsection shall be liable to the
United States for a civil penalty of not more than $25,000 per
day of violation.
[(B) Whenever any civil penalty sought by the Administrator
under this paragraph does not exceed a total of $5,000, 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 of the United States Code.]
(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.
(C) Whenever any civil penalty sought by the Administrator
under this [paragraph exceeds $5,000] subsection for a
violation of an applicable requirement exceeds $25,000, the
penalty shall be assessed by a civil action brought by the
Administrator in the appropriate United States district court
(as determined under the provisions of title 28 of the United
States Code).
* * * * * * *
(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;
(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.
variances
Sec. 1415. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this
part, variances from national primary drinking water
regulations may be granted as follows:
(1)(A) A State which has primary enforcement
responsibility for public water systems may grant one
or more variances from an applicable national primary
drinking water regulation to one or more public water
systems within its jurisdiction which, because of
characteristics of the raw water sources which are
reasonably available to the systems, cannot meet the
requirements respecting the maximum contaminant levels
of such drinking water regulation. A variance may only
be issued to a system after the system's application of
the best technology[, treatment techniques,] or other
means, which the Administrator finds are available
(taking costs into consideration). [The Administrator
shall propose and promulgate his finding of the best
available technology, treatment techniques or other
means available for each contaminant for purposes of
this subsection at the time he proposes and promulgates
a maximum contaminant level for each such contaminant.]
The Administrator's finding of [best available
technology, treatment techniques or other means] best
technology or other means for purposes of this
subsection may vary depending on the number of persons
served by the system or for other physical conditions
related to engineering feasibility and costs of
compliance with maximum contaminant levels as
considered approprate by an Administrator. Before a
State may grant a variance under this subparagraph, the
State must find that the variance will not result in an
unreasonable risk to health. If a State grants a public
water system a variance under this subparagraph, the
State shall prescribe at time the variance is granted,
a schedule for--
(i) compliance (including increments of
progress) by the public water system with each
contaminant level requirement with respect to
which the variance was granted, and
(ii) implementation by the public water
system of such additional control measures as
the State may require for each contaminant,
subject to such contaminant level requirement,
during the period ending on the date compliance
with such requirement is required.
[Before a schedule prescribed by a State pursuant to
this subparagraph may take effect, the State shall
provide notice and opportunity for a public hearing on
the schedule. A notice given pursuant to the preceding
sentence may cover the prescribing of more than one
such schedule and a hearing held pursuant to such
notice shall include each of the schedules covered by
the notice.] A schedule prescribed pursuant to this
subparagraph for a public water system granted a
variance shall require compliance by the system with
each contaminant level requirement with respect to
which the variance was granted as expeditiously as
practicable (as the State may reasonably determine).
* * * * * * *
(C) [Before a variance proposed to be granted by a
State under subparagraph (A) or (B) may take effect,
such State shall provide notice and opportunity for
public hearing on the proposed variance.] 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. A notice given pursuant to the
preceding sentence may cover the granting of more than
one variance and a hearing held pursuant to such notice
shall include each of the variances covered by the
notice. The State shall promptly notify the
Administrator of all variances granted by it under this
section. Such notification shall contain the reason for
the variance (and in the case of a variance under
subparagraph (A), the basis for the finding required by
that subparagraph before the granting of the variance)
and documentation of the need for the variance.
(D) Each public water system's variance granted by a
State [under subparagraph (A)] under this section shall
be conditioned by the State upon compliance by the
public water system with the schedule prescribed by the
State pursuant to [that subparagraph] this section. The
requirements of each schedule prescribed by a State
pursuant to [that subparagraph] this section shall be
enforceable by the State under its laws. [Any
requirement of a schedule on which a variance granted
under that subparagraph is conditioned may be enforced
under section 1414 as if such requirement was part of a
national primary drinking water regulation.]
(E) Each schedule prescribed by a State pursuant to
subparagraph (A) shall be deemed approved by the
Administrator unless the variance for which it was
prescribed is revoked by the Administrator under such
subparagraph.
(F) [Not later than 18 months after the effective
date of the interim national primary drinking water
regulations the Administrator shall complete a
comprehensive review of the variances granted under
subparagraph (A) (and schedules prescribed pursuant
thereto) and under subparagraph (B) by the States
during the one-year period beginning on such effective
date.] 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). The
Administrator shall conduct such subsequent reviews of
variances and schedules as he deems necessary to carry
out the purposes of this title, but each subsequent
review shall be completed within each [3-year] 5-year
period following the completion of the first review
under this subparagraph. Before conducting any review
under this subparagraph, the Administrator shall
publish notice of the proposed review in the Federal
Register. Such notice shall (i) provide information
respecting the location of data and other information
respecting the variances to be reviewed (including data
and other information concerning new scientific matters
bearing on such variances), and (ii) advise of the
opportunity to submit comments on the variances
reviewed and on the need for continuing them. Upon
completion of any such review, the Administrator shall
publish in the Federal Register the results of his
review together with findings responsive to comments
submitted in connection with such review.
(G)(i) If the Administrator finds that a State has,
in a substantial number of instances, abused its
discretion in granting variances under [subparagraph
(A) or (B)] this section or that in a substantial
number of cases the State has failed to prescribe
schedules in accordance with subparagraph (A), the
Administrator shall notify the State of his findings.
In determining if a State has abused its discretion in
granting variances in a substantial number of
instances, the Administrator shall consider the number
of persons who are affected by the variances and if the
requirements applicable to the granting of the
variances were complied with. A notice under this
clause shall--
(I) * * *
* * * * * * *
(b) Any schedule or other requirement on which a variance
granted under [paragraph (1)(B) or (2) of subsection (a)] this
section is conditioned may be enforced under section 1414 as if
such schedule or other requirement was part of a national
primary drinking water regulation.
(c) If an application for a variance under [subsection (a)]
this section is made, the State receiving the application or
the Administrator, as the case may be, shall act upon such
application within a reasonable period (as determined under
regulations prescribed by the Administrator) after the date of
its submission.
[(d) For purposes of this section, the term ``treatment
technique requirement'' means a requirement in a national
primary drinking water regulation which specifies for a
contaminant (in accordance with section 1401(1)(C)(ii)) each
treatment technique known to the Administrator which leads to a
reduction in the level of such contaminant sufficient to
satisfy the requirements of section 1412(b)(3).]
(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 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.
exemptions
Sec. 1416. (a) * * *
(b)(1) If a State grants a public water system an exemption
under subsection (a), the State shall prescribe, at the time
the exemption is granted, a schedule for--
(A) compliance (including increments of progress) by
the public water system with each contaminant level
requirement and treatment technique requirement with
respect to which the exemption was granted, and
(B) implementation by the public water system of such
control measures as the State may require for each
contaminant, subject to such contaminant level
requirement or treatment technique requirement, during
the period ending on the date compliance with such
requirement is required.
Before a schedule [prescribed by a State pursuant to this
subsection] prescribed by a State pursuant to this subsection
or subsection (h) may take effect, the State shall provide
notice and opportunity for a public hearing on the schedule. A
notice given pursuant to the preceding sentence may cover the
prescribing of more than one such schedule and a hearing held
pursuant to such notice shall include each of the schedules
covered by the notice.
(2)(A) A schedule prescribed pursuant to this subsection for
a public water system granted an exemption under subsection (a)
shall require compliance by the system with each contaminant
level and treatment technique requirement with respect to which
the exemption was granted as expeditiously as practicable (as
the State may reasonably determine) but (except as provided in
subparagraph (B))--
(i) in the case of an exemption granted with respect
to a contaminant level or treatment technique
requirement prescribed by the national primary drinking
water regulations promulgated under section 1412(a),
not later than 12 months after enactment of the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986; and
(ii) in the case of an exemption granted with respect
to a contaminant level or treatment technique
requirement prescribed by national primary drinking
water regulations, other than a regulation referred to
in section 1412(a), [12 months] 4 years after the date
of issuance of the exemption.
(B) The final date for compliance provided in any schedule in
the case of any exemption may be extended by the State (in the
case of a State which has primary enforcement responsibility)
or by the Administrator (in any other case) for a period not to
exceed [3 years after the date of the issuance of the
exemption] 4 years after the expiration of the initial
exemption if the public water system establishes that--
(i) the system cannot meet the standard without
capital improvements which cannot be completed within
the period of such exemption;
(ii) in the case of a system which needs financial
assistance for the necessary improvement, the system
has entered into an agreement to obtain such financial
assistance; or
(iii) the system has entered into an enforceable
agreement to become a part of a regional public water
system; and
the system is taking all practicable steps to meet the
standard.
[(C) In the case of a system which does not serve more than
500 service connections and which needs financial assistance
for the necessary improvements, an exemption granted under
clause (i) or (ii) of subparagraph (B) may be renewed for one
or more additional 2-year periods if the system establishes
that it is taking all practicable steps to meet the
requirements of subparagraph (B).]
* * * * * * *
(c) Each State which grants an exemption [under subsection
(a)] under this section shall promptly notify the Administrator
of the granting of such exemption. Such notification shall
contain the reasons for the exemption (including the basis for
the finding required by subsection (a)(3) or the determination
under subsection (h)(1)(C) before the exemption may be granted)
and document the need for the exemption.
(d)(1) [Not later than 18 months after the effective date of
the interim national primary drinking water regulations the
Administrator shall complete a comprehensive review of the
exemptions granted (and schedules prescribed pursuant thereto)
by the States during the one-year period beginning on such
effective date.] 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.
The Administrator shall conduct such subsequent reviews of
exemptions and schedules as he deems necessary to carry out the
purposes of this title, but each subsequent review shall be
completed within each [3-year] 4-year period following the
completion of the first review under this subparagraph. Before
conducting any review under this subparagraph, the
Administrator shall publish notice of the proposed review in
the Federal Register. Such notice shall (A) provide information
respecting the location of data and other information
respecting the exemptions to be reviewed (including data and
other information concerning new scientific matters bearing on
such exemptions), and (B) advise of the opportunity to submit
comments on the exemptions reviewed and on the need for
continuing them. Upon completion of any such review, the
Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register the results
of his review together with findings responsive to comments
submitted in connection with such review.
* * * * * * *
(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.
(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.
SEC. 1417. PROHIBITION ON USE OF LEAD PIPES, SOLDER, AND FLUX.
(a) In General.--
[(1) Prohibition.--Any pipe, solder, or flux, which
is used after the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water
Act Amendments of 1986, in the installation or repair
of--
[(A) any public water system, or
[(B) any plumbing in a residential or
nonresidential facility providing water for
human consumption which is connected to a
public water system,
shall be lead free (within the meaning of subsection
(d)). This paragraph shall not apply to leaded joints
necessary for the repair of cast iron pipes.]
(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) Public notice requirements.--
(A) In general.--Each owner or operator of a
public water system shall identify and provide
notice to persons that may be affected by lead
contamination of their drinking water where
such contamination results from either or both
of the following:
(i) * * *
* * * * * * *
(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.
* * * * * * *
(d) Definition of Lead Free.--For purposes of this section,
the term ``lead free''--
(1) when used with respect to solders and flux refers
to solders and flux containing not more than 0.2
percent [lead, and] lead;
(2) when used with respect to pipes and pipe fittings
refers to pipes and pipe fittings containing not more
than 8.0 percent lead[.]; and
(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).
(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.
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 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.
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.
(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.
Part C--Protection of Underground Sources of Drinking Water
regulations for state programs
Sec. 1421. (a) * * *
(b)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(3)(A) The regulations of the Administrator under this
section shall permit or provide for consideration of varying
geologic, hydrological, or historical conditions in different
States and in different areas within a State.
(B)(i) In prescribing regulations under this section the
Administrator shall, to the extent feasible, avoid promulgation
of requirements which would unnecessarily disrupt State
underground injection control programs which are in effect and
being enforced in a substantial [number or] number of States.
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1427. SOLE SOURCE AQUIFER DEMONSTRATION PROGRAM.
(a) Purpose.--The purpose of this section is to establish
procedures for development, implementation, and assessment of
demonstration programs designed to protect critical aquifer
protection areas located within areas designated as sole or
principal source aquifers under section 1424(e) of this Act.
(b) Definition.--For purposes of this section, the term
``critical aquifer protection area'' means either of the
following:
(1) All or part of an area located within an area for
which an application or designation as a sole or
principal source aquifer pursuant to section 1424(e),
has been submitted and approved by the Administrator
[not later than 24 months after the enactment of the
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986] and which
satisfies the criteria established by the Administrator
under subsection (d).
* * * * * * *
(k) Activities Funded Under Other Law.--No funds authorized
under this [subsection] section may be used to fund activities
funded under other sections of this Act or the Clean Water Act,
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 or other
environmental laws.
(l) Savings Provision.--Nothing under this section shall be
construed to amend, supersede or abrogate rights to quantities
of water which have been established by interstate water
compacts, Supreme Court decrees, or State water laws, or any
requirement imposed or right provided under any Federal or
State environmental or public health statute.
(m) Authorization.--There are authorized to be appropriated
to carry out this section not more than the following amounts:
Fiscal year: Amount
1987................................................ $10,000,000
1988................................................ 15,000,000
1989................................................ 17,500,000
1990................................................ 17,500,000
1991................................................ 17,500,000
1992-2003........................................... 15,000,000.
Matching grants under this section may also be used to
implement or update any water quality management plan for a
sole or principal source aquifer approved (before the date of
the enactment of this section) by the Administrator under
section 208 of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act.
SEC. 1428. STATE PROGRAMS TO ESTABLISH WELLHEAD AND SOURCE WATER
PROTECTION AREAS.
(a) * * *
(b) Public Participation.--To the maximum extent possible,
each State shall establish procedures, including but not
limited to the establishment of technical and citizens'
advisory committees, to encourage the public to participate in
developing the protection program for wellhead areas and source
water assessment programs under subsection (l). Such procedures
shall include notice and opportunity for public hearing on the
State program before it is submitted to the Administrator.
(c) Disapproval.--
(1) In general.--[If, in the judgment of the
Administrator a State program (or portion, thereof,
including the definition of a wellhead protection
area), is not adequate to protect public water systems
as required by this section, the Administrator shall
disapprove such program (or portion thereof).] 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. A
State program developed pursuant to subsection (a)
shall be deemed to be adequate unless the Administrator
determines, within 9 months of the receipt of a State
program, that such program (or portion thereof) is
inadequate for the purpose of protecting public water
systems as required by this section from contaminants
that may have any adverse effect on the health of
persons. 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. If the Administrator determines that a
proposed State program (or any portion thereof) is
[inadequate] disapproved, the Administrator shall
submit a written statement of the reasons for such
determination to the Governor of the State.
(2) Modification and resubmission.--Within 6 months
after receipt of the Administrator's written notice
under paragraph (1) that any proposed State program (or
portion thereof) is [inadequate] disapproved, the
Governor or Governor's designee, shall modify the
program based upon the recommendations of the
Administrator and resubmit the modified program to the
Administrator.
* * * * * * *
(g) Implementation.--Each State shall make every reasonable
effort to implement the State wellhead area protection program
under this section and the State source water assessment
programs under subsection (l) for which the State uses grants
under section 1452 (relating to State Revolving Funds) within 2
years of submitting the program to the Administrator. Each
State shall submit to the Administrator a biennial status
report describing the State's progress in implementing the
program. [Such] In the case of wellhead protection programs,
such report shall include amendments to the State program for
water wells sited during the biennial period.
* * * * * * *
(k) Authorization of Appropriations.--Unless the State
program is disapproved under this section, the Administrator
shall make grants to the State for not less than 50 or more
than 90 percent of the costs incurred by a State (as determined
by the Administrator) in developing and implementing each State
program under this section. For purposes of making such grants
there is authorized to be appropriated not more than the
following amounts:
Fiscal year: Amount
1987................................................ $20,000,000
1988................................................ 20,000,000
1989................................................ 35,000,000
1990................................................ 35,000,000
1991................................................ 35,000,000
1992-2003........................................... 30,000,000.
(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.
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.
Part D--Emergency Powers
emergency powers
Sec. 1431. (a) * * *
(b) Any person who violates or fails or refuses to comply
with any order issued by the Administrator under subsection
(a)(1) may, in an action brought in the appropriate United
States district court to enforce such order, be subject to a
civil penalty of not to exceed [$5,000] $15,000 for each day in
which such violation occurs or failure to comply continues.
* * * * * * *
Part E--General Provisions
assurance of availability of adequate supplies of chemicals necessary
for treatment of water
Sec. 1441. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(f) No certification of need or order issued under this
section may remain in effect for more than one year.
research, technical assistance, information, training of personnel
Sec. 1442. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(e) The Administrator is authorized to provide technical
assistance to small public water systems to enable such systems
to achieve and maintain compliance with national drinking water
regulations. Such assistance may include ``circuit-rider''
programs, training, and preliminary engineering studies. There
are authorized to be appropriated to carry out this subsection
$10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 1987 through 1991. Not
less than the greater of--
[(1) 3 percent of the amounts appropriated under this
subsection, or
[(2) $280,000
shall be utilized for technical assistance to public water
systems owned or operated by Indian tribes.]
(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.
(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.
grants for state programs
Sec. 1443. (a)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
[(7) For the purposes of making grants under paragraph (1)
there are authorized to be appropriated $15,000,000 for the
fiscal year ending June 30, 1976, $25,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1977, $35,000,000 for fiscal year 1978,
$45,000,000 for fiscal year 1979, $29,450,000 for the fiscal
year ending September 30, 1980, $32,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1981, and $34,000,000 for the fiscal year
ending September 30, 1982. For the purposes of making grants
under paragraph (1) there are authorized to be appropriated not
more than the following amounts:
[Fiscal year: Amount
1987................................................ $37,200,000
1988................................................ 37,200,000
1989................................................ 40,150,000
1990................................................ 40,150,000
1991................................................ 40,150,000]
(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.
(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.
(b)(1) * * *
* * * * * * *
(5) For purposes of making grants under paragraph (1) there
are authorized to be appropriated $5,000,000 for the fiscal
year ending June 30, 1976, $7,500,000 for the fiscal year
ending June 30, 1977, $10,000,000 for each of the fiscal years
1978 and 1979, $7,795,000 for the fiscal year ending September
30, 1980, $18,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1981, and $21,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30,
1982. For the purpose of making grants under paragraph (1)
there are authorized to be appropriated not more than the
following amounts:
Fiscal year: Amount
1987................................................ $19,700,000
1988................................................ 19,700,000
1989................................................ 20,850,000
1990................................................ 20,850,000
1991................................................ 20,850,000
1992-2003........................................... 15,000,000.
* * * * * * *
(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
$15,000,000 for each of such fiscal years for the
purpose of providing assistance to the State of New
York to carry out paragraph (1).
* * * * * * *
records and inspections
Sec. 1445. (a)[(1) Every person who is a supplier of water,
who is or may be otherwise subject to a primary drinking water
regulation prescribed under section 1412 or to an applicable
underground injection control program (as defined in section
1422(c)), who is or may be subject to the permit requirement of
section 1424 or to an order issued under section 1441, 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 him 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.] (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.
[(2) Not later than 18 months after enactment of the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986, the Administrator shall
promulgate regulations requiring every public water system to
conduct a monitoring program for unregulated contaminants. The
regulations shall require monitoring of drinking water supplied
by the system and shall vary the frequency and schedule of
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. Each system shall be required
to monitor at least once every 5 years after the effective date
of the Administrator's regulations unless the Administrator
requires more frequent monitoring.
[(3) Regulations under paragraph (2) shall list unregulated
contaminants for which systems may be required to monitor, and
shall include criteria by which the primary enforcement
authority in each State could show cause for addition or
deletion of contaminants from the designated list. The primary
State enforcement authority may delete contaminants for an
individual system, in accordance with these criteria, after
obtaining approval of assessment of the contaminants
potentially to be found in the system. The Administrator shall
approve or disapprove such an assessment submitted by a State
within 60 days. A State may add contaminants, in accordance
with these criteria, without making an assessment, but in no
event shall such additions increase Federal expenditures
authorized by this section.
[(4) Public water systems conducting monitoring of
unregulated contaminants pursuant to this section shall provide
the results of such monitoring to the primary enforcement
authority.
[(5) Notification of the availability of the results of the
monitoring programs required under paragraph (2), and
notification of the availability of the results of the
monitoring program referred to in paragraph (6), shall be given
to the persons served by the system and the Administrator.
[(6) The Administrator may waive the monitoring requirement
under paragraph (2) for a system which has conducted a
monitoring program after January 1, 1983, if the Administrator
determines the program to have been consistent with the
regulations promulgated under this section.
[(7) Any system supplying less than 150 service connections
shall be treated as complying with this subsection if such
system provides water samples or the opportunity for sampling
according to rules established by the Administrator.
[(8) There are authorized to be appropriated $30,000,000 in
the fiscal year ending September 30, 1987 to remain available
until expended to carry out the provisions of this subsection.]
(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.
* * * * * * *
(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.
(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).
(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.
* * * * * * *
federal agencies
Sec. 1447. (a) Each Federal agency [(1) having jurisdiction
over any federally owned or maintained public water system or
(2)] engaged in any activity resulting, or which may result in,
underground injection which endangers drinking water (within
the meaning of section 1421(d)(2)) shall be subject to, and
comply with, all Federal, State, and local requirements,
administrative authorities, and process and sanctions
[respecting the provision of safe drinking water and]
respecting any underground injection program in the same
manner, and to the same extent, as any nongovernmental entity.
The preceding sentence shall apply [(A)] (1) to any requirement
whether substantive or procedural (including any recordkeeping
or reporting requirement, any requirement respecting permits,
and any other requirement whatsoever), [(B)] (2) to the
exercise of any Federal, State, or local administrative
authority, and [(C)] (3) to any process or sanction, whether
enforced in Federal, State, or local courts or in any other
manner. This subsection shall apply, notwithstanding any
immunity of such agencies, under any law or rule of law. No
officer, agent, or employee of the United States shall be
personally liable for any civil penalty under this title with
respect to any act or omission within the scope of his official
duties.
(b) The Administrator shall waive compliance with subsection
(a) upon request of the Secretary of Defense and upon a
determination by the President that the requested waiver is
necessary in the interest of national security. The
Administrator shall maintain a written record of the basis upon
which such waiver was granted and make such record available
for in camera examination when relevant in a judicial
proceeding under this title. Upon the issuance of such a
waiver, the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register
a notice that the waiver was granted for national security
purposes, unless, upon the request of the Secretary of Defense,
the Administrator determines to omit such publication because
the publication itself would be contrary to the interests of
national security, in which event the Administrator shall
submit notice to the Armed Services Committee of the Senate and
House of Representatives.
(c)(1) Nothing in [the Safe Drinking Water Amendments of
1977] this title shall be construed to alter or affect the
status of American Indian lands or water rights nor to waive
any sovereignty over Indian lands guaranteed by treaty or
statute.
(2) For the purposes of [this Act] this title, the term
``Federal agency'' shall not be construed to refer to or
include any American Indian tribe, nor to the Secretary of the
Interior in his capacity as trustee of Indian lands.
judicial review
Sec. 1448. (a) A petition for review of--
(1) * * *
(2) any other final action of the Administrator under
this Act may be filed in the circuit in which the
petitioner resides or transacts business which is
directly affected by the action.
Any such petition shall be filed within the 45-day period
beginning on the date of the promulgation of the regulation [or
issuance of the order] or any other final Agency action with
respect to which review is sought or on the date of the
determination with respect to which review is sought, and may
be filed after the expiration of such 45-day period if the
petition is based solely on grounds arising after the
expiration of such period. Action of the Administrator with
respect to which review could have been obtained under this
subsection shall not be subject to judicial review in any civil
or criminal proceeding for enforcement or in any civil action
to enjoin enforcement. 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.
* * * * * * *
citizen's civil action
Sec. 1449. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b) of this
section, any person may commence a civil action on his own
behalf--
(1) against any person (including (A) the United
States, and (B) any other governmental instrumentality
or agency to the extent permitted by the eleventh
amendment to the Constitution) who is alleged to be in
violation of any requirement prescribed by or under
this title[, or];
(2) against the Administrator where there is alleged
a failure of the Administrator to perform any act or
duty under this title which is not discretionary with
the Administrator[.]; or
(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.
No action may be brought under paragraph (1) against a public
water system for a violation of a requirement prescribed by or
under this title which occurred within the 27-month period
beginning on the first day of the month in which this title is
enacted. The United States district courts shall have
jurisdiction, without regard to the amount in controversy or
the citizenship of the parties, to enforce in an action brought
under this subsection any requirement prescribed by or under
this title or to order the Administrator to perform an act, or
duty described in paragraph (2), as the case may be.
(b) No civil action may be commenced--
(1) under subsection (a)(1) of this section
respecting violation of a requirement prescribed by or
under this title--
(A) prior to sixty days after the plaintiff
has given notice of such violation (i) to the
Administrator, (ii) to any alleged violator of
such requirement and (iii) to the State in
which the violation occurs, or
(B) if the Administrator, the Attorney
General, or the State has commenced and is
diligently prosecuting a civil action in a
court of the United States, or a State to
require compliance with such requirement, but
in any such action in a court of the United
States any person may intervene as a matter of
right; or
(2) under subsection (a)(2) of this section prior to
sixty days after the plaintiff has given notice of such
action to the Administrator[.]; or
(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.
Notice required by this subsection shall be given in such
manner as the Administrator shall prescribe by regulation. No
person may commence a civil action under subsection (a) to
require a State to prescribe a schedule under section 1415 or
1416 for a variance or exemption, unless such person shows to
the satisfaction of the court that the State has in a
substantial number of cases failed to prescribe such schedules.
* * * * * * *
general provisions
Sec. 1450. (a) * * *
* * * * * * *
(i)(1) * * *
(2)(A) Any employee who believes that he has been discharged
or otherwise discriminated against by any person in violation
of paragraph (1) may, within [30] 180 days after such violation
occurs, file (or have any person file on his behalf) a
complaint with the Secretary of Labor (hereinafter in this
subsection referred to as the ``Secretary'') alleging such
discharge or discrimination. Upon receipt of such a complaint,
the Secretary shall notify the person named in the complaint of
the filing of the complaint and the Environmental Protection
Agency.
(B)(i) Upon receipt of a complaint filed under subparagraph
(A), the Secretary shall conduct an investigation of the
violation alleged in the complaint. Within 30 days of the
receipt of such complaint, the Secretary shall complete such
investigation and shall notify in writing the complainant (and
any person acting in his behalf) and the person alleged to have
committed such violation of the results of the investigation
conducted pursuant to this subparagraph. Within 90 days of the
receipt of such complaint the Secretary shall, unless the
proceeding on the complaint is terminated by the Secretary on
the basis of a settlement entered into by the Secretary and the
person alleged to have committed such violation, issue an order
either providing the relief prescribed by clause (ii) or
denying the complaint. An order of the Secretary shall be made
on the record after notice and opportunity for agency hearing.
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. The Secretary may not enter into
a settlement terminating a proceeding on a complaint without
the participation and consent of the complainant.
(ii) If in response to a complaint filed under subparagraph
(A) the Secretary determines that a violation of paragraph (1)
has occurred, the Secretary shall order (I) the person who
committed such violation to take affirmative action to abate
the violation, (II) such person to reinstate the complainant to
his former position together with the compensation (including
back pay), terms, conditions, and privileges of his employment,
and (III) [compensatory damages, and (IV) where appropriate,
exemplary damages] and the Secretary may order such person to
provide compensatory damages to the complainant. If such an
order is issued, the Secretary, at the request of the
complainant, shall assess against the person against whom the
order is issued a sum equal to the aggregate amount of all
costs and expenses (including attorneys' fees) reasonably
incurred, as determined by the Secretary, by the complainant
for, or in connection with, the bringing of the complaint upon
which the order was issued.
(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.
[(3)] (4)(A) Any person adversely affected or aggrieved by an
order issued under paragraph (2) may obtain review of the order
in the United States Court of Appeals for the circuit in which
the violation, with respect to which the order was issued,
allegedly occurred. The petition for review must be filed
within sixty days from the issuance of the Secretary's order.
Review shall conform to chapter 7 of title 5 of the United
States Code. The commencement of proceedings under this
subparagraph shall not, unless ordered by the court, operate as
a stay of the Secretary's order.
(B) An order of the Secretary with respect to which review
could have been obtained under subparagraph (A) shall not be
subject to judicial review in any criminal or other civil
proceeding.
[(4)] (5) Whenever a person has failed to comply with an
order issued under paragraph (2)(B), the Secretary shall file a
civil action in the United States District Court for the
district in which the violation was found to occur to enforce
such order. In actions brought under this paragraph, the
district courts shall have jurisdiction to grant all
appropriate relief including, but not limited to, injunctive
relief, compensatory, and exemplary damages.
[(5)] (6) Any nondiscretionary duty imposed by this section
is enforceable in mandamus proceeding brought under section
1361 of title 28 of the United States Code.
[(6)] (7) Paragraph (1) shall not apply with respect to any
employee who, acting without direction from his employer (or
the employer's agent), deliberately causes a violation of any
requirement of this title.
(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.
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.
(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,
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. 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.
Part F--Additional Requirements To Regulate the Safety of Drinking
Water
* * * * * * *
SEC. 1465. FEDERAL ASSISTANCE FOR STATE PROGRAMS REGARDING LEAD
CONTAMINATION IN SCHOOL DRINKING WATER.
(a) * * *
(b) Limits.--Each grant under this section shall be used [as]
by the State for testing water coolers in accordance with
section 1464, for testing for lead contamination in other
drinking water supplies under section 1464, or for remedial
action under State programs under section 1464. Not more than 5
percent of the grant may be used for program administration.
(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to
be appropriated to carry out this section not more than
$30,000,000 for fiscal year 1989, $30,000,000 for fiscal year
1990, and $30,000,000 for fiscal year 1991.
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 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.
----------
SECTION 410 OF THE FEDERAL FOOD, DRUG, AND COSMETIC ACT
bottled drinking water standards
Sec. 410. [Whenever] (a) Except as provided in subsection
(b), whenever the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency prescribes interim or revised national primary drinking
water regulations under section 1412 of the Public Health
Service Act, the Secretary shall consult with the Administrator
and within 180 days after the promulgation of such drinking
water regulations either promulgate amendments to regulations
under this chapter applicable to bottled drinking water or
publish in the Federal Register his reasons for not making such
amendments.
(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).
----------
SECTION 1 OF THE SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
(P.L. 93-523)
short title
Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Safe Driking Water
Act of 1974''.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE GREG GANSKE
The Safe Drinking Water Act Reauthorization bill, H.R.
3604, represents a strong bipartisan compromise. I believe it
is time to restore common sense to environmental laws and this
bill does that. I also believe we need to work from certain
underlying principles: first, businesses and farmers need rules
that are environmentally sound, fair, clear, and predictable;
second, we must respect science; and third, when in doubt, err
on the side of ``safe.'' This legislation does that.
This bill represents the commitment of this Congress to
move forward with legislation that not only protects the
environment and human health, but does so in way that makes
government work smarter and better.
Despite my support for this legislation, two issues remain
which concern me, source water protection and the ``Consumer
Confidence Report.''
Over the past 20 years, the Safe Drinking Water Act has
governed the quality of drinking water ``out of the tap''
primarily through standard setting, monitoring, treatment, and
enforcement of water quality in order to protect the public
health. Source water protection offers a means for water
systems to address problems of contamination other than ``after
the fact'' responses. By addressing sources of potential
drinking water contamination before it can occur, costs and
risks to the population are reduced.
The Senate's version of the Safe Drinking Water
Reauthorization Act, S. 1316, includes a new component which
addresses this important issue. The bill includes language
creating an extensive source water protection program which
attempts to ensure that a new pool of federal dollars would go
to address legitimate source water problems. The measure
contains an extensive and thorough petition process developed
in conjunction with the agriculture community. Unfortunately,
in an effort to reach a bipartisan compromise, the Senate
language, which clearly spells out the expectations and
responsibilities of individuals to protect source water, was
deleted from the House Commerce Committee version, H.R. 3604.
As a result, I met with a variety of agricultural groups in
an effort to see if there weren't some area for mutual
compromise. In a spirit of cooperation, the agricultural
community made several concessions in order to move this
legislation forward. Instead of the Senate's approach, the
House bill contains a voluntary incentive based program.
As the principle author of the source water measure
contained within the bill, I want to clarify the intent and
purpose of the language in Sec. 1452(k)(1)(A). Up to 10% of a
state's SRF may be used by water systems to enter into
voluntary incentive-based source water protection programs with
willing upstream neighbors, regardless of their occupation. The
program is intended to build new partnerships in protecting
source water and as such is not intended to be a compulsory
weapon against upstream parties. I believe that this proactive
incentive based approach which builds upon shared mutual
interests will do far more to protect source water than the
traditional ``Big Stick'' approach which emphasizes and
punitive actions--after the fact.
Furthermore, the language in Sec. 1452(k)(1)(A)(ii) is
silent on the details of source water agreements because it is
the intention of authors to give complete and total freedom to
water systems and upstream entities in developing source water
protection agreements. The only overriding factor of concern is
that the agreements be voluntary in nature and contain
financial incentives (not penalties) for the parties involved.
This is the only approach which will build cooperation between
water systems and upstream entities.
The second issue of concern revolves around the ``Consumer
Confidence Reports'' provision Subtitle C, Sec. 131(4)(A and B)
contained in the bill. A number of systems in Iowa, including
the Des Moines Water Works, Cedar Rapids Water Department,
Marshalltown Water Works, the Central Iowa Water Association,
and the Iowa Rural Water Association have expressed concern
with the scope of the provision. They strongly question the
requirements to both publish a report and mail the same data to
each water system customer. In addition, they are concerned
with the requirements to report both the Maximum Contaminant
Level (MCL) and Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for
regulated contaminants as well as information on monitored but
unregulated contaminants. The systems have voiced the belief
that such information will be difficult to understand,
confusing and potentially counter-productive. This is
especially true in the numerous cases where the MCLG is zero
and the MCL represents a higher threshold.
I am pleased that the ``Consumer Confidence Reports''
provision was amended in the full Committee to eliminate the so
called ``dual reporting'' requirement which called for an
annual report to be published in the local paper and to be
mailed to each customer. I believe the flexibility contained in
the Manager's amendment will help to ensure the public is
informed while lowering the costs of reporting. However, I
remain concerned that the report required under Sec. 131(4)(B)
if not carefully and thoughtfully developed and written could
be misconstrued by the public at large. It is crucial that the
report accurately convey the differences between the MCL and
MCLG and reflect the real risks faced by water system
consumers. As such it is important that clear plainly worded
risk communication language be developed by the Administrator
of the EPA with the maximum input of health professionals. It
is vital that we do not repeat the same mistakes the Congress
made in communicating the risks of Alar.
Greg Ganske.
ADDITIONAL VIEWS OF REPRESENTATIVE TOM A. COBURN
H.R. 3604, the Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 1996 is a
significant improvement over current law. The revisions this
committee has made will provide much needed regulatory relief
and to small systems and will also establish a State Revolving
Fund to help these systems comply with the laws made in
Washington. Above all, I am pleased to note the addition of
using sound, peer-reviewed science to the rule making process.
These changes are a solid first step towards basing legislative
decisions on common sense and proven evidence instead of
emotion, incomplete information, or partisan rhetoric.
However, it is vital that the committee recognize that the
decisions we make today will impact public health for years to
come. While I commend the improvements I mentioned above, I
strongly feel the bill fails to adequately address a vital
concern to public health. Furthermore, while the legislation
will help solve some problems, I believe it will create new
ones as well.
Specifically, I am concerned about the section of the bill
regarding the proposed disinfectant/disinfectant-by products
(D/DBP) rule. During the Subcommittee on Health and
Environment's markup, I offered an amendment to clarify the
language relative to cost benefit analysis in Stage II of the
D/DBP rule. This amendment would have frozen the current levels
for disinfection by-products at 80/parts per billion until
sound scientific evidence proved that a lower D/DBP level would
significantly improve public health. If the Administrator chose
to lower the DBP levels without such proof, the change in
regulation would have been subject to the same cost benefit
analysis that applies to the rest of the 1996 amendments.
Finally, if a State can offer evidence that a lower DBP level
is beneficial to public health, it may choose to set more
stringent standards, as is current practice today.
As you know, S. 1316 and H.R. 3604 both expressly exempt
the DBP rule from the cost-benefit analysis that EPA
Administrator has discretionary authority to apply to all other
new drinking water rules. At the same time, we know that fully
implementing this rule will be extremely costly for public
water systems, especially those small systems serving rural
areas. For instance, each household in northeastern Oklahoma
would have to pay nearly $200 more a year if we fail to use
common sense and move forward with the proposed rule. Worse
yet, we don't know for certain what public health benefits, if
any, will result. In fact the opposite could be true.
The proposed DBP rule is intended to force water suppliers
to reduce the formation of disinfection by-products associated
with the chlorination of drinking water. While there are a
variety of water treatment techniques that can achieve this
goal, most efficient approach is simply to reduce the
application of chlorine or move away from it altogether in
favor of other disinfectants. Therein lies the problem, which I
as a medical professional, find troubling.
For nearly a century, chlorination of drinking water has
been widespread in the United States, virtually eliminating
deadly waterborne diseases such as typhoid, cholera, dysentery,
and hepatitis A. Chlorination is the standard treatment for 98%
of our public water supplies because it is effective,
efficient, and economical. However, if the D/DBP rule forces
water suppliers to make major changes in water treatment
methods, we could see increased microbial contamination of
drinking water leading to higher rates of waterborne disease.
This poses an obvious threat to public health, especially to
vulnerable groups--infants, the elderly and those with
compromised immune systems, such as cancer and AIDS patients.
Let me add that, of course, we need to address any
potential long-term health risks associated with chemical
disinfectants. However, in 1990, the International Agency for
Research on Cancer (IARC), the research arm of the World Health
Organization, evaluated the carcinogenicity of chlorinated
drinking water, the IARC concluded that chlorinated drinking
water is not a classifiable human carcinogen.
But we require a great deal more scientific research that
moves beyond the hypothetical health risks identified in
laboratory animals in order to clearly establish human health
risks based. There is also a critical need for development of
improved detection and measurements techniques to better
quantify the occurrence and infection rates of waterborne
parasites. Both this legislation and the EPA endorse funding
additional research so that we can better understand the
relative risks of chemical and microbial contamination.
Nevertheless, we already know that the public health risks
from the various pathogens--bacteria, viruses, and protozoa--in
drinking water far outweigh the hypothetical cancer risks
associated with DBPs. Even EPA's own water experts warn that
the ``potential health risks associated with disinfection by-
products pale in comparison with microbial risks.''
Recent outbreaks of cryptosporidiosis in Milwaukee, Georgia
and Nevada, along with boil-water advisories in a number of
cities, including Washington, DC, highlight my strong belief
that preventing waterborne disease must be a primary public
health goal. And even though chlorination alone does not kill
the ``cryptosporidium'' parasite, its effectiveness in other
aspects of the water disinfection process cannot be overlooked.
This view also has been endorsed by the American Medical
Association in a letter to this committee, which urged caution
in changing current drinking water regulations without a
thorough evaluation of the risks, costs, and benefits of using
chlorine or alternative disinfectants in the water purification
process. The AMA further noted that with potential human health
risks and an estimated price tag of $4 billion, any rule
revisions affecting our nation's drinking water should be based
on sound scientific knowledge.
Furthermore, the Congressional Budget Office, in its
assessment of the proposed D/DBP rule, pointed out its high
cost and uncertain public health benefits. CBO estimated that
full implementation of the new rule will be more expensive than
all prior drinking regulations combined. Of particularly
concern, the CBO reports that highly yearly household costs
will fall disproportionately on customers of small water
systems, with increased annual water bills ranging up to $223
for those in systems serving populations of less than 100 to
$186 for populations of 3,300 to 10,000. This will have an
enormous impact on states like mine with large rural
populations.
As for the health benefits, CBO states that ``the degree to
which the D/DBP rule would reduce risk of cancer is extremely
uncertain.'' And, even as the EPA has moved forward to
promulgate the D/DBP rule, some of its own water and public
health experts have expressed reservations about its impact:
Changes in water treatment to reduce disinfection by-
products must be carefully evaluated in order that
microbial risks are not increased. . . Economic
analysis strongly supports control of microbial
contaminants as a major public health contribution. By
contrast, investment in expensive technology to reduce
disinfection by-products would not appear to result in
a commensurate contribution in reducing overall cancer
risk.
Furthermore, I question the value of the ``Right to Know''
section contained in H.R. 3604. I believe the intention, to
provide consumers with information regarding their drinking
water, is thoughtful. However, I am convinced that such tactics
will only destroy consumers' confidence in their drinking water
supply. I also have severe reservations about estrogen
screening. Again, I firmly believe these provisions were
founded on good intention, but were based on emotion, not on
sound scientific evidence. These examples reconfirm my thoughts
that the Safe Drinking Water Acts of 1996 will indeed create
new problems.
Congress must reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act. This
legislation contains many worthwhile provisions such as
allowing states and individual facilities to solve their own
problems. The State Resolving Fund will also help address
critical infrastructure needs.
Having said that, I do believe that we must take into
account the very real concerns many share about the costs,
risks, benefits, and scientific evidence of the Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments. As we can see, there are bound to be
unintended consequences from the rule as presently written that
could seriously compromise public health.
Tom A. Coburn.
A P P E N D I X
----------
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Commerce,
Washington, DC, June 24, 1996.
Administrator Carol M. Browner,
Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC.
Dear Administrator Browner: As you know, the Committee on
Commerce recently reported bipartisan legislation to strengthen
and improve the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). In the
development of this legislation, it has come to our attention
that many people in small communities consisting primarily of
manufactured housing are provided drinking water through a
water system that purchases finished water from a public water
system.
There is some concern that the local distribution system in
these communities may be subject to the requirements of the
SDWA under section 1411 if the purchased water is submetered
for the purpose of billing water to individual water
customers--even if these systems are otherwise exempt from the
SDWA. In these situations, it appears that many requirements of
the SDWA could be duplicative, since the water is purchased
directly from a regulated public water system.
Strong public health protection for all communities, both
large and small, is the most important priority under the SDWA.
However, provided that public health protection is maintained,
another worthy goal--water conservation--is advanced through
the installation of water meters on individual housing units.
We are interested in ensuring that water conservation efforts
are not impeded by duplicative or unnecessary SDWA
requirements.
We would therefore like to solicit your opinion on whether
EPA can provide flexibility within current regulations to avoid
unnecessary or duplicative federal requirements that might stem
from submetering by water systems. We are also interested as to
whether EPA believes that States have enough flexiblility under
current law to avoid duplicative and unnecessary compliance
activities at the local level that may arise from water
conservation practices such as submetering.
Thank you for your kind assistance to these matters.
Sincerely,
Michael Bilirakis,
Health and Environment.
John Bryant,
Member, Subcommittee on
Health and Environment.
United States Environmental
Protection Agency,
Washington, DC, June 24, 1996.
Hon. Michael Bilirakis,
Chairman, Subcommittee on Health and Environment.
Hon. John Bryant,
Member, Subcommittee on Health and Environment, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressmen: Thank you for your letter of June 24,
1996, to Administrator Browner concerning drinking water safety
related to small water systems that purchase water from public
water systems regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA). We appreciate having this issue brought to our
attention. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) agrees
that submetering may be an appropriate means of encouraging
water conservation, provided public health protection is
maintained, and we support State flexibility to avoid
duplicative or unnecessary compliance activities.
Generally, water systems that simply submeter finished
water that is purchased from another public water system (which
is covered by SDWA), and do not treat the water, are considered
``consecutive'' water systems under federal SDWA regulations.
Under these regulations (specifically, at 40 CFR 141.29),
States have the flexibility to adjust the monitoring and
reporting requirements to avoid duplication of compliance
activities. More broadly, we believe there is room within EPA
regulations generally and within State determinations under
Section 1411 to avoid duplicative or unnecessary compliance
activities in the situations described in your letter
concerning submetering, consistent with the public health
objectives of the Act. Indeed, we expect that such discretion
has been exercised in States over the last two decades.
We do not recommend changes to the ``coverage'' provisions
of SDWA, since any changes are unlikely to accurately reflect
the variety of circumstances that currently exist, or to
anticipate all future arrangements. However, because of the
issues you have raised, and because we have not recently
reviewed State implementation approaches related to these
issues, we do believe it would be useful for EPA to review
existing guidance that the Agency has offered over the years to
determine if that guidance needs to be updated.
Thank you for your interest in maintaining public health
protection while advancing water conservation goals. I would be
pleased to arrange a meeting between parties interested in this
issue and EPA for the purposes of identifying possible
improvements of EPA's guidance. If you have any further
questions you may contact me, or your staff may contact Cynthia
Dougherty, Director, Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
(202/260-5512).
Sincerely,
Robert Perciasepe,
Assistant Administrator.