[Senate Report 104-169]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]




   104th Congress 1st            SENATE                 Report
         Session
                                                       104-169
_______________________________________________________________________


                                                       Calendar No. 226


 
               SAFE DRINKING WATER AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1995

                               ----------                              

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                                   on

                                S. 1316



                                     

      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]

                                     


                                     

                                     

                November 7, 1995.--Ordered to be printed

                                     
SAFE DRINKING WATER AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1995

   104th Congress 1st            SENATE                 Report
         Session
                                                       104-169
_______________________________________________________________________


                                                       Calendar No. 226


               SAFE DRINKING WATER AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1995

                               __________

                              R E P O R T

                                 of the

                              COMMITTEE ON
                      ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
                          UNITED STATES SENATE

                                   on

                                S. 1316




      [Including cost estimate of the Congressional Budget Office]





                November 7, 1995.--Ordered to be printed


               COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS

  JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, 
             Chairman
MAX BAUCUS, Montana                  JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia
DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York    ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire
FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey      LAUCH FAIRCLOTH, North Carolina
HARRY REID, Nevada                   DIRK KEMPTHORNE, Idaho
BOB GRAHAM, Florida                  JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut     CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming
BARBARA BOXER, California            MITCH McCONNELL, Kentucky
                                     CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri
Steven J. Shimberg, Staff Director
 J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff 
             Director

                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page
General Statement................................................     1
Background.......................................................     2
Types of contaminants and health risks in drinking water.........     6
History of Federal drinking water regulations....................     8
Problems and solutions...........................................    10
Section-by-section summary:
    Section:
         1. Short title..........................................    17
         2. Findings.............................................    17
         3. State revolving funds................................    17
         4. Selection of contaminants; schedule..................    24
         5. Risk assessment, management, and communication.......    27
         6. Standard-setting; review of standards................    30
         7. Arsenic..............................................    38
         8. Radon................................................    41
         9. Sulfate..............................................    44
        10. Filtration and disinfection..........................    46
        11. Effective date for regulations.......................    48
        12. Technology and treatment techniques; technology 
          centers................................................    50
        13. Variances and exemptions.............................    52
        14. Small systems; technical assistance..................    54
        15. Capacity development; finance centers................    58
        16. Operator and laboratory certification................    61
        17. Source water quality protection partnerships.........    62
        18. State primacy; state funding.........................    67
        19. Monitoring and information gathering.................    69
        20. Public notification..................................    77
        21. Enforcement; judicial review.........................    79
        22. Federal agencies.....................................    83
        23. Research.............................................    85
        24. Definitions..........................................    87
        25. Ground water protection..............................    90
        26. Lead plumbing and pipes; return flows................    93
        27. Bottled water........................................    95
        28. Assessing environmental priorities, costs, and 
          benefits...............................................    97
        29. Other amendments.....................................    99
Hearings.........................................................   100
Rollcall votes...................................................   100
Regulatory impact................................................   101
Cost of legislation..............................................   103
Changes in existing law..........................................   112
                                                       Calendar No. 226
104th Congress                                                   Report
                                 SENATE

 1st Session                                                    104-169
_______________________________________________________________________


               SAFE DRINKING WATER AMENDMENTS ACT OF 1995

                                _______


                November 7, 1995.--Ordered to be printed

_______________________________________________________________________


    Mr. Chafee, from the Committee on Environment and Public Works, 
                        submitted the following

                              R E P O R T

                         [To accompany S. 1316]

      The Committee on Environment and Public Works, to which 
was referred the bill (S. 1316) to reauthorize and amend title 
XIV of the Public Health Service Act (commonly known as the 
``Safe Drinking Water Act''), and for other purposes, having 
considered the same, reports favorably thereon with amendments 
and recommends that the bill do pass.

                           General Statement

Objectives of the Legislation
      The outbreak of Cryptosporidiosis in Milwaukee in the 
Spring of 1993 focused the Nation's attention on the Safe 
Drinking Water Act and dramatically highlighted the fundamental 
problem with the Act as it is currently written and 
implemented. Although the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) 
developed a research plan to improve our understanding of 
Cryptosporidium over a decade ago, the research has not been 
completed and Cryptosporidium remains unregulated today. The 
problem is that the Safe Drinking Water Act unintentionally 
discourages EPA from concentrating its resources on regulating 
contaminants that pose the highest health risks. Instead, the 
Safe Drinking Water Act requires EPA to regulate a long list of 
contaminants, regardless of the seriousness of the threat they 
pose to public health and regardless the frequency with which 
they occur in drinking water.
      The bill addresses the legitimate concerns that have been 
raised regarding current law and provides important mid-course 
corrections to the Act, while at the same time ensuring that we 
continue to protect public health. It reflects over 2 years of 
hearings and extensive discussions with the stakeholders.
      In drafting the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 
1995, the Committee sought to achieve several objectives. 
First, the Act must give EPA flexibility to set drinking water 
standards based on peer-reviewed science and the benefits and 
risks associated with contaminants. Second, Congress must 
commit the funds to carry out needed research to identify those 
contaminants that pose the most serious health concern. Third, 
a public record must be created to educate the American people 
about the risks they face from a particular contaminant, and 
the costs to regulate it. Fourth, the Act must be administered 
to be affordable for small systems. Finally, Congress must 
allow States and local governments to be full partners in the 
development, implementation and enforcement of drinking water 
regulations.
Summary of the Major Provisions
      To achieve these objectives, S. 1316:

     authorizes a new grant program to capitalize State 
            revolving funds to make grants and loans for 
            drinking water treatment;

     establishes new principles for the selection of 
            contaminants for regulation based on sound science 
            and occurrence at levels of public health concern;

     allows EPA to weigh relative costs and health 
            benefits and competing health risks in new 
            standards;

     provides for consideration of other risk factors 
            in setting standards for radon, arsenic and 
            sulfate;

      gives each State flexibility to tailor monitoring 
            requirements to the conditions that exist in the 
            State;

     authorizes variances for small systems that cannot 
            afford to comply with national standards;

     provides funds for technical assistance, operator 
            training and capacity development strategies;

     encourages voluntary partnerships at the local 
            level to protect source waters from contamination; 
            and

     increases funding for State program administration 
            and technical assistance.

                               Background

      Compared to other environmental laws, the Safe Drinking 
Water Act is relatively simple in structure. But to be 
successful, it requires a high degree of intergovernmental 
cooperation. The rapid pace of new regulations and the shortage 
of resources at all levels of government are now causing 
implementation problems for those subject to the requirements 
of the Act.
Federal Standards
      The Federal role in the Safe Drinking Water Act is 
expressed through national primary drinking water regulations 
promulgated by EPA. These are standards applicable to public 
water systems and are established to protect public health from 
contaminants that may occur in drinking water supplies. 
Generally, the standards are stated as concentrations of 
particular contaminants in the water (in parts per million or 
parts per billion) as delivered to the tap of the consumer. The 
regulations also require public water systems to monitor 
(sample and test) supplies to assure that the standards are not 
exceeded. Monitoring costs are often a substantial portion of 
the overall cost imposed by a drinking water regulation.
      EPA is required by the Safe Drinking Water Act to set 
standards for 83 specific contaminants. The list was originally 
developed by EPA based on studies conducted by the National 
Academy of Sciences and from water quality surveys done by EPA 
to determine which contaminants actually occur in drinking 
water.
      In addition to these 83 substances, EPA is also required 
to set standards for an additional 25 contaminants (selected by 
EPA) every 3 years. EPA has not yet issued any standards to 
fulfill this mandate.
      The standard-setting process is accomplished in two 
steps. First, EPA determines how much exposure to any 
particular substance from drinking water is ``safe''. The 
``safe'' level of exposure identified by EPA is called the 
maximum contaminant level goal or MCLG. The MCLG incorporates a 
margin of safety to reflect scientific uncertainty and, in some 
cases, the particular susceptibility of some groups (e.g., 
children) within the general population. It is not an 
enforceable standard. Drinking water with concentrations of a 
contaminant at or below the MCLG for the contaminant will not 
cause adverse health effects.
      For substances that may cause cancer, the ``safe'' level 
or MCLG has always been set at zero reflecting the principle 
(used in health policies across the Federal Government since 
the 1950s) that any exposure to a carcinogen may trigger a 
malignant tumor. Twenty-seven of the contaminants currently 
regulated have an MCLG of zero because of the cancer-causing 
potential of the contaminants. Forty-eight other contaminants 
have non-zero MCLGs. \1\
    \1\ There are no MCLGs for several contaminants, either because 
they are controlled by treatment technique requirements rather than 
MCLs or because standards for the contaminant were established at a 
time when the Act did not require an MCLG.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      In the second step, EPA sets the enforceable standard as 
close to the goal as feasible using the best available 
treatment technology that is affordable to large, regional 
public water systems. The standard is called the maximum 
contaminant level or MCL. It is the number that water suppliers 
must meet at the consumers' taps. For substances that do not 
cause cancer, the MCL has almost always been set at the same 
level as the MCLG. But for the carcinogens, it is not practical 
to set the standard at zero. For these contaminants the 
standards reflect not the health goal, but the removal 
efficiencies and analytical limits of best available treatment 
and testing technologies.
      The Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes EPA to establish a 
treatment requirement rather than an MCL, where compliance with 
a numerical standard is not practical (because it is not 
possible to measure the contaminant in drinking water). EPA has 
used this authority in addressing the lead problem. Under the 
recently promulgated lead and copper rule, there is no MCL for 
lead. Rather EPA has established a testing program and required 
systems to implement corrosion control or lead service line 
replacement where an action level for lead is exceeded.
      As discussed below, the national primary drinking water 
regulations also include requirements for filtration and 
disinfection.
State Administration
      Once EPA has set standards, the program is largely 
administered by the States. All States, except Wyoming and the 
District of Columbia, have been granted primacy for most rules. 
Primacy means that the State is responsible for assuring that 
Federal health standards are met by local water suppliers. 
Primacy for a contaminant is granted when a State adopts its 
own regulation for the contaminant that is no less stringent 
than the one issued by EPA. At the State level, the program is 
often run by health departments rather than by environmental 
agencies. The health departments frequently operate the 
laboratories that actually test water samples to determine 
whether the standards are met.
      In addition to the Federal requirements, most State 
programs have other elements including sanitary surveys 
(inspections) and training for local operators that are 
significant factors in ensuring the safety of drinking water.
      Most States make relatively modest expenditures to carry 
out the Safe Drinking Water Act. Setting aside the handful of 
States that make a substantial effort, 45 States spend an 
average of approximately 20 cents per person per year at the 
State level for their drinking water programs.
      EPA also provides grants to the States to support the 
public water system supervision program. Frequently, the 
Federal grant to a State is more than the State itself provides 
for the program. Federal grants for this purpose totaled $70 
million in fiscal year 1995.
Local Supply
      Regulations issued under the Safe Drinking Water Act 
require the local supplier to periodically monitor for 
contamination. The monitoring is conducted by drawing samples 
at the treatment plant, in the distribution system and at 
consumers' taps. If the monitoring shows that a standard has 
been exceeded, the supplier must notify all of the users 
through available media (newspaper and radio) and by mail. The 
supplier must also take steps to correct the problem by 
treating the water to remove or reduce the contaminant to safe 
levels. Civil penalties may be imposed by EPA or a State for a 
failure to comply with monitoring, treatment and notification 
requirements.
      The regulation of drinking water is complicated by the 
large number of public water systems and the great variation in 
the size and sophistication of these systems. EPA estimates 
that there are approximately 185,000 public water systems 
subject to the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Of 
these, approximately 57,000 are community water systems--those 
that have 15 service connections or serve 25 or more persons 
year-round. The community systems meet the drinking water needs 
of a residential population totaling 243 million, 92 percent of 
the total U.S. population. The remaining 8 percent of the 
population receives its water from private wells.
      The character of local systems varies dramatically. Some 
large city systems spend millions of dollars and employ dozens 
of people expert in a wide range of tasks. Other small 
community systems are run by homeowners with no technical 
training and no compensation.
      About 87 percent of the community water systems are small 
(25 percent serve between 501 and 3,300 individuals) or very 
small (62 percent serve fewer than 500 individuals). While 
large in number, these systems serve only about 10.7 percent of 
the population. By contrast, nearly 80 percent of the 
population (served by public water systems) receives its water 
from systems serving more than 10,000 individuals.
      There are another 128,000 public water systems that are 
classified as noncommunity water systems because they serve 
nonresident populations. Of these systems, approximately 24,000 
are nontransient, noncommunity water systems (e.g., systems at 
schools and workplaces where the same people consume the water 
everyday), and 104,000 are transient, noncommunity water 
systems serving the general public at facilities such as camps, 
hotels, resorts and highway rest stops.
      Another important factor in understanding drinking water 
supply is the variation in the source of raw water. Many of the 
larger city and county systems draw raw water from surface 
sources including rivers or lakes or from reservoirs built to 
store water specifically for drinking water supply. On the 
other hand, most small systems rely on ground water sources for 
raw water. Although ground water is less likely to be 
contaminated by substances regulated under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act (and therefore less likely to require treatment), a 
small community may operate several wells and separate 
distribution lines to meet its needs. Monitoring requirements 
established by the Act may imposes costs in multiples at these 
small systems, because each well will need to be individually 
sampled and tested to ensure that health standards are not 
exceeded.
Ground Water Protection
      In addition to the program for drinking water health 
standards, the Safe Drinking Water Act also includes provisions 
to protect underground sources of drinking water from 
contamination. The principal element of ground water protection 
is the Underground Injection Control (UIC) program. Under this 
program approximately 40 States and EPA have taken steps to 
regulate 300,000 injection wells that dispose of waste 
underground, including 170,000 oil and gas injection wells and 
approximately 200 wells used to dispose of hazardous waste.
      Because S. 1316 does not address the UIC program (other 
than to reauthorize EPA grants supporting State activities), 
this report will contain little additional discussion of this 
aspect of the Safe Drinking Water Act.
      Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act also includes 
programs to protect the recharge areas of sole source aquifers 
and wellhead protection areas for public water systems.

        Types of Contaminants and Health Risks in Drinking Water

      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. EPA estimates that drinking water 
rules already issued prevent 500 cancer deaths and 200,000 
other illnesses each year.
      The contaminants and associated health risks from 
drinking water take several different forms. The following 
headings group contaminants according to the health effects or 
the type of contaminant and discuss the relative risk currently 
experienced from drinking water containing such contaminants.
Microbiological Contamination
      Drinking water may contain bacteria, viruses, protozoa 
and other living organisms that continue to cause widespread 
health problems. Typhoid and cholera have largely been 
eliminated as a U.S. health problem through chlorination. But 
gastrointestinal illness caused by fecal contamination and by 
the protozoan Giardia, associated principally with animal 
wastes, continue to cause disease outbreaks (about 20 outbreaks 
per year with up to several hundred illnesses per outbreak). A 
1994 paper published by the Centers for Disease Control 
estimated that 900,000 people experience illness and 900 people 
die each year as the result of pathogenic organisms in drinking 
water. A 1993 episode in Milwaukee caused by the 
Cryptosporidium organism caused 400,000 illnesses and more than 
100 deaths.
Disinfection Byproducts
      The chlorination process that is used to eliminate the 
threat of pathogenic organisms in drinking water may be the 
source of another major health threat attributable to the U.S. 
drinking water supply. Chlorine, used as a disinfectant, 
combines with other organic compounds (including decomposing 
leaves and other natural materials) that are in the raw water 
to form chlorinated, organic compounds like chloroform. As a 
class of chemicals these compounds are referred to as 
trihalomethanes or disinfection byproducts. One recently 
published summary of peer-reviewed health studies estimated 
that approximately 15 percent of the bladder and rectal cancers 
(10,000 cases per year) in the U.S. are caused by these 
compounds in drinking water supplies. The current drinking 
water standard for trihalomethanes may allow an increase in 
lifetime cancer risks of 1-in-10,000 (that is 1 in every 10,000 
people drinking water with THMs at the standard may experience 
a fatal cancer as a result). Removing the organic materials 
before chlorination or using alternative disinfection methods 
may be potential avenues to reduce this cancer risk.
Lead
      Lead in drinking water presents another major health 
threat. The source of the lead is generally the service lines 
and home plumbing that deliver drinking water to the tap. Lead 
is no longer used in home construction, but corrosive water 
continues to leach lead from plumbing installed in the first 
three quarters of the century. Lead continues to be used in the 
manufacture of faucets and other plumbing fixtures. High lead 
levels in the blood of children is associated with slower 
cognitive development (lowering IQ). In adults lead may 
contribute to high blood pressure, heart attacks and strokes. 
Lead is also a carcinogen. EPA's lead rule will reduce lead 
exposure for three million children and prevent 180,000 cases 
of hypertension. It has a net health benefit of $1.4 billion 
per year.
Radon and Other Radionuclides
      A large number of drinking water systems supplied by 
ground water wells are contaminated by naturally-occurring 
radioactive substances including radon, radium and uranium. 
When these contaminants decay (fission) in the human body, they 
may cause an increased risk of cancer. In 1991, EPA proposed a 
radon standard that would (according to EPA's report on the 
rule) prevent 84 of the estimated 192 annual cancer cases 
attributable to radon in drinking water at a cost of $272 
million per year. The cancer risk from radon entering homes 
from soil gases (estimated by EPA to be 13,600 cancer cases 
annually) is much greater than the drinking water risk. 
Congress has delayed the promulgation of EPA's radon standard 
to consider the relative risk implications of these statistics.
Other Cancer-Causing Substances
      A number of other man-made chemicals, principally 
industrial solvents and pesticides, occur in drinking water 
supplies and present a modest cancer risk over a lifetime of 
drinking water consumption. Almost all systems supplied by 
surface water (rivers, lakes and reservoirs) are likely to have 
a large number of these man-made chemicals but in very small 
quantities. Ground water systems are much less likely to be 
contaminated, but when they are, the level of contamination may 
be much higher (because the contaminant moves through ground 
water in a concentrated plume rather than mixing or evaporating 
to the air). About 10 percent of ground water wells supplying 
drinking water systems are contaminated with man-made 
chemicals--an estimated 3 percent at levels above EPA health 
standards.
Inorganic Substances
      There are a number of other substances, many naturally-
occurring, which may contaminate drinking water supplies. Most 
of these substances are metals or salts with health effects 
other than cancer. The most widespread inorganic contaminant is 
nitrate which may come from human and animal waste disposal and 
from commercial fertilizer. Infants cannot digest nitrate. It 
enters the bloodstream and interferes with the uptake of oxygen 
producing a sometimes fatal disease (``blue baby'' disease). 
Other inorganic contaminants of concern include arsenic, 
selenium, sulfate and fluoride.

              History of Federal Drinking Water Regulation

      The Federal Government first set standards for drinking 
water quality in 1914. These standards applied to approximately 
800 water systems that provided drinking water for interstate 
passenger carriers (trains, buses and eventually airlines). The 
standards were revised and extended in 1942, and again in 1962. 
The standards were administered by the Public Health Service 
and were used as a voluntary reference for quality in many city 
drinking water systems. The Public Health Service eventually 
set standards for 16 contaminants including bacteria and 
several inorganic chemicals (arsenic, mercury, cadmium, 
nitrate, etc.). The drinking water program was transferred to 
EPA as part of the 1970 reorganization plan that created the 
Agency.
      Congress enacted the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1974. It 
authorized EPA to set standards for any contaminant in public 
water systems that may have an adverse effect on health. 
Congressional action came in response to a series of reports on 
the large number of industrial and agricultural chemicals that 
had polluted surface water and ground water supplies and 
studies conducted by researchers at Cornell University on the 
presence and health effects of naturally-occurring contaminants 
found in the water supplies of many small, rural communities.
      The Safe Drinking Water Act requires all public water 
supply systems to comply with health standards issued by EPA. 
Many of the national primary drinking water regulations do not 
apply to noncommunity systems serving transient populations.
      The standards for the 16 contaminants regulated by the 
Public Health Service were immediately converted (by the 1974 
Act) to national standards applicable to all public water 
supply systems. In the late 1970s, EPA set additional standards 
for 6 pesticides. In 1979, EPA set a standard for 
trihalomethanes (THMs). Trihalomethanes are byproducts of the 
chlorination process (are among a group of contaminants 
referred to as disinfection byproducts or DBPs). This group of 
substances was regulated under a single trihalomethane standard 
(limiting the combined quantity of all substances in the group) 
applicable only to those public water systems serving 10,000 or 
more people.
      The total number of standards in place by the early 1980s 
was 23 including the 16 regulated by the Public Health Service, 
the 6 pesticides and THMs.
      Congress reauthorized the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1986 
(the 1986 Amendments) making significant changes in the law. At 
the time there was a widespread consensus that EPA had not set 
standards for a sufficient number of contaminants to adequately 
protect drinking water supplies. Many States were making plans 
to issue standards of their own. Ground water cleanup efforts 
across the country were stymied by an inability to answer the 
question, ``How clean is clean.'' Drinking water standards for 
5 industrial solvents proposed by EPA were being held by the 
Office of Management and Budget. In this environment, the 
States, along with water suppliers and the environmental 
community, urged that EPA be required to move forward on a 
standard-setting agenda that would fulfill the Federal role.
      In the 1986 Amendments, Congress listed 83 contaminants 
(including 22 of the contaminants for which standards had 
already been set) and required EPA to establish or revise 
standards for each contaminant within 3 years. The list of 83 
contaminants was developed by EPA based on studies conducted by 
EPA and the National Academy of Sciences and had been published 
in the Federal Register. Congress authorized EPA to modify the 
list subsequent to enactment allowing the Agency to delete up 
to 7 contaminants on the list and substitute other contaminants 
posing greater health problems. EPA used the authority to make 
7 modifications to the list.
      In addition, the 1986 Amendments required EPA to add 25 
contaminants to the list every 3 years after the standards for 
the initial 83 contaminants had been issued. (If EPA had fully 
complied with this requirement of the law, standards for 133 
contaminants would have been issued by 1994.)
      Although EPA has yet to act on the mandate for 25 
additional standards every 3 years, work on the initial set of 
83 standards has largely been completed through the following 
regulations:


     a standard was issued for fluoride on April 2, 
            1986;

     standards for a group of 8 volatile organic 
            compounds including benzene and trichloroethylene 
            (generally called the Phase I or VOC rule) were 
            issued on July 8, 1987;

     the surface water treatment rule setting standards 
            for bacteria, viruses, Giardia and Legionella was 
            issued on June 29, 1989 and covered 6 contaminants;

     a rule covering 34 organic and inorganic 
            contaminants including pesticides and metals 
            (previously regulated) and called the Phase II rule 
            was issued on January 30, 1991;

     a rule for lead and copper was issued on June 6, 
            1991;

     a rule for aldicarb and its byproducts and 
            pentachlorophenol (a total of 4 contaminants) was 
            issued on July 1, 1991; and

     a rule covering 23 pesticides, organic chemicals 
            and inorganic chemicals and called the Phase V rule 
            was issued on July 25, 1992.

      In addition EPA has proposed standards for a group of 6 
radionuclides, including radon (published July 18, 1991), and 
sulfate (published December 1, 1994) and has under 
consideration a standard for arsenic. \2\
    \2\ Because arsenic and some radionuclides were regulated under the 
old Public Health Service rules, standards for these contaminants are 
in place and enforced. EPA is reviewing and revising these standards in 
response to the 1986 Amendments. Radon was not one of the radionuclides 
regulated under the old rules.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      Although EPA did not complete the standard-setting 
process within 3 years, it has now reached the point where 
standards have been promulgated or proposed for 88 
contaminants. EPA has also identified the first group of 25 
additional contaminants for which regulations are to be set. 
Approximately one-half of the contaminants in this group are 
disinfectants or disinfection byproducts, many of which are 
already regulated as trihalomethanes under the standard 
promulgated in 1979. EPA conducted a regulatory negotiation 
among interested parties to arrive at the new standards for 
disinfection byproducts leading to proposed regulations 
published in the Federal Register on July 29, 1994.
      EPA also has under study a group of 13 contaminants, 
known as the Phase VIb group, that would fulfill the mandate 
for the first 25 contaminants to be regulated after the initial 
list of 83 was completed.
      In addition to MCLs for specific contaminants, the Safe 
Drinking Water Act also mandates filtration treatment for water 
supplies drawn from surface water sources and disinfection for 
all systems. Filtration (forcing the water through sand or some 
other material) removes the larger microorganisms, including 
Giardia and, to some degree, Cryptosporidium, which may cause 
intestinal diseases. If the water supplier can show that the 
surface water source is protected (development in the watershed 
is controlled to prevent contamination of the reservoir), a 
waiver from filtration can be granted by the State in which the 
system is located.
      Disinfection with chlorine (or other reactive agents) is 
used to prevent disease caused by biological contaminants. It 
is almost universally used in systems drawing from surface 
waters. However, many ground water systems have not employed 
disinfection because the source water is much less likely to be 
contaminated. Because bacteria and viruses can enter into 
ground water and may also grow in the distribution systems (in 
the pipes and lines that deliver the water to homes), the 1986 
Amendments mandate disinfection for ground water supplies, as 
well. EPA has yet to issue the rule for disinfection of water 
from ground water sources. \3\
    \3\ These requirements are modified by the bill.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

                         Problems and Solutions

      As regulations promulgated under the 1986 Amendments 
began to take effect in the late-1980s, increasing concerns 
were expressed about the impact of Federal mandates on local 
drinking water systems and the capacity of States to keep up 
with a growing workload. These concerns prompted amendments to 
the fiscal year 1993 appropriations bill for EPA to modify the 
direction of the drinking water program. After a thorough 
debate of the principal elements of the Act, including 
standard-setting authorities and the monitoring requirements 
that had been imposed, the Senate adopted a two-part amendment 
that required EPA to prepare a general report on implementation 
problems and prohibited EPA from promulgating a standard for 
radon until further analysis of the science supporting the 
standard had been completed.
      EPA published the general report on the capacity of 
States and public water systems to comply with the Act in 
September, 1993 (Technical and Economic Capacity of States and 
Public Water Systems to Implement Drinking Water Regulations: 
Report to Congress). At that time, EPA also made ten 
recommendations for reform that included creation of revolving 
funds, streamlining enforcement authorities, protecting source 
water and addressing the capacity problems of small systems.
      In the 103d Congress, the Committee reported S. 2019, a 
reauthorization bill incorporating many of the recommendations 
made by EPA and other reforms that were proposed by a coalition 
of State and local organizations with direct interest in the 
drinking water program. That bill was considered and passed by 
the Senate on May 18, 1994 by a vote of 95-3 . The House also 
passed a reauthorization bill by a similar margin.
      S. 1316 builds on this foundation in the following ways.
An Unfunded Mandate
      National primary drinking water regulations issued under 
the 1986 Amendments are imposing substantial costs on public 
water systems. EPA estimates that capital expenditures needed 
nationwide to comply with current requirements of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act total approximately $8.6 billion, and 
approximately 40 percent of these expenditures will be required 
of small systems. Additional rules under development, 
particularly standards for disinfection byproducts, radon, 
arsenic and requirements for the disinfection of ground water 
systems may impose substantial additional capital costs. Many 
systems will not be able to finance treatment facilities to 
comply with the new regulations without financial assistance.
      Other Federal statutes mandating investment in local 
utility services have provided grant assistance to go with the 
mandate. For instance, Congress has appropriated more than $65 
billion to build sewage treatment facilities to meet the 
secondary treatment requirement imposed by the 1972 amendments 
to the Clean Water Act. No similar assistance has been provided 
through the Safe Drinking Water Act. Some other programs, 
notably the Rural Utilities Service in the Department of 
Agriculture (called the Farmers Home Administration, until 
recently), have provided substantial assistance for development 
of rural water and wastewater systems. USDA has provided more 
than $4 billion in grants and $12 billion in loans for drinking 
water supply and wastewater treatment plants since the mid-
1970s.
      In early 1993, President Clinton proposed creation of 
State Revolving Loan Funds for drinking water capital 
investments modeled after the loan funds created under the 
Clean Water Act in 1987. The bill authorizes $600 million in 
fiscal year 1994 and $1 billion per year through fiscal year 
2003 for this new SRF program. This authorization is sufficient 
to cover the capital investments in treatment needed to comply 
with Federal health standards. EPA appropriations bills for 
fiscal years 1994 and 1995 included funds for this new SRF 
program, pending authorization. Priority funding would go to 
projects to address the most serious public health problems and 
to communities most in need of assistance, as determined by the 
States. And in contrast to the SRF program under the Clean 
Water Act, States may provide grants to systems that cannot 
afford to repay loans.
Small Systems
      Many small public water systems have difficulty complying 
with Federal drinking water regulations, in some cases due to a 
lack of technical expertise and financial resources for 
treatment and monitoring.
      As with most public utilities, there are significant 
economies of scale in drinking water supply. EPA and the 
Congressional Budget Office have published estimates indicating 
that systems serving more than 10,000 people experience costs 
that average less than $20 per household per year to comply 
with the current requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
By way of comparison, the average annual incremental household 
cost to comply with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water 
Act for systems serving 25 to 100 persons is $145. Costs for 
some systems may be much higher than these national averages.
      In addition to the loans and grants available through the 
new SRF program discussed above, S. 1316 will reduce the 
burdens faced by small systems in several ways:


     States are authorized to grant variances to small 
            systems that cannot afford to comply with national 
            primary drinking water regulations;

     States are to adopt capacity development 
            strategies to assist small systems in attaining the 
            technical, financial and managerial capacity that 
            will make it possible to comply with the Act;

     a portion of the SRF funds may be set aside for 
            technical assistance to small systems and the cost 
            of training operators may be included in the SRF 
            grant or loan;

     States may reduce monitoring requirements for many 
            contaminants by 75 percent for small systems that 
            do not detect a contaminant in the first test of a 
            quarterly series; and

     the standard for radon (that will affect mostly 
            small systems served by ground water sources) is 
            set at 3000 pCi/L rather than 300 pCi/L as proposed 
            by EPA in 1991.
Selection of Contaminants for Regulation
      Because EPA had failed to take action to set national 
standards for contaminants that were of public health concern, 
the 1986 Amendments listed 83 specific contaminants and 
required EPA to set standards for these substances by 1989. 
That legislation also directed EPA to set standards for an 
additional 25 contaminants every 3 years beginning in 1991.
      This single provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act has 
provoked more critical comment than virtually any other element 
of environmental law. Some of the 83 contaminants for which 
standards are required occur so infrequently in public water 
systems that the costs of monitoring (for a substance not 
present) far outweigh any health benefit that could be realized 
at the few systems that may detect the contaminant. In other 
cases, the available science is so uncertain that standards 
incorporate extravagant margins of safety (30,000-fold for one 
contaminant) making it impossible to assert that expenditures 
to implement the regulation are a public health necessity. 
Finally, the mandate that EPA set standards for an additional 
25 contaminants every 3 years regardless of the threat posed by 
these contaminants in drinking water is for many the 
quintessential example of an arbitrary Federal law imposing 
burdens on consumers and the taxpayers of other governments 
with no rational relationship to the public benefits that might 
be realized.
      Governor George Voinovich of Ohio clearly stated this 
view at the Committee's hearing on October 19, 1995:

            ``The Safe Drinking Water Act is a perfect example 
        of an arbitrary environmental statute in dire need of 
        reform. After all, the very essence of the bill is a 
        requirement that EPA promulgate 25 new contaminants 
        every 3 years that communities must test for, 
        regardless of whether or not they actually occur in the 
        region's drinking water.

            ``At this untenable pace local communities could 
        have to monitor as many as 161 contaminants by 2001. 
        Instead of prioritizing health risks and providing the 
        means to address them, the current law is a one-size-
        fits-all program. It forces our water quality experts 
        to spend scarce resources searching for dangers that 
        often do not exist rather than identifying and removing 
        real health risks from our drinking water.''

      S. 1316 repeals the requirement that EPA regulate an 
additional 25 contaminants every 3 years replacing it with a 
new selection process that gives EPA the discretion to identify 
contaminants that warrant regulation in the future. The 
selection process has several elements including:


     every 5 years EPA is to publish a list of high 
            priority contaminants that should receive 
            additional study;

     EPA may require monitoring at public water systems 
            for up to 20 unregulated contaminants to gather 
            information on the occurrence of contaminants in 
            public water systems;

     EPA is to maintain a national occurrence database 
            including information on regulated and unregulated 
            contaminants;

     decisions made by EPA under the Act are to be 
            guided by new principles for sound science;

     EPA is to set aside $10 million from the annual 
            appropriation for SRF grants to conduct health 
            effects research on contaminants that are 
            candidates for regulation; and

     every 5 years EPA is to make regulatory decisions 
            for at least 5 contaminants announcing whether they 
            warrant regulation or not.
Standard Setting
      Under current law, EPA establishes drinking water 
standards through a two-step process. First, the Administrator 
identifies the maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) reflecting 
a concentration of the contaminant in drinking water at which 
no adverse effects to the health of persons will occur. Second, 
the Administrator sets an enforceable maximum contaminant level 
(MCL) as close to the goal as feasible.
      Feasible means that the level can be reached by large, 
regional drinking water systems applying best available 
treatment technology to raw water sources that are 
contaminated. EPA takes costs into account in identifying best 
available technology. The treatment system must be affordable 
on a per household basis for very large systems. With one 
exception, the treatment technologies that EPA has used to set 
standards cost less than $100 per household per year for very 
large systems. This approach to standard setting is used 
because 80 percent of the population receives its drinking 
water from large systems and safe water can be provided to this 
portion of the population at very affordable costs.
      However, the standard setting authority of current law 
has been criticized for three principal reasons. First, 
treatment technologies that are affordable to large systems may 
be unaffordable and impose substantial per household costs at 
small systems.
      Second, for some contaminants this approach to standard 
setting can impose large aggregate costs nationwide while 
producing only small gains in public health risk reduction. 
This is especially true of substances that are regulated for 
their cancer-causing effects, that have a low potency and that 
occur at low concentrations principally in the ground water 
relied upon by small systems. Although the treatment technology 
may be entirely affordable for large systems, the incremental 
health benefits of addressing already small risks often do not 
justify the aggregate costs. The only identifiable benefit that 
can be stated for some standards is to prevent a handful of 
cancer cases nationwide, in some cases at costs that exceed 
tens of millions of dollars per cancer case avoided.
      Third, use of some treatment technologies may actually 
increase risks from other contaminants. For instance, chlorine 
used to kill pathogenic organisms may result in an increased 
cancer risk from disinfection byproducts. Read literally, the 
statute requires EPA to ``over control'' some contaminants to a 
degree that overall public health risks from drinking water 
would be greater using the best available technology that is 
feasible than risks would be if the standard were set at a less 
stringent level.
      S. 1316 includes several provisions to respond to these 
concerns:


     States may provide variances to small systems that 
            cannot afford to comply with national standards;

     EPA may balance competing risks from several 
            contaminants, if the treatment technology to 
            control one would increase risks from others;

     EPA may set a standard at a level less stringent 
            than feasible, if the costs of a standard 
            reflecting application best available technology 
            are not justified by the benefits; and

     the unique characteristics and risks of arsenic, 
            radon and sulfate are addressed with special 
            standard setting provisions.

      Although the bill includes new risk assessment and cost-
benefit considerations to address unresolved problems in the 
standard setting authorities of the Act, EPA may not use this 
new authority to relax any existing standard, unless new 
science indicates that a less stringent standard would be 
equally protective of public health (i.e., the concentration at 
which no adverse effects occur is re-established at a higher 
level based on new scientific information).
Radon
      Radon is a naturally-occurring gas that may be a 
contaminant in drinking water systems, especially small 
systems, served by ground water supplies. When water is used in 
the home for bathing, cooking and washing, the radon evaporates 
into the indoor air. Inhalation of this radon may present an 
increased risk of lung cancer. Radon ingested with drinking 
water may also present a cancer risk.
      The 1986 Amendments required EPA to set a standard for 
radon. In 1991, EPA proposed a standard of 300 picocuries per 
liter (pCi/L) and estimated the compliance cost at $272 million 
per year nationwide. The drinking water community argued that 
the costs may be much higher than EPA estimated. Radon from 
drinking water typically contributes less than 5 percent of the 
radon gas in indoor air. Since a significant effort is not 
being made to reduce the other 95 percent of radon (where costs 
per cancer case avoided may be much less), the drinking water 
standard was viewed as too stringent to be justified. Congress 
has postponed promulgation of this regulation since 1992.
      The bill sets a standard of 3000 pCi/L for radon, 
reducing the indoor inhalation risk from radon in drinking 
water to a level commensurate with the risk of breathing radon 
in outdoor air.
Monitoring
      Many drinking water systems, especially small systems, 
are concerned with the high costs of monitoring to establish 
compliance with new standards for organic chemicals and 
pesticides. In fact, the greatest compliance costs for many 
small systems are for monitoring, not treatment. If a 
contaminant is not found through testing, no treatment is 
required, and there are no further costs. The existing 
authority to grant waivers from monitoring requirements has not 
been effectively used by all States, resulting in monitoring 
costs that are higher than necessary for many systems.
      To respond to these concerns, the reported bill makes 
four changes in monitoring requirements. First, it allows 
States to develop alternative monitoring rules that would be 
used in lieu of the national requirements. This provision will 
allow States to design less stringent monitoring rules that 
assure compliance and enforcement while taking into account 
special circumstances in the State. More efficient use of 
sampling and laboratory capacity will reduce costs to water 
systems.
      Second, the bill provides the authority for small systems 
serving less than 10,000 persons to reduce testing frequencies 
for many contaminants from four times in a monitoring cycle to 
once, if no contaminants are found in the first test and they 
are unlikely to be found thereafter. This cuts monitoring costs 
for small systems by up to 75 percent. This authority was 
available to systems serving fewer than 3,300 persons during 
fiscal year 1993.
      Third, EPA is directed to review no fewer than 12 of its 
national monitoring requirements within 2 years to determine if 
they should be modified, based on the latest occurrence and 
health effects data.
      Fourth, the bill restructures the program for monitoring 
of unregulated contaminants, dropping the requirement that all 
systems monitor and providing that States may select a 
representative sampling of small systems (serving a population 
of 10,000 or less) for this type of monitoring. EPA is to set 
aside $2 million from each annual appropriation for SRF grants 
to pay for the cost of testing samples taken from these small 
systems.
State Funding
      A major problem with the drinking water program is lack 
of sufficient funds to run programs at the State level. 
Although there is considerable flexibility to tailor 
requirements and reduce costs under the Act and the regulations 
that EPA has issued, many States have been unable to take full 
advantage of this flexibility because they lack the staff and 
resources to conduct the science and fact-gathering needed to 
support variances, monitoring waivers and other discretionary 
features of the drinking water program that can reduce costs 
for local public water systems.
      All the States, except Wyoming and the District of 
Columbia, have been granted primacy for most rules and are 
implementing the law today. While EPA provides grants to assist 
States to carry out their public water system supervision 
responsibilities, funding from Federal and State sources in 
fiscal year 1993 was slightly less than half the amount needed 
to implement effective programs in all States. Unless more 
resources are devoted to the effort at the State level, the 
most cost-effective program will remain an elusive goal for 
many States.
      To reduce the funding shortfall and allow time for States 
to increase their own financial capacity, S. 1316 increases the 
authorization for grants to support State Public Water System 
Supervision (PWSS) programs from $40 million (in current law) 
to $100 million annually. Congress appropriated $70 million for 
fiscal year 1995 to make these grants.
      More importantly, the bill also authorizes States to use 
a portion of their SRF funds to administer the PWSS program. 
Each State has the discretion to take from its SRF grant an 
amount equal to the amount of its PWSS grant to carry out the 
oversight program. While this provision will result in fewer 
dollars available for loans to build treatment plants for 
public water systems, the ability of a State to implement 
effectively the new authorities for alternative monitoring 
requirements, small system variances, capacity development and 
technical assistance may produce significant cost savings for 
all drinking water systems in the State.
      S. 1316 authorizes the Governor of each State to transfer 
up to 50 percent of the funds in the State's drinking water SRF 
to the clean water SRF or to transfer an equivalent dollar 
amount from the clean water SRF to the drinking water fund. 
This provides States flexibility in the use of the loan funds 
to assure that their highest infrastructure priorities are 
addressed.

                       Section-by-Section Summary

         section 1. short title; table of contents; references

      Section 1 includes the title of the bill, a table of 
contents for the bill and provides that amendments made by the 
bill are to title XIV of the Public Health Service Act. The 
bill is entitled ``The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 
1995''.

                          section 2. findings

      The Congress finds: that a substantial number of public 
water systems are having difficulty meeting the requirements of 
the Safe Drinking Water Act because of technical and financial 
limitations and need greater assistance; that modifications in 
administration of the program could promote a more productive 
partnership with the States; that the quality of the science 
supporting drinking water standards needs improvement; that 
risk assessment and benefit-cost analysis are important and 
useful tools to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of 
drinking water regulations; and that Federal, State and local 
governments need additional resources and more effective 
authority to improve compliance with the Act.

                 section 3. state revolving loan funds

Summary
      The bill establishes a new State Revolving Loan Fund 
(SRF) program for drinking water infrastructure. The Federal 
Government will provide capitalization grants to State-run 
SRFs. States will use these funds, along with their own 
contributions, to make grants and loans to public water systems 
to facilitate compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act. The 
bill includes an authorization of $1 billion per year through 
fiscal year 2003 for capitalization grants.
      States may receive grants if they establish a loan fund 
and agree to conditions, including providing a 20 percent State 
match, use of loans in compliance with an intended use plan, 
and proper financial management.
      In fiscal years 1994 through 1997, funds are allocated 
among the States based on a grant formula used to allocate 
funds for Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) grants, a 
long-standing grant program that provides funds to the States 
to support administration and enforcement of national primary 
drinking water regulations. For fiscal year 1998 and after, 
funds are to be allocated according to a new formula developed 
by the Administrator based on a survey of drinking water needs 
in each State. This needs assessment is already underway.
      In addition to the allocation for States, 1.5 percent of 
the Federal grant funds are reserved for Indian tribes and 0.5 
percent of the funds are reserved for territories. Indian 
tribes, territories, and the District of Columbia may receive 
direct grants rather than loans.
      Each State may reserve a portion of its annual grant to 
provide technical assistance to small water systems. Assistance 
may include financial management, planning and design, source 
water protection programs, system restructuring, and other 
measures for capacity development or water treatment.
      Projects eligible to receive loan and grant assistance 
are capital expenditures for (1) compliance with national 
primary drinking water regulations; (2) upgrading of drinking 
water treatment systems; (3) replacement of private wells where 
they present a significant health threat; and (4) restructuring 
of systems and the development of alternative sources of water 
supply.
      Drinking water systems eligible for assistance are those 
public water systems (as defined in the Act) that are community 
water systems (whether publicly or privately owned), publicly 
owned systems (except systems owned or operated by an agency of 
the Federal Government) and noncommunity water systems that are 
owned by a nonprofit organization. States may not provide 
assistance to systems with a history of noncompliance, unless 
steps are taken to assure that the system will have the 
capacity to comply with requirements of the Safe Drinking Water 
Act over the long term.
      States may assist disadvantaged systems, including both 
large and small systems, through grants and forgiveness of loan 
principal. Each State is to develop its own affordability 
criteria to determine which public water systems are eligible 
for grants, rather than loans. The total amount of grants and 
loan forgiveness provided by a State in any fiscal year may not 
exceed 30 percent of the amount of its capitalization grant 
from EPA.
      A State may use a portion of the capitalization grant to 
support its Public Water System Supervision program. A State 
may also use up to 15 percent of its annual grant to support 
programs for source water protection and capacity development.
      Prior to making grants to States for SRFs, the 
Administrator is authorized to reserve a portion of the 
appropriation for research, monitoring at small systems and 
technical assistance.
Discussion
      Complying with drinking water standards and maintaining 
the effective operation of drinking water systems is becoming 
increasingly expensive. The EPA has estimated that the total 
capital investment needed to comply with current drinking water 
standards is approximately $8.6 billion. New regulations for 
disinfection byproducts, radon, arsenic and disinfection of 
ground water supplies may substantially increase these costs.
      Small systems have the most difficult time financing 
capital improvements needed to meet drinking water standards. 
These systems have limited access to the bond market and 
limited financial management capabilities. In addition, because 
small systems do not benefit from the economies of scale 
available to large systems in drinking water treatment, the per 
household costs of a capital project at a small system can be 
very high and result in dramatic increases in water rates.
      Section 3 of the bill establishes a new grant program to 
assist public water systems with the infrastructure investments 
necessary to provide safe drinking water. The grants are made 
to States to capitalize revolving loan funds to help finance 
drinking water projects. The new loan funds are modeled after 
the successful loan fund program now in place under the Clean 
Water Act. The new SRF program for drinking water was first 
proposed by President Clinton in early 1993. Congress has 
previously endorsed this initiative by making advance 
appropriations for this purpose for fiscal years 1994 and 1995.
      The grant program is authorized in a new part G of title 
XIV of the Public Health Service Act (sections 1471 through 
1478) that contains all of the authority necessary to carry out 
the program. The grant program is to be administered by EPA.
      Section 1471 provides that the Administrator may enter 
into a capitalization grant agreement with a State where a 
State establishes a loan fund and agrees to conditions 
including providing a 20 percent State match, use of loans in 
compliance with an intended use plan, and proper financial 
management.
      All of the States already operate revolving loan funds 
for wastewater treatment plant construction under the Clean 
Water Act. A State may consolidate management of the new 
drinking water SRF with its existing wastewater treatment loan 
fund, provided that accounting for drinking water loans and 
repayments remains separate. A Governor of a State may transfer 
up to 50 percent of the funds provided to the drinking water 
loan fund each year to the loan fund authorized under the Clean 
Water Act. An equal dollar amount may be taken from Federal 
grants to the clean water fund in a State and transferred to 
the drinking water fund. The authority to establish priorities 
for loans and grants to public water systems is to remain with 
the State agency that has primary enforcement responsibility 
for the drinking water program.
      Section 1472 directs the Administrator to make 
capitalization grants to eligible States and provides for the 
allocation of funds among the eligible States and territories. 
In fiscal years 1995 through 1997, funds are to be allocated 
among the 50 States and Puerto Rico according to a formula now 
used for the Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) program 
under section 1443. However, the minimum share for each State 
for a capitalization grant under part G shall be 1 percent of 
the appropriation (after the reservations made pursuant to 
section 1478(b)-(d) and this section). A minimum proportionate 
share of 1 percent is also to be provided to the State of 
Wyoming even though it does not receive a PWSS grant (because 
it has not taken primacy).
      For fiscal year 1998 and after, funds are to be allocated 
according to a new formula developed by the Administrator based 
on a survey of drinking water needs in each State. The survey 
of State needs for this new formula is already underway. This 
formula shall also include a minimum State share of 1 percent 
for each of the 50 States and Puerto Rico.
      In addition, 1.5 percent of funds are reserved for grants 
to Indian tribes, and 0.5 percent for grants to the District of 
Columbia and the territories. Indian tribes, territories, and 
the District of Columbia may receive direct grants, rather than 
capitalization grants for the purpose of making loans.
      States are authorized to reserve up to 2 percent of 
funds, or $300,000, whichever is greater, to provide technical 
assistance to water systems serving a population of 10,000 or 
less. Technical assistance may include financial management, 
planning and design, source water protection, or system 
restructuring.
      The Administrator is to withhold a portion of the SRF 
capitalization grant from States that have not adopted 
authority to prevent systems that lack the technical, 
managerial and financial capacity to comply with the Act from 
commencing operation as required by section 1418(a). The amount 
withheld is 5 percent for fiscal year 1999, 10 percent for 
fiscal year 2000, and 15 percent for each fiscal year 
thereafter. Funds withheld are reallocated to other States that 
have adopted this authority.
      Section 1473 defines the projects eligible for assistance 
from the loan fund. Projects eligible to receive loan 
assistance are capital expenditures for:


     compliance with national primary drinking water 
            regulations;

     consolidation of systems and use of an alternative 
            source of water supply;

     upgrading of drinking water treatment systems; and

     replacement of private wells with a public water 
            system where the private wells present a 
            significant health threat.

      Land acquisition is not eligible, unless the land is 
needed for a treatment facility. Other costs associated with 
building or acquiring water treatment facilities including 
engineering and economic studies, legal work and other costs 
typically associated with capital projects are eligible for 
assistance. Associated costs that are eligible for assistance 
also include training for system operators.
      The bill precludes assistance to systems that have a 
history of past violations and that do not have the technical, 
managerial and financial capacity to comply. Assistance may 
only be provided in these cases where the owner or operator of 
the systems agrees to undertake the changes in operations that 
the State primacy agency determines are necessary to comply 
with the requirements of the Act over the long-term. The 
operational changes may include changes in ownership, 
management, accounting, rates, maintenance, consolidation with 
another system, and the development of an alternative water 
supply.
      Drinking water systems eligible for assistance are: 
community water systems (whether publicly or privately owned); 
all publicly-owned systems, except systems owned or operated by 
Federal agencies; and noncommunity water systems owned by 
nonprofit organizations.
      Types of assistance available through the loan fund are:


     loans (provided that interest rates do not exceed 
            market rates; that repayments start 1 year after 
            project completion; that there will be a dedicated 
            source of revenue to repay the loan; and that 
            repayment is made in 20 years, unless the recipient 
            is a disadvantaged community and receives a loan 
            with a 30-year repayment schedule);

     refinancing of an obligation incurred for an 
            eligible project after October 14, 1993 or incurred 
            to comply with regulations established pursuant to 
            the 1986 Amendments;

     guarantee of a market loan or the purchase of 
            insurance for such a loan;

     a source of revenue or security for a State 
            obligation related to the loan fund; and

     a source of revenue or security for the payment of 
            interest on a local obligation.

      Experience under the SRF program of the Clean Water Act 
indicates that some communities cannot afford to repay a loan, 
even at low interest. The bill addresses this problem by 
allowing States to assist disadvantaged communities through 
forgiveness of loan principal (including all of the loan 
principal for a particular project). Each State is to develop 
affordability criteria to identify disadvantaged communities 
eligible for principal forgiveness. A disadvantaged community 
may be a large city or a small, rural public water system. The 
Administrator may publish information to assist States in 
developing affordability criteria. The total amount of the loan 
forgiveness in a fiscal year may not exceed 30 percent of the 
amount of the capitalization grant received by the State for 
that year.
      States may use a portion of their SRF capitalization 
grants for land acquisition and to support source water 
protection programs and capacity development strategies. A 
State may use up to 15 percent of its grant for these purposes 
in combination, but not more than 10 percent for any one of the 
following activities:


     to acquire land or a conservation easement from a 
            willing seller or grantor if the purpose is to 
            protect source waters for drinking water systems;

     to implement the recommendations of a source water 
            quality protection partnership that has submitted a 
            petition approved by a State with a program under 
            section 1419(d);

     to make expenditures from grants received for 
            fiscal years 1996 and 1997 to delineate and assess 
            source water protection areas; and

     to make expenditures to implement capacity 
            development strategies developed under section 
            1418.

      Funds used for land acquisition and to implement source 
water quality protection partnership recommendations may only 
be distributed in the form of loans to public water systems 
that are to be repaid to the fund according to the provisions 
of this part. The public water system may make these funds 
available in the form of assistance to other participants in a 
partnership.
      Section 1474 provides that each State may reserve up to 4 
percent of the capitalization grant for administration of the 
fund.
      Each State may also expend funds from its annual 
capitalization grant to administer the Public Water System 
Supervision program in the State. Eligible expenditures also 
include the cost of developing and implementing source water 
protection programs and capacity development strategies. There 
is a limitation on the amount of funds from an SRF grant that 
may be expended for these purposes equal to the amount of the 
PWSS grant received by the State under section 1443 for that 
year. The bill also includes a maintenance of effort 
requirement to ensure that States will not reduce their own 
appropriations as the Federal commitment increases. States may 
not make any use of the capitalization grants for these 
purposes, unless the Administrator determines that the State 
supports the PWSS program with its own funds in an amount not 
less than the amount provided in 1993.
      Each State is to develop an intended use plan for its 
fund. The plan is to establish a priority list for projects and 
provide that priority be given to projects that address the 
most serious risks to human health, those necessary to achieve 
compliance with the requirements of the Act (including 
filtration) and those that assist systems most in need on a per 
household basis according to State affordability criteria. The 
priority list should be the focus for planning and financing 
decisions and the public is to be given an opportunity to 
review and comment on each annual intended use plan, including 
the priority list and the list of projects that the State 
intends to assist.
      Section 1475 directs EPA and the States to conduct 
various reports, studies and audits. The bill requires an 
annual review or audit of the funds provided to each State. The 
State may conduct this audit pursuant to the Single Audit Act 
of 1984 with the expectation that this will significantly 
reduce the oversight costs associated with the audit. Each 
State is to file a biennial report with EPA on its use of the 
funds provided by the new SRF program.
      The Administrator is to conduct a drinking water needs 
assessment. The purpose of this assessment is to provide the 
information that EPA will use in the future to allocate funds 
among the States and to determine whether the authorizations 
and appropriations made under this part are sufficient to meet 
drinking water infrastructure investment needs.
      EPA has already begun to collect information for the 
first needs assessment. The assessment is to be completed 
within 1 year of enactment and to be repeated every 4 years 
thereafter. The needs to be assessed for the purpose of future 
allocation formulas are only those needs that would be eligible 
for assistance under section 1473(b) at public water systems 
that are eligible for assistance. Other projects that might 
receive funding under other provisions of part G (for instance 
those that might be assisted through one of the set asides) 
would not be factored into the needs assessment categories that 
are to be used to establish allocation factors.
      The Administrator is to submit an evaluation of State 
loan funds established under this part with the appropriations 
request submitted for the Agency for fiscal year 2001. The 
purpose of this evaluation is to provide for modifications to 
the program in future authorization bills.
      Section 1476 provides that the inability of a system to 
receive assistance from the loan fund or any other loan or 
grant program does not alter the obligation of the system to 
comply with all applicable drinking water standards and 
requirements of this Act in a timely manner. Compliance in a 
timely manner includes compliance with construction schedules 
established in drinking water regulations, schedules associated 
with variances for small systems and exemptions provided under 
section 1416. This provision is included in light of the 
experience with the construction grants program under the Clean 
Water Act. The failure of many sewage treatment plants to meet 
secondary treatment requirements established by that law was 
sometimes overlooked, if the city or county was on a priority 
list and waiting to receive a Federal grant or loan for the 
treatment equipment. Section 1476 makes clear that compliance 
with Federal health standards under the Safe Drinking Water Act 
is not to be delayed while public water systems wait for 
assistance from the new drinking water SRF program.
      Section 1477 provides authority for the Administrator to 
publish guidance and promulgate regulations necessary to 
implement the new revolving loan fund program.
      Section 1478 authorizes appropriations for capitalization 
grants to States in the amount of $600 million in fiscal year 
1994 and $1 billion in each fiscal year 1995 through 2003. The 
bill retains authorizations for fiscal year 1994 and 1995 
because Congress made advanced appropriations (not to be 
distributed to the States pending an authorization for the 
program) for a drinking water SRF in both of those years. 
Although the largest portion of these appropriations was 
subsequently rescinded when an authorization was not enacted, 
$225 million remains available from the funds authorized for 
those years. These funds will be allocated to the States when 
the program is authorized.
      The total amount of the authorization for the new SRF 
program is $9.6 billion. EPA's report on the drinking water 
program issued in September of 1993 indicated that the capital 
investment needed to comply with current drinking water 
regulations is approximately $8.6 billion and may increase 
substantially as a result of proposed regulations for radon and 
disinfection byproducts. Provisions in the bill with respect to 
radon will dramatically decrease compliance costs for that 
regulation when it is issued. The Stage I rule for disinfection 
byproducts is now behind schedule and would not be applicable 
for an additional 3 years after promulgation. Therefore, the 
SRF grants authorized in this bill would, if appropriated, 
provide sufficient capital for grants and loans (at low or no 
interest) to support the capital investments that must be made 
by public water systems to comply with the Act during the 
authorization period covered by this bill (1994 through 2003).
      Section 1479(b) directs the Administrator to reserve $10 
million from each annual appropriation for SRF grants to be 
used to conduct health effects research on drinking water 
contaminants. In allocating these funds to specific research 
projects, EPA is to give priority to research on the health 
effects of Cryptosporidium, disinfection byproducts, arsenic 
and implementation of the research plan for subpopulations at 
greater risk.
      Although this set aside for health effects research will 
drain funds from capital assistance to local public water 
systems, the national organizations representing cities, 
counties and drinking water suppliers fully support the set 
aside. Testifying for the National League of Cities before the 
Committee on October 19, 1995, Mayor Jeffrey Wennberg of 
Rutland, Vermont, said:

            ``We also support the proposed set asides included 
        in the Drinking Water SRF in S. 1316. In fact, NLC 
        recently adopted policy calling for exactly these types 
        of activities to be financed by any new funding made 
        available for drinking water purposes...The amendments 
        also recognize both the complexities and uncertainties 
        associated with the contaminants arsenic, radon and 
        sulfate. The special treatment of these three 
        contaminants, coupled with the authorization to set 
        aside $10 million per year for research, focusing on 
        Cryptosporidium and disinfection by-products, is a 
        greatly appreciated response to NLC's long-standing 
        call for sound science before rule making.''

      The bill (section 19(b)) establishes new authority for 
monitoring for contaminants that are not currently regulated 
under the Safe Drinking Water Act. One purpose of this new 
monitoring program is to gather information on the occurrence 
of contaminants in drinking water to assure that future 
regulations are based on sound information. However, monitoring 
can be costly. The bill requires systems serving more than 
10,000 persons to bear the cost of this monitoring.
      Monitoring for systems serving fewer than 10,000 is 
designed to avoid the imposition of costly new mandates. First, 
only a representative sample of these systems in each State (to 
be selected by the State) will be required to conduct 
monitoring for unregulated contaminants. Second, the bill 
includes a set aside of $2 million from the annual SRF 
appropriation to defray testing costs for these systems. EPA 
may allocate these costs among the States and to testing 
laboratories to pay for testing costs associated with this new 
monitoring program.
      The bill includes a third set aside from the annual SRF 
appropriation to provide technical assistance to small systems. 
This set aside is coupled with the authorization for technical 
assistance grants established in section 1442(g). EPA has made 
grants under this latter authority to the National Rural Water 
Association and the various regional rural community assistance 
programs to provide on-site assistance to public water system 
operators.
      A set aside will only be made for technical assistance 
when the annual appropriation for the SRF is $800 million or 
greater. The set aside is to be equal to the amount necessary 
to close the gap between the appropriation made under section 
1442(g) and the amount authorized ($15 million per year through 
2003). However, the set aside cannot be greater than 
$10,000,000 or 2 percent of the appropriation for SRF grants, 
whichever is less.

             section 4. selection of contaminants; schedule

Summary
      The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986 required 
EPA to issue standards for 83 specific contaminants by not 
later than 1989. That work has largely been completed, but EPA 
has yet to issue new standards for arsenic, sulfate, radon and 
other radionuclides. The 1986 Amendments also required EPA to 
establish standards for an additional 25 contaminants every 3 
years beginning in 1991. EPA has not issued any standards to 
comply with this requirement, but has proposed regulations for 
12 disinfection byproducts and for Cryptosporidium in partial 
fulfillment of this duty. An additional 13 contaminants (known 
as the Phase VIb rule) are under study.
      The bill repeals the requirement that EPA regulate an 
additional 25 contaminants every 3 years. EPA is required to 
complete regulations for 12 disinfectants and disinfection 
byproducts, the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule and a 
national primary drinking water regulation for Cryptosporidium.
      Not later than July 1, 1997, the Administrator is to 
publish a list of high priority contaminants not currently 
regulated. EPA is to develop a research plan for each of the 
listed contaminants to acquire information on health effects 
and the occurrence of the contaminant sufficient to determine 
whether the contaminant should be regulated under the Act.
      Beginning in the year 2001, and in 5-year cycles 
thereafter, EPA is required to make a regulatory decision with 
respect to at least 5 of the listed contaminants. EPA may 
decide that the contaminant should not be regulated, that there 
is insufficient information to make a determination, or that a 
maximum contaminant level or treatment technique for the 
contaminant should be promulgated under the Safe Drinking Water 
Act. The Administrator is to establish national primary 
drinking water regulations for those contaminants that occur at 
concentration levels and at frequencies of public health 
concern.
Discussion
      During the early 1980's, EPA did not fulfill expectations 
for the Federal role in the drinking water program. The 1986 
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, which required 
standards for a specific list of 83 contaminants and 
regulations for another 25 contaminants every 3 years, came in 
response to the failure of EPA to carry out the intent of the 
1974 Act and reflected a broad consensus, shared by officials 
of State and local government, that the drinking water program 
needed a mandated schedule. Concerns are now expressed about 
the cost impact of the 1986 Amendments. The bill sets forth a 
balanced Federal role that recognizes the value of a national 
government conducting health and occurrence research for use in 
all 50 States and to all 195,000 drinking water suppliers while 
at the same time recognizing the cost impacts that are imposed 
when a national primary drinking water regulation is 
promulgated for any particular contaminant.
      As noted above, current law (section 1412(b)(3)) requires 
the Administrator to promulgate national primary drinking water 
regulations for 25 additional contaminants every 3 years 
beginning in 1991. The law also requires the Administrator to 
maintain a ``drinking water priority list'' of contaminants 
that might be considered for regulation. The most recently 
published list contains 77 contaminants. Although EPA has not 
met the requirement to promulgate regulations for 25 additional 
contaminants as yet, it is under court order to propose 
standards for disinfection byproducts (as discussed above) and 
is working on a second group of 13 contaminants (called Phase 
VIb) to establish maximum contaminant levels.
      The bill repeals these requirements of current law. 
Requirements to establish national primary drinking water 
regulations for disinfectants and disinfection byproducts are 
retained. The requirement to promulgate additional standards 
(including standards for the remaining contaminants in the 
first 3-year cycle) is replaced with a new process to select 
contaminants, collect information and determine whether 
regulation is appropriate.
      Under the bill, future standards would be developed in 5-
year cycles. At the beginning of the cycle, the Administrator 
would publish a list of contaminants. The Administrator would 
select the contaminants of greatest public health concern based 
on available information with respect to their adverse effects 
on human health, the occurrence of the contaminants in public 
water systems and the levels at which the contaminants are 
known to occur.
      The initial selection of contaminants for the list and 
collection of information on the frequency and level of 
occurrence in public water systems is supported by the 
provisions for a national occurrence data base and a new 
program for monitoring unregulated contaminants, as discussed 
below.
      The Administrator is not required to establish standards 
for the listed contaminants, but is required to make a 
determination whether regulations are appropriate to protect 
human health. The Administrator is to review available 
information and make a determination with respect to the need 
for regulation for at least 5 contaminants every 5 years 
beginning not later than the year 2001. If the Administrator 
determines that available information is not sufficient to make 
a determination, the Administrator may conduct studies and 
gather additional information over a period extending for up to 
5 years after the determination was originally required.
      If the Administrator decides that a national primary 
drinking water regulation for a contaminant is needed to 
protect public health, the regulation is to be promulgated 
within 2 years of the determination. A determination by the 
Administrator that a regulation is not needed is reviewable 
under the provisions of section 1448. The court shall not set 
aside the Administrator's determination not to issue a 
standard, unless the court finds that the decision is arbitrary 
and capricious.
      One purpose served by these provisions for future 
standards is to assure that the Agency continues to conduct the 
health effects and contaminant occurrence research that is 
necessary to protect the quality of the nation's drinking water 
supplies. By establishing a nondiscretionary duty for the 
Administrator to name, study and make regulatory determinations 
for a minimum number of contaminants over repeated cycles, the 
bill assures that funds will be budgeted and appropriated to 
carry out the Federal Government's principal responsibility in 
safeguarding the quality of drinking water.
      In partial fulfillment of the obligation to promulgate 
standards for an additional 25 contaminants every 3 years, the 
Agency has been preparing regulations for approximately 12 
contaminants that result from the disinfection of drinking 
water (treatment, generally with chlorine, to remove microbial 
contaminants). The Agency established a maximum contaminant 
level for total trihalomethanes, one type of disinfection 
byproduct, in 1979, and the current rulemaking would include a 
revision of that standard.
      To facilitate the rulemaking process the Agency has 
conducted a regulatory negotiation to arrive at a consensus 
proposal. The negotiation included representatives from State 
and local government organizations, the drinking water supply 
community and public interest groups. The negotiation resulted 
in a proposed rule for disinfectants and disinfection 
byproducts and a series of other regulatory actions.
      The agreement reached by the parties to this negotiation 
includes a schedule for the development and promulgation of 
several regulations including an information collection rule, 
an enhanced surface water treatment rule and a two-stage 
rulemaking for the national primary drinking water regulation 
for disinfectants and disinfection byproducts. EPA has already 
fallen behind the schedule set out in the agreement principally 
because of difficulties in developing analytical methods for 
Cryptosporidium.
      The bill requires EPA to complete each one of the 
rulemakings called for in the agreement. The requirement is 
nondiscretionary and can be enforced by a court pursuant to the 
citizen suit authorities of section 1449 of the Act. However, 
since each step in the rulemaking is tied to information 
gathered in the previous step, the bill provides that the 
schedule for actions is to be modified whenever a particular 
step lags behind the otherwise agreed upon date. In response to 
a citizen suit, a court may compel EPA to act to complete a 
particular action by a date that is determined by reference to 
the time interval that is provided in the agreement since the 
last required action was completed. EPA may accelerate the date 
for some actions completing them more quickly than the interval 
established by the agreement would otherwise provide, but only 
if EPA has consent from all parties to the agreement.

       section 5. risk assessment, management, and communication

Summary
      The bill requires improvements in the scientific 
foundations for drinking water standards and better public 
communication of the potential risks of adverse health effects 
associated with contaminants in drinking water.
      The Administrator is to conduct a cost-benefit analysis 
for each national primary drinking water regulation containing 
a maximum contaminant level (MCL) or treatment technique before 
it is proposed. The analysis will also include consideration of 
alternative MCLs or treatment requirements. The study is to 
include a determination of the costs and benefits associated 
with each alternative MCL or treatment technique relative to 
the other standards under consideration.
      The analysis is to incorporate information on risks to 
subgroups that may be at greater risk than the general 
population for adverse health effects as the result of exposure 
to the contaminant. The Administrator is to publish and seek 
comment on the study and is to use an advance notice of 
proposed rulemaking to seek comment whenever the costs of the 
national primary drinking water regulation are expected to 
exceed $75 million.
      The bill also directs the Administrator to use the best 
available, peer-reviewed science in carrying out the Act and 
requires the Administrator to publish information with each 
national primary drinking water regulation that gives the 
public a broad framework for understanding the risks that may 
be posed by the contaminants that are regulated.
Discussion
      Considerable concern has been expressed with respect to 
the scientific foundation for national primary drinking water 
regulations. The concern is justified and some of the 
responsibility lies with the Congress. EPA's failure to pursue 
a deliberate schedule for standard-setting under the Act prior 
to the 1986 Amendments prompted the Congress to require the 
promulgation of standards for 83 contaminants by 1989. 22 of 
these contaminants had previously been regulated. The other 61 
were taken from two lists published by EPA in advance notices 
of proposed rulemaking early in the 1980s. Although there was 
some evidence to suggest that these contaminants may occur in 
public water systems or that an adverse health effect may be 
associated with ingestion, there were significant gaps in the 
scientific information available for many of these 
contaminants. The purpose of the notices published in the 
Federal Register was to solicit information to close these 
gaps.
      Nevertheless, Congress mandated that standards be issued 
for each substance (with 7 substitutions allowed). Information 
that has come to light as the result of issuing national 
primary drinking water regulations indicates that some of these 
contaminants occur only infrequently in public water systems, 
occur at levels well below any threshold for health effects, or 
have not been sufficiently studied to establish reliable dose-
response relationships.
      The bill makes changes in the contaminant selection 
process to assure that future standards are based on better 
science. These changes include new funds for health effects 
research, monitoring authority for unregulated contaminants and 
a national occurrence data base.
      Section 5 of the bill adds to the scientific foundation 
of future standards by imposing three requirements on EPA. 
First, the Administrator is to use the best available, peer-
reviewed science and supporting studies to carry out all 
activities under the Act. Many of the most important activities 
including selecting contaminants for regulation, setting 
standards, designing analytical methods and structuring 
waivers, variances and exemptions are appropriately informed by 
scientific studies. In these cases, the Administrator has a 
duty to seek and rely upon the best available science and 
information to support these decisions. Some decisions made by 
the Administrator are not appropriately informed by science. 
For example, the design of an allocation formula for the Public 
Water System Supervision program or a decision to take 
enforcement action with respect to violations of a particular 
type do not depend on information produced by scientific 
methods for their validity and this requirement does not apply 
to those decisions.
      The bill also requires the Administrator to use data that 
has been generated through the use of accepted methods (as 
described in this report for section 24). If an accepted method 
is not available for a particular task, the Administrator may 
rely on the best available method, provided that the 
reliability of that method is appropriate to the decision that 
is to be informed or supported by the data.
      Second, the Administrator is to provide the public with 
broader and more understandable information on the public 
health risks that may be associated with contaminants regulated 
under the Act. Risk assessments conducted by or for EPA follow 
guidelines that are adopted only after thorough review and 
public comment. Nothing in this section is intended to affect 
or alter the scientific judgments that shape those guidelines. 
However, the bill does require the Agency to do a better job of 
explaining the alternative interpretations of the scientific 
evidence that is used for, and produced by, risk assessments. 
EPA is to publish a document with each standard-setting 
regulation describing, to the extent practicable, uncertainties 
and alternative risk estimates that put the regulation in a 
broader public health context.
      Third, the Administrator is to conduct a cost-benefit 
analysis for each national primary drinking water regulation. 
The preliminary analysis is to be published for comment at 
least 90 days prior to the publication of a proposed rule. A 
cost-benefit analysis is required both for rules that include 
maximum contaminant levels and for those that impose treatment 
technique requirements. The analysis is to consider and compare 
the relative costs and benefits of alternative MCLs or 
treatment techniques that may be issued under the standard-
setting authorities of the Act. This analysis is to be used for 
the cost-benefit determinations required by section 
1412(b)(4)(C).
      In considering costs and benefits, the Administrator is 
to consider both the quantifiable and nonquantifiable costs and 
benefits of each alternative MCL or, if appropriate, treatment 
technique. Nonquantifiable benefits are the beneficial results 
of a regulation for which it is not possible to express a 
monetary or other quantitative valuation. Nonquantifiable 
benefits include considerations such as the value of human 
life, the quality of life as it may be affected by impaired 
cognitive development or physical disability, and the avoidance 
of pain and suffering.
      The absence of information about a particular benefit of 
a regulation does not make that benefit nonquantifiable. Where 
benefits that can be quantified (such as medical costs, lost 
work days, or governmental response costs) are relied upon to 
justify a rule, they must be quantified.
      The Administrator is directed to establish a factual 
basis in the rulemaking record to support the conclusion that 
any nonquantifiable benefits relied upon to justify the costs 
will occur; but the Administrator is not required to arrive at 
any quantitative assessment of benefits of this type to support 
a finding that they justify the costs of a rule.
      In considering costs and benefits associated with the 
control of a specific contaminant the Administrator may also 
include consideration of the health risk reduction benefits 
that are likely to occur from reductions in exposure to other 
contaminants that will be removed by the treatment technology 
that is used to set the MCL. However, the Administrator is not 
to consider the benefits (or costs) that are attributable to 
compliance with other proposed or promulgated regulations, if 
those benefits and costs are considered in a determination as 
to whether benefits justify costs under those regulations.
      The cost-benefit study is to include a description of the 
incremental costs and benefits for each alternative MCL, if 
appropriate, or treatment technique under consideration. 
Incremental costs and benefits are the costs and benefits that 
accrue from the last increment of control. In describing these 
values, it is important for the Administrator to also describe 
the uncertainties in any point estimate using the information 
that is available to support the rulemaking.
      The cost-benefit analysis is also to explicitly consider 
the possibility that some groups within the general population 
will be more susceptible to adverse health effects as the 
result of exposure to the contaminant in drinking water than 
the general population. These groups include infants, children, 
pregnant women, the elderly and individuals with a history of 
serous illness. A new section 1442(l) is added to the Act to 
support research for the inclusion of these considerations in 
the cost-benefit analysis.
      The bill also authorizes $35 million per year through the 
year 2003 to the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water at 
EPA to support the risk assessments and cost-benefit studies 
that will be required by sections 4 and 5 of the bill. The 
Office currently spends approximately $20 million per year for 
this purpose. Although the Safe Drinking Water Act has not 
included an authorization for this purpose, the Committee is 
recommending this authorization to signal the high priority 
that it places on better science and analysis in support of 
future drinking water regulations.

            section 6. standard-setting; review of standards

Summary
      The bill makes the following changes to the standard 
setting authorities of the Safe Drinking Water Act:


     EPA is authorized to set the maximum contaminant 
            level goal (MCLG) for a contaminant that is a known 
            or probable human carcinogen at a level other than 
            zero, if the Administrator determines that there is 
            a threshold below which there is unlikely to be any 
            increase in cancer risk and the MCLG is set at this 
            threshold level with an adequate margin of safety;

     at the time that the Administrator promulgates a 
            maximum contaminant level (MCL), the Administrator 
            must also publish a determination as to whether the 
            benefits of the MCL justify the costs;

     EPA is authorized to set a maximum contaminant 
            level at other than the level that is as close to 
            the goal as feasible, if application of the 
            treatment techniques at the feasible level would 
            increase health risks from other contaminants; this 
            authority may be used to set the MCL or treatment 
            technique for the contaminant and for other 
            contaminants at a level that minimizes the overall 
            health risk;

     the Administrator is given discretionary authority 
            to establish less stringent standards (than 
            feasible), when the Administrator determines that 
            the benefits of a maximum contaminant level set at 
            the feasible level would not justify the costs to 
            systems that must comply with the standard or the 
            contaminant occurs almost exclusively in small 
            systems; if EPA uses this authority, the standard 
            is to be set at a level that maximizes health risk 
            reduction at a cost that is justified by the 
            benefits; standards may not be made less stringent, 
            unless new science demonstrates that health 
            protection will be maintained;

     the authority to set less stringent standards 
            based on a benefit-cost determination is not 
            available for the regulation of disinfectants and 
            disinfection byproducts (in Stage I or II) or to 
            address the threat of Cryptosporidium; and

     a determination that the health benefits of a 
            standard do or do not justify the costs can be set 
            aside by a court, only if it finds that the 
            Administrator's determination is arbitrary and 
            capricious.

      The requirement in current law that the Administrator 
periodically review and revise each national primary drinking 
water regulation is extended from 3 years (in current law) to 6 
years. Revisions to standards are to maintain or provide for 
greater protection of human health. Existing standards may only 
be made less stringent in the future, if new science 
demonstrates that the current level of health protection can be 
achieved by a less stringent standard.
Discussion
      Standard-setting under the current Safe Drinking Water 
Act is a two-step process. First, EPA identifies a 
concentration level for a contaminant at which there will be no 
adverse effect on human health. This is called the maximum 
contaminant level goal or MCLG. For cancer-causing substances, 
the MCLG has always been set at zero.
      In a second step, EPA sets the actual enforceable 
standard, called the maximum contaminant level or MCL, as close 
to the goal as feasible. Feasible means the level that can be 
reached using the best available treatment technology that is 
affordable for large, regional drinking water systems.
      This approach to standard-setting is taken because the 
large majority of Americans (80 percent) receive their drinking 
water from large systems and economies of scale in treatment 
technology make safe water affordable.
      On the other hand, this approach to standard setting has 
caused problems with implementation of the Act. First, 
standards written under this approach can impose very high 
costs on households served by small systems. Second, for some 
contaminants that occur at relatively low concentrations and 
are regulated for their cancer-causing effects with a goal of 
zero exposure, the current approach has led to high costs per 
cancer case avoided. And third, treatment techniques employed 
to reduce the risk from some contaminants may actually increase 
the health risks posed by other contaminants in drinking water. 
For instance, chlorination of drinking water to kill pathogenic 
organisms increases cancer risks from chemicals, called 
disinfection byproducts, that form in reaction with the 
chlorine.
      To address these problems, the bill provides EPA with 
discretion to consider the benefits and costs and the potential 
for off-setting health risks associated with proposed 
standards. In addition to this standard-setting flexibility, 
the bill amends the variance provisions of the law to ensure 
that small systems are not required to employ treatment 
technologies that are unaffordable for their consumers.
      More specifically, the first change in the standard 
setting authority of the Act would authorize the Administrator 
to set a non-zero maximum contaminant level goal for a 
contaminant that is regulated for its cancer-causing effects, 
if the Administrator determines that there is a threshold of 
exposure for that contaminant below which ingestion of the 
contaminant in drinking water is not likely to cause any 
increase in cancer risks.
      Following the legislative history of current law, EPA has 
always established MCLGs for contaminants with strong evidence 
of carcinogenicity from drinking water exposure at zero. This 
approach was mandated by the report of the Interstate and 
Foreign Commerce Committee of the House of Representatives 
filed with the bill that was enacted as the Safe Drinking Water 
Act in 1974. The mandate is based on a Federal Government 
policy, first recommended by Health, Education and Welfare 
Secretary Arthur Fleming during the Eisenhower Administration, 
that all exposure to carcinogens be prevented where possible, 
because any exposure can contribute to a growth of a malignant 
tumor. Although EPA applies this policy in the case of known 
and probable human carcinogens, the Agency has not set a zero 
MCLG for those substances with limited evidence of 
carcinogenicity. In those cases, EPA has used an additional 
margin of safety or a lifetime cancer risk estimate to reflect 
the possibility of a cancer-causing effect in setting the MCLG.
      Although this principle (that any exposure to a 
carcinogen, however small, may trigger a cancer) has been used 
consistently for Federal Government policies applying to 
drinking water, food, drugs, air pollution and workplace 
exposures, it has also been challenged in a number of cases. 
Some have pointed to pharmacokinetic data and models that 
suggest the possibility of a ``threshold'' for some 
carcinogens. One suggestion is that in some cases cancer is not 
initiated or promoted by exposure to the substance itself, but 
rather by some secondary biological mechanism that is only 
triggered when exposure to the contaminant reaches a point that 
it is toxic to the biological function of an organ or system. 
With respect to drinking water contaminants, the possibility of 
a threshold below which no increased cancer risk may occur is 
most often suggested in the case of arsenic.
      The new sentence added to section 1412(b)(4)(A) by the 
bill would allow the Administrator to set a non-zero MCLG for a 
drinking water contaminant regulated for its carcinogenic 
effect, but only if the Administrator determines, based on the 
best available scientific evidence, that a threshold for the 
carcinogenic effect is present. This amendment to the law does 
not provide the Administrator with authority to set MCLGs based 
on a finding that the cancer risk is negligible or so small as 
to be acceptable; the Administrator is not authorized to use 
the authority to set a ``policy'' threshold below which 
increased cancer risks are not considered in standard setting. 
It may only be used where the Administrator has sound 
scientific evidence to conclude that there would be no cancer 
risk from ingesting the contaminant in drinking water at the 
level of the MCLG.
      The legislative language employs the phrase ``unlikely to 
be any increase in the cancer risk'' to avoid an interpretation 
that would require the Administrator to prove the negative in 
order to use the authority.
      The second change made to the standard setting authority 
of the Act requires the Administrator to make a determination 
with respect to the relative costs and benefits of each 
national primary drinking water regulation when it is proposed. 
The Administrator is to determine whether the benefits of the 
maximum contaminant level justify, or do not justify, the 
costs, based on the cost-benefit analysis required by section 
1412(b)(3)(C), as amended by the bill. The new section 
1412(b)(4)(C) requires the Administrator to determine whether 
the benefits of a standard ``justify'' (rather than ``exceed'' 
or ``outweigh'') the costs to reflect the nonquantifiable 
nature of some of the benefits and costs that may be 
considered. The Administrator is not required to demonstrate 
that the dollar value of the benefits are greater (or lesser) 
than the dollar value of the costs. All costs and benefits, 
both quantifiable and nonquantifiable, must be considered when 
making determinations under this authority.
      The Administrator is not precluded from using the 
authority of section 1412(b)(4) to set a maximum contaminant 
level as close to the maximum contaminant level goal as 
feasible, even if the Administrator determines that the 
benefits of the MCL at this level do not justify the costs. In 
some instances, the Administrator will be required to take such 
action. Under the bill, the Administrator is to periodically 
review and, if appropriate, revise existing standards. This 
review is to occur on a 6-year schedule and may result in the 
repromulgation of some standards or a determination that the 
current standards satisfy the requirements of the Act.
      Therefore, it is quite possible that a future 
Administrator will be required to issue or reconfirm an 
existing standard with costs that the Administrator does not 
believe are justified by the benefits. Because the valuation 
placed on the benefits achieved by a regulation is necessarily 
shaped by the subjective judgment of the Administrator, it is 
to be expected that some future occupant of the position may 
find a standard issued by a predecessor too costly for the 
benefits obtained. Nevertheless, section 1412(b)(9) would 
require that the standard be reissued or retained. \4\
    \4\ An existing standard may be relaxed, but not on the grounds of 
a cost-benefit analysis. If new science shows that a less stringent 
standard would provide the same level of health protection, the MCL may 
be revised upward.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      The third change in the standard-setting authority allows 
the Administrator to consider the possibility that controlling 
a particular contaminant may actually increase the health risks 
posed by other contaminants that may occur in drinking water. 
If application of the best available treatment technique that 
is used to determine the feasible level of control for a 
contaminant would increase the concentration of other 
contaminants or interfere with treatment techniques for other 
contaminants, the Administrator is authorized to set the MCL 
for the contaminant at other than the feasible level. In these 
cases, the MCL is to reflect the level that is likely to reduce 
the overall risk of adverse health effects from drinking water 
to the greatest extent.
      The best known example of this interaction is the risk 
tradeoff between disinfection treatment to kill pathogenic 
organisms that may cause waterborne disease and the 
disinfection byproducts that are generated by the use of 
chlorine and other reactive agents for this purpose. Because 
the competing risks in this case are so serious and because the 
cost of properly balancing treatment systems is so large, EPA 
conducted a negotiated rulemaking over a period of more than 2 
years to develop a framework for the regulation of these 
contaminants. The negotiating parties came to the conclusion 
that not one, but two rules are required to maximize health 
protection. The regulation will result in rules for 
disinfection byproducts and an Enhanced Surface Water Treatment 
Rule to address the offsetting risks of microbial organisms. 
The bill recognizes this possibility by indicating that the 
Administrator should look beyond the risk impacts of a single 
treatment system to determine whether a coordinated approach 
for the range of treatment systems used to control all of the 
contaminants in question would be more appropriate.
      The fourth change made by the bill would allow the 
Administrator to establish an MCL at a level that is less 
stringent than the level that is as close to the MCLG as 
feasible, if the Administrator determines that health benefits 
associated with the feasible level do not justify the costs. 
This new authority is set forth in section 1412(b)(6). When 
using this authority, the Administrator is to set the MCL at 
the level that maximizes the health risk reduction benefits 
that can be achieved at a cost that is justified by the 
benefits.
      Like many other environmental laws, the Safe Drinking 
Water Act relies on the application of best available 
technology to establish the level of protection that will be 
provided for human health for many of the listed contaminants, 
especially those that are regulated for their cancer-causing 
effects. Although the goals set under the Act are based on the 
principle that there is no safe level of exposure to a 
carcinogen, it is not reasonable to set enforceable standards 
as if these exposures could be eliminated in the real world. 
Although the Congress has in some instances authorized EPA or 
another health agency to set standards that are defined by an 
acceptable level of cancer risk, most often the statutory 
authority directs that standards be set based on the control 
efficiencies of technologies or practices that are available, 
taking costs into consideration, to regulated entities.
      The advantage of technology-based standards is their 
practicality. They get issued, implemented and enforced. The 
disadvantage is the over-regulation that is sometimes 
associated with requiring the use of a treatment system, just 
because it is available, without regard to the health or 
environmental gains that its use may produce or other 
opportunities for health and safety gains that are lost when 
the investment in a one-size-fits-all technology is required. 
This may be seen most clearly in the case of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act where the benefit may be clearly definable (e.g., 
cancer cases avoided) and costs are relatively easy to 
estimate. Some of the standards that have been issued or that 
are under consideration have costs per cancer case avoided well 
above the typical cost-benefit ratio for Federal health and 
safety regulations.
      The new section 1412(b)(6) allows the Administrator to 
set aside the technology-driven standard-setting calculus of 
current law when the additional removal efficiencies that might 
be achieved by the very best available technology come at a 
cost that does not justify the incremental gains in public 
health that are realized.
      This authority is entirely discretionary with the 
Administrator. No court may compel the Administrator to set a 
standard using the authority of section 1412(b)(6), as amended, 
even in the event that the Administrator determines that the 
benefits of a standard at the feasible level do not justify the 
costs.
      Section 1412(b)(9) precludes the use of this new cost-
benefit standard-setting authority as the sole basis to relax 
any existing maximum contaminant level. Nevertheless, the new 
authority may play an important role in revising existing 
standards in the future. Standards issued pursuant to section 
1412(b)(4) must contain MCLs as close to the MCLGs as feasible. 
This means that the removal efficiencies of treatment 
technologies or the quantitative powers of analytical methods 
play a decisive role in setting the standards. As these 
technologies and methods improve, the law requires the 
Administrator to make the standards even more stringent. In 
some cases, this added stringency comes at a high cost with 
little additional public health benefit. While the 
Administrator may not use the authority of section 1412(b)(6) 
to make existing standards less stringent, it can be cited as 
authority to avoid an unjustified tightening of standards that 
already provide adequate protection.
      As noted at several other places in this report, there 
are significant economies of scale in drinking water supply. 
Urban communities are able to spread the costs of a treatment 
plant over a large population reducing the cost per household 
to affordable levels. The cost of a treatment plant needed by a 
small community to reach the same level of health protection 
may impose substantial per household costs for the few families 
that rely upon it. This physical reality has always presented a 
substantial public policy dilemma under the Safe Drinking Water 
Act. One standard does not fit the needs and budgets of both 
large and small communities. A standard written for the 80 
percent of the population served by large cities is too 
expensive for many small communities. A standard written to be 
always affordable for every small town would deny the health 
benefits that are available to large cities through economies 
of scale. Most would also reject a system of dual standards--
one for urban Americans close to the health goals of the Act 
and a less protective standard for Americans living in small 
towns or rural areas.
      The bill includes several provisions intended to overcome 
this dilemma, including the new SRF grant program and the 
authority to provide variances allowing for the use of best 
available technologies that are affordable for small systems. 
It is not intended that this dilemma will be resolved by the 
new ``cost-benefit'' standard setting authorities of section 
1412(b)(6). Simply averaging the costs and benefits experienced 
by large and small communities to produce a standard somewhere 
in the middle does not serve the interests of either group. An 
average standard will likely continue to be too expensive for 
small communities; and it will not provide the health 
protection that Americans in larger communities want and can 
afford.
      The bill includes a specific provision, section 
1412(b)(6)(B), that directs the Administrator to make a two-
part analysis when using this new ``cost-benefit'' authority to 
set drinking water standards. The Administrator is to consider 
not only the aggregate 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 the benefits justify the costs for these 
systems. If most small systems are expected 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.
      The bill precludes use of the authority provided by 
section 1412(b)(6) to establish maximum contaminant levels in 
the Stage I and Stage II rulemakings for disinfectants or 
disinfection byproducts or to establish a national primary 
drinking water regulation for Cryptosporidium. Section 
1412(b)(5), as amended by the bill, applies to the maximum 
contaminant levels and other requirements that will be 
established under the Stage II rule. These prospective actions 
result from a negotiated rulemaking conducted by EPA and other 
interested parties including water suppliers, State and local 
governmentorganizations, public health officials and public 
interest organizations. Negotiated rulemakings of this type are 
specifically encouraged by Federal statute (see P.L. 101-648, 
the Negotiated Rulemaking Act of 1990).
      By any yardstick, the negotiated rulemaking for 
disinfection byproducts was a significant achievement in the 
field of water hygiene. Each of the parties was required to 
make significant concessions to reach an agreement that covers 
the substance of several rulemakings that will not be fully in 
place for many more years. The agreement itself contains an 
over-arching set of principles to guide these rulemakings and 
to weigh the very same factors that are addressed by the 
standard setting amendments proposed in S. 1316. But to 
authorize the Administrator to set aside the carefully balanced 
structure of this agreement by using the new standard setting 
authorities of the Act for Stage I and Stage II would be 
counterproductive and contrary to the spirit of the statutory 
authority under which the negotiation was conducted.
      The negotiations produced a detailed rule for Stage I 
that has been published for comment by EPA. The agreement 
provides that the negotiations are to be reconvened when 
additional information is available to produce a detailed 
proposal for Stage II. It is intended that these negotiations 
be held and that the Stage II rule be guided by the principles 
set forth in the agreement. Therefore, the bill contains a 
provision (section 1412(b)(6)(C)) that precludes the 
Administrator from using the ``cost-benefit'' authorities of 
the new paragraph (6) to set standards in the Stage I or II 
rulemaking for disinfection byproducts or to establish a 
national primary drinking water regulation for Cryptosporidium.
      Section 1412(b)(6)(D) limits judicial review under 
section 1448 of determinations made by the Administrator with 
respect to the relative costs and benefits of national primary 
drinking water regulations. Review is limited in two ways. 
First, the review is to occur only as part of the review of a 
regulation that has been promulgated. Second, the court may 
only set aside the determination if the court finds that the 
Administrator's determination was arbitrary and capricious. The 
objective is to prevent litigation challenging the values that 
the Administrator implicitly assigns to preventing death and 
disease when the Administrator determines that the benefits of 
a rule do or do not justify the costs. A Federal court action 
under section 1448 is not the appropriate forum in which to 
decide the precise value of a human life or the costs that are 
appropriately incurred for precautionary and preventive public 
health measures. A court may set aside a rule for which no 
cogent analysis of the costs and benefits is offered in support 
of the determinations required by section 1412(b). But a court 
is not to examine the values that the Administrator brings to 
bear on these decisions. These determinations are delegated by 
the Congress solely to the Administrator.
      The bill includes a fifth item on standard setting that 
is not an amendment to the Act but is proposed as a free-
standing provision of law. As noted above, EPA has guided a 
difficult, but successful, regulatory negotiation with respect 
to new standards for disinfectants and disinfection byproducts. 
One product of that negotiated rulemaking is a proposed Stage I 
rule for these contaminants. That proposed rule appears to be 
in every way consistent with the authority to balance competing 
risks that is provided by the bill in the amendments to section 
1412(b)(5).
      However, to preserve this rule as negotiated, section 
6(b) of the bill precludes any court from setting aside the 
Stage I rule when it is eventually promulgated on the grounds 
that it is not consistent with section 1412(b)(5). There is no 
part of the new standard setting authorities of this bill that 
is intended to force modifications in the Stage I rule. It is 
to be noted that the agreement of the parties itself does 
provide for changes in the rule between proposal and 
promulgation in the event that new information warrants the 
change. The bill is also not intended in any way to interfere 
with or alter these grounds for revision of the Stage I rule. 
It is expected that further negotiations will be necessary to 
finalize a proposed Stage II rule.
      The provisions of new section 1412(b)(5) are consistent 
with the principles of the agreement reached by the parties to 
the DBP negotiation. It does not apply to the Stage I rule, 
because that rule has already been proposed in detailed form. 
It does apply to the Stage II rule. The provisions of the new 
section 1412(b)(6) go beyond the scope of the agreement and, 
therefore, do not apply to either rulemaking under the terms of 
the bill.
      The sixth change to the standard setting authorities of 
the Act modifies the schedule and basis for reviewing and 
revising the regulations that have already been promulgated. 
Current law requires the Administrator to review and revise, if 
appropriate, each national primary drinking water regulation 
every 3 years (section 1412(b)(9)). Standards would be revised 
whenever improvements in technology or treatment techniques 
make additional protection of public health feasible. The 
Agency has generally not met the requirement to review each 
national primary drinking water regulation on a 3-year cycle.
      The resources of the Environmental Protection Agency are 
extremely limited and less than needed to fully satisfy all of 
the statutory duties that Congress has imposed. It is highly 
unlikely that any significant additional public health 
protection will result from drinking water standards that are 
modified on a 3-year cycle. Therefore, the bill extends the 
review cycle to 6 years and provides that the Administrator 
need not repromulgate a standard if the Administrator 
determines that the current provisions of a national primary 
drinking water regulation satisfy the requirements of the Act. 
However, the Administrator is required, at a minimum, to 
publish such a determination which is a final agency action for 
purposes of review under section 1448.
      Amendments made by the bill require that any future 
standard issued for a contaminant already regulated must 
maintain or provide for greater protection of the health of 
persons. Generally, this will preclude the promulgation of a 
revised standard for a contaminant that is less stringent than 
the standard already in place. However, there are circumstances 
under which a standard may be relaxed. The maximum contaminant 
level goal for a contaminant is set at a level at which there 
is no adverse effect on the health of persons with an adequate 
margin of safety. New scientific information may cause the MCLG 
to be revised and in some cases these revisions may be to less 
stringent levels. This may lead to a revision of the maximum 
contaminant level since it need be no more stringent than the 
MCLG. New information may also allow for a smaller margin of 
safety because it narrows the range of uncertainty for 
estimates of health risks. Finally, some substances which have 
been regulated as carcinogens for ingestion in drinking water 
may be reclassified (as asbestos has been in the most recent 
revision) or assigned a threshold for the effect based on new 
scientific information. In each of these cases, EPA may issue a 
revised standard for a contaminant that is less stringent than 
the one it replaces.

                           section 7. arsenic

Summary
      Arsenic is currently regulated under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. The MCL is 50 parts per billion. Although arsenic is 
a known human carcinogen by ingestion, the current standard was 
not established to address this adverse effect. The 1986 
Amendments required the arsenic standard to be revised. EPA has 
not completed this duty because of substantial scientific 
uncertainty about the cancer-causing effect of arsenic at very 
low doses. If the arsenic standard were revised based on 
current policy, the standard might be set as low as 5 parts per 
billion. A standard at this level may impose unnecessary 
compliance costs, if there is a threshold for the cancer-
causing effect of arsenic that is substantially above this 
level.
      This bill allows additional time for research to resolve 
this scientific uncertainty. The deadline for revising the 
national primary drinking water regulation for arsenic is 
delayed until January 1, 2001. The Administrator is to adopt a 
research plan to resolve the outstanding questions with respect 
to the carcinogenic effects of low levels of exposure to 
arsenic within 180 days of enactment. Prior to proposing a 
revised arsenic standard, the Administrator is to conduct a 
formal review of the research results and consult with the 
Science Advisory Board.
Discussion
      Arsenic is a naturally-occurring substance that may 
become a contaminant in drinking water. It is a particular 
problem in the western regions of the United States and for 
small systems that rely on ground water sources, but may also 
be a contaminant in surface waters.
      Arsenic causes several adverse health effects, the most 
important of which are vascular diseases and skin cancer. 
Arsenic is classified as a known (Group A) human carcinogen by 
ingestion.
      Arsenic is currently regulated under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act and has been regulated by the Federal Government 
since 1942. The current standard established by the Public 
Health Service is 50 parts per billion. That standard was set 
to address vascular diseases and other adverse effects of 
arsenic, but was not established to address the cancer risk.
      The 1986 Amendments required the arsenic standard to be 
repromulgated by not later than 1989 under the standard setting 
authority of the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA has yet to 
propose a revised arsenic standard.
      Because arsenic is a known human carcinogen, current 
policy would require the Agency to set an MCLG for arsenic at 
zero. \5\ The maximum contaminant level would then be set as 
close to the goal as feasible using best available treatment 
technologies that are affordable for large systems. Based on 
the removal efficiencies of available technologies this may 
result in an MCL for arsenic of 2 to 5 parts per billion (ppb). 
If the standard were set at 5 ppb, treatment to remove arsenic 
from raw water would be required at approximately 5,000 public 
water systems at an annual cost of $620 million.
    \5\ There is currently no MCLG for arsenic.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      There is some scientific uncertainty with respect to the 
cancer-causing characteristics of arsenic, especially at very 
low levels. In a letter dated November 8, 1993 transmitting a 
review of the EPA's draft criteria document on arsenic, the 
Science Advisory Board, noted that ``available data suggest 
that arsenic blood concentrations may only become elevated when 
the level of arsenic in water exceeds 100 micrograms per liter 
[100 ppb], a level that is present only in a very small 
proportion of U.S. drinking water sources.'' Since other 
sources of exposure (diet, air pollution, etc.) account for 40 
to 70 percent of the daily exposure to arsenic, it may be that 
reducing levels of arsenic in drinking water would not produce 
a commensurate reduction in blood levels and cancer risks.
      If this is the case, the expenditures necessary to comply 
with a drinking water standard in the range of 2 to 5 ppb 
issued under current authorities may not be justified by the 
public health benefit. These uncertainties are resolvable 
through additional research on the health effects of arsenic. 
The type of research needed is well-understood and not costly 
(relative to the health risks and treatment plant investments 
under consideration). A panel of scientists brought together by 
the American Water Works Association Research Foundation in May 
and June of this year has identified 31 research projects with 
a total cost of $19.3 million that may answer many of the 
questions about low level exposure to arsenic and the 
associated cancer risks. The Foundation has already provided 
funding for two of these projects from private sources.
      It is unfortunate that EPA has not already conducted the 
research necessary to proceed with an arsenic standard. 
Although directed by the Congress in 1986 to revise the 
standard by not later than 1989, the Agency has never requested 
funds to do the research it now describes as a necessary 
foundation for a revised drinking water standard. Recognizing 
the costs and uncertainties involved in this regulation, the 
Agency is seeking the postponement of a court-order deadline 
that would have required a proposed rule to be issued by 
November 15, 1995. In a memorandum dated February 6, 1995, 
announcing his intention to seek the delay, EPA Assistant 
Administrator for Water, Robert Perciasepe, stated that delay 
should only extend for a short period:

            ``In drinking water, the principle health effects 
        of arsenic, at levels we are likely to see, are long-
        term chronic effects. Thus, the risk increases as 
        exposure accrues. I believe the incremental risk 
        resulting from a delay of a couple of years is offset 
        by the benefit of research to reduce the uncertainty of 
        our risk assessments and provide further data on 
        treatment technologies. If insufficient progress has 
        been made on the research front in that timeframe, it 
        would be appropriate to proceed with rulemaking rather 
        than wait for open-ended research results.''

      The Administrator is to publish a research plan for the 
health risks of arsenic in drinking water at low exposure 
within 180 days of enactment. The research plan should be based 
on a schedule consistent with the requirement in the bill that 
a proposed regulation be published not later than January 1, 
2000.

                            section 8. radon

Summary
      The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986 required 
EPA to promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation 
for radon by 1989. EPA proposed a standard at 300 picocuries 
per liter (pCi/L) in 1991. Congress suspended action on this 
regulation pending a review of the costs and benefits of the 
drinking water standard relative to other risks from radon in 
the environment.
      The bill directs EPA to promulgate a standard for radon 
not later than 180 days after enactment. The standard is to be 
established at 3000 pCi/L, a concentration that will reduce the 
health risks from radon in drinking water caused by inhalation 
(breathing radon that evaporates from water) to levels 
commensurate with risks from radon in outdoor air.
      Under the provisions of the bill, EPA may subsequently 
revise the standard to make it more or less stringent. The 
standard may be made more stringent, but only if the 
Administrator determines, and the National Academy of Sciences 
and the Science Advisory Board concur, that revision is 
appropriate to address risks from ingestion (swallowing radon 
in the drinking water). In this case, the revised standard is 
to be no more stringent than necessary to reduce the combined 
inhalation and ingestion risk from radon to a level equivalent 
to the inhalation risk from radon in outdoor air at the 
national average level.
Discussion
      Radon is a naturally occurring gas in soil resulting from 
the radioactive decay of radium in the Earth's crust. It 
dissolves in ground water and may become a drinking water 
contaminant in some public water systems served by ground water 
supplies. When water is used in the home for bathing, cooking 
and washing, the radon evaporates into the indoor air. 
Inhalation of this radon may present an increased risk of lung 
cancer. EPA estimates that radon in indoor air is the second 
leading cause of lung cancer in the United States (although 
only a small portion of this cancer risk comes from radon in 
drinking water). Radon ingested with drinking water may also 
present a cancer risk to other organs.
      The 1986 Amendments required EPA to set a standard for 
radon. EPA proposed a standard of 300 picocuries per liter 
(picocuries is a measure of radioactivity). According to EPA's 
estimates, 19 million Americans are consuming drinking water 
with radon at levels above the proposed MCL. EPA estimated that 
an MCL at this level would prevent 84 cancer deaths per year 
(of the 192 attributable to radon in drinking water). EPA also 
estimated the compliance cost at $272 million per year 
nationwide or approximately $3.2 million per cancer case 
avoided. The drinking water community has concluded that the 
costs will be much higher than the EPA estimate and also 
strongly disputes the cancer risk estimates that EPA has 
published.
      Radon from drinking water typically contributes less than 
5 percent of the radon gas in indoor air. The largest portion 
of the radon in indoor air comes from soil gas entering a 
building from cracks in the foundation or crawl spaces. 
Although EPA estimates that 13,600 cancer cases per year are 
being caused by radon from soil gas, the nation has not mounted 
a substantial effort to respond to this health threat. 
Estimates made by EPA indicate that modifications in new home 
construction and retrofits to existing buildings can reduce 
expected cancer cases at a cost of approximately $700,000 per 
case.
      Since a significant effort is not being made to reduce 
the 95 percent of radon that comes from soil gas (where costs 
per cancer case avoided may be much less), the drinking water 
standard has been viewed as too stringent to be justified. 
Congress has postponed promulgation of this regulation (through 
annual riders to EPA appropriations bills) since 1992. In 1992, 
Congress required EPA to prepare a report on its proposed 
drinking water standard relative to the risks of radon from 
other media and also called for a review of that report by the 
Science Advisory Board. EPA transmitted that report (Report to 
the United States Congress on Radon in Drinking Water: 
Multimedia Risk and Cost Assessment of Radon) to Congress on 
March 29, 1994. The statistics cited above are taken from that 
report. The view of the Science Advisory Board is summarized in 
the following quotation from their letter of July 30, 1993 
reviewing the draft EPA report:

            ``Because of uncertainties in both risk estimates 
        and costs of mitigation there is substantial 
        uncertainty in the cost per cancer death avoided. This 
        uncertainty is especially large for mitigation of 
        cancers related to ingestion of water. However, even 
        with this uncertainty, it is clear that the cost per 
        lung cancer avoided from mitigation of indoor air radon 
        is substantially less than the cost per cancer death 
        avoided due to mitigation of exposure from radon in 
        drinking water. This difference appears to be at least 
        a factor of 4 ($3.2 million per cancer death avoided 
        related to drinking water and $0.7 million per cancer 
        death related to airborne radon) and may be 
        substantially larger.

            ``In summary, the SAB notes the extent of the 
        uncertainties in the population exposure profiles, the 
        risk estimates for ingested radon in drinking water and 
        the costs of mitigation. In view of these large 
        uncertainties for risk estimates for ingested radon in 
        drinking water and knowledge of the substantially 
        greater risks associated with airborne radon indoors 
        and outdoors directly from soil, the SAB advises EPA 
        consider various options for mitigating radon cancer 
        risks.

            ``[A] standard might be set at some higher 
        level...to initiate mitigation of the highest potential 
        risks. For example, setting a water standard at 3000 
        pCi/L would result in water contributing no more radon 
        to indoor air than is present in outdoor air... At the 
        same time it would be appropriate to intensify research 
        on radon ingestion and radon mitigation, data gathering 
        on radon occurrence in all media, and dialogue with 
        interested parties.''
      The bill sets a standard of 3000 picocuries per liter of 
water for radon, reducing the indoor inhalation risk 
attributable to radon from drinking water to a level 
commensurate with the risk of breathing radon in outdoor air.
      The Administrator is to promulgate the national primary 
drinking water regulation for radionuclides including radon not 
later than 180 days after enactment of the 1995 Amendments. EPA 
is not required to take any other action, conduct any study or 
make any determination under any other provision of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act or other law prior to issuing this 
regulation.
      The regulation is to set the maximum contaminant level 
for radon at 3000 picocuries per liter of water. EPA estimates 
that the ratio of radon in indoor air resulting from the 
evaporation of radon gas from drinking water (and water used in 
showers, bathing and washing) to the radon in the water is 
1:10,000. Therefore, a standard at 3000 pCi/L should produce 
indoor air radon levels attributable to drinking water no 
greater than radon levels in outdoor air, since the national 
average is 0.4 pCi/L in outdoor air (as cited by EPA's National 
Radon Ambient Radon study.)
      EPA may subsequently revise the radon standard. The 
revisions would be made pursuant to all of the authorities set 
forth in subsection 1412(b) of the Act subject to limitations 
stated in the new section 1412(b)(13). This means that EPA 
could revise the standard to a level less stringent than 3000 
pCi/L, if subsequent science indicated that a less stringent 
level would provide the same level of health protection as the 
level established by the bill. Since radon is regulated for its 
cancer-causing effect, such a result could occur if the 
Administrator determined that there is a threshold level below 
which exposure to radon is unlikely to result in any increase 
in cancer risk (section 1412(b)(4)(A)).
      The bill also allows the Administrator to revise the 
radon MCL to a more stringent level, but only if three 
conditions are met.
      First, the revision must be based on a determination by 
the Administrator that there are adverse effects from ingestion 
and episodic exposure to radon in drinking water that increase 
lifetime cancer risks from radon in drinking water beyond the 
inhalation risks that are experienced as the result of 
evaporation of radon from drinking water into indoor air. Any 
adjustment to the standard to make it more stringent may only 
be made to reflect these ingestion and episodic risks.
      Second, the revised standard will continue to use the 
inhalation risk from radon in outdoor air as the guidepost. The 
revised MCL for radon in drinking water is to achieve a 
lifetime cancer risk from the combined inhalation, ingestion 
and episodic exposures that is equivalent to the lifetime 
cancer risk from inhaling radon in outdoor air at the national 
average outdoor levels. This equivalence is achieved first by 
estimating the increased probability of a person contracting 
lung cancer by inhaling radon from outdoor air over a lifetime. 
After the Administrator has made a risk estimate of this type 
for the inhalation risks from radon in outdoor air, the 
Administrator is to set the MCL for radon in drinking water so 
that a person exposed to drinking water (in all of its 
residential uses) with a radon concentration at the MCL level 
over a lifetime would experience (considering the combined 
inhalation, ingestion and episodic exposures) the same increase 
in the probability of contracting cancer as that attributed 
solely to inhaling radon in outdoor air.
      Third, this revision cannot occur unless it is supported 
by peer-reviewed scientific studies and the National Academy of 
Sciences and EPA's Science Advisory Board agree that the 
revision is appropriate.

                           section 9. sulfate

Summary
      The 1986 Amendments required EPA to establish a standard 
for sulfate. EPA has not completed this duty for two reasons. 
First, scientific information is not sufficient to determine 
the dose-response relationship for sulfate with a high degree 
of confidence. Second, because persons become quickly 
acclimated to sulfate in their drinking water, the adverse 
health effect from sulfate exposure (diarrhea) is experienced 
primarily by travelers, new residents and infants.
      In response to public comments expressing concern about 
the high cost of an MCL for sulfate removal at small systems, 
EPA withdrew its original proposal. A rule re-proposed by EPA 
in December, 1994, set forth a preferred option to protect 
these susceptible populations that relies on bottled water and 
public education.
      The bill authorizes the Administrator to use public 
education and alternative water supplies (bottled water), 
rather than centralized treatment, to reduce the costs of a 
national primary drinking water regulation for sulfate. The 
Administrator is directed to complete a rulemaking for sulfate 
not later than 2 years after enactment.
      The maximum contaminant level for sulfate promulgated 
under the Safe Drinking Water Act is not to be used by the 
Administrator for ground water remediation decisions under 
CERCLA or RCRA, unless the Administrator engages in a separate 
rulemaking under the authority of those statutes to establish a 
remediation standard for sulfate.
Discussion
      Sulfate is a naturally-occurring substance in soil and 
rock that may become a contaminant in drinking water. 
Contamination from natural sources occurs principally in the 
midwest and western regions of the nation. Sulfate is also a 
waste product in steel and metal manufacturing and may be a 
water pollutant from these sources.
      The adverse health effect associated with sulfate is 
diarrhea. The effect is acute and temporary. A person who 
continues to ingest drinking water containing sulfate at 
moderate to high levels will become ``acclimated'' to the 
contaminant in a period of 2 weeks or less and the diarrhea 
effect will not recur. Therefore, the populations affected by 
sulfate contamination are newborn infants, travelers, and new 
residents to an area with high sulfate levels in drinking 
water. EPA has estimated that 1 million travelers, 127,000 new 
residents, and 27,000 newborn infants may be exposed each year 
to drinking water with sulfate concentrations at levels with a 
potential to cause a laxative effect.
      Approximately 2000 public water systems have sulfate 
concentrations that are at or above the concentration level of 
a potential standard. Sixty percent of these systems serve 
transient populations and 88 percent of the affected systems 
serve fewer than 500 people.
      The 1986 Amendments directed EPA to establish a national 
primary drinking water regulation for sulfate by 1989. EPA 
proposed a standard in 1990 that was subsequently withdrawn 
because of concern about the health effects science on which 
the rule was based and the high cost of compliance. Under a 
court-ordered deadline, the Agency reproposed the rule in 
December, 1994 and is scheduled to promulgate the final rule in 
May of 1996.
      The proposed regulation includes a maximum contaminant 
level of 500 milligrams per liter. It is expected that no cases 
of diarrhea would be experienced by individuals ingesting water 
with sulfate at these levels. The proposed rule includes four 
possible regulatory options. The preferred option departs from 
previous drinking water standards by allowing public water 
systems to comply with the rule through public education, 
notification and the provision of alternative water supplies to 
portions of the susceptible populations affected. This option 
would avoid substantial costs to small public water systems and 
the households they serve. EPA estimated that compliance with 
the MCL by central treatment would cost $147 million and as 
much as $670 per household per year for the smallest systems. 
By contrast, the costs of rules relying on bottled water and 
public education for compliance may be as low as $16 million 
per year.
      EPA was unable to estimate the value of the benefits 
produced by the rule, since EPA has concluded that the 
scientific evidence available on the laxative effects of 
sulfate is not sufficient to establish a dose-response 
relationship. A regulatory impact analysis done by an EPA 
contractor for the rule proposed in 1990 estimated the health 
benefits of eliminating cases of diarrhea caused by sulfate 
contaminated waters at $23 million per year.
      The bill requires EPA to issue a final national primary 
drinking water regulation for sulfate not later than 2 years 
after enactment. The bill endorses EPA's preferred regulatory 
option allowing public water systems to comply with the rule 
through public education and the provision of alternative water 
supplies to the affected populations, unless new scientific 
information indicates that the health effects of sulfate are 
more serious than now known.
      If the Administrator chooses to repropose the rule using 
the new authority of section 1412(b)(6) to reflect the relative 
benefits and costs of controlling sulfate in a standard, she 
may do so. Because this authority is discretionary, the 
Administrator may also promulgate a rule based on the proposal 
that was issued in December, 1994.
      In many instances, maximum contaminant levels set under 
the Safe Drinking Water Act have been used as ground water 
cleanup and remediation standards under other laws including 
the Superfund program and Federal and State hazardous waste 
laws. The bill contains provisions precluding the use of an MCL 
for sulfate as a remediation standard under other Federal 
environmental programs unless the Administrator establishes the 
standard by a rulemaking under the authority of those laws.

                section 10. filtration and disinfection

Summary
      The 1986 Amendments required EPA to issue rules requiring 
filtration for all systems served by surface water sources and 
disinfection by all systems. The Surface Water Treatment Rule 
implemented the filtration and disinfection requirements for 
systems served by surface water sources. The disinfection 
requirement for systems served by ground water sources has not 
been fully implemented.
      The bill postpones promulgation of rules for the 
disinfection of drinking water from ground water sources. This 
delay will ensure that potential risks from the byproducts of 
disinfection are balanced with the benefits of disinfecting 
ground water supplies. The Administrator is authorized, in 
consultation with the States, to develop criteria to be applied 
by the States to determine which systems relying on ground 
water sources are to use disinfection.
      The Administrator is directed to publish guidance to 
accompany the proposal of the Interim Enhanced Surface Water 
Treatment Rule that identifies filtration technologies that are 
feasible for public water systems relying on surface water 
serving fewer than 3,300 persons.
Discussion
      Preventing waterborne disease is a principal purpose of 
the Safe Drinking Water Act and of paramount importance to the 
health of the American people. As described by Dr. David 
Ozonoff (Chairman of the Department of Environmental Health, 
Boston University School of Public Health) at the Committee's 
hearing on October 19, 1995:

            ``Chief among the public health triumphs of this 
        century has been the provision of safe and healthful 
        drinking water to most of our citizens. This single 
        measure has done more to improve the health status of 
        the community, and at lower cost, than any other 
        achievement, not excepting immunization, advances in 
        medical technology, or modern medical treatments and 
        drugs. Community water supplies affect an entire 
        community at once, providing an extraordinarily cost-
        effective way to deliver a commodity essential to good 
        health and quality of life.''

      The most important measures contributing to the public 
health gains achieved through safer drinking water are the 
filtration and disinfection of municipal water supplies. Use of 
these water treatment strategies became widespread early in 
this century and effectively ended the era of typhoid and 
cholera epidemics caused by contaminated water. Notwithstanding 
the tremendous gains that have been made, the nation continues 
to experience waterborne disease outbreaks, some with 
catastrophic consequences. An outbreak of Cryptosporidiosis in 
Milwaukee in the Spring of 1993 resulted in 400,000 illnesses 
and over 100 deaths. Officials of the Centers for Disease 
Control have estimated that more than 900,000 Americans become 
ill and 900 die each year as the result of preventable diseases 
caused by bacteria, viruses and protozoa in public drinking 
water supplies. These sobering public health statistics may 
improve as the result of the Surface Water Treatment and Total 
Coliform rules recently promulgated under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act.
      The 1986 Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act 
directed EPA to issue regulations mandating filtration at most 
public water systems relying on surface water supplies and 
disinfection at all public water systems using either surface 
water or ground water supplies. Section 1412(b)(7), 
establishing the filtration requirement, includes authority for 
a State to waive the filtration requirement for a public water 
system, if measures taken in the watershed surrounding the 
source of supply to protect the system from contamination meet 
criteria issued by EPA.
      The Surface Water Treatment Rule, promulgated in 1989, 
was designed to satisfy these provisions of the Act. The Rule 
set a deadline of June 29, 1993 for the use of filtration. In 
addition to the filtration requirement, the Surface Water 
Treatment Rule mandates disinfection by all systems using 
surface water supplies and by all systems relying on ground 
water that is under the direct influence of surface water.
      EPA has not fully implemented the disinfection 
requirements in the statute that are applicable to other 
systems relying on ground water. There are several reasons for 
the delay. First, the disinfection requirement would have a 
large cost impact for small systems, because most small systems 
rely on ground water sources. If all ground water systems were 
required to disinfect, the annual cost may be as high as $1 
billion. Second, it appears that not all ground water systems 
will have contaminant risks that warrant disinfection. Third, 
there is concern that many small systems do not have the 
technical capacity to safely operate disinfection systems. 
Fourth, disinfection may produce byproducts in some systems 
that are associated with other adverse health effects including 
cancer and birth defects (although this is less of a concern 
for systems supplied by ground water than it is for systems 
supplied by surface water because they are less likely to be 
contaminated with organic substances that are precursors of the 
byproducts).
      Although not all ground water systems are prone to 
contamination by the microbial organisms associated with 
disease outbreaks, it is important to note that approximately 
one-half of the reported waterborne disease outbreaks occurring 
in the United States between 1971 and 1988 were associated with 
drinking water systems relying on ground water sources. Of the 
574 outbreaks reported to the Centers for Disease Control 
during this period, 276 were at ground water systems--174 in 
systems with ground water that was not disinfected and 62 at 
systems with disinfection treatment equipment that was not 
operating at the time of the outbreak. It should also be noted 
that many ground water systems (50 percent of community systems 
and 20 percent of noncommunity systems) already use 
disinfection and that the Total Coliform Rule, requiring 
monitoring for coliform contamination, applies to all public 
water systems. It is, therefore, important that a requirement 
for appropriate ground water disinfection criteria be retained.
      EPA has been working with a task force appointed by the 
States to carry out the disinfection provisions of current law. 
The bill makes two important changes in section 1412(b)(8) that 
are consistent with the recommendations of the task force. 
First, the deadline for issuing regulations to require 
disinfection at ground water systems is delayed until at least 
3 years after the date of enactment of the bill. This delay 
ensures that the health risks of disinfectants and disinfection 
byproducts will be more fully understood and considered in the 
design of disinfection requirements. The bill requires EPA to 
promulgate the disinfection regulations for ground water 
systems not later than the date on which the Stage II 
regulations for disinfectants and disinfection byproducts are 
finalized.
      Second, EPA is to develop criteria, working in 
consultation with the States, to identify public water systems 
using ground water supplies that should install disinfection 
treatment. The criteria are to be issued with the regulations. 
The criteria will reflect factors that make ground water 
systems vulnerable to contamination by pathogenic organisms 
including depth of wells, hydrogeology in the area of the 
wellfield, distance to pathogenic sources and the 
characteristics of the distribution system. Regulations for 
disinfection may include separate provisions for the 
disinfection of source water and water in the distribution 
system.
      Under regulations issued to implement section 1412(b)(7), 
all public water systems using surface water sources were to 
install filtration by not later than June 29, 1993, unless the 
State in which the system is located provided a waiver. 
Although filtration technologies feasible and appropriate for 
small systems have become available, State agencies have been 
reluctant to approve these systems. The Administrator could 
assure significant cost savings for small systems by providing 
timely and reliable information on the appropriate use of 
filtration technologies by small systems. To assure that 
alternative filtration technologies feasible for small systems 
are available at the earliest possible time, the Administrator 
is required to specify filtration technologies that are 
feasible for small and noncommunity systems. The Administrator 
is to include guidance on filtration treatment techniques that 
are feasible for small systems with the Interim Enhanced 
Surface Water Treatment Rule at the time that it is proposed to 
carry out the negotiated rulemaking agreement for disinfection 
byproducts. \6\
    \6\ The Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule was proposed 
July 29, 1994 and did not include these specifications.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

               section 11. effective date for regulations

Summary
      Section 1412(b)(10) of current law is amended to require 
compliance with national primary drinking water regulations no 
later than 3 years after promulgation (extended from 18 months 
under current law). The compliance deadline can be extended for 
up to 2 additional years for all systems (by the Administrator 
in the regulation) or for a particular public water system (by 
a State), if it is determined that additional time is needed 
for the capital improvement projects that will be necessary to 
meet new treatment requirements.
Discussion
      Under current law public water systems must comply with 
maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) or treatment techniques in 
new national primary drinking water regulations beginning 18 
months after the regulation is promulgated (section 
1412(b)(10)), unless the system receives a variance or an 
exemption. Where complex treatment systems must be designed and 
constructed to comply with an MCL, the 18-month period may not 
provide the public water system sufficient time to remain in 
compliance with the law. This problem was described at the 
Committee's October 19, 1995, hearing by Mr. Gurnie Gunter, 
Director of the Kansas City, Missouri Water Services 
Department, testifying on behalf of the Association of 
Metropolitan Water Agencies:

            ``Another important improvement made by S. 1316 is 
        the change in the current law's 18 month effective date 
        for regulations. When major capital construction is 
        required to comply with a standard, it can take more 
        than 18 months just to get the necessary environmental 
        and other permits necessary to start construction. The 
        entire construction process including issuing bonds or 
        obtaining other funding, design, permitting 
        construction and startup can take 5 years or more. S. 
        1316 would allow the Administrator to establish 
        effective dates of up to 3 years on a rule by rule 
        basis. Additional extensions of up to 2 years may be 
        granted when capital improvements are involved in 
        compliance. This is a major improvement over current 
        law and we support the bill's provision.''

      Section 11 of the bill extends the basic compliance 
period from 18 months to 3 years after the date a national 
primary drinking water regulation is promulgated. The 
Administrator may establish an earlier date for compliance as 
part of the regulation, if an extended period is not necessary 
for design and construction. The Administrator is also 
authorized to extend the compliance period for an additional 2 
years (up to a total of 5 years) in the promulgated regulation 
where the additional period is necessary for construction 
activities that may be necessary to comply.
      In addition to the Administrator's authority to extend 
the period beyond the 3 years by rule, a State may extend the 
compliance period for particular public water systems in that 
State that need up to an additional 2 years for the design and 
construction of treatment facilities or alternative water 
supplies to comply. The Administrator is authorized to provide 
case-by-case extensions for particular systems in States that 
do not have primary enforcement responsibility under section 
1413.
      Congressional intent with respect to the effective date 
provision in current law was recently reviewed by the United 
States Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in 
a case involving the lead and copper rule, American Water Works 
Association v. EPA, 40 F.3d 1266 (D.C. Cir., 1992). An 
intervenor in the case challenged the regulation, in part 
because EPA had established a compliance deadline for portions 
of the rule that extended beyond the 18-month period provided 
in the Act. The intervenor argued that Congress meant the rule 
to be implemented and enforced not later than 18 months after 
promulgation.
      EPA responded arguing that the purpose of the 18-month 
effective date provision was to prevent EPA from enforcing 
national primary drinking water regulations at any time before 
the 18-month period had elapsed.
      The court held that an effective date was not intended to 
be the same as the date on which a rule is implemented and 
enforced, because the Safe Drinking Water Act provides that 
rules are generally to be implemented and enforced by the 
States and an 18-month compliance deadline would not be 
consistent with this State role, since State's are not even 
required to submit their rules for EPA review within 18 months 
after promulgation.
      The bill makes changes to section 1412(b)(10) and other 
provisions of the Act that overturn the conclusion reached by 
the Court in this case. First, the new effective date is 
extended for (up to) 3 years after promulgation and the 
authority of the Administrator to make a regulation effective 
before this date is made clear. Second, the bill adds explicit 
authority for the Administrator to extend the effective date 
when additional time is necessary to facilitate compliance. 
Third, the period of time for States to adopt rules to retain 
primacy under section 1413 is extended from 18 months to 24 
months, providing sufficient time for States to put their own 
rules in place before the date on which the rules are to be 
implemented and enforced. Finally, the Act is amended to make 
the exemption provisions of section 1416 more workable in the 
event that a system cannot come into compliance with the 
requirements of a national primary drinking water regulation in 
the period of time provided by section 1412(b)(10).
      Each national primary drinking water regulation is to be 
implemented and enforced no later than a date that is 
established pursuant to the deadlines set forth in 1412(b)(10), 
as amended.

  section 12. technology and treatment techniques; technology centers

Summary
      This section of the bill directs the Administrator, at 
the same time as a national primary drinking water regulation 
is promulgated, to identify the treatment technologies that are 
available for systems of various sizes, including systems 
serving: between 3,300 and 10,000 persons; between 500 and 
3,300 persons; and between 25 and 500 persons. The 
Administrator may publish two distinct lists of technologies 
for these small systems. Section 1412(b)(4)(E) requires the 
Administrator to publish the best available technologies that 
are: (1) feasible for small systems in each size category; and 
(2) have removal efficiencies sufficient to comply with a 
maximum contaminant level. If there are no technologies meeting 
both tests for systems of a particular size, the Administrator 
will publish a second list of technologies under section 
1412(b)(15) of the best available treatment techniques that are 
affordable for systems in that size category. This second list 
is used by the States to grant variances from the maximum 
contaminant level under section 1415(e).
      The list of feasible technologies may also include 
package units for small systems and point-of-entry treatment 
equipment. Section 1445 of the Act is amended to give the 
Administrator authority to request information on treatment 
technologies from manufacturers, States and interested parties.
      A new subsection is added to the research section of the 
Act authorizing the Administrator to make grants to 5 or more 
small public water system technology assistance centers at 
institutions of higher learning. The centers will provide 
leadership in solving national and regional rural water system 
technology management problems and will disseminate the results 
of small public water system technology research through 
continuing education and training programs. Appropriations of 
$10 million per year through the year 2003 are authorized for 
this purpose.
Discussion
      Standards are established under the Act based on the best 
available treatment technology that large systems can afford. 
Today, many small systems can not afford the treatment systems 
used to establish national primary drinking water regulations. 
However, the EPA has been working on a Small Systems Low Cost 
Technology Initiative to encourage the manufacturing community 
to focus on the development of treatment technology for small 
systems. There are alternative technologies for small systems 
that are available and, unlike the engineered systems 
traditionally designed for large systems, can be sized to 
accommodate the needs small systems.
      The bill directs EPA to develop guidance or regulations 
for all treatment technologies when issuing national primary 
drinking water regulations and to identify the effectiveness 
and cost of the technology. The technologies are to be listed 
for systems in various size categories including systems 
serving populations of: 3,300 to 10,000; 500 to 3,300; and 25 
to 500.
      Some treatment systems applied under the variance 
provisions of section 1415(e) may not always comply with 
maximum contaminant levels. To ensure public health protection, 
additional measures must be considered when prescribing best 
technologies for small systems. As part of the guidance issued 
under section 1412(b)(15), EPA must consider other factors 
related to the use of the technology, including requirements 
for the quality of source water to ensure adequate protection 
of human health, considering the removal efficiencies of the 
technology, and installation and operation and maintenance 
requirements for the technology. Particular technologies may be 
appropriate and affordable for systems of a particular size, 
but not for systems in another size category.
      If new or innovative treatment technologies are developed 
after promulgation of a national primary drinking water 
regulation, the Administrator may issue guidance or regulation 
for the new technologies. A list of treatment technologies that 
are feasible for small systems, may include packaged or modular 
systems and point-of-entry treatment units owned and maintained 
by public water systems.
      Finally, the Administrator is given authority to request 
information on commercially available treatment systems and 
technologies from manufacturers, States, and interested parties 
for the purpose of considering the systems and technologies in 
the development of the guidance or national primary drinking 
water regulations.
      Small public water systems technology assistance centers 
can provide significant assistance to State and local 
governments in the development of programs to address special 
concerns relating to the water systems of rural communities and 
Native Americans. The centers focus on development of 
management strategies to ensure the availability and 
sustainability of small public water systems serving these 
communities.
      They are particularly important to States with relatively 
low population density that cover large geographic areas. 
Communities in these States usually consist of only a few 
hundred to a few thousand individuals. Delivering water from 
remote sources is often cost prohibitive without assistance 
from State and Federal sources.
      Coordination of research, training, technical assistance, 
and outreach efforts through small public water systems 
technology assistance centers can provide the technical 
information and outreach components needed by States and local 
governments. These centers, located at institutions of higher 
education, can provide information on rural water system 
treatment technologies, development of alternate supplies, 
training to enable compliance with State and Federal 
regulations, and can act as clearinghouses for research efforts 
for small water systems.
      Native American Tribes face many of the same problems 
that States and small communities face in developing and 
operating rural water systems. In recent years, more tribal 
organizations have assumed responsibility for management of 
rural water systems and general water quality management 
programs. They face many difficulties in developing and 
initiating programs and the centers can provide training and 
technical assistance to support these efforts.

                  section 13. variances and exemptions

Summary
      Under sections 1415 and 1416 of current law, public water 
systems may receive variances and exemptions from national 
primary drinking water regulations. Generally, variances are 
available where the poor quality of source water makes it 
impossible for a system to comply with a maximum contaminant 
level for a contaminant even when best available treatment 
technology is used. Exemptions are available for limited 
periods when systems need financial assistance or more time for 
construction to come into compliance with the Act.
      The bill modifies the variance and exemption provisions 
to make them more workable. Under the bill, systems can be 
assured of receiving a variance on the condition that they 
build and operate the best available treatment system, rather 
than receiving the variance only after the treatment technique 
has failed to meet a standard (as provided in current law).
      The bill also modifies the exemption authorities of the 
Act to recognize a wider variety of conditions that may justify 
a temporary exemption from the requirements of a national 
primary drinking water regulation.
Discussion
      Public water systems may be granted a variance from a 
national primary drinking water regulation under section 1415 
of current law, if the quality of the source water for the 
system makes it impossible to comply with a maximum contaminant 
level even when best available treatment technology is 
employed. However, under current law the variance may only be 
granted after the best available treatment system has been 
installed and has failed to achieve the standard. This approach 
does not provide certainty for public water systems, because it 
forces investments in costly treatment plants, before the 
system can be assured that the investment will enable the 
system to come into compliance with the Act.
      The bill modifies the variance authority of the Act 
allowing public water systems to receive a variance on the 
condition that they install and operate the best available 
treatment technology for the contaminant as identified by EPA 
under the regulation for which the variance is sought. The 
variance is to be granted on the condition that best available 
technology is installed and properly operated. A schedule for 
constructing the necessary treatment facilities established by 
a State in a variance should reflect the most expeditious 
schedule practicable, consistent with other effective date 
provisions in section 1412 and 1415.
      Under section 1416 of current law, a State that has 
primary enforcement responsibility for the Act may exempt a 
public water system from compliance with a maximum contaminant 
level or treatment technique in a national primary drinking 
water regulation. The exemption may only be granted if the 
system cannot comply with the regulation and no unreasonable 
risk to public health will result from the exemption. The 
Administrator may provide exemptions to systems in States that 
do not have primary enforcement responsibility.
      Section 13(b) of the bill makes several changes in the 
exemption authorities of the Act. If a public water system 
meets the criteria for classification as a `disadvantaged 
community' established by the State for the purposes of loan 
forgiveness under the State's revolving loan fund, the system 
meets the economic needs test for an exemption.
      The need for additional time to develop an alternative 
source of water supply or to consolidate with another system is 
recognized as justification for an exemption in the same way 
that time needed to construct a treatment system is recognized 
under current law.
      The bill deletes the current law provision (section 
1416(b)(2)(A)) limiting an exemption to a period of 12 months 
(from the time initially granted) unless additional time (up to 
3 years) is needed. The bill provides that States (and the 
Administrator) may grant exemptions extending up to 3 years 
after the compliance date for any national primary drinking 
water regulation. This change simplifies the exemption 
procedure but also limits an exemption to a period not to 
extend beyond 3 years after the compliance deadline (generally 
6 years after a rule is promulgated) for a particular 
regulation. The one exception to this absolute outside date for 
any exemption from a national primary drinking water regulation 
is an additional period for systems serving populations of less 
than 3,300. Extensions for small systems may be granted in 2-
year increments for an absolute period not to exceed 6 years 
(in addition to the 3-year exemption available to all systems).
      Systems may qualify for an exemption by showing that they 
have secured a promise of financial assistance (as under 
current law) or that they are reasonably likely to receive 
assistance from the State's revolving loan fund during the 
period of the exemption.
      Systems receiving a variance under section 1415(e), as 
added to the Act by the bill, could not also receive an 
exemption under the revised section 1416.

            section 14. small systems; technical assistance

Summary
      Section 14 of the bill modifies the variance provisions 
(section 1415) of current law to authorize variances for small 
systems that cannot afford to comply with national primary 
drinking water regulations.
      This new variance authority is to be exercised by the 
States. A State may grant the owner or operator of a public 
drinking water system serving 10,000 or fewer persons a 
variance from compliance with a maximum contaminant level or 
treatment technique of a national primary drinking water 
regulation if a system cannot afford to comply with the 
regulation and the system installs the best available treatment 
technology that is affordable for that system. The variance 
must ensure adequate protection of public health.
      If a variance is granted, the system has up to 3 years to 
comply with the terms of the variance. The variance is in 
effect for 5 years and reviewed every 5 years thereafter. A 
person who is served by the system seeking a variance may 
petition the Administrator to object to the granting of a 
variance, if the provisions of the variance are not in 
compliance with the Act.
      Section 14 of the bill also reauthorizes the ``circuit-
rider'' provisions of current law. Using the authority of 
section 1442(g), EPA has made grants to the National Rural 
Water Association and various regional community action 
organizations to provide technical assistance to very small 
communities. The authorization for these grants is increased to 
$15 million per year and is extended through the year 2003.
Discussion
      Of the approximately 57,000 community water systems 
regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act, nearly 54,000 
serve populations of 10,000 or less. While EPA has taken steps 
to recognize the difficulties of small systems by establishing 
the Small System Technology Initiative, by forming the National 
Training Coalition, and by developing handbooks and computer 
software, the current Safe Drinking Water Act does not 
successfully address the problems of small systems.
      The fundamental problem is one of economics. Maximum 
contaminant levels in national primary drinking water 
regulations have been based on the best available treatment 
techniques that are affordable for large systems. Because small 
systems do not enjoy the economies of scale that are available 
to large systems (infrastructure costs cannot be spread over a 
large number of households) drinking water regulations can have 
a much greater economic impact on small systems. EPA and the 
Congressional Budget Office have published estimates indicating 
that systems serving more than 10,000 persons experience costs 
averaging less than $20 per household per year to comply with 
the current requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. By way 
of comparison, the average annual incremental household cost to 
comply with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act for 
systems serving 25 to 100 persons is $145.
      Despite the relatively small portion of the population 
served, small systems account for a large proportion of the 
problems associated with the Safe Drinking Water Act 
implementation and compliance. And according to EPA, costs 
imposed on small systems may increase as the result of drinking 
water regulations under consideration. This future burden may 
be substantially reduced by modifications to the radon standard 
that are made by the bill. However, new requirements for the 
control of disinfection byproducts and arsenic may have a 
significant impact on some small systems.
      The bill authorizes the use of best available 
technologies as the foundation of a new variance program for 
small systems that is intended to make the Safe Drinking Water 
Act affordable in small towns and rural areas.
      The bill modifies the variance provisions of the Act to 
authorize variances for small systems that cannot afford to 
comply with national primary drinking water regulations.
      This new variance authority is to be exercised by the 
States with primary enforcement authority. A State may grant 
the owner or operator of a public drinking water system serving 
10,000 or fewer persons a variance from compliance with a 
maximum contaminant level or treatment technique of a national 
primary drinking water regulation if a system cannot afford to 
comply with the regulation, including compliance through 
treatment, alternative source water supply, or restructuring, 
including consolidation. Any variance must ensure adequate 
protection of public health.
      The variance is to require the use of the best available 
treatment technology that is affordable for the small system 
receiving the variance. Information on the efficacy, cost, 
useful life and source water requirements for these small 
system technologies is to be published by EPA under section 
1412(b)(15) which is added to the Act by section 12 of the 
bill.
      An application for a variance is submitted to the State 
and within 1 year of submission the State must either grant or 
deny the variance. A system that applies for a variance from a 
regulation under this subsection is not subject to enforcement 
for a violation of the regulation until a variance is either 
granted or denied.
      If a variance is granted, the system has up to 3 years to 
comply with the terms of the variance. A State may allow an 
additional 2 years to comply with the conditions of the 
variance if the State determines that additional time is 
necessary for capital improvements or financial assistance 
under the State revolving loan fund or other State or Federal 
programs. A variance is not available for a maximum contaminant 
level or treatment technique for a contaminant for which a 
standard had been promulgated under the Act prior to January 1, 
1986 (even if the standard has been subsequently revised) or a 
national primary drinking water regulation for a microbial 
contaminant or an indicator or treatment technique for a 
microbial contaminant. If a variance is denied, the system must 
be in compliance with the regulation for which the variance was 
denied not later than 4 years after the date when the 
regulation was promulgated.
      The variance is to be reviewed by the State at least 
every 5 years. If the State determines that the system is no 
longer eligible for the variance, that the system is not 
complying with the conditions of the variance or that the terms 
of the variance do not ensure protection of human health, the 
State is to revoke the variance.
      The Administrator is directed to promulgate regulations 
in consultation with the States specifying procedures for 
granting variances, including requirements for public notice to 
the Administrator and consumers of the public water system, 
installation and proper operation of treatment technology that 
is feasible for small systems, the quality of source water, and 
the financial and technical capability to operate a treatment 
system, including operator training and certification. To 
ensure that variances provide adequate protection of human 
health, the regulations must address the relationship between 
source water quality and the effectiveness of treatment 
technologies. A small system may not be granted variance, if 
the quality of its source water, in combination with the 
removal efficiencies of the best treatment technologies, does 
not ensure adequate protection of human health.
      The Administrator is directed to publish, in consultation 
with the States, information to assist the States in developing 
affordability criteria to use when deciding whether a system 
qualifies for a variance. Affordability determinations are to 
be made by the States under criteria that each State develops.
      Variances are only to be granted when no other affordable 
avenue of compliance, including treatment, an alternative 
source of supply, or restructuring or consolidation is 
available. Even if compliance through restructuring or 
consolidation is affordable for a system, the State may 
nevertheless grant a variance to that system if the State 
issues a written determination that consolidation is not 
required for other public policy reasons. As an example, 
consolidation may not be an achievable option where a small 
suburban community has resisted annexation by a larger city and 
the city declines to consolidate water systems in the absence 
of formal annexation.
      The Administrator is to periodically review the small 
system variance program of each State and to notify a State in 
writing if there are deficiencies. The Administrator may review 
and object to any variance proposed to be granted by a State 
and recommend modifications. If the State issues the variance 
without resolving the concerns, the Administrator may overturn 
the State decision.
      A person who is served by a system seeking a variance, 
and who has commented during the public review of the variance, 
may petition the Administrator to object to the granting of a 
variance, if the provisions of the variance are not in 
compliance with the Act. The Administrator has 60 days to 
respond to the petition and the State may not grant the 
variance during this review period.
      Other amendments incorporated in the bill support the new 
variance program under section 1415(e). Section 12 of the bill 
requires the Administrator to issue guidance identifying the 
best available treatment technologies that are affordable to 
small systems in various population categories. Several recent 
reports, including a March, 1994, General Accounting Office 
study of small system technologies, indicate that a new 
generation of package plants and point-of-entry devices offers 
hope of improved water quality at more affordable costs for 
small systems. The GAO report (``Stronger Efforts Essential for 
Small Communities to Comply with Standards,'' March, 1994) 
urges the EPA to step up its efforts to help small communities 
use more cost-effective technologies that are available for 
protecting drinking water:

            ``Officials from EPA, the States, and small systems 
        all agree that more information is needed to evaluate 
        the cost and performance of alternative drinking water 
        technologies. If such information is widely available 
        and accepted as reliable, the use of alternative 
        drinking water technologies by small systems could 
        become more widespread.

            ``Although EPA is involved in efforts to develop 
        such data, limited resources have prevented the agency 
        from expanding its efforts to help field test various 
        technologies...

            ``Even if EPA cannot expand its efforts to develop 
        such information because of resource constraints, we 
        believe the agency could focus on (1) encouraging State 
        regulators, equipment manufacturers, and equipment 
        users to participate in efforts to develop nationwide 
        protocols for the testing and approval of alternate 
        technologies and (2) ensuring that any data developed 
        as a result of these efforts are effectively 
        distributed. Active participation by all of these 
        parties is essential if the resulting protocols are to 
        be widely accepted and widely used to facilitate 
        approval of alternative drinking water 
        technologies....[B]ecause State officials stressed that 
        they would be very conservative in granting any waivers 
        on the basis of use of these best available 
        technologies, EPA will need to work closely with State 
        regulators to address their concerns in this area.''

      Making the new variance provisions of section 1415(e) a 
successful response to the affordability problems experienced 
by small systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act will take an 
aggressive technology transfer effort by EPA, the States and 
the manufacturers of small system technologies.
      Technical assistance for small public water systems is 
currently provided by several Federal, State, and private 
organizations. The technical assistance ranges from simple 
advice offered over the phone to hands-on maintenance and 
repair of plant equipment. The Rural Utilities Service at USDA 
and the EPA fund ``circuit rider'' programs. The circuit riders 
visit individual sites and provide technical assistance to 
drinking water system operators.
      EPA has made grants to the National Rural Water 
Association and various regional community action programs to 
support technical assistance under the authority of section 
1442(g) of the Act. The bill recognizes the importance and 
success of these programs by increasing the authorization for 
these grants from $10 million to $15 million per year and 
extending the grants through fiscal year 2003. The bill also 
makes clear that multi-State regional technical assistance 
programs are appropriate vehicles for this activity under the 
Act.
      Although the technical assistance programs funded through 
section 1442(g) have been very successful in most instances, 
some concerns have been expressed. Some States are concerned 
that these programs have not been directed to the small systems 
most in need in their States. Two States have seen virtually no 
activity within their borders supported by these grants. To 
address these concerns, the bill makes two changes to section 
1442(g). First, nonprofit organizations receiving grants to 
provide technical assistance must consult with each State in 
which any assistance activity is to be conducted. And second, 
the Administrator is to assure that the distribution of funds 
under section 1442(g) (as it is directed through these 
organizations) achieves an equal allocation among the States.

           section 15. capacity development; finance centers

Summary
      Within 4 years of enactment, each State is to develop and 
implement a capacity development strategy to assist public 
water systems that do not have technical, managerial and 
financial capacity to comply with the requirements of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. The drinking water primacy agency in the 
State is to report to the Governor 2 years after the strategy 
is adopted and every 3 years thereafter on progress toward 
improving the capacity of public water systems in the State.
      Each State is to obtain the legal authority or other 
means to prevent the startup of new public water systems that 
do not have the capacity to comply with the requirements of the 
Safe Drinking Water Act. States that have not adopted this 
authority lose 5 percent of their SRF grant in 1999, 10 percent 
in 2000 and 15 percent each year thereafter.
      Within 1 year after the date of enactment, each State is 
to prepare a list of public water systems that are in 
significant noncompliance with the requirements of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. The State is to report on its efforts to 
bring such systems into compliance, through capacity 
development or enforcement actions, 5 years after enactment.
      Grants to the existing network of Environmental Finance 
Centers are authorized at $2.5 million per year through the 
year 2003. The Centers are directed to establish a capacity 
development clearinghouse for public water systems.
Discussion
      Some small systems, most often those owned and operated 
by groups of homeowners or other nongovernmental entities, do 
not have the technical, financial or managerial capacity to 
comply with the requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. 
Many of these systems were built before any health standards or 
monitoring requirements were imposed. They have little 
experience with financing capital projects and have often 
relied on the financial assets of the system owner to get bank 
loans. They may have deteriorating distribution systems that 
impose large capital needs, along with the costs for treatment 
recently imposed by the Safe Drinking Water Act.
      Although some of these systems are located in isolated 
rural areas, more than one-half are located in standard 
metropolitan statistical areas and are within one-half mile of 
a neighboring water system.
      Several States have developed new initiatives to address 
the problems of these systems. The leaders in the field are 
Maryland, Washington, Connecticut, Pennsylvania and West 
Virginia. There are many options available to address the 
problems of these systems, including operator training, 
financial planning and changes in the source of water supply, 
management and ownership of the system. The essential elements 
of a successful capacity development program appear to be: 
authority to prevent the creation of new, nonviable systems; 
resources to provide on-site technical assistance and training 
for system operators; and resources to encourage restructuring 
ranging from cooperative agreements where systems share 
management and engineering services to changes in ownership 
that merge small systems with neighboring systems that have a 
large customer base and access to capital financing.
      In its report, Technical and Economic Capacity of States 
and Public Water Systems to Implement Drinking Water 
Regulations, EPA described the authorities that have been 
adopted by several States to ensure that new systems have 
capacity:

            ``A number of States are developing or implementing 
        programs to ensure the viability of new small water 
        systems. In general these States are requiring that 
        their proposed systems will be viable over the long-run 
        before allowing the system to be built and operated. 
        For example, the States of Connecticut, Maryland and 
        Washington use a permitting process to ensure that new 
        small systems comply with minimum design, operating, 
        and construction standards. These States also require 
        financial, operational, and management evaluations 
        before the installation of a proposed new system. An 
        additional approach to new system screening is to 
        require financially-backed assurances or guarantees of 
        viability.''

      The bill includes four provisions to encourage other 
States to address the capacity problem and to assist systems 
that need capacity improvements.
      First, each State is to adopt legal authority or other 
means to ensure that new systems have the technical, financial 
and managerial capacity to comply with the Act before they 
commence operation. This authority is to be in place before 
October 1, 1998. At a minimum it must be applicable to new 
community water systems and new nontransient noncommunity water 
systems. EPA is to provide guidance on the various means that 
would fulfill this requirement. The guidance is to be developed 
in consultation with the States.
      Second, each State is to maintain a list of the systems 
that are in significant noncompliance with the requirements of 
the Act. At the beginning of 1994, more than 500,000 people 
were served by community water systems that were in significant 
noncompliance with the Act. The purpose of section 1418(b) is 
to give high priority to resolving the problems of systems on 
this list. The term 'significant noncompliance' has been 
defined by EPA and the definition is to be used for this 
purpose unless modified by guidance that is developed in 
consultation with the States. The States are to identify the 
reasons that each system on the list is in significant 
noncompliance. States are to use the capacity development 
strategies implemented under section 1418(c) to address the 
needs of the systems on this list that are in noncompliance 
because they lack the technical, managerial and financial 
capacity to comply. States are to report to the Administrator 5 
years after enactment on the success of enforcement and 
capacity development assistance in bringing the systems on the 
list into compliance.
      Third, each State is 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. The strategy is to include criteria to 
identify systems that need assistance, methods to improve 
capacity and the means to measure progress in developing 
capacity. The State agency with primary enforcement 
responsibility is to report to the Governor and the public on 
the effectiveness of the strategy 2 years after it has been 
adopted and every 3 years thereafter.
      EPA is directed to provide several types of assistance to 
those States implementing capacity development strategies. 
First, EPA is to disseminate information on the capacity 
development strategies that are already being implemented by a 
few States. Second, EPA is to initiate a partnership with the 
States to recommend model operator training and certification 
requirements. Third, EPA is to publish guidance developed in 
consultation with the States on the legal authorities and other 
means that States can use to ensure that new community water 
systems and nontransient noncommunity water systems have the 
capacity to comply with the Act before commencing operations. 
Fourth, EPA will estimate the impact of each national primary 
drinking water regulation on capacity at the time that it is 
promulgated.
      EPA is also to use the knowledge gained through the 
capacity development strategies of the States to modify 
regulations for variances and exemptions to make them more 
workable for small systems.
      Fourth, the bill authorizes the Administrator to support 
capacity development studies, training and technical assistance 
delivered by the existing network of Environmental Finance 
Centers. A national clearinghouse on capacity development is to 
be located at one of the centers. In addition, the centers are 
to develop techniques that aid in identifying systems that are 
not likely to have the capacity to comply, ensure that new 
systems do have sufficient capacity and bring existing systems 
with a history of significant noncompliance into compliance. 
The bill authorizes $2.3 million per year through the year 2003 
for this purpose.

           section 16. operator and laboratory certification

Summary
      Each community water system or nontransient noncommunity 
water system receiving assistance from a State Revolving Loan 
Fund is to be operated by a trained and certified operator. If 
a system that has received assistance is operated by a person 
who is not certified, the Administrator is to withhold funds 
from the SRF capitalization grant of the State in which that 
system is located in an amount equal to the assistance that was 
provided to the system. Systems applying for assistance are to 
make a commitment to train and certify operators before new 
treatment equipment supported by SRF loans or grants goes into 
operation.
      The Administrator is to initiate a partnership with the 
States to develop recommendations regarding operator 
certification and to publish information for the States to use 
in designing training programs. However, the determination as 
to the level of training necessary to receive certification is 
to remain with the States.
      The Administrator's guidance may also cover certification 
for laboratories that perform testing to meet the monitoring 
requirements of national primary drinking water regulations.
Discussion
      Most States have a drinking water system operator 
training and certification program, but a few States have no 
certification requirements at all. Experience prerequisites, 
testing, certification renewal and continuing education may or 
may not be required in a State program and the size of the 
systems covered by certification requirements varies.
      In a 1991 report ``A Study of State Operator 
Certification Programs'', EPA found that 11 States require all 
public water system operators be certified, and 5 States 
require all public water systems that use treatment to employ 
certified operators. Nine States require all community water 
systems to have certified operators and 2 States require all 
community water systems that use treatment to have certified 
operators. However, there are 15 States with operator 
certification programs that explicitly exclude systems serving 
fewer than 500 people. These exemptions are significant because 
62 percent of all community water systems nationwide serve 500 
people or fewer.
      The lack of adequate operator certification and training 
requirements, especially for small systems, can create 
compliance problems. Complex technologies require proper 
installation and maintenance and technical expertise to perform 
as intended.
      In addition, monitoring and sampling done by a trained 
drinking water system operator are more likely to produce 
accurate results. Sampling is best done by a person trained to 
take samples and interpret the results. Untrained operators are 
more likely to make errors which can produce invalid and costly 
``false'' positive.
      The bill recognizes the importance of operator 
certification and training in several ways. Loans and grants 
provided from the new State Revolving Funds may include the 
costs of training operators for the treatment plants that will 
be built with the loan or grant. The new variance program for 
small systems established under section 1415(e) of the Act 
includes training considerations for operators of the treatment 
technologies that are employed under the conditions of the 
variance. The bill also adds a new program for capacity 
development that includes training and technical assistance 
across the range of duties assumed by the operator of a 
drinking water system.
      Section 16 of the bill requires that the operators of 
systems that receive assistance under the new SRF grant program 
be trained and certified. If a system is applying for a loan or 
grant and does not now have an operator who is trained and 
certified, the system must make an enforceable commitment to 
meet this condition prior to the operation of any treatment or 
other equipment that is obtained as the result of the 
assistance. This provision does not require each system to have 
its own operator. Once a system has received assistance, the 
requirement for a trained and certified operator applies in 
perpetuity.
      If EPA determines that a system that has received 
assistance under an SRF program is being operated by a person 
who is not trained and certified, a sanction is applied to the 
State's revolving loan fund. In that case, the Administrator 
may either withhold an amount from a future grant to the fund 
or ask that the amount be repaid to the Federal Government from 
monies in the fund. The amount withheld or repaid is to be the 
amount of assistance that the system received from the State's 
SRF.
      EPA is to initiate a partnership with the States to 
develop information and recommendations that will be useful in 
operator training and certification programs. But the guidance 
may not establish mandatory conditions for certification. The 
level of training that is requisite for certification in any 
State that has primary enforcement responsibility under section 
1413 is to be determined by that State. The Administrator may 
also allow States that do not have primacy (Wyoming) to carry 
out training and certification programs. Training and 
certification programs in nonprimacy States are to be 
consistent with the guidance issued by EPA.
      The bill also addresses certification of the laboratories 
that test drinking water samples for compliance purposes. The 
guidance that EPA develops for operator certification may also 
include guidance to the States for certifying these facilities.

        section 17. source water quality protection partnerships

Summary
      Over the past 20 years, the Safe Drinking Water Act has 
focused principally on monitoring and treatment of drinking 
water to protect public health. Although the 1986 Amendments 
added pollution prevention provisions for sole source aquifers 
and the areas around the wellfields of public systems, 
protecting the quality of source water to avoid the expense of 
treating contaminated water has not been a major part of the 
national program. However, building on the lessons from the 
wellhead protection efforts made under the 1986 Amendments, S. 
1316 authorizes a new source water quality protection 
partnership program to encourage the development of locally-
driven, voluntary, incentive-based efforts by public water 
systems, local governments and private parties to respond to 
contamination problems that would otherwise require treatment.
      The bill provides for the delineation of source water 
protection areas for each community water system and, for 
priority source water areas, vulnerability assessments. The 
delineations and assessments are to be completed within 60 
months, but may be conducted on a priority-based schedule to 
the extent that Federal funds are insufficient to pay for the 
delineations and assessments. States may use up to 10 percent 
of their SRF capitalization grants for 1996 and 1997 to pay for 
the delineation and assessment work.
      States may establish source water quality protection 
partnership petition programs. The purpose of a State petition 
program is to identify voluntary, incentive-based source 
protection measures to prevent contamination of drinking water 
and to redirect Federal and State financial and technical 
assistance to support those measures.
      Public water systems and local governments (in 
partnership with other persons who may be affected by these 
measures) may submit a petition to a State with a program 
seeking assistance to carry out the recommendations of the 
partnership.
      Petitions may only address contaminants that are subject 
to promulgated or proposed regulations and that are detected at 
levels that are not reliably and consistently below the maximum 
contaminant level.
      States may use up to 10 percent of their annual SRF 
grants to provide loans to carry out projects that are 
recommended by partnerships with petitions approved under a 
State program.
Discussion
      The Safe Drinking Water Act traditionally has governed 
the quality of drinking water through standard setting, 
monitoring, treatment, and enforcement. Other than programs to 
control underground injection, and to protect wellhead areas 
and sole source aquifers, source water protection has been the 
domain of the Clean Water Act. Thus, the only options typically 
available to community water systems finding contaminants in 
their water supply have been treatment or the development of 
new water supplies. Efforts by community water systems to 
access Clean Water Act programs and other water quality 
protection measures indirectly, through agencies outside the 
drinking water regulatory arena, have been difficult.
      To remedy this problem, the bill adds a new section to 
the Safe Drinking Water Act that provides a means other than 
treatment for community water systems to address problems or 
emerging problems of contamination. The bill does not require 
States to adopt a new regulatory framework. Rather, the new 
section 1419 provides for the delineation and assessment of 
source water areas and for the establishment of state Source 
Water Quality Protection Partnership Petition Programs. The 
petition process is designed to facilitate the development of 
voluntary, locally-driven, incentive-based partnerships for the 
protection of source water.
      Recognizing the success that has been achieved locally 
through watershed initiatives that involve all appropriate 
stakeholders in defining both problems and solutions, section 
1419 seeks to engage local governments, community water 
systems, and upstream stakeholders in partnerships to respond 
to contamination issues facing community water systems. Through 
the petition process, partnerships will be able to leverage 
information and technical and financial assistance available 
through the Clean Water Act and other State and Federal water 
quality programs.
      The petition program is a common-sense approach, crafted 
to avoid Federal and State intrusion into the relationships 
between local communities and their upstream neighbors and to 
allow source water quality concerns to be addressed in a 
cooperative, non-adversarial process. The new program is 
intended to add momentum to a growing number of success stories 
where local communities, farmers and other upstream entities 
have worked together through watershed planning to address 
source water concerns.
      A new section 1419 requires States to delineate (either 
directly or through delegation) all source water areas for the 
community water systems within the State within 5 years. For 
those source water areas considered to be a priority by the 
State, vulnerability assessments are also required to be 
completed.
      Delineation and assessment can be an expensive and 
burdensome requirement on the States. The bill addresses the 
potential burden in several ways. First, a State may set aside 
up to 10 percent of its SRF capitalization grant in 1996 and 
1997 to carry out delineations and vulnerability assessments. 
This amount remains available for a period of 5 years. If this 
amount of funding is not sufficient to pay for all delineations 
and assessments, States are only required to delineate and 
assess priority source water areas that can be addressed with 
available funds.
      Second, the bill gives each State the authority to decide 
how delineations are to be carried out and to define the degree 
of hydrogeological data needed for a delineation. This allows 
States to tailor delineation requirements to reflect the 
resources of the community water system and the nature and 
extent of the activities taking place within the source water 
areas.
      Third, delineations that have already been completed 
under other State or Federal programs, such as State wellhead 
protection programs, may be used to satisfy the delineation 
requirements of this section.
      In conducting vulnerability assessments to assess the 
risks to drinking water in priority source water areas, a State 
should focus on contaminants of greatest public health concern. 
To provide for greater consistency in the conduct of 
assessments, States are strongly encouraged to use existing 
assessment data gathered under other State and Federal programs 
and guidance developed by EPA under other Federal laws.
      The bill authorizes States to develop and implement 
petition programs through which community water systems or 
local governments may complement drinking water treatment by 
seeking assistance to support the work of local voluntary, 
incentive-based partnerships to reduce the presence of 
contaminants in the community's drinking water supplies through 
coordinated source water protection activities. The partnership 
petition program is intended as a means to direct or redirect 
financial and technical assistance available through other 
State and Federal programs to support implementation of local 
partnership recommendations. The contaminants that may be 
addressed by a petition are regulated microbial contaminants, 
including those that will be regulated under the Enhanced 
Surface Water Treatment Rule, and contaminants that occur in a 
community water system at levels that exceed a maximum 
contaminant level (or a proposed maximum contaminant level) or 
that are not reliably and consistently below the MCL (or a 
proposed MCL), based on reliable monitoring data.
      A petition program targets Federal and State assistance 
through local partnerships to address those contaminants 
occurring at levels that would otherwise require a community 
drinking water system to install treatment facilities, now or 
in the future, to comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act. In 
responding to a petition, a State has the authority to balance 
the risks being addressed by that petition against other 
competing State water quality concerns.
      The objective of source water protection is to reduce the 
presence of contaminants in drinking water by working with 
upstream entities whose activities may affect contaminant 
levels in raw water supplies. A response to a petition may or 
may not affect land uses in the source water area through 
voluntary application of best management practices, but does 
not require source reduction that mandates reductions or 
prohibitions on the use of inputs that could lead to 
contamination of the drinking water supplies.
      Each State is to determine whether to establish a 
petition program within 1 year of enactment and publicly 
announce the determination, providing an opportunity for public 
notice and comment, and at least one hearing if requested by 
any community water system. Up to 10 percent of the SRF grant 
for any year is available to make loans to develop and 
implement the recommendations of source water protection 
partnerships.
      In setting forth the possible elements of a petition, the 
bill assures that partnerships are a locally-developed, 
cooperative framework for source water protection. To the 
maximum extent practicable, all appropriate stakeholders should 
be invited and encouraged to participate in the partnership. 
Furthermore, the partnership should be used to educate upstream 
stakeholders to the contamination concerns and financial 
constraints faced by the downstream community water system, and 
the community water system should be apprised of those 
voluntary and non-voluntary actions that upstream stakeholders 
are already taking to reduce the likelihood that contaminants 
will enter the drinking water supply of the community water 
system.
      For a partnership to be successful, the drinking water 
supplier and entities located in source water areas, such as 
farmers, who actually implement partnership recommendations, 
must be involved. The terms `other persons,' `each person,' and 
`persons' used in referring to the source water entity 
component of voluntary partnerships mean farmers and other 
source water entities whose participation is essential to the 
success of a partnership, including those who can offer 
technical or financial assistance or who actually implement 
partnership recommendations. The requirement to outline how 
voluntary and other efforts already undertaken by source water 
entities are taken into account is a method to credit efforts 
already underway to ensure that limited resources are targeted 
where additional progress can have the most significant effect 
on drinking water quality.
      A State with a program is to respond to a petition within 
120 days of submission, and may approve a petition if it meets 
the requirements of the State program. The notice of approval 
is to include (1) identification of technical, financial or 
other assistance the State will provide to assist in 
implementing the recommendations of the partnership, based on 
the relative priority of the problem raised in the petition in 
relation to other water quality needs in the State, (2) a 
description of Federal or State technical or financial 
assistance available in other programs, and (3) a description 
of activities the State will undertake to coordinate Federal 
and State assistance. If a State disapproves a petition, the 
partnership may be resubmit an amended petition if there is new 
information, conditions change, or the assistance requested is 
modified.
      Section 1419 also authorizes EPA to make grants to States 
to cover up to 50 percent of the costs of administering a State 
Source Water Quality Protection Partnership Petition Program. 
The grants are available to those States whose petition 
programs are consistent with guidance issued by EPA. In using 
its authority to approve State grants, however, EPA cannot in 
any way, directly or indirectly, require a State to impose 
enforceable mechanisms to achieve source water protection in 
connection with a petition program or apart from that program.
      EPA guidance is intended to provide information that may 
be helpful to States in the development of a partnership 
program under this section and to local drinking water entities 
in the development of partnerships and the assessment of source 
water quality. At a minimum, the guidance shall include 
recommended approval or disapproval criteria; submission 
procedures; assessment criteria; a description of available 
Federal or State technical or financial assistance; and the 
steps EPA will undertake to coordinate technical and financial 
assistance with the goals and objectives of this section.
      A State may respond to petitions where appropriate by 
facilitating locally developed, voluntary partnerships through 
technical assistance and financial incentives available under 
existing water quality, agriculture and other programs, and by 
the use of up to 10 percent of a State's annual SRF 
capitalization grant to make loans to implement partnership 
recommendations.
      Source water quality protection partnerships are 
voluntary. They are based on the premise that land owners will 
be responsive when approached by their neighbors with a defined 
drinking water problem that could be addressed through source 
water protection efforts and invited to participate in a 
voluntary, incentive-based partnership.
      This section does not preempt State or local law or 
prevent States or local governments from undertaking their own 
source water protection programs pursuant to State or local 
law. Moreover, if a State receives information through an 
assessment or deliberation, the State may use that information 
in the implementation of as source water protection program 
under State or local law. In addition to being voluntary for 
States and localities, nothing in this section requires any 
source water entity or entities to participate in a partnership 
established pursuant to this section, or to participate in any 
programs or assistance provided by a State in response to a 
petition. The voluntary premise of this section is further 
reinforced by limiting both assistance requested by a 
partnership and a State response to a petition to technical, 
financial or other forms of non-regulatory assistance. This 
section neither creates any new regulatory authorities nor 
prohibits regulation established pursuant to other authorities.
      The voluntary foundation of the petition program makes it 
imperative that regulatory mandates not be employed in response 
to a petition. To do so would be in direct contradiction of the 
program's voluntary basis. Enforceable regulations, if applied, 
should be undertaken through other administrative structures 
normally utilized for those purposes. Nothing in this section 
precludes community water systems or local governments from 
independently pursuing voluntary, incentive-based partnerships 
under other authority.

                section 18. state primacy; state funding

Summary
      Under the Safe Drinking Water Act, EPA establishes 
drinking water quality standards that apply to all public water 
systems. Assuring compliance with these standards is a task 
achieved almost entirely by the States. Each State that adopts 
a regulation that is no less stringent than the Federal 
standard is granted primary enforcement responsibility for that 
regulation. 55 of the 57 States and territories have primacy 
for most regulations that have been issued under the Act.
      Under current law, the deadline for a State to submit its 
regulations to retain primacy for a new or revised drinking 
water standard is 18 months after EPA has promulgated the 
national rule. Section 18 of the bill extends that deadline to 
24 months. In addition, the bill provides States with 
``interim'' primary enforcement authority during the period 
after the State regulation is submitted and until such time as 
it is approved or disapproved by the Administrator. The State 
regulation is effective during this interim period.
      EPA makes an annual grant to each State to support its 
activities to carry out the Act. The bill reauthorizes these 
grants for Public Water System Supervision (PWSS) programs at 
$100 million per year through the year 2003. In addition, 
States are authorized (under the new SRF program added by 
section 3 of the bill) to set aside funds from their annual 
capitalization grants in amounts up to the amount of their PWSS 
grant to use for administration of the program.
Discussion
      Strong and effective State drinking water programs are 
the key to successful implementation of the Safe Drinking Water 
Act. Currently, 55 of the 57 States and territories (all except 
Wyoming and the District of Columbia) have primary enforcement 
responsibility (called primacy) for the Public Water System 
Supervision program. However, many States are struggling to 
provide adequate funding and personnel to administer PWSS, 
given the increased workload imposed by the 1986 Amendments and 
tight State budgets.
      Federal and State resources devoted to drinking water 
have increased in the past few years. In FY 1988, State 
resources totaled $63 million and Federal grants $33 million. 
By FY 1993, the resources had increased to $82 million in State 
funds and $60 million in Federal PWSS grants, for a total of 
$142 million. The Federal appropriation for FY 1995 was $70 
million
      However, the need for resources has increased at an even 
faster pace. Between 1988 and 1993, program needs at the State 
level increased by 140 percent, far more than the 76 percent 
increase in funding. In 1993, EPA and the States prepared a 
careful analysis of this funding shortfall. The results of this 
study are set forth by EPA in its report entitled Technical and 
Economic Capacity of States and Public Water Systems to 
Implement Drinking Water Regulations: Report to Congress, 
(September, 1993). That analysis indicated that a total of $304 
million is needed to effectively implement drinking water 
programs in all States. Funds available from Federal and States 
sources in 1993 totaled $140 million--leaving a gap of $162 
million.
      This shortfall has limited the ability of States to 
implement the drinking water program. For example, four States 
missed the December 31, 1992 deadline for adoption of rules 
concerning surface water treatment and total coliform bacteria. 
California and Pennsylvania notified EPA that they could not 
adopt a recent rule concerning lead because of the high cost of 
the State responsibilities under that rule. And EPA has 
communicated with no fewer than 8 States on the need to 
increase resources for administration of PWSS or lose primacy 
under the Act.
      The funding shortfall also has cost implications for 
local public water systems. The dollar impacts at the local 
level may actually be much larger than the gap measured by EPA 
and the States. Many of the national primary drinking water 
regulations have included opportunities for States to reduce 
costs by tailoring requirements to the conditions actually 
experienced by their drinking water systems. But States can 
only make use of this flexibility if they have adequate staff 
and administrative support to make the case-by-case 
determinations necessary to grant the waivers and exceptions 
that are available under EPA's rules. The funding shortfall in 
State budgets is magnified at the local level in the form of 
rigid, one-size-fits-all prescriptions that could be avoided if 
more resources were available to the States.
      The reforms in science, selection of contaminants and 
standard setting made by the bill will slow the pace of new 
responsibilities. The bill also addresses the shortfall in 
State program resources in two, more direct, ways. First, the 
bill increases the authorization for PWSS grants from $40 
million per year (in current law) to $100 million per year 
through 2003. \7\ Second, the bill allows a State to use a 
portion of its annual SRF capitalization grant for the 
administration of the PWSS program. The amount that the State 
can take from the SRF for this purpose is equal to the amount 
the State receives under section 1443 as a PWSS grant.
    \7\ The appropriation for fiscal year 1995 at $70 million was 
significantly more than the most recently authorized level.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
      States are delegated primary enforcement responsibility 
(primacy) for national primary drinking water regulations 
pursuant to section 1413 of the Act. To attain primacy, the Act 
requires that a regulation adopted under State authority that 
is no less stringent than the Federal regulation be submitted 
to EPA by the State within 18 months of the date on which EPA 
promulgates the national regulation. Section 1412(b)(10) of the 
Act provides that the national regulation is applicable to 
local public water systems in the same timeframe--18 months 
after promulgation of the national rule. This schedule has 
caused a great deal of confusion; first because States are 
hard-pressed to complete their new rules in the 18-month 
period. And second, because local compliance is required before 
EPA has an opportunity to review and approve the State 
regulation.
      The bill addresses this problem with three amendments. 
Section 18 of the bill gives the States 2 years (instead of 18 
months as in current law) to adopt and submit their rules. The 
bill amends section 1412(b)(10) to give local water systems 3 
years before compliance with a new rule is required. This 
provides a full year between the issuance of a State rule and 
the deadline for local compliance that should facilitate a less 
harried implementation of new requirements. In addition, a new 
section 1413(c) is added to the Act granting States ``interim'' 
primary enforcement authority during the period after their 
rule is submitted to EPA and the time that EPA approves or 
disapproves the State rule. Under current law, it is not clear 
which rules apply after a State has adopted its own 
requirements and before EPA has officially approved the State 
rule. The confusion is removed by giving States primacy during 
this interim period.

            section 19. monitoring and information gathering

Summary
      Each national primary drinking water regulation includes 
monitoring requirements to assure continuing compliance with 
the maximum contaminant levels established by the regulation. 
These monitoring requirements may impose substantial costs on 
public water systems. Although EPA has included opportunities 
for cost reduction (through waivers based on contaminant use or 
water supply vulnerability), States have been unable to make 
full use of this flexibility due to a lack of resources in some 
State programs and caution by EPA in approving State waivers.
      The bill includes several reforms to reduce monitoring 
costs. First, the bill requires the Administrator to review and 
revise existing monitoring requirements for not fewer than 12 
contaminants within 2 years.
      Second, the bill authorizes States to develop and 
implement their own monitoring regime for most contaminants. 
The State requirements may be less stringent than Federal 
requirements but are to assure compliance and enforcement with 
the health standards. This authority takes effect after the 
first cycle of monitoring under Federal regulations. The 
authority does not apply to monitoring for contaminants that 
are pathogenic organisms. The State program must provide for 
monitoring at a frequency consistent with Federal requirements 
in systems where a contaminant has been detected, unless 
monitoring indicates that the level of the contaminant is 
reliably and consistently below the maximum contaminant level. 
The Administrator is to approve or disapprove a State 
alternative monitoring program within 180 days of submission or 
may subsequently withdraw a State's authority to establish 
monitoring requirements, if the State program does not ensure 
compliance and enforcement.
      Third, the Administrator or a State may suspend quarterly 
monitoring requirements applicable to small systems for any 
contaminant (other than a pathogenic organism, a contaminant 
that causes an acute effect, or a contaminant formed in the 
treatment process or distribution system) that is not detected 
during the first quarterly sample in a monitoring cycle and the 
Administrator or the State determines that detection is 
unlikely to occur in subsequent sampling.
      The bill also redirects the program for monitoring for 
``unregulated'' contaminants. The authorities of current law 
are replaced with listing and sampling provisions designed to 
gather information on unregulated contaminants for the 
development of future national primary drinking water 
regulations. The Administrator may list up to 20 unregulated 
contaminants for this purpose. All systems serving more than 
10,000 persons are required to monitor for the unregulated 
contaminants listed by the Administrator. Each State is to 
establish monitoring requirements for these contaminants for a 
representative sample of small systems within the State. An 
annual appropriation of $10 million is authorized to offset the 
costs of this monitoring. In addition, the Administrator may 
set aside $2 million from each annual appropriation for the 
State Revolving Fund grant program to pay for testing costs 
associated with monitoring for unregulated contaminants at 
small systems.
      The Administrator is to establish a national data base 
containing information from monitoring for regulated and 
unregulated contaminants and other reliable information on the 
presence of contaminants in drinking water.
      Authority to collect information for the purpose of 
developing regulations or to determine compliance on a case-by-
case basis is streamlined by authorizing the Administrator to 
gather information with procedures other than a formal 
rulemaking.
Discussion
      Each national primary drinking water regulation that 
establishes a maximum contaminant level (MCL) or treatment 
technique for a particular contaminant typically also includes 
monitoring requirements to determine whether that contaminant 
(or an indicator of the contaminant) is present in the water 
served by public water systems at levels exceeding the MCL. 
Existing monitoring requirements have been shaped by the 
Agency, as the statute itself provides very little guidance on 
the form that monitoring requirements are to take.
      Although national primary drinking water regulations have 
included some flexibility to grant waivers from monitoring 
requirements, based on the likely presence of the contaminant 
or the vulnerability of the source water supply, some States 
have not been able to take full advantage of this flexibility 
to reduce monitoring requirements for public water systems. In 
some States there has not been adequate personnel to collect 
and review the data necessary to determine that a waiver of 
monitoring requirements is warranted. As a result, and 
especially for very small systems, monitoring for contaminants 
is now imposing a substantial cost burden on public water 
systems.
      Section 19 of the bill includes three provisions that are 
intended to reduce the monitoring costs imposed by the Safe 
Drinking Water Act. First, the Administrator is to review 
existing monitoring requirements for at least 12 contaminants 
and make revisions to the requirements within 2 years if the 
review indicates that the frequency or methods for monitoring 
currently required are not needed to fully protect public 
health. Revisions to monitoring requirements resulting from 
this review may include additional grounds to waive monitoring 
requirements for systems of a particular type or with water 
supplied from a source of a particular type where the 
contaminant is unlikely to occur.
      Second, States that have primary enforcement 
responsibility under section 1413 are authorized to develop 
alternative monitoring requirements for specific national 
primary drinking water regulations. These State requirements 
may be less stringent (require less frequent monitoring) than 
the Federal requirements and would be implemented in lieu of 
those imposed by the national primary drinking water 
regulation.
      A less stringent monitoring regime developed by a State 
cannot take effect until one full cycle of monitoring has 
occurred under the national primary drinking water regulation 
or State regulations that have been approved pursuant to 
section 1413(a)(1) as no less stringent than the Federal rules. 
This restriction on State programs is imposed to ensure that 
systems that may be affected by a contaminant are likely to 
detect the presence of the contaminant before the alternative 
State program is put into place and to provide information that 
the States may use to establish an alternative monitoring 
regime.
      Under the provisions of the bill, a system that has 
detected a contaminant at quantifiable levels must continue to 
monitor at the same frequency as required in the Federal rules 
for a period of at least 5 years after the most recent 
detection. The requirement that systems that have detected a 
contaminant monitor no less frequently than provided under 
Federal rules may be set aside if monitoring results for the 
system indicate that the contaminant is only present at 
quantifiable levels that are reliably and consistently below 
the maximum contaminant level.
      A State monitoring program is to be adopted by a 
rulemaking that provides notice to the public and an 
opportunity for comment. The alternative monitoring 
requirements must be based on the best available science and 
supported by data collected by accepted methods. These are the 
same standards for sound science that apply to EPA's rules 
establishing Federal monitoring requirements. Modifications to 
the Federal rules are to be based on the likelihood that the 
contaminant will occur in public water systems considering the 
characteristics of the contaminant and the vulnerability of the 
systems to contamination.
      The fundamental standard that is to guide States in 
developing these alternative monitoring programs is the need to 
ensure that Federal health standards will be met and enforced. 
Monitoring requirements that undermine compliance or preclude 
enforcement would be disapproved by the Administrator under the 
provisions of the bill. As an example, if an analytical method 
allowed under a State program is not sufficiently reliable to 
form the basis for the State to take an enforcement action 
against a system for a violation of an MCL (as indicated by the 
method), the Administrator is to disapprove the State program. 
If after operating for a period of years, it is apparent that 
noncompliance rates for one or more MCLs has increased 
significantly under the monitoring program adopted by a 
particular State, the Administrator is to withdraw the 
authority for that State to establish alternative monitoring 
rules.
      Because the monitoring regime for pathogenic organisms 
under the Surface Water Treatment Rule is already carefully 
tailored to reduce burdens while assuring the safety of 
drinking water, States are not authorized to develop 
alternative monitoring requirements for any microbial 
contaminants or indicators of microbial contaminants.
      In addition, a State program cannot reduce the frequency 
of monitoring for any system that is required to treat for a 
contaminant formed in the distribution system. For example, 
this restriction addresses the lead and copper rule which 
contains an action level triggering treatment measures, 
including corrosion control and service line replacement, when 
the action level is exceeded. Any system that is required to 
adopt these or other measures because the action level for lead 
has been exceeded in the requisite number of cases must 
continue to monitor under rules that are no less stringent than 
the national primary drinking water regulation for lead and 
copper.
      Section 1413 of the Act sets forth the conditions under 
which a State may assume primary enforcement responsibility for 
national primary drinking water regulations. Generally, current 
law provides that a State must submit a regulation adopted 
under State authority that is no less stringent than the 
Federal regulation and that meets other conditions established 
by EPA. If EPA approves this regulation, the State is 
considered to have primary enforcement responsibility. Section 
1413 applies not only to the health standard in a primary 
drinking water regulation, but to the monitoring requirements, 
as well. The bill makes several modifications in the 
application of section 1413 to monitoring programs that are 
developed by States pursuant to the new authorities in section 
1445(a)(1)(D). The modifications are designed to ensure that 
States will be able to exercise the authorized flexibility in 
practice without EPA micro-management.
      First, the State monitoring regulations need not be as 
stringent or more stringent than the Federal requirements. 
States may adopt less stringent (less frequent or less 
analytically rigorous) monitoring requirements, provided that 
the State monitoring program ensures compliance with, and 
enforcement of, national primary drinking water regulations.
      Second, the information requirements imposed on States to 
support the submission of an alternative monitoring program for 
review under section 1413 are not to be more extensive than 
necessary to facilitate the Administrator's decision to approve 
or disapprove the proposed State program. Since the 
Administrator is to approve a proposed program, unless it does 
not ensure compliance with, and enforcement of, a national 
primary drinking water regulation, the information required to 
support a State proposal should be relevant to compliance and 
enforcement issues. EPA is to develop the information 
requirements in consultation with the States taking care not to 
frustrate the intent of this provision by requiring unnecessary 
data that States are in no position to supply.
      Third, under current law State regulations submitted 
under section 1413 are to be approved or disapproved by the 
Administrator within 90 days. The bill extends this period to 
180 days for monitoring programs developed by States under 
section 1445(a)(1)(D) and provides that a State program shall 
be deemed approved if the Administrator has not taken action to 
approve or disapprove a State proposal within that period of 
time.
      Fourth, consistent with the ``interim'' primacy authority 
added to the Act by section 18(a)(2) of the bill, a State 
program may become effective any time after it has been 
submitted to the Administrator and on a date selected by the 
State. However, as noted above, an alternative monitoring 
program cannot be put into place until one full cycle of 
monitoring under the national primary drinking water regulation 
(or an equally stringent State regulation) has been completed.
      Fifth, States are not to lose primacy (primary 
responsibility for enforcement of the Act) if a monitoring 
program submitted under section 1445(a)(1)(D) is subsequently 
withdrawn by the Administrator. If EPA determines that a State 
program is not adequate to ensure compliance with, and 
enforcement of, national primary drinking water regulations, 
EPA can withdraw the authority of the State to operate the 
program. This will not automatically lead to a loss of primacy, 
provided that the State is able to impose monitoring 
requirements that otherwise meet the requirements of section 
1413 of the Act. Because one full cycle of monitoring will have 
been conducted under rules that meet the requirements of 
section 1413 before a State can institute an alternative 
program, the State will likely have authority to maintain 
primacy.
      EPA is to review monitoring programs developed by the 
States under this authority not less often than every 5 years. 
The Administrator may withdraw a State's authority to establish 
monitoring requirements under section 1445(a)(1)(D). If the 
Administrator determines that withdrawal is justified, the 
Administrator is to notify the State and provide the State with 
an opportunity to correct any deficiencies in the program.
      The authority to develop alternative monitoring programs 
is also available in the States that did not have primary 
enforcement authority on the date of enactment (Wyoming and the 
District of Columbia). The Governor (or equivalent executive 
officer) may request the Administrator to modify the monitoring 
requirements in these jurisdictions to the same extent that 
modifications are authorized in States with primacy.
      The Administrator is to issue guidance to assist the 
States in developing alternative monitoring programs. This 
guidance is also to address the waivers that may be available 
to small systems pursuant to section 1445(a)(1)(E), as 
described below.
      The third provision in the bill intended to reduce the 
cost of monitoring is section 19(a)(3) which reduces monitoring 
requirements for small systems (those serving a population of 
10,000 or less) by eliminating multiple tests for some 
contaminants where an initial sample during a cycle of tests 
does not detect the presence of the contaminant and the 
Administrator or the State determines that the contaminant is 
not likely to be detected in future samples. Many of the 
contaminants addressed in national primary drinking water 
regulations are listed because of their chronic effects (they 
cause cancer or other adverse effects as the result of long 
periods of exposure). The maximum contaminant levels for these 
substances are based on preventing health effects that may only 
develop after decades or an entire lifetime of exposure. 
Because the concern is not for an ``acute'' effect (an effect 
typically associated with a single or small number of exposures 
that causes illness or disease in the near-term), preventing 
disease does not always require frequent monitoring.
      The Agency's monitoring requirements for contaminants 
with ``chronic'' effects generally require small systems to 
monitor for the substance in 1 year out of each three. During 
the year of monitoring, the system is required to test one 
sample each quarter. For small systems, especially systems 
drawing from ground water sources, it is unlikely that a 
contaminant not detected at all in the first test will 
subsequently be found in a later sample.
      Recognizing the high cost for some of the tests, the low 
probability of finding the contaminant in the second, third or 
fourth test and the ``chronic'' nature of the health threat 
posed by these specific contaminants, Congress enacted 
amendments to the Fiscal Year 1993 appropriation bill for the 
Environmental Protection Agency (P.L. 102-389) that allowed 
States to waive subsequent quarterly monitoring for a group of 
contaminants for small systems (serving a population under 
3,300) for any one of these contaminants that was not detected 
in the first test. Several States took advantage of these 
amendments and reported considerable savings for small systems 
in monitoring costs.
      The bill extends a similar waiver of monitoring 
requirements to systems serving populations up to 10,000. The 
waiver provides that additional monitoring for some 
contaminants may not be required (as determined by the 
Administrator or the State), if the initial test in a cycle 
fails to detect the contaminant and the Administrator or the 
State determines that the contaminant is not likely to be 
detected in future samples. If a test does detect the 
contaminant the waiver does not apply, even if a subsequent 
test during the same cycle indicates no detectable level. The 
waiver is not available for microbial contaminants (or 
indicators for microbial contaminants), for contaminants 
associated with acute effects, or for contaminants formed in 
the treatment process (e.g., disinfection byproducts) or the 
distribution system (e.g., lead and copper).
      In addition to monitoring requirements for contaminants 
for which maximum contaminant levels have been established, 
current law (section 1445(a)(2)-(8)) also includes requirements 
for monitoring with respect to ``unregulated'' contaminants.
      Under provisions of current law, EPA is to promulgate a 
list of ``unregulated'' contaminants, establish monitoring 
requirements with a frequency of at least once every 5 years 
and require that the consumers on a system be informed if a 
contaminant on the list is detected in the water supplied by 
that system. Systems serving less than 150 service connections 
are not required to pay for tests; funds are authorized for the 
Agency to provide monitoring for these systems. These 
provisions of current law have not been implemented as 
intended.
      Section 19(b) of the bill alters the monitoring program 
for unregulated contaminants. The Administrator is to publish a 
list of up to 20 contaminants within 3 years and update the 
list every 5 years thereafter. Systems serving a population of 
more than 10,000 are to monitor for the contaminants on the 
list and report the results of the monitoring for inclusion in 
the national occurrence data base discussed below.
      Each State is to establish monitoring requirements for a 
representative sample of systems serving a population under 
10,000 in the State. The bill authorizes $10 million per year 
to assist the States and individual systems in conducting the 
monitoring for unregulated contaminants required by these 
provisions. In addition, the bill reserves $2 million from each 
annual appropriation for the SRF grant program to be used by 
the Administrator to pay for the testing and laboratory costs 
associated with monitoring for unregulated contaminants by 
small systems.
      The Administrator is to revise the list every 5 years 
removing the contaminants for which sufficient information has 
been collected to satisfy future regulatory needs. If a State 
demonstrates that a particular contaminant on the list 
established by the Administrator will not be found in that 
State, the Administrator may waive the monitoring requirements 
for that contaminant in that State.
      The Administrator is required to establish a new data 
base to better manage available information on the occurrence 
of contaminants in drinking water supplied by public water 
systems. One important use of the data base is to identify 
contaminants that may warrant regulation in the future--those 
that occur with a frequency and at a level that may be of 
public health concern. If information on the health effects of 
a contaminant indicates that it may pose a threat to the health 
of persons, information from the data base would be used to 
shape a national primary drinking water regulation for the 
contaminant.
      The data base is to be assembled within 3 years. It is to 
include information on the occurrence of all the contaminants 
addressed by national primary drinking water regulations. The 
current information system maintained by the Agency only 
includes data on violations of maximum contaminant levels for 
the regulated contaminants. This new occurrence data base is to 
include additional information derived from the monitoring that 
is required by national primary drinking water regulations and 
for listed unregulated contaminants. Whenever a system detects 
the presence of a regulated or unregulated contaminant at a 
quantifiable level, the system is to report that information 
(to the State or to the Administrator) for the purpose of 
including the information in the data base.
      The data base is also to include information on 
contaminants not currently regulated under the Act. Under other 
provisions of the bill (see above), the Administrator is to 
establish a monitoring program for unregulated contaminants 
that may cover up to 20 substances. Information from this 
monitoring program will be included in the data base. The 
Administrator may also include in the data base reliable 
information from other sources (including surveys conducted by 
the Agency, other Federal departments or agencies or the 
States) on the occurrence of contaminants in drinking water 
supplied by public water systems.
      Information in the data base is to be readily available 
to the public including access by electronic means. Any person 
may recommend that a particular contaminant be listed in the 
data base. The Administrator is to periodically solicit listing 
recommendations from the National Academy of Sciences and the 
States. All recommendations for listing are to be accompanied 
by reasonable documentation establishing that the contaminant 
may occur in drinking water and that it may pose a threat to 
human health as the result of its occurrence.
      Section 1445 of the Safe Drinking Water Act provides the 
basic authority for EPA to require regulated entities to 
maintain records and other information, conduct monitoring and 
make reports ``as the Administrator may reasonably require by 
regulation.'' Section 1445 also authorizes the Administrator to 
conduct inspections in order to determine whether a regulated 
entity is complying with the Safe Drinking Water Act.
      Some statutory requirements of section 1445 unnecessarily 
complicate information gathering efforts; as a result, the 
requirements undermine the Administrator's ability to ensure 
compliance and protect public health. Accordingly, section 
19(d) of the bill amends section 1445 to streamline these 
authorities.
      The principal modification relates to the Administrator's 
establishment of recordkeeping, information gathering, and 
monitoring requirements. Currently, such requirements may be 
established only by regulation, subject to the full notice and 
comment procedures of the Administrative Procedures Act. While 
these procedures are appropriate in the case of generally 
applicable requirements, they are inappropriate and cumbersome 
in the case of information gathering at a particular facility 
or at a small group of facilities.
      The bill revises section 1445(a)(1) by deleting the 
requirement that all information gathering be done by 
regulation, allowing the Administrator to use other means to 
gather general data and other data to assist the Administrator 
``in determining, on a case-by-case basis, whether the person 
has acted or is acting in compliance'' with the Safe Drinking 
Water Act.
      The bill retains the condition that recordkeeping, 
information gathering, and monitoring requirements be 
promulgated by regulation when imposed to assist the 
Administrator ``in determining compliance with national primary 
drinking water regulations,'' such as issuing generally 
applicable monitoring requirements, and when imposed to assist 
the Administrator ``in administering any program of financial 
assistance'' under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
      Monitoring required of public water systems is to be by 
accepted methods, unless the monitoring is being carried out 
for the purpose of testing new or alternative methods.

                    section 20. public notification

Summary
      This section of the bill amends section 1414(c) of the 
Act to ensure that consumers served by a public water system 
receive timely and understandable information when the system 
violates a requirement of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The bill 
also requires each State and EPA to publish annual reports 
informing the general public about the degree of noncompliance 
with the Act.
Discussion
      Current law requires each public water system to notify 
consumers when violations of the Act occur. Under section 
1414(c), a public water system is to notify people served by 
the system of any violation of a maximum contaminant level, a 
treatment technique requirement, a testing procedure 
requirement, a monitoring requirement, or the schedule of a 
variance or an exemption. If a violation poses a serious threat 
to health, the notice must be provided within 14 days of the 
violation; for other violations, notice must be provided within 
a year. Current law also permits the Administrator to require a 
public water system to provide notification about the 
concentration levels of an unregulated contaminant that the 
system has detected pursuant to monitoring under section 
1445(a)(2)-(8).
      Public notification is a powerful force for prevention. 
Unfortunately, the current provisions of the Act are not 
working effectively. The General Accounting Office reported 
(``Consumers Often Not Well-informed of Potentially Serious 
Violations,'' June, 1992) the following conclusions with 
respect to public notification under current law and 
regulations:

            ``On the basis of its review of 28 water systems in 
        6 States, GAO found that a variety of factors 
        contributed to high rates of noncompliance with the 
        public notification requirement. Together, the water 
        systems issued timely notice of only 17 of 157 
        violations. Of the other 140 violations in which timely 
        notice was not given, 103 violations involved serious 
        long-term health risks. Part of the problem can be 
        explained by limited enforcement by States against 
        noncomplying water systems and by limited oversight by 
        EPA. A major cause of noncompliance, however, involves 
        the public notification requirements themselves, which 
        have been difficult to understand and implement for 
        many operators--particularly those operating small 
        systems.

            ``Even if total compliance could be achieved, other 
        problems make the notification process less effective 
        than it should be at informing the public of problems 
        with their drinking water. For example, the notices 
        often do not clearly convey appropriate information to 
        the public concerning the health risks associated with 
        a violation and the preventive actions to be taken. GAO 
        also concluded that the public notification process 
        would be more effective in informing the public--and 
        easier to implement by water systems--if it focused 
        more on serious violations. ``Among GAO's 
        recommendations to improve the public notification 
        process are that the Administrator, EPA, (1) revise the 
        agency's public notification language so that it 
        highlights the risks posed by violations and uses less 
        technical language and (2) focus notifications more on 
        serious violations by allowing water systems to 
        consolidate notices for [less serious] violations and 
        education matters into a semiannual or annual report.''

      Improving the effectiveness of public notification under 
the Safe Drinking Water Act should be a high priority for EPA 
and the States. The bill makes several substantive changes to 
section 1414(c), along the lines recommended by GAO, to ensure 
that violations with the potential for serious adverse health 
effects as a result of short-term exposure are communicated 
quickly and that all of the information provided to consumers 
is in a form that is understandable and useful.
      New subsection (c)(1) retains the existing requirement 
that a public water system notify consumers of various types of 
violations. It also retains the provision permitting the 
Administrator to require a system to provide notification about 
the concentration levels of unregulated contaminants. Public 
water systems must also notify consumers when they are 
operating under a variance or an exemption.
      New subsection (c)(2) requires the Administrator to 
promulgate regulations, after consulting with the States, 
prescribing the manner, form, and content of giving notice. The 
regulations are to make distinctions between violations that 
are serious and frequent or continuing and those that do not 
present a significant risk to public health.
      To assure that States have sufficient flexibility to 
adjust the requirements to fit local circumstances, the bill 
provides that a State may establish alternative notification 
requirements. In the case of violations that present a serious 
risk to health, State regulations may address the manner 
(broadcast, newspaper, posting, and door-to-door) to be used 
for the notice and the form and content of the notice. In the 
case of other violations (for which notice is required within 1 
year), the State regulations may only address the form and 
content of the notice. Nothing in the section authorizes a 
State to waive the requirement that each water system provide a 
direct written communication to each household served by the 
system within 1 year of any violation covered by section 
1414(c)(2)(D).
      Alternative public notice requirements established by a 
State are to provide for the same type and amount of 
information as prescribed in the Act and implementing 
regulations. Alternative requirements are to be reviewed by the 
Administrator in the context of primacy determinations made 
under section 1413.
      The bill also distinguishes between violations that 
require immediate action and those that do not. If a violation 
has the potential to have serious adverse effects on human 
health as a result of short-term exposure, the notice must be 
distributed (to the State as well as to consumers) as soon as 
practicable but no later than 24 hours after the violation. The 
notice must clearly describe the violation, its potential 
adverse effects, the remedial steps that the public water 
system is taking, and whether people should resort to 
alternative water supplies. In order to assure that the notice 
is disseminated effectively, the bill provides that the State 
may decide what manner of notice is most appropriate, either by 
regulation or on a case-by-case basis after consultation 
between the public water system and the State primacy agency, 
but the manner must include one of the following: communication 
through broadcast media, publication in the local newspaper, 
posting, or door-to-door notification.
      In the case of other violations, written notice must be 
provided not later than 1 year after the violation and the 
manner of notification must include one of the following: 
inclusion in the first billing after the violation, inclusion 
in an annual report, or distribution by mail or direct 
delivery.
      New subsection (c)(3) requires each State that has 
primary enforcement responsibilities under the Act to issue an 
annual report on violations of the Act, and requires the 
Administrator to issue an annual report summarizing the State 
reports (and similar reports by Indian Tribes).

                section 21. enforcement; judicial review

Summary
      Several modifications to the enforcement authorities of 
the Act are made by the bill. The major changes are:


     the Administrator is directed to notify local 
            elected officials before taking enforcement actions 
            against public water systems in nonprimacy States;

     the Administrator or a State is authorized to 
            suspend enforcement action with respect to a 
            violation for a period of 2 years, if the violation 
            is to be corrected through a consolidation between 
            two or more systems during that period;

     States are to adopt administrative penalties (of 
            at least $1000 per violation for large systems) to 
            facilitate enforcement of the Safe Drinking Water 
            Act; and

     the maximum amount for an administrative penalty 
            imposed by EPA is increased from $5000 to $25,000 
            per violation; administrative penalties in amounts 
            greater than $5000 may only be imposed after a 
            full, on-the-record hearing.
Discussion
      The bill amends section 1414 of the Safe Drinking Water 
Act to improve and streamline enforcement authorities. Section 
1414 authorizes the Administrator to issue compliance orders, 
assess administrative penalties within certain limits, and 
pursue civil actions in Federal district court. Enforcement 
actions to correct violations of the Act can be taken both by 
EPA and by a State with primary enforcement responsibility. 
Because many community water systems are owned and operated by 
local governments, accountable through elections to the 
consumers served by the system, the enforcement authorities of 
the Safe Drinking Water Act are structured and applied in a 
manner different from other environmental laws.
      The current enforcement system relies primarily on the 
States. Section 1413 requires that, in order to grant a State 
primary enforcement responsibility, the Administrator must find 
that the State has adopted and is implementing adequate 
enforcement procedures. Currently, 55 of 57 States and 
territories have primary enforcement responsibility. As a 
result, compliance with maximum contaminant levels and other 
requirements of the Act is ensured primarily through State 
actions. The Administrator also is authorized to bring 
enforcement actions directly. But, before doing so, the 
Administrator must notify the State, give the State a chance to 
take appropriate action, and seek to provide advice and 
technical assistance to the public water system.
      This enforcement system works relatively well. However, 
in part because of the many new regulations recently issued, 
the overall rate of compliance remains lower than under other 
Federal environmental laws. In fiscal year 1994, 43,354 public 
water systems had violations with 19,568 of these violations 
occurring at community water systems. Eight percent of the 
systems reported violations of maximum contaminant levels.
      Under the Safe Drinking Water Act in fiscal year 1994, 
EPA issued 309 final administrative orders, 44 complaints for 
administrative penalties resulting from violations of orders, 8 
emergency response orders and referred 6 cases to the Justice 
Department for civil action. By way of comparison, in the same 
year EPA referred 86 cases under the Clean Water Act and 139 
cases under the Clean Air Act for civil actions.
      Several amendments to the Act made elsewhere in the bill 
will improve compliance by improving the regulatory process 
itself, by increasing State and local flexibility, by providing 
better public notification, and by providing financial 
assistance for the construction of treatment works. In 
addition, section 21 of the bill makes modest improvements in 
the enforcement system, consistent with an emphasis on State, 
rather than Federal, enforcement and on a compliance-oriented 
enforcement policy.
      Specifically, section 21 of the bill makes seven changes 
to the enforcement provisions of the Act.
      First, section 21(a) of the bill amends section 1414 of 
the Act to clarify the scope of enforcement authority. Section 
1414(a) of the Act currently provides that the Administrator 
may take enforcement action against any public water system 
that fails to comply either with a national primary drinking 
water regulation or with an exemption or variance from such a 
regulation. Section 1414(a) does not, however, expressly 
provide that the Administrator may take enforcement action 
against any person that fails to comply with any provision of 
the Act. As a result, it is uncertain whether the Administrator 
may take enforcement action for some significant violations, 
such as a violation of the prohibition against the sale of 
leaded water fixtures. The Administrator's authority to take 
enforcement action for a violation of a requirement of an 
approved State program is also not clearly stated in current 
law.
      The bill addresses these problems by replacing several 
references to enforceable drinking water regulations with 
references to an `applicable requirement.' The bill also adds a 
new section 1414(i) to the Act, which defines an `applicable 
requirement' as one of several specific sections of the Act: 
section 1412 (primary drinking water regulations), section 1414 
(public notification), section 1415 (variances), section 1416 
(exemptions), section 1417 (lead fixtures), section 1441 
(chemical supplies), and section 1445 (records and 
inspections). New section 1414(i) also defines an applicable 
requirement as a regulation promulgated pursuant to one of 
those sections, a schedule or requirement imposed pursuant to 
one of those sections, or a requirement of, or a permit issued 
under, an approved State program.
      Second, section 21(a)(1)(B) of the bill amends section 
1414(b) of the Act to improve enforcement in nonprimacy states. 
Under current law, when the Administrator takes enforcement 
action in a nonprimacy State, the Administrator is not required 
to notify local officials of the action. As a result, 
governmental officials such as mayors or county commissioners 
with authority over a public water system may not know of an 
EPA enforcement action until after it has been taken. The bill 
rewrites section 1414(b), making one significant substantive 
change (in addition to the reference to applicable 
requirements, described above)--requiring that, before taking 
enforcement action, the Administrator must ``notify an 
appropriate local elected official, if any, with jurisdiction 
over the public water system of the action taken.''
      Third, section 21(a)(3)(B) of the bill amends section 
1414(g) of the Act to promote the administrative resolution of 
disputes in cases in which administrative resolution is 
appropriate and efficient. If, under current law, the 
Administrator wishes to assess a penalty of more than $5,000, 
the Administrator must ask the Justice Department to bring a 
complaint in Federal District Court, which is a relatively 
complex process. As a result, it sometimes is difficult and 
expensive to resolve simple cases.
      To facilitate more appropriate enforcement in such cases, 
the bill streamlines the process for taking administrative 
enforcement action. Under current law, the Administrator must 
take five separate steps before imposing an administrative 
penalty for a violation of the Act. First, the Administrator 
must notify the State and give the State an opportunity to act. 
Second, the Administrator must issue a proposed order. Third, 
the Administrator must hold a hearing on the proposed order. 
Fourth, the Administrator must issue a final order. Fifth, if 
the Administrator determines that the final order has been 
violated, the Administrator must bring an administrative action 
seeking to impose an administrative penalty.
      To simplify this cumbersome process, the bill eliminates 
the requirement that the Administrator issue a proposed order, 
and hold a public hearing, before issuing a final compliance 
order. As a result, the Administrator may, after notifying the 
State and giving the State an opportunity to act, issue a 
compliance order. This process, which is similar to the process 
that occurs under section 309(g) of the Clean Water Act, will 
expedite administrative proceedings, while fully preserving the 
role of the States and the rights of public water systems.
      Fourth, section 21(a)(3)(C) of the bill further promotes 
the administrative resolution of disputes by amending section 
1414(g) of the Act to increase the penalty amount that may be 
assessed in an administrative proceeding. Under current law, 
the Administrator may not assess a penalty of more than $5,000 
in an administrative proceeding; if the Administrator wishes to 
assess a higher penalty, the Administrator must ask the Justice 
Department to file a complaint in Federal court. In contrast, 
under the Clean Water Act, the Administrator may assess a 
penalty of up to $100,000 in an administrative proceeding.
      The bill provides for an expedited process for assessing 
small administrative penalties (that is, those up to $5,000). 
This is designed to make the process more efficient, while 
still according individuals a right to a hearing. If the 
Administrator seeks a penalty of no more than $5,000, EPA may 
assess that penalty through an informal process--that is, after 
notice and an opportunity for a public hearing, but without a 
full hearing on the record under the terms of the 
Administrative Procedures Act (unless the person against whom 
the penalty is sought requests a hearing on the record rather 
than an informal process). If the Administrator seeks a penalty 
of between $5,000 and $25,000, EPA must offer a formal 
process--that is, with a full hearing on the record under the 
terms of the Administrative Procedures Act.
      Fifth, section 21(a)(4) of the bill adds a new section 
1414(h) to the Act to create an incentive for system 
consolidation. Many public water systems do not have the 
technical, financial or managerial capacity to comply with the 
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Quite often, 
consolidation with a neighboring system or systems is the most 
effective means to improve system operations and the safety of 
the supply. Under current law, a public water system that is in 
a position to acquire or consolidate with another system could 
be discouraged from doing so if there is a risk that the 
acquiring system will be subject to enforcement actions based 
on violations previously committed by the system that is 
acquired. To encourage consolidations that resolve compliance 
problems and improve safety, new section 1414(j) authorizes the 
Administrator or a State to review consolidation plans. If a 
plan is approved, neither the Administrator nor a State may 
bring an enforcement action for a period of 2 years for a 
violation that is specifically identified in the plan and that 
will be resolved when the consolidation is complete. Systems 
acquiring or consolidating with others will have a reasonable 
period to correct pre-existing violations before being exposed 
to enforcement actions.
      Sixth, section 21(b) of the bill amends section 1413(a) 
of the Act to require States to establish their own 
administrative enforcement systems, if they have not already 
done so. The administrative resolution of disputes arising 
under the Act is likely to benefit both public water systems 
and the public generally. The use of administrative enforcement 
authority, rather than litigation, makes it simpler and less 
expensive to resolve certain types of cases. In light of this, 
many States have enacted administrative enforcement systems of 
their own for resolving relatively minor enforcement cases.
      The bill builds on these State efforts by requiring each 
State with primary enforcement authority to adopt authority for 
administrative penalties (unless the State's constitution 
prohibits it from doing so). The authority must include, in the 
case of large systems, penalties in a maximum amount of at 
least $1,000 for each day of each violation, and, in the case 
of small systems, in an amount that is adequate to ensure 
compliance. In addition, the bill expressly provides that a 
State may establish an overall limit on the amount of the 
penalty that may be imposed on a public water system for a 
particular violation.
      Seventh, section 21(c) of the bill amends section 1448(a) 
of the Act to clarify procedures for judicial review of certain 
administrative actions. Under current law, a person may 
petition for judicial review of any ``action'' by the 
Administrator under the Act. This creates the possibility that 
a person may petition for judicial review of interim actions, 
such as the issuance of a proposed penalty (as opposed to a 
final penalty). To prevent this, the bill clarifies that 
judicial review is limited to final actions by the 
Administrator. In addition, the bill describes the procedure a 
petitioner should follow to seek judicial review of a final 
penalty assessment, and the standard of review that applies.

                      section 22. federal agencies

Summary
      Many public water systems are owned and operated by 
Federal agencies at military bases, national parks and other 
facilities. Section 1447 of current law was enacted to waive 
the sovereign immunity of the Federal Government with respect 
to all drinking water laws and regulations and to authorize 
enforcement for violations at public water systems operated by 
Federal agencies in the same manner that enforcement actions 
can be taken with respect to other systems. However, recent 
court decisions reviewing similar provisions of other laws call 
into question the efficacy of section 1447.
      Section 22 of the bill amends current law to clarify the 
waiver of sovereign immunity that would otherwise apply to 
Federal agencies ensuring that all Federally-operated public 
water systems are subject to the provisions of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act and State and local safe drinking water 
laws. The bill also establishes procedures for the 
Administrator to impose administrative penalties for violations 
at Federal facilities and for the payment of those penalties.
Discussion
      The Federal Government owns or operates more than 5,000 
public drinking water systems, at military bases, national 
parks, and other Federal facilities. Currently, the application 
of the Safe Drinking Water Act and of State and local safe 
drinking water laws to these Federally-operated systems is 
uncertain. Under the general doctrine of sovereign immunity, 
the Federal Government is subject to liability only if it has 
expressly agreed to be subject to such liability and, 
accordingly, has specifically waived its sovereign immunity. 
Section 1447 of the Safe Drinking Water Act was intended to be 
an explicit waiver of immunity and provides that each Federal 
agency that operates a public drinking water system ``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.''
      However, this provision may have limited effect. In 1992, 
in the case of Department of Energy v. Ohio (503 U.S. 607), the 
Supreme Court held that similar provisions of the Clean Water 
Act and the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act did not 
fully waive the sovereign immunity of a Federal agency with 
respect to fines that punish past violations of the law (as 
opposed to coercive sanctions intended to induce future 
compliance with the law). The waiver of sovereign immunity 
contained in section 1447 is similar to the waivers that the 
Supreme Court considered in Department of Energy v. Ohio; 
therefore, the waiver in section 1447 might be construed 
similarly, as not waiving sovereign immunity with respect to 
penalties for past violations.
      Such a construction of the section 1447 would prevent 
State and local officials from taking enforcement actions that 
they consider necessary to protect their citizens and would 
prevent the Administrator from taking actions necessary to 
protect public health. It would also reduce incentives for 
Federal agencies to comply. And it would generally undermine 
public confidence in the even-handed enforcement of the law. 
Therefore, the bill amends section 1447 to clarify the waiver 
of sovereign immunity for all enforcement actions under the 
Safe Drinking Water Act and similar State and local laws. These 
amendments generally follow the provisions of the Federal 
Facilities Compliance Act (P.L. 102-386) that clarifies the 
waiver of sovereign immunity under the Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act.
      Section 22(a) of the bill rewrites section 1447(a) of the 
Act establishing the duty of Federal agencies to comply with 
safe drinking water laws (including laws relating to 
underground injection). The revision specifically provides that 
this duty includes complying with all civil or administrative 
penalties and fines, whether the penalties or fines are 
punitive or coercive, and waives sovereign immunity with 
respect to such compliance. It also provides, like the Federal 
Facilities Compliance Act, that Federal agents, employees, and 
officers are not subject to personal civil liability for any 
acts or omissions within the scope of their duties, but may be 
subject to criminal sanctions under State or local safe 
drinking water laws.
      Section 22(a) of the bill also rewrites section 1447(b) 
of the Act providing for an exemption, in certain 
circumstances, from the otherwise applicable duty to comply. 
Under current law, such an exemption must be granted by the 
Administrator if the exemption is requested by the Secretary of 
Defense and is necessary for national security. New section 
1447(b) revises current law in five ways, along the lines of 
the Federal Facilities Compliance Act. First, it provides the 
exemption authority to the President rather than the 
Administrator. Second, it permits an exemption to apply to any 
Federal agency, not only the Department of Defense. Third, it 
changes the standard for granting an exemption from a national 
security interest to ``the paramount interest of the United 
States.'' The need for an exemption may not be based on the 
lack of an appropriation, unless the President has specifically 
requested the appropriation and Congress has not made it. 
Fourth, it limits the period of the exemption to one year. The 
President may grant additional exemptions. Fifth, it requires 
the President to issue an annual report on any exemptions.
      Section 22(b) of the bill adds a new section 1447(d) to 
the Act authorizing the Administrator to assess administrative 
penalties against Federal agencies for violations of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act and establishing procedures for the 
assessment of such penalties. Under the theory of the unified 
executive, the Justice Department has declined to initiate 
court litigation against other Federal agencies. Administrative 
proceedings offer an alternative means for EPA to enforce the 
provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act with respect to 
Federal agencies. New section 1447(d) authorizes the 
Administrator to initiate such proceedings and to assess 
administrative penalties of up to $25,000 for each day that 
each violation occurs. It also directs the Administrator to 
provide an agency an opportunity to confer and with notice and 
an opportunity to be heard before an administrative penalty 
order becomes final. To assure that the public can participate 
in these deliberations, the amendments permit any interested 
person to obtain judicial review of an administrative penalty 
order assessed against a Federal agency.
      As a related matter, section 22(c) amends the citizen 
suit provision of the Act to permit citizens to bring a suit 
against an agency that has failed, for more than a year, to pay 
an administrative penalty assessed under section 1447. The 
penalties are paid by the agency to the general fund of the 
Federal Government and not to EPA or to a citizen bringing a 
successful suit.
      Section 22(d) of the bill addresses the special 
circumstances of the Washington Aqueduct. An important purpose 
of section 21 of the bill is to give Federal agencies a 
stronger financial incentive to comply with the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. This purpose would be frustrated if a Federal agency 
could pass a penalty through to consumers served by the water 
systems it operates. This is a particular concern in the case 
of the Washington Aqueduct operated by the Army Corps of 
Engineers and serving people in the District of Columbia and 
parts of Northern Virginia. It would be inappropriate for a 
penalty assessed against the Corps to be passed on in any way 
to the residents who have no responsibility for the violation 
and no authority over the drinking water treatment system 
operated by the Corps. Therefore, section 22(d) of the bill 
amends section 1447 of the Act to specifically prohibit the 
Corps of Engineers from passing any penalty through to the 
users of the Washington Aqueduct system. Instead, any such 
penalty should be incurred exclusively by the Corps of 
Engineers.

                          section 23. research

Summary
      The general research authorities of current law are 
clarified and an authorization of $25 million is provided for 
each fiscal year through 2003. From this amount, $4 million is 
available for research on the health effects of arsenic. In 
addition, $8 million per year is authorized for the 
Administrator to make grants to States to assist in responding 
to drinking water emergencies and $10 million per year is 
authorized to educate and train personnel needed to manage and 
operate drinking water systems.
      The bill includes new research programs for the 
interactive risks of pathogenic organisms and disinfectants and 
disinfection byproducts and for risks to subpopulations that 
may experience greater risks of adverse health effects from 
exposure to particular contaminants than the general 
population.
Discussion
      Section 1442(a) of the Act authorizes the Administrator 
to conduct research, studies and demonstrations relating to the 
causes, diagnosis, treatment control, and prevention of 
diseases resulting from contaminants in drinking water. The 
bill adds authority to collect and make available information 
on the dependability of a safe drinking water supply and to 
make available research facilities of the Agency to public 
authorities, institutions and individuals engaged in research. 
The authorization of $25 million per year for this subsection 
is extended through the year 2003.
      Under current law, EPA has authority to make grants to 
States to assist in emergency situations relating to water 
systems. This provision is retained and the authorization of $8 
million per year is extended through the year 2003.
      A report to Congress on the long-term availability of 
drinking water supply, submitted in 1988, is to be revised 2 
years after the date of enactment of the bill and every 5 years 
thereafter.
      Various authorities relating to education and training 
are consolidated and a new authority to develop methods for 
forecasting supply and demand for occupational categories for 
the protection and treatment of drinking water is added. Also, 
an new authorization of $10 million per year is included to 
support these activities.
      A new section 1442(i) is added to the Act directing EPA 
to conduct studies to reduce the uncertainties with respect to 
the substances present in drinking water and the type and 
magnitude of the associated adverse effects. Emphasis is placed 
on developing biologically-based risk assessment models that 
incorporate mechanistic data to the extent that they become 
available and relevant and examining noncancer endpoints and 
infectious disease, and susceptible individuals and 
subpopulations.
      A new section 1442(j) directs EPA to establish long-term 
priorities for research and an integrated risk characterization 
strategy to identify unmet needs, priorities for study and 
needed improvements in science. With the increasing desire for 
peer-reviewed sound science, the Administrator should publish a 
strategy setting out the research priorities of the Agency. The 
initial strategy shall be made available not later than 3 years 
after the date of enactment of the bill.
      In addition to improving the understanding of chemical 
risks, there is a need to better understand waterborne 
microbial risks. Pathogenic and toxigenic microbiological 
agents in drinking water have long been known to cause disease 
and death in consumers. The introduction of water chlorination 
and the subsequent decline in the incidence of waterborne 
diseases such as cholera, typhoid fever, and gastroenteritis is 
one of the foremost public health achievements of the 20th 
century. However, waterborne diseases are now known to be 
caused by a much broader variety of organisms than previously 
thought. Some of the recently discovered waterborne diseases 
include fatal pneumonia caused by Legionella pneumophila; 
hepatitis caused by hepatitis virus types A and E; 
cardiomyopathies caused by coxsackie virus; incurable 
gastroenteritis caused by Cryptosporidium parvum in AIDS 
patients; and neurotoxicity caused by blue-green algae.
      To evaluate the health risks of microbes in drinking 
water, section 1442(k) added by the bill requires the 
Administrator to develop a research plan to support 
promulgation of the Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, 
including Cryptosporidium, the rules for disinfectants and 
disinfection byproducts, and the ground water disinfection 
rule. $12.5 million is authorized for each of fiscal years 1997 
through 2003 to carry out this research plan.
      A new section 1442(l) is added to the Act directing the 
Administrator to carry out a continuing research program to 
identify groups within the general population that may be at 
greater risk of adverse health effects from exposure to 
contaminants in drinking water. Within 1 year of the date of 
enactment, the Administrator shall develop and implement a 
research plan to integrate the research into the regulatory 
process and to identify the risks and the groups that are at 
greater risk from the contaminants in drinking water. The 
Administrator is to report to Congress on the results of the 
research not later than 4 years after the date of enactment.

                        section 24. definitions

Summary
      Under current law, the term `public water system' is 
defined to include only those water supply systems that deliver 
water for human consumption through a pipe or pipes. Other 
systems that may deliver water to a home or other location for 
drinking, cooking and bathing by a ditch or a canal (typically 
the water is being transported for irrigation, but may have 
incidental use for residential water supply) are not considered 
public water systems. The bill modifies the definition of 
`public water system' to include some systems that provide 
water for residential and similar uses by means other than a 
piped system.
      Modifications to the definition of `primary drinking 
water regulation' are also made by the bill. The changes 
provide that: (1) only accepted methods for quality control and 
testing may be imposed by a national primary drinking water 
regulation; and (2) that the Administrator may issue guidance 
after a regulation has been promulgated to allow the use of 
other methods to comply with the monitoring requirements in a 
regulation.
      The bill also adds definitions for `community water 
system' and `noncommunity water system' and modifies the 
definitions of `State' and `Indian tribes' for purposes of the 
new State revolving loan fund grant program authorized by part 
G.
Discussion
      Current law defines a `public water system' to include 
only those water supply systems ``for the provision to the 
public of piped water for human consumption.'' In December, 
1992, the Environmental Protection Agency issued an 
administrative order to an irrigation district delivering water 
to residential users through canals requiring it to comply with 
the maximum contaminant levels and monitoring requirements of 
the Safe Drinking Water Act. EPA issued the order following an 
investigation that led the Agency to believe that the sale of 
untreated canal water to 5,700 residential users could lead to 
the ingestion of contaminants and constituted a risk to public 
health. Although most residential consumers served by this 
system treated the water before using it, or obtained bottled 
or trucked water for drinking and cooking, EPA stated that 
there was reason to believe that some users were ingesting the 
canal water without treatment.
      The irrigation district sought review of the order under 
the judicial review provisions of the Act. In an opinion issued 
on September 7, 1993, Imperial Irrigation District v. U.S. 
E.P.A., 4 F.3d 774 (9th Cir. 1993), the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held that the Imperial Irrigation 
District is not a public water system within the meaning of the 
Safe Drinking Water Act because it does not constitute a system 
of ``piped water'' for human consumption. The bill modifies the 
definition of ``public water system'' in the Act to assure that 
systems such as the Imperial Irrigation District delivering 
water for human consumption by constructed conveyances 
(ditches, canals, culverts, etc.; but not including bottled or 
trucked water) in addition to piped systems are subject to the 
requirements of the Act as public water systems.
      The definition of public water system is modified by 
expanding the reference to delivery systems to include ``pipes 
or other constructed conveyances''. The term ``constructed 
conveyances'' refers to transport systems such as ditches, 
canals, culverts, waterways and similar delivery systems that 
are manmade 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.
      Under current law, water delivery systems are not public 
water systems if they serve less than 15 connections and less 
than 25 persons. The definition of public water system is 
further modified in the bill to exclude from consideration 
certain connections that might otherwise qualify a system as a 
public water system. These exclusions only apply (with an 
exception noted below) where the water is delivered by a 
constructed conveyance other than a pipe. The first exclusion 
is for connections where the water delivered by the system is 
not used for drinking or cooking for residential or similar 
uses. In this case, water is provided by the system for these 
uses from another source such as bottled water or trucked 
water. The alternative source of water for these uses must be 
provided (not merely be available) and must meet a level of 
health protection equivalent to the applicable national primary 
drinking water regulation.
      The second exclusion applies where the water is used for 
drinking and cooking, but the water is treated prior to use. 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 water system, by a pass-through entity or by 
the consumer. As a general principle, the Safe Drinking Water 
Act does not allow a public water system to place the burden of 
compliance on the consumer. However, 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. Therefore, in this second case the 
obligation to treat the water to a level of public health 
protection equivalent to the applicable national primary 
drinking water regulation may appropriately 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.
      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 than pipes. 
Piped water systems may not avoid regulation as public water 
systems by providing bottled water or 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 all of the connections to the system 
comply with the requirements applicable under one or the other 
of the exclusions for alternative water or point-of-entry 
treatment noted above.
      The bill includes new definitions for `community water 
system' and `noncommunity water system'. Community water 
systems include those systems that are connected to 15 year-
round residences or serve 25 persons in a residential setting 
on a year-round basis. Noncommunity water systems are all other 
public water systems that are not community water systems. This 
distinction has significance in several cases under the statute 
and the regulations issued by EPA. For instance, all community 
water systems, whether owned by a public or by a private 
entity, are eligible for assistance under the new SRF grant 
program. However, only some noncommunity systems are eligible 
(those that are owned by a public entity or a nonprofit 
organization). There are approximately 57,000 community water 
systems and 128,000 noncommunity water systems in the United 
States.
      Under current law, the term State includes all of the 50 
States, territories and the District of Columbia. For purposes 
of the allocation formula under the new SRF program, the term 
`State' is limited by the bill to the 50 States and the 
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. The District of Columbia and the 
territories also receive funds under the SRF program, but the 
funds are allocated through a set aside rather than 
proportionately based on formula factors.
      Also for the purposes of the new SRF program, the 
definition of `Indian Tribe' under the Act is expanded to 
include any Native Village as defined in the Alaska Native 
Claims Settlement Act. This provision allows Alaska Native 
Villages to qualify for funds that are set aside for Indian 
Tribes under the new SRF program.
      The bill makes two changes to the definition of `primary 
drinking water regulation.' Provisions in this definition 
authorize the Administrator to impose quality control and 
testing requirements as part of a national primary drinking 
water regulation. This authority, in addition to the provisions 
of section 1445, is the basis for monitoring requirements for 
contaminants regulated under the Act. The first change requires 
that the quality control and testing methods imposed be 
accepted methods. Generally, any process to develop a method 
that includes public review and response to comments in the 
development of a method qualifies the method as an accepted 
method. These procedures may include an EPA notice and comment 
rulemaking but may also include peer-review procedures in the 
scientific community or a consensus process conducted by a 
private organization that establishes technical and engineering 
standards.
      Second, the bill authorizes EPA to issue guidance adding 
alternative quality control and testing methods to the list of 
methods that may be used to comply with a national primary 
drinking water regulation after the regulation has been 
promulgated. Current law could be read to require a formal 
rulemaking to revise the national primary drinking water 
regulation in order to allow the use of alternative methods 
that are developed after a regulation has been promulgated. The 
bill reduces the procedural burden by allowing the 
Administrator to add other methods by guidance, on the 
condition that the methods are accepted methods pursuant to 
some other review procedure.

                  section 25. ground water protection

Summary
      The Administrator is authorized to make grants to the 
States to support up to 50 percent of the cost of general 
ground water protection programs. The bill authorizes $20 
million per year through 2003 for this new grant program.
      Grants to support State administration of the Underground 
Injection Control (UIC) program under part C of current law are 
reauthorized through the year 2003 at $20.85 million per year. 
No other amendments to the UIC program are made by the bill.
      Grants to support the wellhead protection program 
established by section 1428 are reauthorized through the year 
2003 at $35 million per year.
      Grants to support the critical aquifer protection program 
under section 1427 are reauthorized at $20 million per year 
through 2003. In addition, section 1427 is amended to reopen 
the grant application period.
      The Administrator is to conduct a study of the extent and 
seriousness of contamination of private sources of drinking 
water not regulated under this Act and, within 3 years of the 
date of enactment, provide a report to the Congress describing 
the findings of the study and recommendations for actions 
needed to protect public health.
      A requirement in section 1450 of current law for an 
annual report to the Congress on the activities of the 
Administrator to carry out the Safe Drinking Water Act is 
deleted.
Discussion
      Thirty-eight percent of the community water systems in 
the nation rely on ground water sources. Ground water is the 
source of supply for 83 percent of the systems serving 
populations of 10,000 or less. And 95 percent of Americans 
living in unincorporated areas rely on ground water (including 
ground water drawn from private wells) for their drinking water 
supply.
      Prevention of ground water contamination is the most cost 
effective means of ensuring ample supplies of safe drinking 
water for the future. The importance of ground water protection 
has always been reflected in the provisions of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act through such initiatives as the wellhead 
protection program, control of underground injection, and the 
designation of sole source aquifer areas.
      The bill provides an additional tool to protect ground 
water by authorizing a new State grant program to encourage 
States to develop coordinated, comprehensive ground water 
protection programs. Section 25(a) of the bill authorizes $20 
million annually for fiscal years 1995 through 2003 for these 
grants.
      Since 1993, EPA has been encouraging States and Indian 
Tribes to develop Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection 
Programs (CSGWPPs). This voluntary effort is intended to 
prevent ground water contamination through better coordination 
of various Federal programs under the Safe Drinking Water Act, 
the Clean Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act 
and the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act.
      Eighteen States are implementing voluntary CSGWPPs in 
cooperation with EPA based on guidance issued in 1993. Five 
States (Alabama, Connecticut, New Hampshire, Wisconsin, and 
Massachusetts) have programs that have been endorsed by EPA. 
The other 13 States are in the process of submitting programs 
to EPA or participating with EPA in cross-program endorsements. 
The new ground water grant program may be used to support 
States implementing the CSGWPPs and will provide a financial 
incentive for other States to join the program. EPA's efforts 
along these lines provide flexibility in program regulations 
and guidance and promote specific projects that cross the lines 
of environmental statutes to prevent the pollution of ground 
water. The grant funds may also be used to support other ground 
water protection efforts of the States.
      This comprehensive approach to ground water protection 
was endorsed in a December, 1994, recommendation of the 
National Drinking Water Advisory Council:

            ``The Council commends EPA on its progress 
        implementing the Comprehensive State Ground Water 
        Protection Program and recommends that EPA continue 
        promoting CSGWPP as an innovative cross program model 
        and the Council recommends that EPA encourage States 
        and Tribes to identify Wellhead Protection (WHP) areas 
        as part of their Comprehensive State Ground Water 
        Protection Programs.''

      The bill includes a minimum number of administrative 
provisions for the new grant program. Within 1 year of 
enactment, EPA is to establish application procedures and 
publish guidance on the key elements of a State ground water 
protection program. Grants are to be awarded according to the 
extent of the ground water resources in each State and the 
likelihood that the grant will result in sustained and reliable 
protection of ground water resources. Innovative programs 
proposed by the States to prevent ground water contamination 
may also receive grants. However, no grant may be awarded for 
projects to remediate ground water contamination. Grant awards 
must be coordinated with grants made under section 319(i) of 
the Clean Water Act and any other Federal grants related to 
ground water protection. States are required to provide a 50 
percent match for the costs of the program. EPA is to report to 
Congress every 3 years on the effectiveness of State programs 
funded under this new authority.
      Part C of the Safe Drinking Water Act includes the 
Underground Injection Control (UIC) program that is intended to 
prevent contamination of underground sources of drinking water 
(aquifers with sufficient water of a quality adequate for human 
consumption) from injection wells used to dispose of hazardous 
and other industrial wastes and brines and oily waters for oil 
and gas exploration and production. EPA and the States (which 
have primary responsibility for most wells) regulate 300,000 
injection wells through permits and regulations under this 
program. Recent emphasis in the program has been on shallow 
wells used for nonhazardous wastes that may present a threat in 
wellhead protection areas of public water systems relying on 
ground water. In recent years, grants have been made to 
approximately 40 States and territories under this authority. 
The bill authorizes $20.85 million per year through the year 
2003 for grants to States to carry out activities under the UIC 
program.
      The Safe Drinking Water Act contains two other 
significant programs, added by the 1986 Amendments, to protect 
ground water resources from contamination. Under the Section 
1424(e) of the Act, local governments or other organizations 
may seek designation of an aquifer supplying the community's 
drinking water needs as a sole source aquifer. Along with the 
designation, the local government may develop a plan to protect 
the aquifer from contamination. Federal actions that may 
contaminate a sole source aquifer are to be conducted in a 
manner that is consistent with the local plan. 65 aquifers 
across the country have been designated as sole source aquifers 
pursuant to this authority.
      Section 1427 of the Act authorizes grants to local 
governments and other organizations to develop and implement 
plans to protect the ``critical aquifer protection areas'' that 
serve to recharge aquifers that have been designated as sole 
source aquifers. Although Congress has never appropriated funds 
pursuant to this authorization, the bill extends authorizations 
for this program at $20 million per year through the year 2003. 
The bill deletes a provision in section 1427(b) of current law 
that requires applications for grants to be submitted within 24 
months of enactment of the 1986 Amendments. The effect of this 
deletion is to reopen the grant program for applications in the 
event that Congress makes appropriations for this purpose.
      A second ground water protection program added by the 
1986 Amendments has proved more successful, although it has not 
been supported by Federal appropriations. Section 1428 of the 
Act directs the States to develop wellhead protection programs. 
A wellhead area is the land area around a drinking water well 
where the release of a potential contaminant through an 
activity on the surface will lead to contamination of the 
ground water drawn to the well. The purpose of the wellhead 
protection program is to encourage the delineation of wellhead 
areas and surveys of the activities within wellhead areas to 
determine whether the water supply is vulnerable to 
contamination.
      Despite limited Federal financial support, 26 States have 
EPA-approved wellhead protection programs. In addition, the 
National Rural Water Association has encouraged more than 400 
local governments to adopt ordinances to protect the wellhead 
areas around their municipal supplies. The bill reauthorizes 
grants for States that have wellhead protection programs at $35 
million per year through fiscal year 2003.
      Section 1450(h) of current law requires the Administrator 
of the Environmental Protection Agency to file an annual report 
with the Congress on activities conducted to carry out the Act. 
The report is also to include an estimate of the compliance 
costs imposed on State and local governments. EPA has not filed 
this report since the mid-1980s. The bill (section 25(e)) 
repeals this annual reporting requirement by replacing the 
current section 1450(h) with a new provision requiring a one-
time report on the health risks posed by private drinking water 
supplies.
      The Safe Drinking Water Act only applies to public water 
systems--those systems serving more than 15 service connections 
or regularly serving more than 25 people. Other drinking water 
supplies, including private wells serving only one or a few 
households, are not protected by Federal health standards or 
the monitoring and testing that occurs under the Act. Americans 
relying on these supplies also do not benefit from the 
technical and financial assistance that is available to public 
water systems under the Safe Drinking Water Act.
      The bill (section 25(e)) requires EPA to conduct a study 
of the contamination of private drinking water supplies that 
are not regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act and to 
report to Congress on the findings of the study within 3 years. 
EPA is required to consult with scientists, including 
hydrogeologists, and well contractors and suppliers in carrying 
out this private water supply study.

           section 26. lead plumbing and pipes; return flows

Summary
      Section 1417 of the Act is amended to ban the use of 
plumbing fittings and plumbing fixtures that exceed lead 
leaching rates established by the National Sanitation 
Foundation (or other third party certifier) in public water 
systems or residential plumbing that provides water for human 
consumption. The bill also bans the sale (introduction into 
commerce) of lead pipe, plumbing fittings and plumbing fixtures 
effective 2 years after the date of enactment. The use and sale 
of leaded solder and flux is prohibited unless the solder or 
flux is clearly labeled to prevent use in plumbing delivering 
water for human consumption.
      Section 3013 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992 (P.L. 102-
486), encouraging the use of geothermal heat pumps that draw 
water from and return water to the distribution lines of public 
water systems, is repealed.
Discussion
      Section 1417 and part F of current law address the 
problem of lead contamination of drinking water that is caused 
by materials used in public water distribution systems, 
plumbing of private residences and water coolers used at 
schools and businesses. Lead causes adverse developmental 
effects in children (slows cognitive development) and 
hypertension in adults. It is also a probable (Group B) human 
carcinogen. The principal source of lead in drinking water is 
the plumbing (service lines, pipes, fittings and coolers) that 
carry and store water between the water main and the tap. Lead 
and brass (which contains lead) have in the past been preferred 
materials for use in plumbing systems because they are not 
prone to brittleness and catastrophic failure.
      The bill expands the reach of the current provisions of 
the Act to cover the use of leaded plumbing fittings and 
fixtures (faucets) and the sale of leaded solder and flux.
      The National Sanitation Foundation (NSF) is a private 
organization that develops consensus technical and engineering 
standards for use in a variety of fields including drinking 
water treatment, distribution and supply. NSF has developed and 
implemented a consensus standard (under NSF-61, Drinking Water 
Systems Components Health Effects) to reduce lead leaching 
rates from plumbing fittings and fixtures including faucets. 
Negotiations to produce this standard involved the plumbing 
industry, EPA, numerous State and local regulatory officials, 
water utilities, independent health consultants, and the 
academic community.
      The negotiations achieved agreement among all of these 
participants on a health-effects-based performance standard 
limiting the lead leaching rate from plumbing fittings and 
fixtures. The standard, issued in September of 1994, has been 
approved by the American National Standards Institute. The 
standard will allow public water systems to provide drinking 
water with lead levels below the EPA action level of 15 parts 
per billion, if the source water and distribution system are 
relatively free of lead (contribute less than 4 parts per 
billion to the total). The first list of products in compliance 
with the standard was issued in the Fall of 1995.
      Current law already bans the use of pipe, solder or flux 
that is not lead free in public water systems and residential 
plumbing intended to provide water for human consumption. The 
bill adds a ban on the use of lead plumbing fittings and 
fixtures and defines `lead free' in this instance to mean 
fittings that do not meet a consensus standard (the NSF 
standard) that is established within 1 year of enactment.
      The bill directs EPA to provide accurate and timely 
technical information and assistance to qualified third party 
certifiers (such as NSF) for the development of voluntary 
industry standards for the leaching of lead from plumbing 
fittings and fixtures that are intended to dispense water for 
human ingestion. If a voluntary standard is not established by 
a qualified third party certifier within 1 year after 
enactment, EPA is required to establish a standard for the 
leaching of lead within 2 years after the date of enactment. 
The regulation is to be effective within 5 years after it is 
issued. The section prohibits the import, manufacture, 
processing or distribution of a fitting containing more than 4 
percent lead by dry weight if regulations are required, but not 
issued, within 5 years after the date of enactment. Because NSF 
has already issued a standard, the provisions of the bill with 
respect to EPA regulation of plumbing fittings and fixtures 
will not be triggered.
      The bill makes clear that the ban on lead pipe does not 
apply to pipe used in manufacturing or industrial processes. 
The bill also amends current law to prohibit the sale of solder 
or flux containing lead at businesses selling plumbing supplies 
or the introduction into commerce of any leaded solder or flux, 
unless the solder or flux is labeled to prohibit use in 
plumbing providing water for human consumption.
      Section 26 of the bill also amends section 1445(a)(1) of 
the Act to authorize the Administrator to collect information 
from all persons subject to the requirements of the Act 
including those who manufacture or sell pipes, plumbing 
fittings and plumbing materials.
      The Energy Policy Act of 1992 includes a provision 
(section 3013) to encourage the use of geothermal heat pumps 
that withdraw water from public water systems, remove heat from 
the water, and then return the water to the public water 
system. Representatives of public water systems communicating 
to the Committee through the American Water Works Association 
and the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies are very 
concerned that any widespread use of geothermal heat pumps of 
this type might increase the risk of illness and disease by 
introducing contaminants into drinking water supplies. The bill 
repeals section 3013 of the Energy Policy Act of 1992.

                       section 27. bottled water

Summary
      Health standards for bottled water are established by the 
Food and Drug Administration under authority of the Federal 
Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act (FFDCA). Although FDA is directed 
by current law to set a bottled water standard for each 
contaminant for which a tap water standard has been 
established, FDA has been slow to act.
      The bill directs the Secretary of Health and Human 
Services (FDA is part of the Department of Health and Human 
Services) to establish regulations for the quality of bottled 
water for each contaminant for which a national primary 
drinking water regulation is issued, unless the Secretary 
determines that the contaminant is unlikely to be present in 
bottled water. The regulations are to be issued no later than 
180 days after the tap water standards (as provided in the 
current FFDCA) and are to be no less stringent than the 
standards that apply to tap water (drinking water supplied by 
public water systems). If the Secretary fails to act within the 
180-day period, the maximum contaminant levels established 
under the Safe Drinking Water Act for tap water apply by 
operation of law as the standards for bottled water.
      For those contaminants for which EPA had issued a tap 
water standard prior to enactment of the bill and FDA had not 
issued a standard for bottled water, the Secretary is to issue 
standards or publish a finding that standards are not necessary 
within 1 year.
Discussion
      There are 430 companies producing bottled water in the 
United States. Annual sales of bottled water are estimated to 
be $2.7 billion. This product is regulated as a food item by 
the Food and Drug Administration under authority of section 410 
of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act.
      Although that law requires FDA to set a standard for each 
contaminant regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act within 
180 days of the date on which EPA promulgates standards for tap 
water, FDA has been slow to act. FDA took 4 years to set 
standards for the 8 volatile organic chemicals (including 
benzene) regulated by EPA in 1989. FDA did not set standards 
for the 35 contaminants covered by EPA's 1991 Phase II 
rulemaking until December, 1994. Standards for bottled water 
have not been issued for those contaminants regulated in the 
Phase V rule for tap water, although it was promulgated by EPA 
in 1992 and became effective for tap water on January 1, 1994.
      One reason FDA regulations lag far behind tap water 
standards is that FDA appears not to begin work on its 
regulation until EPA has reached the stage of promulgating the 
rule for tap water. The bill addresses this problem by 
requiring consultation between EPA and FDA no later than the 
date on which EPA publishes proposed standards to assure a more 
timely commencement of FDA's regulatory process.
      The bill also provides that the maximum contaminant level 
for tap water will apply to bottled water, if FDA has not 
promulgated standards within 180 days of EPA's final action. If 
FDA fails to act, the maximum contaminant level becomes the 
bottled water standard on a date certain.
      Under provisions of current law and the bill, FDA can 
publish a determination that a standard is not necessary for a 
particular contaminant because the contaminant does not occur 
in bottled water.
      FDA standards for a contaminant in bottled water are to 
be no less stringent than standards established for the 
contaminant in tap water, and may be more stringent if the 
Secretary determines that more stringent standards are 
appropriate to protect public health. It would be appropriate 
for the Secretary to use the authority to set more stringent 
standards for bottled water whenever the maximum contaminant 
level that applies to tap water has not been set at the same 
level as the maximum contaminant level goal because of 
treatment or distribution economics that are applicable to 
public water systems but that are not relevant to the bottled 
water industry. As an example, the national primary drinking 
water regulation for lead and copper under the Safe Drinking 
Water Act reflects considerations (most lead in tap water comes 
from plumbing in homes) that do not apply to bottled water. 
FDA's bottled water standard for lead (an absolute limit of 5 
parts per billion) is appropriately more protective of public 
health than the tap water regulation established by EPA (an 
action level of 15 parts per billion).
      FDA is also authorized to impose monitoring requirements 
for bottled water that are different from those applying to tap 
water under the Safe Drinking Water Act.

  section 28. assessing environmental priorities, costs, and benefits

Summary
      The Administrator is directed to rank sources of 
pollution with respect to the relative degree of risk that they 
pose to human health, the environment, and public welfare. The 
Administrator also is directed to evaluate the private and 
public costs associated with each source of pollution and the 
costs and benefits of complying with regulations designed to 
protect against the risks associated with the sources of 
pollution.
Discussion
      In 1993, the Office of Technology Assessment estimated 
that it may cost Americans $150 billion a year to comply with 
environmental regulations. While this may not be too much to 
spend, it is too much to spend unwisely.
      Therefore, in recent years, there has been increasing 
attention given to the potential use of risk assessment and 
cost-benefit analysis as tools to make environmental laws more 
efficient and effective. As the Commission on Risk Assessment 
and Risk Management recently wrote, ``the tools of risk 
assessment and cost-benefit analysis can contribute useful 
information for critical decisions affecting health, safety, 
the environment, and the nation's economy.'' At the same time, 
risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis remain imperfect 
tools, subject to limitations and uncertainty; as a result, in 
some cases the over-reliance on risk assessment and cost-
benefit analysis can, as the Commission also said, ``lead to an 
excessive regulatory burdens, unreasonable costs to businesses 
and taxpayers, and prolonged litigation.''
      In light of both the prospects and the limitations of 
risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis, the Committee has 
been seeking to strike a balance, carefully incorporating risk 
assessment and cost-benefit analysis into environmental laws 
where appropriate. An example is section 5 of the bill, which 
uses risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis in the specific 
context of considering maximum contaminant levels for drinking 
water.
      Risk assessment and cost-benefit analysis also can be 
useful in setting overall environmental priorities. For 
example, a periodic ranking of the risks posed by various 
sources of pollution, and of the costs and benefits of 
controlling them, will lead to a better understanding of how to 
improve environmental protection at a reasonable cost to 
society.
      Several recent reports, including EPA's Unfinished 
Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems 
(1987) and the Science Advisory Board's Regulating Risk: 
Setting Priorities and Strategies for Environmental Protection 
(1990) have sought to rank the relative risks of various health 
and environmental threats. Section 28 of the bill is designed 
to build and improve on the work of these studies, by directing 
the Administrator to report, every 3 years, on the relative 
risks posed by various sources of pollution and on the costs 
and benefits of reducing those risks.
      Subsection (a) defines the following terms for purposes 
of section 28: `Administrator,' `adverse effect on human 
health,' `risk,' and `source of pollution.'
      Subsection (b) makes several findings regarding the 
usefulness, limitations, and uncertainties of risk assessment 
and cost-benefit analysis, and about the need for periodic 
reports on the costs and benefits of Federal environmental laws 
and regulations.
      Subsection (c) directs the Administrator to submit two 
reports to Congress. Not later than 1 year after the date of 
enactment of the bill, the Administrator must submit a 
preliminary report describing the approach and methodology to 
be used in ranking environmental priorities. Not later than 3 
years after the date of enactment (and not later than every 3 
years thereafter), the Administrator must submit a final 
report, which has two main components. One is a ranking of 
sources of pollution, with respect to the relative degree of 
risk that each source poses to human health, the environment, 
and public welfare. The second is an evaluation of the costs 
and benefits of complying with regulations designed to protect 
against those risks.
      The bill gives the Administrator broad discretion to 
select the sources of pollution to evaluate and rank and the 
methods to rank them. But, to assure that rankings and 
evaluations are based on the best possible information, the 
bill provides specific requirements with respect to the 
consideration of uncertainties, costs, and benefits.
      With respect to uncertainties, the Administrator is 
required to define the major uncertainties encountered in the 
evaluations and rankings, to explain how they affect the 
analyses, and to identify research that will reduce the 
uncertainties.
      With respect to costs, the Administrator is required to 
consider the public as well as private costs of complying with 
environmental laws.
      With respect to benefits, to assure that any risk 
rankings and cost-benefit analyses properly reflect the full 
range of potential benefits, the bill requires the 
Administrator to consider and, to the extent practicable, 
estimate a broad range of benefits, specifically including the 
benefits of avoiding premature mortality, avoiding cancer and 
noncancer diseases that reduce the quality of life, preserving 
biological diversity and the sustainability of ecological 
resources, maintaining an aesthetically pleasing environment, 
valuing services performed by ecosystems that, if lost or 
degraded, would have to be replaced by technology, and avoiding 
other risks identified by the Administrator. Moreover, to 
assure that nonquantifiable benefits are fully taken into 
consideration, the bill expressly requires the Administrator to 
identify benefits that cannot be described in monetary terms.
      In addition, the bill requires the Administrator, in 
evaluating costs and benefits, to specifically consider the 
following: the costs and benefits of certain Federal actions; 
opportunities to achieve risk reductions by modifying Federal 
regulations or taking other Federal Actions; and choices 
between competing risks.
      Subsection (d) provides for the implementation of the 
section. It requires the Administrator to consult with various 
agencies, groups, and individuals in the development of the 
report. It requires the Administrator to make public the 
information upon which the rankings and evaluations are made. 
It requires the Administrator to establish methods for 
determining costs and benefits. And it requires the Science 
Advisory Board to review the report before it is submitted to 
Congress.

                      section 29. other amendments

Summary
      The Chief of the Army Corps of Engineers is authorized to 
borrow the funds necessary to modernize the Washington Aqueduct 
that provides drinking water to the District of Columbia and 
several Virginia cities and counties.
      Membership on the National Drinking Water Advisory 
Council is modified to require that 2 members represent small, 
rural water systems.
      The bill provides that title XIV of the Public Health 
Service Act may be cited as the Safe Drinking Water Act.
      The bill contains technical amendments to conform section 
headings throughout the Act.
Discussion
      The Army Corps of Engineers is authorized to borrow from 
the Secretary of the Treasury amounts necessary to finance 
capital improvements at the Washington Aqueduct. Amounts 
borrowed from the Bank are to be repaid by the customers of the 
Washington Aqueduct.
      The Washington Aqueduct system consists of the Dalecarlia 
and McMillan water treatment plants located in Washington, DC. 
The system was constructed in 1853 and is under the control of 
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for appropriate management and 
maintenance. The system distributes approximately 250 million 
gallons of water per day to the over one million customers in 
the metropolitan Washington area.
      Fees are collected from the water system customers and 
are deposited into the District of Columbia Water and Sewer 
Enterprise Fund. This Fund provides the revenue to finance the 
system's annual operating expenses. The Corps of Engineers, as 
owner of the system, has no authority to finance capital 
improvement projects necessary to meet Federal drinking water 
standards.
      The bill authorizes the Corps of Engineers to borrow 
funds from the Secretary of the Treasury to underwrite the cost 
of necessary improvements to the Washington Aqueduct. Amounts 
borrowed from the bank are to be repaid by the customers of the 
Washington Aqueduct. The Corps has indicated that the most 
probable total cost of projects to modernize the Washington 
Aqueduct is $280 million.
      Section 1446 of current law establishes the National 
Drinking Water Advisory Council. This group of individuals 
knowledgeable on public health and drinking water supply issues 
meets regularly to advise the Administrator of EPA with respect 
to her duties under the Act. The Council currently has 15 
members--5 from the general public, 5 from State and local 
government agencies, and 5 from organizations with an active 
interest in the fields of water hygiene and public water 
supply. The bill provides that 2 of the members appointed from 
this latter group of 5 shall represent small, rural drinking 
water systems.
      Public Law 93-523 (December 16, 1974), entitled the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, added a new title XIV to the Public Health 
Service Act. Although commonly referred to as the Safe Drinking 
Water Act, title XIV has not previously been amended to include 
a short title. The bill provides that title XIV may be cited as 
the Safe Drinking Water Act and renames P.L. 93-523 as the Safe 
Drinking Water Act of 1974.
      Conforming amendments are made to section headings and 
titles to reflect new or amended language within individual 
sections.

                                Hearings

      On October 19, 1995, the Committee on Environment and 
Public Works held a hearing on S. 1316, the Safe Drinking Water 
Act Amendments of 1995. Testimony was given by The Honorable 
Carol M. Browner, Administrator, United States Environmental 
Protection Agency; The Honorable E. Benjamin Nelson, Governor, 
State of Nebraska, for the National Governors Association; The 
Honorable George V. Voinovich, Governor, State of Ohio, for the 
National Governors Association; The Honorable Jeffrey Wennberg, 
Mayor, Rutland, Vermont, for the National League of Cities and 
the National Association of Counties; Mr. Gurnie Gunter, 
Director, Kansas City Water Services Department, for the 
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies; Mr. Erik D. Olson, 
Senior Attorney, Natural Resources Defense Council; Mr. Don 
Satchwell, for the American Water Works Association; Mr. Dan 
Keil, Board Member and National Director, Montana Rural Water 
Systems, Inc., for the National Rural Water Association; Dr. 
David Ozonoff, Chair, Department of Environmental Health, 
Boston University School of Public Health; Dr. Richard James 
Bull, Senior Staff Scientist, Batelle Pacific Northwest 
Laboratory; Mr. William R. Mills, Jr., General Manager, Orange 
County Water District, for the Association of California Water 
Agencies. Also, a number of statements were submitted for 
inclusion in the record.

                             Rollcall Votes

      Section 7(b) of rule XXVI of the Standing Rules of the 
Senate and the rules of the Committee on Environment and Public 
Works require that any rollcall votes taken during the 
Committee's consideration of a bill be noted in the report.
      The Committee met to consider the bill on October 24, 
1995. On October 24, the bill was ordered reported by a roll 
call vote of 16 ayes to 0 nays.

                           Regulatory Impact

      In compliance with section 11(b) of rule XXVI of the 
Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee makes the following 
evaluation of the regulatory impact of the reported bill.
      S. 1316 is projected to dramatically reduce the scope and 
extent of future regulations promulgated to implement the 
drinking water program and could potentially reduce current 
monitoring costs. Because a large portion of the entities 
regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act are agencies of 
local government, the letter from the Congressional Budget 
Office printed below provides a detailed statement of the 
reduction in regulatory costs that is likely to result from 
enactment of the bill.
      Current law requires that EPA promulgate drinking water 
regulations for 25 new contaminants every 3 years. As indicated 
in the section-by-section analysis above, the bill strikes this 
requirement and replaces it with a process for the 
Administrator to review information concerning drinking water 
contaminants. The Administrator is to review 5 contaminants 
every 5 years beginning in the year 2001.
      Current law requires that maximum contaminant levels be 
established at a level that is as close to the level at which 
there is no adverse health effect (maximum contaminant level 
goal) as is feasible taking cost into consideration. The 
reported bill revises the standard setting authority of the Act 
to allow the Administrator to set less stringent standards for 
future contaminants where the Administrator determines that the 
benefits of an MCL at the feasible level do not justify the 
costs.
      In addition, the bill provides new authority for States 
to grant variances to small systems serving fewer than 10,000 
persons allowing use treatment technology affordable for these 
systems. The current law requires that the Administrator 
develop drinking water standards based on the technology and 
costs appropriate for large and regional water systems. Small 
systems, which lack the economies of scale available to larger 
systems, often have difficulty complying with the standards.
      The reported bill also revises the standard setting 
schedule and process with respect to specific contaminants 
including radon, arsenic and sulfate. The Administrator is 
directed to set a maximum contaminant level for radon at a 
level that is 10 times less stringent than the level that EPA 
has proposed under current law. A revised standard for arsenic 
is delayed until 2001. The bill also provides EPA with 
authority to rely on public education and bottled water, rather 
than centralized treatment, to protect the populations 
susceptible to adverse effects from high sulfate levels in 
drinking water.
      The bill also eases the burden of compliance by extending 
the period for designing and constructing treatment facilities 
needed to meet new or revised the standards. Current law 
requires compliance with standards within 18 months of the 
promulgation. The bill extends the compliance period to 3 years 
and allows a further extension of up to 2 additional years by 
the Administrator or the State where the additional time is 
needed to meet construction schedules.
      The bill also amends the variance and exemption 
provisions of the Act to allow for a further extension of up to 
3 years where compelling factors, including economic factors 
and the availability of funds from the new State loan fund, 
warrant such an extension. Small communities are eligible for a 
further compliance extension of up to 6 additional years based 
on the same factors.
      Current regulations impose extensive monitoring 
requirements. Many drinking water systems view monitoring 
requirements as the most costly and burdensome element of the 
drinking water program. The reported bill reduces the 
regulatory burden associated with monitoring in several ways. 
New authority is provided to States to develop alternative 
Statewide monitoring programs. Small systems may substantially 
reduce the frequency of monitoring when contaminants have not 
been detected. And the monitoring program for unregulated 
contaminants is modified to remove the requirement for all but 
a representative sample of systems serving fewer than 10,000 
people.
      Finally, the bill will help water systems comply with the 
Act by providing substantial financial assistance. The bill 
authorizes $9.6 billion in Federal fund for loans and grants to 
assist water systems to finance projects necessary to comply 
with drinking water regulations. These funds will reduce the 
financial burden imposed on small systems.
      New requirements are imposed on public water systems and 
other persons in only six provisions.
      First, States must adopt authority to prevent a public 
water system that does not have the capacity to comply with the 
requirements of the Act from commencing operations.
      Second, systems receiving assistance from the new SRF 
program must have trained and certified operators.
      Third, the bill expands the ban on the use of materials 
containing lead in drinking water systems and home plumbing. 
The largest impact of this provision is implemented through a 
voluntary industry standard applicable to plumbing fittings and 
fixtures.
      Fourth, section 1447 is amended to clarify the waiver of 
sovereign immunity for Federal agencies with respect to 
compliance with the Act and comparable State and local laws.
      Fifth, the bill imposes the standards set for tap water 
under the Safe Drinking Water Act as regulations on the quality 
of bottled water, if the Food and Drug Administration has not 
acted within 180 days of the issuance of the tap water 
standards to establish bottled water standards.
      Sixth, the public notification provisions of the Act are 
modified to make them more workable and to ensure that notice 
of violations is provided in a more timely fashion. These 
modifications will not, however, increase the frequency of 
notices as compared to current law.
      The bill will not have any effect on the personal privacy 
of individuals.

                          Cost of Legislation

                                     U.S. Congress,
                               Congressional Budget Office,
                                  Washington, DC, November 7, 1995.

Hon. John H. Chafee,
Chairman, Committee on Environment and Public Works,
U.S. Senate, Washington, DC.

    Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has 
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for S. 1316, the Safe 
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995.
    Enacting S. 1316 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
                              ----------                              


                      CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET OFFICE

                             cost estimate

                                                  November 7, 1995.
     1. BILL NUMBER: S. 1316

     2. BILL TITLE: Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995.

     3. BILL STATUS: As ordered reported by the Senate 
Committee on Environment and Public Works on October, 24, 1995.

     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 1996-2003 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;

     allow 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;

     establish a standard for the amount of radon in 
            drinking water;

     authorize appropriations of $100 million annually 
            for State public water system supervision programs 
            (PWSS), $40 million annually for protecting 
            underground drinking water sources, $35 million 
            annually for protecting drinking water wellhead 
            areas, and $35 million annually for assisting small 
            drinking water systems; and

     authorize a loan for capital improvements to the 
            Washington Aqueduct, which is operated by the U.S. 
            Corps of Engineers to provide drinking water to the 
            District of Columbia and parts of Northern 
            Virginia.
     5. ESTIMATED COST TO THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: Assuming 
appropriation of the entire amounts authorized for 
discretionary programs, enacting S. 1316 would lead to fiscal 
year 1996 funding for safe drinking water programs about $1.2 
billion above the 1995 appropriation. CBO estimates that the 
bill would authorize appropriations totaling nearly $7 billion 
over the 1996-2000 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 1995 about $166 million was 
appropriated to EPA for safe drinking water work and grants. In 
addition to this amount, $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 SRF appropriations.
    Enacting S. 1316 would have a small effect on revenues from 
civil and criminal penalties and on resulting direct spending. 
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 
could result from enacting the bill. The estimated budgetary 
effects of S. 1316 are summarized in the following table.

                                                                                                                
                                    (By fiscal year, in millions of dollars)                                    
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                   1995    1996    1997    1998    1999    2000 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                       SPENDING SUBJECT TO APPROPRIATIONS                                       
                   Spending Under Current Law                                                                   
  Budget Authority..............................................     166       0       0       0       0       0
  Estimated Outlays.............................................     161      66      17       0       0       0
                        Proposed changes                                                                        
  Estimated Authorization Level.................................       0   1,371   1,386   1,388   1,389   1,391
  Estimated Outlays.............................................       0     257     649   1,045   1,262   1,360
                     Spending Under S. 1316                                                                     
  Estimated Authorization Level.................................     166   1,371   1,386   1,388   1,389   1,391
  Estimated Outlays.............................................     161     323     666   1,045   1,262   1,360
                                   ADDITIONAL REVENUES AND DIRECT SPENDING\1\                                   
                            Revenues                                                                            
  Estimated Revenues............................................      --       a       a       a       a       a
  Estimated Budget Authority....................................      --      --       a       a       a       a
  Estimated Outlays.............................................      --      --       a       a       a       a
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
a = Less than $500,000.                                                                                         
\1\ The bill also could increase direct spending for judgments against the government, but CBO cannot estimate  
  the amount of any judgment payments that might occur from enacting S. 1316.                                   

    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 1996 
appropriations for EPA are provided and that all funds 
authorized by S. 1316 will be appropriated for each year. Over 
the 1996-2003 period, the bill would authorize appropriations 
totaling $10.6 billion, including $8 billion for grants to safe 
drinking water State revolving loan funds.
    In addition to the bill's specified authorization amounts, 
CBO has estimated that $60 million to $70 million a year would 
be necessary to pay for activities authorized by the bill 
without specific dollar authorizations. Estimated costs for 
these activities are based on information provided by EPA 
Estimated outlays are based on historical spending patterns of 
ongoing EPA drinking water programs and its grant program for 
waste water treatment State revolving loan funds.
    CBO estimates that enacting the bill would require about 
$55 million annually (at 1996 price levels) to pay for EPA's 
general oversight and administrative costs for the safe 
drinking water program. This amount would constitute an 
increase of about $15 million above EPA's current program 
costs, principally for administration of the new SRF program. 
We estimate that no funds would be required for grants to 
States for the source-water protection programs that would be 
established under section 17 of the bill because States are 
unlikely to implement the optional petition programs described 
in the bill. CBO also estimates a cost of at least $5 million 
annually over the 1996-2000 period for EPA to prepare the 
reports on environmental priorities, costs, and benefits that 
would be required by section 28 of the bill.
    CBO believes that the proposed authority for modernizing 
the Washington Aqueduct should be treated as authority for 
providing a Federal loan to the three localities that receive 
water from the aqueduct. In effect, the localities are 
borrowing money from the Treasury to pay for modernizing the 
aqueduct. Such a loan would be subject to credit reform 
provisions of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990. We estimate 
that this authorization would have no net cost to the Federal 
Government because the bill would allow the Secretary of the 
Treasury to impose loan terms and conditions on the localities 
involved sufficient to offset any subsidy cost of the loan.
    The Army Corps of Engineers estimates that the aqueduct 
modernization project would cost about $275 million in 1995 
dollars and would take 7 years to complete. Credit reform 
requires that the subsidy cost of any loan--estimated as a net 
present value--be recorded as an outlay in the year that the 
loan is disbursed. But since the bill would require that the 
three localities pay interest and any additional amounts 
necessary to offset the risk of default, the subsidy cost of 
this loan would be zero. Hence, we estimate that the proposed 
loan would have no effect on outlays.
    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 
Fund, 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 22 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 or the dollar amount of judgments against the 
government that could result from enactment of this bill. 
Further, we cannot determine whether those judgments would be 
paid from the Claims and Judgments Fund or from appropriated 
funds.

     7. 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 S. 1316 would 
increase governmental receipts from civil and criminal 
penalties, and the spending of such penalties; hence, pay-as-
you-go provisions would apply. The following table summarizes 
CBO's estimate of the bill's pay-as-you-go effects.

                                                                        
                (by fiscal year, in millions of dollars)                
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   1996    1997    1998 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Change in outlays...............................       0       0       0
Change in receipts..............................       0       0       0
------------------------------------------------------------------------


     8. ESTIMATED COST TO STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS: S. 1316 
would change the process for setting standards for drinking 
water contaminants, alter requirements for monitoring and 
treatment, and create State revolving loan funds to provide 
low-cost financing for public water systems.
    The primary impact of the bill on State and local 
governments would be to reduce the likely costs of complying 
with future drinking water regulations. These future 
regulations would impose significant costs, primarily on local 
public water systems. The number and severity of these 
regulations is likely to be less under S. 1316. However, 
because these regulations are not yet in place, we cannot 
estimate the magnitude of any savings at this time.
    For example, the bill would change the level at which 
future standards would be set for drinking water contaminants. 
By allowing EPA to consider the cost of compliance and the 
extent of the reduction in risks to health when establishing 
new standards, the bill would allow less stringent standards to 
be set in some circumstances and would therefore lower the cost 
of compliance for local water systems. Again, because these 
regulations are not yet in place, we cannot estimate the 
magnitude of any savings, although we expect that they would be 
significant.
    The bill also would create some new responsibilities 
(mostly for States), but CBO expects that the cost of these new 
responsibilities would likely be far less than the potential 
savings realized from changing the current standard-setting 
process and altering current monitoring and treatment 
requirements. Furthermore, the bill extends the authorization 
of certain existing appropriations and authorizes the 
appropriation of additional Federal funds to help State and 
local governments meet compliance costs. In total, the bill 
would authorize over $9.9 billion in funding for State and 
local governments over fiscal years 1996 to 2003 and would make 
available for spending about $225 million that was previously 
appropriated in fiscal years 1994 and 1995. Assuming the 
appropriation of these funds, CBO estimates that the bill would 
likely result in significant net savings to State and local 
governments.

               Changes Likely to Reduce Compliance Costs

Standard-Setting

    The bill would change the procedures for determining 
permissible levels of contaminants in drinking water in ways 
that would likely lower compliance costs for public water 
systems. First, it would rescind the requirement that the EPA 
Administrator issue rules for 25 drinking water contaminants 
every 3 years. No specific number of contaminants would have to 
be regulated. Although it is possible that with this change EPA 
would regulate more contaminants than current law dictates, CBO 
expects that the agency would regulate fewer contaminants than 
currently required.
    Second, the bill would allow EPA to set the maximum 
contaminant level goal (MCLG) for contaminants known or likely 
to be carcinogens at a level other than zero in some 
circumstances. MCLGs are concentration levels below which there 
is thought to be no adverse effect on human health. Under 
current law, the maximum contaminant level (MCL) is an 
enforceable standard that is set as close to the MCLG as EPA 
determines is feasible. Current law requires MCLGs for known or 
likely carcinogens to be set at zero.
    Third, the bill would give EPA the authority to set MCLs at 
a level other than the feasible level if using the feasible 
level would increase the health risks from other contaminants. 
If EPA uses this authority, it must set the MCL at a level that 
minimizes the overall health risk. Current law does not allow 
EPA to consider the effect of new regulations on the 
concentration of contaminants that are already regulated.
    Fourth, the bill would require that EPA conduct a cost-
benefit analysis for national primary drinking water 
regulations before they are proposed. The bill also would 
require EPA, when proposing a maximum contaminant level, to 
publish a determination as to whether the benefits of the 
proposed MCL justify the costs of complying with it. EPA would 
be given the discretionary authority to establish less 
stringent standards when it determines that the benefits of an 
MCL set at the feasible level would not justify the cost of 
compliance or when it determines that the contaminant occurs 
almost exclusively in small systems. If EPA uses this 
discretionary authority, it would have to set the MCL at a 
level that maximizes health risk reduction at a cost justified 
by the benefits. While current law requires EPA to perform 
cost/benefit analyses of new regulations, it does not give the 
agency the discretion to use those analyses as justification 
for changing the standards contained in new regulations. These 
last three changes in current law would give EPA greater 
discretion to set less stringent standards in future 
regulations. Any use of that discretion would lower the cost of 
compliance for public water systems.
    Finally, the bill would establish an MCL for radon and 
would set specific requirements for regulations governing 
arsenic and sulfates in drinking water. The impact of these 
provisions on State and local government budgets is difficult 
to gauge, since EPA has not yet written final regulations for 
these contaminants. The bill would require the EPA 
Administrator to issue an MCL for radon of 3,000 picocuries per 
liter of water (pCi/Lwater). The impact of this change is 
difficult to assess because the MCL for radon under current law 
has not yet been determined. EPA has issued a draft MCL of 300 
pCi/Lwater, and agency officials estimate that public drinking 
water systems serving 17 million people would be required to 
treat water for radon at that level. Under the higher MCL in 
the bill, systems serving fewer than 1 million people would 
have to treat for radon. Without a clear indication of the MCLs 
EPA would establish for other substances under current law, CBO 
has no sound basis for estimating the possible savings that 
would result from these provisions.

Monitoring

    Section 19 would change monitoring requirements for local 
water systems in ways that probably would lower compliance 
costs. First, it would allow the EPA Administrator to waive 
monitoring requirements for States under certain conditions. 
Second, it would allow States with primary enforcement 
responsibility to establish alternative monitoring requirements 
for some national drinking water regulations. Alternative 
requirements could apply to all or just some public water 
systems in the State. Third, this section would give States 
with primary enforcement responsibility separate authority to 
establish alternate monitoring requirements specifically for 
small systems. Fourth, under ``representative monitoring 
plans'' developed by the States, small and medium water systems 
would probably monitor for unregulated contaminants less 
frequently than they would under current law. Finally, this 
section would direct the EPA Administrator to pay the 
reasonable costs of testing and analysis that small systems 
incur by carrying out the representative monitoring plans.

Compliance Period, Exemptions, and Variances

    Section 11 would change the date that primary drinking 
water regulations become effective from eighteen months to 3 
years after the date of promulgation, unless the EPA 
Administrator determines that an earlier date is practicable. 
This change would give water systems more time to install new 
equipment or take other steps necessary to come into compliance 
with the new regulation.
    Section 13 would ease the conditions under which a State 
with primary enforcement responsibility may grant exemptions 
from primary drinking water regulations. Exemptions are 
currently given to water systems that, because of ``compelling 
factors,'' cannot comply with national drinking water 
regulations. These exemptions must be accompanied by a schedule 
that indicates when the system will come into compliance with 
the regulation. This section would specifically provide that a 
system serving a disadvantaged community may be eligible for an 
exemption.
    Section 14 of the bill would set out conditions under which 
small systems could be granted variances from complying with 
primary drinking water regulations. Variances are currently 
given to water systems that, because of the quality of their 
raw water sources, cannot comply with regulations, even after 
applying the best technology or treatment technique. This 
section would broaden the qualifying criteria for small water 
systems, increasing the likelihood that they would be granted 
variances.

               New Requirements That Would Increase Costs

Conditions of Primacy

    Several sections of the bill would increase the 
responsibilities of States only if they choose to accept 
primary enforcement responsibility for national drinking water 
regulations. Every State except Wyoming currently has primary 
enforcement authority. Specifically, primacy States would have 
to set up new procedures to review applications for variances 
submitted by small systems and ensure that systems remain 
eligible for any variances granted. They would also have to 
establish requirements for the training and certification of 
operators of public water systems. Beginning in fiscal year 
1997, they would have to prepare an annual report for EPA on 
violations of national primary drinking water regulations 
committed by their public water systems. Primacy States would 
also have to consider and act upon consolidation proposals from 
public water systems.
    These new requirements would entail some costs for primacy 
States. Based on information from State drinking water 
officials, CBO believes that if all funds authorized are 
subsequently appropriated, States would probably receive enough 
money to pay for these additional requirements.

Procedures for Small Systems

    Some provisions of this bill would require all States, 
whether or not they have accepted primary enforcement 
responsibility, to institute new procedures that would benefit 
small water systems. These requirements could impose 
significant additional costs on the States themselves. For 
example, section 19 of the bill would require each State to 
develop a ``representative monitoring plan'' to assess the 
occurrence of unregulated contaminants in small water systems. 
Under these plans, only a representative sample of small water 
systems in each State would be required to monitor for 
unregulated contaminants. Current law requires all systems to 
do such monitoring. While these plans could reduce the cost of 
monitoring for most small systems, they would require extra 
effort by the States. Based on information from a number of 
State drinking water officials, CBO believes that if all funds 
authorized are later appropriated, the States would probably 
receive enough funding to pay for any additional costs.
    Section 15 of the bill would require each State to take 
certain actions to ensure that public water systems in the 
State develop the technical, managerial, and financial capacity 
to comply with drinking water regulations. States would have to 
prepare a ``capacity development strategy'' for small water 
systems as well as a list of systems that have not complied 
with drinking water regulations. In some circumstances, States 
would be allowed to spend money from their annual SRF 
capitalization grant to pay for developing and implementing 
their strategy.

Record-Keeping and Notification

    The bill includes other provisions that might lead to 
additional recordkeeping and reporting responsibilities for 
States and for public water systems. Section 4 would allow the 
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency to require 
States and localities to submit monitoring data and other 
information necessary for developing studies, work plans, or 
national primary drinking water regulations. This section could 
increase reporting costs for State and local governments, but 
on balance the bill would likely result in a significant 
decrease in overall monitoring requirements and costs.
    Section 20 of the bill would substitute more specific 
legislative requirements for current regulations governing how 
water systems notify customers of violations of national 
primary drinking water regulations. For example, this section 
would add a new requirement that community water systems notify 
customers of violations by mail. These requirements might 
result in increased costs for local governments.

Definition of Public Water System

    Section 24 would change the definition of ``public water 
system'' to include systems that provide water for residential 
use through ``other constructed conveyances.'' This change 
would make drinking water regulations applicable to some 
irrigation districts that currently supply water to residential 
customers by means other than pipes. Districts would not fall 
under the new definition if alternative water is being provided 
for residential uses or ff the water provided for residential 
uses is being treated by the provider, a pass-through entity, 
or the user. Those districts that fall under the new definition 
could face increased costs for treatment or for providing an 
alternative water supply.
    CBO is still gathering information on the number of 
districts that would be affected by this change; however, we 
believe that because most of the water supplied by these 
districts is for agricultural uses, the amount of water that 
they would need to treat would be a small fraction of the water 
they supply. Furthermore, the bill would allow districts to 
make residential users of their water responsible for treatment 
or for obtaining an alternative water supply.

                    Authorizations of Appropriations

    The bill would authorize the appropriation of over $9.9 
billion for State and local governments over fiscal years 1996 
to 2003. The largest authorization would be $8.0 billion for 
the creation of State revolving loan funds (SRFs). In addition, 
the bill would make available for spending $225 million that 
was appropriated for the revolving funds in fiscal years 1994 
and 1995. If the authorized funds are appropriated, these SRFs 
would be a significant new source of low-cost infrastructure 
financing for many public water supply systems. The bill would 
give States the flexibility to transfer capitalization grant 
funds between the new safe drinking water SRFs and the SRFs 
established by the Clean Water Act for financing wastewater 
treatment facilities.
    The bill would also extend the authorization for grants to 
the States for public water system supervision (PWSS) programs 
through fiscal year 2003 at $100 million per year and in some 
situations would allow States to supplement their PWSS grant by 
reserving an equal amount from their annual SRF capitalization 
grant. The PWSS programs implement the Safe Drinking Water Act 
at the State level through enforcement, staff training, data 
management, sanitary surveys, and certification of testing 
laboratories. The fiscal year 1995 appropriation for PWSS 
grants totaled $70 million. Both EPA and the Association of 
State Drinking Water Administrators have found this level of 
funding to be inadequate to meet the requirements of current 
law.
    The bill would also allow the District of Columbia, 
Arlington County, Virginia, and Falls Church, Virginia to enter 
into agreements to pay the Army Corps of Engineers to modernize 
the Washington Aqueduct. The Corps estimates that the 
modernization would cost about $275 million in 1995 dollars and 
would take around 7 years to complete. The terms of the 
agreements are subject to negotiation, but it is likely that 
payment of principal and interest would begin within two or 3 
years and would be spread out over thirty years. The three 
localities would raise the necessary funds by increasing the 
water rates paid by their customers. The localities' respective 
shares of the costs would be roughly as follows: District of 
Columbia (75 percent), Arlington County (15 percent), and Falls 
Church (10 percent).

     9. ESTIMATE COMPARISON: None.

    10. PREVIOUS CBO ESTIMATE: None.

    11. ESTIMATE PREPARED BY: Federal Cost Estimate: Kim Cawley 
(226-2860) and Stephanie Weiner (226-2720). State and Local 
Government Cost Estimate: Pepper Santalucia (225-3220).

    12. ESTIMATE APPROVED BY: Paul N. Van de Water, Assistant 
Director for Budget Analysis

                        Changes in Existing Law

    In compliance with section 12 of rule XXVI of the Standing 
Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by the bill 
as reported are shown as follows: existing law as proposed to 
be omitted is printed in bold and enclosed in brackets; new 
matter proposed to be added to existing law is printed in 
italic; and existing law in which no change is proposed is 
shown in roman.

             TITLE XIV--SAFETY OF PUBLIC WATER SYSTEMS \1\

    \1\ This title, commonly referred to as the ``Safe Drinking Water 
Act,'' consists of title XIV of the Public Health Service Act (42 
U.S.C. 300f-300j-9) as added by Public Law 93-523 (December 16, 1974), 
and amendments made by subsequent enactments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                ------                                


                              short title

Sec. 1400. This title may be cited as the `Safe Drinking Water Act'.

                          Part A--Definitions

                              definitions

    Sec. 1401. For purposes of this title:
    (1) The term `primary drinking water regulation' means a 
regulation which--
          (A) applies to public water systems;
          (B) specifies contaminants which, in the judgment of 
        the Administrator, may have any adverse effect on the 
        health of persons;
          (C) specifies for each such contaminant either--
                  (i) a maximum contaminant level, if, in the 
                judgment of the Administrator, it is 
                economically and technologically feasible to 
                ascertain the level of such contaminant in 
                water in public water systems, or
                  (ii) if, in the judgment of the 
                Administrator, it is not economically or 
                technologically feasible to so ascertain the 
                level of such contaminant, 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; and
          (D) contains criteria and procedures to assure a 
        supply of drinking water which dependably complies with 
        such maximum contaminant levels; including accepted 
        methods for 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. The procedures shall 
        be treated as an alternative for public water systems 
        to the quality control and testing procedures listed in 
        the regulation.
    (2) The term `secondary drinking water regulation' means a 
regulation which applies to public water systems and which 
specifies the maximum contaminant levels which, in the judgment 
of the Administrator, are requisite to protect the public 
welfare. Such regulations may apply to any contaminant in 
drinking water (A) which may adversely affect the odor or 
appearance of such water and consequently may cause a 
substantial number of the persons served by the public water 
system providing such water to discontinue its use, or (B) 
which may otherwise adversely affect public welfare. Such 
regulations may vary according to geographic and other 
circumstances.
    (3) The term `maximum contaminant level' means the maximum 
permissible level of a contaminant in water which is delivered 
to any user of a public water system.
    [(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) Residential use._
                          (I) In general._A connection 
                        described in subclause (II) shall not 
                        be considered to be a connection for 
                        determining whether the system is a 
                        public water system under this title, 
                        if--
                                  (aa) 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 and 
                                cooking; or
                                  (bb) 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 
                                and cooking 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) Connections._A connection 
                        referred to in this subclause is a 
                        connection to a water system that 
                        conveys water by a means other than a 
                        pipe principally for 1 or more purposes 
                        other than residential use (which other 
                        purposes include irrigation, stock 
                        watering, industrial use, or municipal 
                        source water prior to treatment)--
                                  (aa) for a residential use 
                                (consisting of drinking, 
                                bathing, cooking, or other 
                                similar use); or
                                  (bb) to a facility for a use 
                                similar to a residential use.
                  (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 use shall not be 
                considered to be a public water system if the 
                system and the residential users of the system 
                comply with subclauses (I) and (II) of clause 
                (i).
    (5) The term `supplier of water' means any person who owns 
or operates a public water system.
    (6) The term `contaminant' means any physical, chemical, 
biological, or radiological substance or matter in water.
    (7) The term `Administrator' means the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
    (8) The term `Agency' means the Environmental Protection 
Agency.
    (9) The term `Council' means the National Drinking Water 
Advisory Council established under section 1446.
    (10) The term `municipality' means a city, town, or other 
public body created pursuant to State law, or an Indian tribe.
    (11) The term `Federal agency' means any department, 
agency, or instrumentality of the United States.
    (12) The term `person' means an individual, corporation, 
company, association, partnership, State, municipality, or 
Federal agency (and includes officers, employees, and agents of 
any corporation, company, association, State, municipality, or 
Federal agency).
    (13) [The] (A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the 
term `State' includes, in addition to the several States, only 
the District of Columbia, Guam, the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, 
American Samoa, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
          (B) For purposes of part G, the term `State' means 
        each of the 50 States and the Commonwealth of Puerto 
        Rico.
    (14) The term `Indian Tribe' means any Indian tribe having 
a Federally recognized governing body carrying out substantial 
governmental duties and powers over any area. For purposes of 
part G, the term includes any Native village (as defined in 
section 3(c) of the Alaska Native Claims Settlement Act (43 
U.S.C. 1602(c))).
    (15) Community Water System._The term `community water 
system' means a public water system that--
          (A) serves at least 15 service connections used by 
        year-round residents of the area served by the system; 
        or
          (B) regularly serves at least 25 year-round 
        residents.
    (16) Noncommunity Water System._The term `noncommunity 
water system' means a public water system that is not a 
community water system.

                      Part B--Public Water Systems

                                coverage

    Sec. 1411. Subject to sections 1415 and 1416, national 
primary drinking water regulations under this part shall apply 
to each public water system in each State; except that such 
regulations shall not apply to a public water system--
          (1) which consists only of distribution and storage 
        facilities (and does not have any collection and 
        treatment facilities);
          (2) which obtains all of its water from, but is not 
        owned or operated by, a public water system to which 
        such regulations apply;
          (3) which does not sell water to any person; and
          (4) which is not a carrier which conveys passengers 
        in interstate commerce.

                  national drinking water regulations

    Sec. 1412. (a)(1) Effective on the enactment of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986, each national interim or 
revised primary drinking water regulation promulgated under 
this section before such enactment shall be deemed to be a 
national primary drinking water regulation under subsection 
(b). No such regulation shall be required to comply with the 
standards set forth in subsection (b)(4) unless such regulation 
is amended to establish a different maximum contaminant level 
after the enactment of such amendments.
    (2) After the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
Amendments of 1986 each recommended maximum contaminant level 
published before the enactment of such amendments shall be 
treated as a maximum contaminant level goal.
    (3) Whenever a national primary drinking water regulation 
is proposed under [paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection 
(b)] paragraph (1) or (2) of subsection (b) for any 
contaminant, the maximum contaminant level goal for such 
contaminant shall be proposed simultaneously. Whenever a 
national primary drinking water regulation is promulgated under 
[paragraph (1), (2), or (3) of subsection (b)] paragraph (1) or 
(2) of subsection (b) for any contaminant, the maximum 
contaminant level goal for such contaminant shall be published 
simultaneously.
    (4) Paragraph (3) shall not apply to any recommended 
maximum contaminant level published before the enactment of the 
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986.
    [(b)(1) In the case of those contaminants listed in the 
Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking published in volume 47, 
Federal Register, page 9352, and in volume 48, Federal 
Register, page 45502, the Administrator shall publish maximum 
contaminant level goals and promulgate national primary 
drinking water regulations--
          (A) not later than 12 months after the enactment of 
        the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986 for not 
        less than 9 of those listed contaminants;
          (B) not later than 24 months after such enactment for 
        not less than 40 of those listed contaminants; and
          (C) not later than 36 months after such enactment for 
        the remainder of such listed contaminants.
    (2)(A) If the Administrator identifies a drinking water 
contaminant the regulation of which, in the judgment of the 
Administrator, is more likely to be protective of public health 
(taking into account the schedule for regulation under 
paragraph (1) than a contaminant referred to in paragraph (1), 
the Administrator may publish a maximum contaminant level goal 
and promulgate a national primary drinking water regulation for 
such identified contaminant in lieu of regulating the 
contaminant referred to in such paragraph. There may be no more 
than 7 contaminants in paragraph (1) for which substitutions 
may be made. Regulation of a contaminant identified under this 
paragraph shall be in accordance with the schedule applicable 
to the contaminant for which the substitution is made.
    (B) If the Administrator identifies one or more 
contaminants for substitution under this paragraph, the 
Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register not late 
than one year after the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water 
Act Amendments of 1986 a list of contaminants proposed for 
substitution, the contaminants referred to in paragraph (1) for 
which substitutions are to be made, and the basis for the 
judgment that regulation of such proposed substitute 
contaminants is more likely to be protective of public health 
(taking into account the schedule for regulation under such 
paragraph). Following a period of 60 days for public comment, 
the Administrator shall publish in the Federal Register a final 
list of contaminants to be substituted and contaminants 
referred to in paragraph (1) for which substitutions are to be 
made, together with responses to significant comments.
    (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).
    (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 from 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).]
    (b) Standards.--
          (1) Identification of contaminants for listing._
                  (A) General authority._The Administrator 
                shall publish a maximum contaminant level goal 
                and promulgate a national primary drinking 
                water regulation for each contaminant (other 
                than a contaminant referred to in paragraph (2) 
                for which a national primary drinking water 
                regulation has been promulgated as of the date 
                of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
                Amendments of 1995) if the Administrator 
                determines, based on adequate data and 
                appropriate peer-reviewed scientific 
                information and an assessment of health risks, 
                conducted in accordance with sound and 
                objective scientific practices, that--
                          (i) the contaminant may have an 
                        adverse effect on the health of 
                        persons; and
                          (ii) 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 levels of public 
                        health concern.
                  (B) Selection and listing of contaminants for 
                consideration._
                          (i) In general._Not later than July 
                        1, 1997, the Administrator (after 
                        consultation with the Secretary of 
                        Health and Human Services) shall 
                        publish and periodically, but not less 
                        often than every 5 years, update a list 
                        of contaminants that are known or 
                        anticipated to occur in drinking water 
                        provided by public water systems and 
                        that may warrant regulation under this 
                        title.
                          (ii) Research and study plan._At such 
                        time as a list is published under 
                        clause (i), the Administrator shall 
                        describe available and needed 
                        information and research with respect 
                        to--
                                  (I) the health effects of the 
                                contaminants;
                                  (II) the occurrence of the 
                                contaminants in drinking water; 
                                and
                                  (III) treatment techniques 
                                and other means that may be 
                                feasible to control the 
                                contaminants.
                          (iii) Comment._The Administrator 
                        shall seek comment on each list and any 
                        research plan that is published from 
                        officials of State and local 
                        governments, operators of public water 
                        systems, the scientific community, and 
                        the general public.
                  (C) Determination.--
                          (i) In general._Except as provided in 
                        clause (ii), not later than July 1, 
                        2001, and every 5 years thereafter, the 
                        Administrator shall take one of the 
                        following actions for not fewer than 5 
                        contaminants:
                                  (I) Publish a determination 
                                that information available to 
                                the Administrator does not 
                                warrant the issuance of a 
                                national primary drinking water 
                                regulation.
                                  (II) Publish a determination 
                                that a national primary 
                                drinking water regulation is 
                                warranted based on information 
                                available to the Administrator, 
                                and proceed to propose a 
                                maximum contaminant level goal 
                                and national primary drinking 
                                water regulation not later than 
                                2 years after the date of 
                                publication of the 
                                determination.
                                  (III) Propose a maximum 
                                contaminant level goal and 
                                national primary drinking water 
                                regulation.
                          (ii) Insufficient information._If the 
                        Administrator determines that available 
                        information is insufficient to make a 
                        determination for a contaminant under 
                        clause (i), the Administrator may 
                        publish a determination to continue to 
                        study the contaminant. Not later than 5 
                        years after the Administrator 
                        determines that further study is 
                        necessary for a contaminant pursuant to 
                        this clause, the Administrator shall 
                        make a determination under clause (i).
                          (iii) Assessment._The determinations 
                        under clause (i) shall be based on an 
                        assessment of--
                                  (I) the available scientific 
                                knowledge that is consistent 
                                with the requirements of 
                                paragraph (3)(A) and useful in 
                                determining the nature and 
                                extent of adverse effects on 
                                the health of persons that may 
                                occur due to the presence of 
                                the contaminant in drinking 
                                water;
                                  (II) information on the 
                                occurrence of the contaminant 
                                in drinking water; and
                                  (III) the treatment 
                                technologies, treatment 
                                techniques, or other means that 
                                may be feasible in reducing the 
                                contaminant in drinking water 
                                provided by public water 
                                systems.
                          (iv) Priorities._In making 
                        determinations under this subparagraph, 
                        the Administrator shall give priority 
                        to those contaminants not currently 
                        regulated that are associated with the 
                        most serious adverse health effects and 
                        that present the greatest potential 
                        risk to the health of persons due to 
                        the presence of the contaminant in 
                        drinking water provided by public water 
                        systems.
                          (v) Review._Each document setting 
                        forth the determination for a 
                        contaminant under clause (i) shall be 
                        available for public comment at such 
                        time the determination is published.
                          (vi) Judicial review._Determinations 
                        made by the Administrator pursuant to 
                        clause (i)(I) shall be considered final 
                        agency actions for the purposes of 
                        section 1448. No determination under 
                        clause (i)(I) shall be set aside by a 
                        court pursuant to a review authorized 
                        under that section, unless the court 
                        finds that the determination is 
                        arbitrary and capricious.
                  (D) Urgent threats to public health._The 
                Administrator may promulgate an interim 
                national primary drinking water regulation for 
                a contaminant without listing the contaminant 
                under subparagraph (B) or publishing a 
                determination for the contaminant under 
                subparagraph (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 subparagraph (C) subject to an interim 
                regulation under this subparagraph shall be 
                issued 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.
                  (E) Monitoring data and other information._
                The Administrator may require, in accordance 
                with section 1445(a)(2), the submission of 
                monitoring data and other information necessary 
                for the development of studies, research plans, 
                or national primary drinking water regulations.
          (2) Schedules and deadlines._
                  (A) In general._In the case of the 
                contaminants listed in the Advance Notice of 
                Proposed Rulemaking published in volume 47, 
                Federal Register, page 9352, and in volume 48, 
                Federal Register, page 45502, the Administrator 
                shall publish maximum contaminant level goals 
                and promulgate national primary drinking water 
                regulations--
                          (i) not later than 1 year after June 
                        19, 1986, for not fewer than 9 of the 
                        listed contaminants;
                          (ii) not later than 2 years after 
                        June 19, 1986, for not fewer than 40 of 
                        the listed contaminants; and
                          (iii) not later than 3 years after 
                        June 19, 1986, for the remainder of the 
                        listed contaminants.
                  (B) Substitution of contaminants._If the 
                Administrator identifies a drinking water 
                contaminant the regulation of which, in the 
                judgment of the Administrator, is more likely 
                to be protective of public health (taking into 
                account the schedule for regulation under 
                subparagraph (A)) than a contaminant referred 
                to in subparagraph (A), the Administrator may 
                publish a maximum contaminant level goal and 
                promulgate a national primary drinking water 
                regulation for the identified contaminant in 
                lieu of regulating the contaminant referred to 
                in subparagraph (A). Substitutions may be made 
                for not more than 7 contaminants referred to in 
                subparagraph (A). Regulation of a contaminant 
                identified under this subparagraph shall be in 
                accordance with the schedule applicable to the 
                contaminant for which the substitution is made.
                  (C) Disinfectants and disinfection 
                byproducts._
                          (i) Information collection rule._
                                  (I) In general._Not later 
                                than December 31, 1995, 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.
                                  (II) Extension._The 
                                Administrator may extend the 
                                deadline under subclause (I) 
                                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 subject to agreement by all 
                        the parties to the negotiated 
                        rulemaking, but no later than a revised 
                        date that reflects the interval or 
                        intervals for the rules in the 
                        timetable.
                  (D) Prior requirements._The requirements of 
                subparagraphs (C) and (D) of section 1412(b)(3) 
                (as in effect before the amendment made by 
                section 4(a) of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
                Amendments of 1995), and any obligation to 
                promulgate regulations pursuant to such 
                subparagraphs not promulgated as of the date of 
                enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
                Amendments of 1995, are superseded by this 
                paragraph and paragraph (1).
    (3) Risk assessment, management and communication._
          (A) Use of science in decisionmaking._In carrying out 
        this title, 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 uncertainty identified in the 
                process of the assessment of public health 
                effects and research 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._Not later 
                than 90 days prior to proposing any national 
                primary drinking water regulation that includes 
                a maximum contaminant level, the Administrator 
                shall, with respect to a maximum contaminant 
                level that would be considered in accordance 
                with paragraph (4) in a proposed regulation and 
                each alternative maximum contaminant level that 
                would be considered in a proposed regulation 
                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) the health risk reduction 
                        benefits (including non-quantifiable 
                        health benefits identified and 
                        described by the Administrator, except 
                        that such benefits shall not be used by 
                        the Administrator for purposes of 
                        determining whether a maximum 
                        contaminant level is or is not 
                        justified unless there is a factual 
                        basis in the rulemaking record to 
                        conclude that such benefits are likely 
                        to occur) expected as the result of 
                        treatment to comply with each level;
                          (II) the health risk reduction 
                        benefits (including non-quantifiable 
                        health benefits identified and 
                        described by the Administrator, except 
                        that such benefits shall not be used by 
                        the Administrator for purposes of 
                        determining whether a maximum 
                        contaminant level is or is not 
                        justified unless there is a factual 
                        basis in the rulemaking record to 
                        conclude that such benefits are likely 
                        to occur) expected 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) the costs (including non-
                        quantifiable costs identified and 
                        described by the Administrator, except 
                        that such costs shall not be used by 
                        the Administrator for purposes of 
                        determining whether a maximum 
                        contaminant level is or is not 
                        justified unless there is a factual 
                        basis in the rulemaking record to 
                        conclude that such costs are likely to 
                        occur) expected 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; and
                          (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._Not later than 90 
                days prior to 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 would be 
                considered in a proposed regulation, 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) Form of notice._Whenever a national 
                primary drinking water regulation is expected 
                to result in compliance costs greater than 
                $75,000,000 per year, the Administrator shall 
                provide the notice required by clause (i) or 
                (ii) through an advanced notice of proposed 
                rulemaking.
                  (v) 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.
    [(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. 
        The maximum contaminant level goal for contaminants 
        that are known or likely to cause cancer in humans may 
        be set at a level other than zero, if the Administrator 
        determines, based on the best available, peer-reviewed 
        science, that there is a threshold level below which 
        there is unlikely to be any increase in cancer risk and 
        the Administrator sets the maximum contaminant level 
        goal at that level with 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 (3)(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._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] this subsection shall 
        not require that any specified technology, treatment 
        technique, or other means be used for purposes of 
        meeting such maximum contaminant level. The 
        Administrator shall include in the list any technology, 
        treatment technique, or other means that is feasible 
        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, including packaged or modular 
        systems and point-of-entry treatment units that are 
        controlled by the public water system to ensure proper 
        operation and maintenance and compliance with the 
        maximum contaminant level and equipped with mechanical 
        warnings to ensure that customers are automatically 
        notified of operational problems.
    (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 (3)(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); 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)).
          (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 
        (2)), 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) The Administrator is authorized to promulgate a 
national primary drinking water regulation that requires the 
use of a treatment technique in lieu of establishing a maximum 
contaminant level, if the Administrator makes a finding that it 
is not economically or technologically feasible to ascertain 
the level of the contaminant. In such case, the Administrator 
shall identify those treatment techniques which, in the 
Administrator's judgment, would prevent known or anticipated 
adverse effects on the health of persons to the extent 
feasible. Such regulations shall specify each treatment 
technique known to the Administrator which meets the 
requirements of this paragraph, but the Administrator may grant 
a variance from any specified treatment technique in accordance 
with section 1415(a)(3).
    (B) Any schedule referred to in this subsection for the 
promulgation of a national primary drinking water regulation 
for any contaminant shall apply in the same manner if the 
regulation requires a treatment technique in lieu of 
establishing a maximum contaminant level.
    (C)(i) Not later than 18 months after the enactment of the 
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986, the Administrator 
shall propose and promulgate national primary drinking water 
regulations specifying criteria under which filtration 
(including coagulation and sedimentation, as appropriate) is 
required as a treatment technique for public water systems 
supplied by surface water sources. In promulgating such rules, 
the Administrator shall consider the quality of source waters, 
protection afforded by watershed management, treatment 
practices (such as disinfection and length of water storage) 
and other factors relevant to protection of health.
    (ii) In lieu of the provisions of section 1415 the 
Administrator shall specify procedures by which the State 
determines which public water systems within its jurisdiction 
shall adopt filtration under the criteria of clause (i). The 
State may require the public water system to provide studies or 
other information to assist in this determination. The 
procedures shall provide notice and opportunity for public 
hearing on this determination. If the State determines that 
filtration is required, the State shall prescribe a schedule 
for compliance by the public water system with the filtration 
requirement. A schedule shall require compliance within 18 
months of a determination made under clause (iii).
    (iii) Within 18 months from the time that the Administrator 
establishes the criteria and procedures under this 
subparagraph, a State with primary enforcement responsibility 
shall adopt any necessary regulations to implement this 
subparagraph. Within 12 months of adoption of such regulations 
the State shall make determinations regarding filtration for 
all the public water systems within its jurisdiction supplied 
by surface waters.
    (iv) If a State does not have primary enforcement 
responsibility for public water systems, the Administrator 
shall have the same authority to make the determination in 
clause (ii) in such State as the State would have under that 
clause. Any filtration requirement or schedule under this 
subparagraph shall be treated as if it were a requirement of a 
national primary drinking water regulation.
    (v) Filtration technology for small systems._At the same 
time as the Administrator proposes an Interim Enhanced Surface 
Water Treatment Rule pursuant to paragraph (2)(C)(ii), the 
Administrator shall propose a regulation that describes 
treatment techniques that meet the requirements for filtration 
pursuant to this subparagraph and are feasible for community 
water systems serving a population of 3,300 or fewer and 
noncommunity water systems.
    (8) [Not later than 36 months after the enactment of the 
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986, the Administrator 
shall propose and promulgate] 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 1995 but not later than the 
date on which the Administrator promulgates a Stage II 
rulemaking for disinfectants and disinfection byproducts (as 
described in paragraph (2)), 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. 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 
section 1415(a)(1)(B) and 1415(a)(3). In implementing section 
1442(g) 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.]
    (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) 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.]
    (10) Effective date._A national primary drinking water 
regulation promulgated under this section 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 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 
case purposes unrelated to contamination of drinking water.
    (12) Arsenic._
          (A) Schedule and standard._Notwithstanding paragraph 
        (2), the Administrator shall promulgate a national 
        primary drinking water regulation for arsenic in 
        accordance with the schedule established by this 
        paragraph and pursuant to this subsection.
          (B) Research plan._Not later than 180 days after the 
        date of enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator 
        shall develop a comprehensive plan for research in 
        support of drinking water rulemaking to reduce the 
        uncertainty in assessing health risks associated with 
        exposure to low levels of arsenic. The Administrator 
        shall consult with the Science Advisory Board 
        established by section 8 of the Environmental Research, 
        Development, and Demonstration Act of 1978 (42 U.S.C. 
        4365), other Federal agencies, and interested public 
        and private entities.
          (C) Research projects._The Administrator shall carry 
        out the research plan, taking care to avoid duplication 
        of other research in progress. The Administrator may 
        enter into cooperative research agreements with other 
        Federal agencies, State and local governments, and 
        other interested public and private entities to carry 
        out the research plan.
          (D) Assessment._Not later than 3\1/2\ years after the 
        date of enactment of this paragraph, the Administrator 
        shall review the progress of the research to determine 
        whether the health risks associated with exposure to 
        low levels of arsenic are sufficiently well understood 
        to proceed with a national primary drinking water 
        regulation. The Administrator shall consult with the 
        Science Advisory Board, other Federal agencies, and 
        other interested public and private entities as part of 
        the review.
          (E) Proposed regulation._The Administrator shall 
        propose a national primary drinking water regulation 
        for arsenic not later than January 1, 2000.
          (F) Final regulation._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.
        (13) Radon in drinking water._
          (A) Regulation._Notwithstanding paragraph (2), not 
        later than 180 days after the date of enactment of this 
        paragraph, the Administrator shall promulgate a 
        national primary drinking water regulation for radon.
          (B) Maximum contaminant level._Notwithstanding any 
        other provision of law, the regulation shall provide 
        for a maximum contaminant level for radon of 3,000 
        picocuries per liter.
          (C) Revision._
                  (i) In general._Subject to clause (ii), a 
                revision to the regulation promulgated under 
                subparagraph (A) may be made pursuant to this 
                subsection. The revision may include a maximum 
                contaminant level less stringent that 3,000 
                picocuries per liter as provided in paragraphs 
                (4) and (9) or a maximum contaminant level more 
                stringent than 3,000 picocuries per liter as 
                provided in clause (ii).
                  (ii) Maximum contaminant level._
                          (I) Criteria for revision._The 
                        Administrator shall not revise the 
                        maximum contaminant level for radon to 
                        a more stringent level than the level 
                        established under subparagraph (B) 
                        unless--
                                  (aa) the revision is made to 
                                reflect consideration of risks 
                                from the ingestion of radon in 
                                drinking water and episodic 
                                uses of drinking water;
                                  (bb) the revision is 
                                supported by peer-reviewed 
                                scientific studies conducted in 
                                accordance with sound and 
                                objective scientific practices; 
                                and
                                  (cc) based on the studies, 
                                the National Academy of 
                                Sciences and the Science 
                                Advisory Board, established by 
                                section 8 of the Environmental 
                                Research, Development, and 
                                Demonstration Act of 1978 (42 
                                U.S.C. 4365), consider a 
                                revision of the maximum 
                                contaminant level to be 
                                appropriate.
                          (II) Amount of revision._If the 
                        Administrator determines to revise the 
                        maximum contaminant level for radon in 
                        accordance with subclause (I), the 
                        maximum contaminant level shall be 
                        revised to a level that is no more 
                        stringent than is necessary to reduce 
                        risks to human health from radon in 
                        drinking water to a level that is 
                        equivalent to risks to human health 
                        from radon in outdoor air based on the 
                        national average concentration of radon 
                        in outdoor air.
    (14) Sulfate._
          (A) In general._In the absence of scientific evidence 
        suggesting new or more serious health effects than are 
        suggested by the evidence available on the date of 
        enactment of this paragraph, for the purposes of 
        promulgation of a national primary drinking water 
        regulation for sulfate, notwithstanding the 
        requirements of paragraphs (4) and (7), the 
        Administrator shall specify in the regulation--
                  (i) a requirement for best technology or 
                other means under this subsection; and
                  (ii) requirements for public notification and 
                options for the provision of alternative water 
                supplies to populations at risk as an 
                alternative means of complying with the 
                regulation.
          (B) Schedule._Notwithstanding paragraph (2), the 
        regulation referred to in subparagraph (A) shall be 
        promulgated not later than 2 years after the date of 
        enactment of this paragraph.
          (C) Authority._Paragraph (6) shall apply to the 
        national primary drinking water regulation for sulfate 
        first promulgated after the date of enactment of this 
        paragraph only if the Administrator reproposes the 
        national primary drinking water regulation for sulfate 
        after that date based on evidence suggesting new or 
        more serious health effects as described in 
        subparagraph (A).
          (D) Effect on other laws._
                  (i) Federal laws._Notwithstanding part C, 
                section 311 of the Federal Water Pollution 
                Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1321), subtitle C or D 
                of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6921 
                et seq.), or section 107 or 121(d) of the 
                Comprehensive Environmental Response, 
                Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 
                U.S.C. 9607 and 9621(d)), no national primary 
                drinking water regulation for sulfate shall 
                be--
                          (I) used as a standard for 
                        determining compliance with any 
                        provision of any law other than this 
                        subsection;
                          (II) used as a standard for 
                        determining appropriate cleanup levels 
                        or whether cleanup should be undertaken 
                        with respect to any facility or site;
                          (III) considered to be an applicable 
                        or relevant and appropriate requirement 
                        for any such cleanup; or
                          (IV) used for the purpose of defining 
                        injury to a natural resource;
                unless the Administrator, by rule and after 
                notice and opportunity for public comment, 
                determines that the regulation is appropriate 
                for a use described in subclause (I), (II), 
                (III), or (IV).
                  (ii) State laws._This subparagraph shall not 
                affect any requirement of State law, including 
                the applicability of any State standard similar 
                to the regulation published under this 
                paragraph as a standard for any cleanup action, 
                compliance action, or natural resource damage 
                action taken pursuant to such a law.
    (15) System treatment technologies._
          (A) Guidance or regulations._
                  (i) In general._At the same time as the 
                Administrator promulgates a national primary 
                drinking regulation pursuant to this section, 
                the Administrator shall issue guidance or 
                regulations describing all treatment 
                technologies for the contaminant that is the 
                subject of the regulation that are feasible 
                with the use of best technology, treatment 
                techniques, or other means that the 
                Administrator finds, after examination for 
                efficacy under field conditions and not solely 
                under laboratory conditions, are available 
                taking cost into consideration for 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.
                  (ii) Contents._The guidance or regulations 
                shall identify the effectiveness of the 
                technology, the cost of the technology, and 
                other factors related to the use of the 
                technology, including requirements for the 
                quality of source water to ensure adequate 
                protection of human health, considering removal 
                efficiencies of the technology, and 
                installation and operation and maintenance 
                requirements for the technology.
                  (iii) Limitation._The Administrator shall not 
                issue guidance or regulations for a technology 
                under this paragraph unless the technology 
                adequately protects human health, considering 
                the expected useful life of the technology and 
                the source waters available to systems for 
                which the technology is considered to be 
                feasible.
          (B) Regulations and guidance._Not later than 2 years 
        after the date of enactment of this paragraph and after 
        consultation with the States, the Administrator shall 
        issue guidance or regulations under subparagraph (A) 
        for each national primary drinking water regulation 
        promulgated prior to the date of enactment of this 
        paragraph for which a variance may be granted under 
        section 1415(e). The Administrator may, at any time 
        after a national primary drinking water regulation has 
        been promulgated, issue guidance or regulations 
        describing additional or new or innovative treatment 
        technologies that meet the requirements of subparagraph 
        (A) for public water systems described in subparagraph 
        (A)(i) that are subject to the regulation.
          (C) No specified technology._A description under 
        subparagraph (A) of the best technology or other means 
        available shall not be considered to require or 
        authorize that the specified technology or other means 
        be used for the purpose of meeting the requirements of 
        any national primary drinking water regulation.
    (c) The Administrator shall publish proposed national 
secondary drinking water regulations within 270 days after the 
date of enactment of this title. Within 90 days after 
publication of any such regulation, he shall promulgate such 
regulation with such modifications as he deems appropriate. 
Regulations under this subsection may be amended from time to 
time.
    (d) Regulations under this section shall be prescribed in 
accordance with section 553 of title 5, United States Code 
(relating to rulemaking), except that the Administrator shall 
provide opportunity for public hearing prior to promulgation of 
such regulations. In proposing and promulgating regulations 
under this section, the Administrator shall consult with the 
Secretary and the National Drinking Water Advisory Council.
    (e) The Administrator shall request comments from the 
Science Advisory Board (established under the Environmental 
Research, Development, and Demonstration Act of 1978) prior to 
proposal of a maximum contaminant level goal and national 
primary drinking water regulation. The Board shall respond, as 
it deems appropriate, within the time period applicable for 
promulgation of the national primary drinking water standard 
concerned. This subsection shall, under no circumstances, be 
used to delay final promulgation of any national primary 
drinking water standard.

                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 regulation 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 section 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 section 1412 not later than 2 years after the 
        date on which the regulations are promulgated by the 
        Administrator;
          (2) has adopted and is implementing adequate 
        procedures for the enforcement of such State 
        regulations, including conducting such monitoring and 
        making such inspections as the Administrator may 
        require by regulation;
          (3) will keep such records and make such reports with 
        respect to its activities under paragraphs (1) and (2) 
        as the Administrator may require by regulation;
          (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[.]; 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.
    (b)(1) The Administrator shall, by regulation (proposed 
within 180 days of the date of enactment of this title), 
prescribe the manner in which a State may apply to the 
Administrator for a determination that the requirements of 
paragraphs (1), (2), (3), and (4) of subsection (a) are 
satisfied with respect to the State, the manner in which the 
determination is made, the period for which the determination 
will be effective, and the manner in which the Administrator 
may determine that such requirements are no longer met. Such 
regulations shall require that before a determination of the 
Administrator that such requirements are met or are no longer 
met with respect to a State may become effective, the 
Administrator shall notify such State of the determination and 
the reasons therefor and shall provide an opportunity for 
public hearing on the determination. Such regulations shall be 
promulgated (with such modifications as the Administrator deems 
appropriate) within 90 days of the publication of the proposed 
regulations in the Federal Register. The Administrator shall 
promptly notify in writing the chief executive officer of each 
State of the promulgation of regulations under this paragraph. 
Such notice shall contain a copy of the regulations and shall 
specify a State's authority under this title when it is 
determined to have primary enforcement responsibility for 
public water systems.
    (2) When an application is submitted in accordance with the 
Administrator's regulations under paragraph (1), the 
Administrator shall within 90 days of the date on which such 
application is submitted (A) make the determination applied 
for, or (B) deny the application and notify the applicant in 
writing of the reasons for his denial.
    (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) 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] any applicable requirement [in effect under 
        section 1412], 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) authorized under paragraph (1) or (2) of 
        subsection (a), or
          (2) if requested by (A) the chief executive officer 
        of the State in which is located the public water 
        system which is not in compliance with such regulation 
        or requirement, or (B) the agency of such State which 
        has jurisdiction over compliance by public water 
        systems in the State with national primary drinking 
        water regulations or State drinking water regulations.
The court may enter, in an action brought under this 
subsection, such judgment as protection of public health may 
require, taking into consideration the time necessary to comply 
and the availability of alternative water supplies; and, if the 
court determines that there has been a violation of the 
regulation or schedule or other requirement with respect to 
which the action was brought, the court may, taking into 
account the seriousness of the violation, the population at 
risk, and other appropriate factors, impose on the violator a 
civil penalty of not to exceed $25,000 for each day in which 
such violation occurs.
    [(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 to the persons served by 
        the system--
                  (A) 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 section 1415(a)(1)(A), 
                1415(a)(2), or 1415(e) for an inability to meet 
                a maximum contaminant level requirement or is 
                subject to an exemption granted under section 
                1416, 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; 
                        and
                  (C) 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--
                                  (I) the violation;
                                  (II) any potential adverse 
                                health effects; and
                                  (III) 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, 1997, 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, 1997, 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.
    (d) Whenever, on the basis of information available to him, 
the Administrator finds that within a reasonable time after 
national secondary drinking water regulations have been 
promulgated, one or more public water systems in a State do not 
comply with such secondary regulations, and that such 
noncompliance appears to result from a failure of such State to 
take reasonable action to assure that public water systems 
throughout such State meet such secondary regulations, he shall 
so notify the State.
    (e) Nothing in this title shall diminish any authority of a 
State or political subdivision to adopt or enforce any law or 
regulation respecting drinking water regulations or public 
water systems, but no such law or regulation shall relieve any 
person of any requirement otherwise applicable under this 
title.
    (f) If the Administrator makes a finding of noncompliance 
(described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of subsection (a)(1)) 
with respect to a public water system in a State which has 
primary enforcement responsibility, the Administrator may, for 
the purpose of assisting that State in carrying out such 
responsibility and upon the petition of such State or public 
water system or persons served by such system, hold, after 
appropriate notice, public hearings for the purpose of 
gathering information from technical or other experts, Federal, 
State, or other public officials, representatives of such 
public water system, persons served by such system, and other 
interested persons on--
          (1) the ways in which such system can within the 
        earliest feasible time be brought into compliance with 
        the regulation or requirement with respect to which 
        such finding was made, and
          (2) the means for the maximum feasible protection of 
        the public health during any period in which such 
        system is not in compliance with a national primary 
        drinking water regulation or requirement applicable to 
        a variance or exemption.
On the basis of such hearings the Administrator shall issue 
recommendations which shall be sent to such State and public 
water system and shall be made available to the public and 
communications media.
    (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] 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) Effect of penalty amounts._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).
    (D) If any person fails to pay an assessment of a civil 
penalty after it has become a final and unappealable order, or 
after the appropriate court of appeals has entered final 
judgment in favor of the Administrator, the Attorney General 
shall recover the amount for which such person is liable in any 
appropriate district court of the United States. In any such 
action, the validity and appropriateness of the final order 
imposing the civil penalty shall not be subject to review.
    (h) Consolidation Incentive._
          (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 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] 
        be issued to a system on condition that the system 
        install of the best technology, treatment techniques, 
        or other means, which the Administrator finds are 
        available (taking costs into consideration), and based 
        upon an evaluation satisfactory to the State that 
        indicates that alternative sources of water are not 
        reasonably available to the system. 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 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 appropriate by the 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 is 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).
          (B) A State which has primary enforcement 
        responsibility for public water systems may grant to 
        one or more public water systems within it jurisdiction 
        one or more variances from any provision of a national 
        primary drinking water regulation which requires the 
        use of a specified treatment technique with respect to 
        a contaminant if the public water system applying for 
        the variance demonstrates to the satisfaction of the 
        State that such treatment technique is not necessary to 
        protect the health of persons because of the nature of 
        the raw water source of such system. A variance granted 
        under this subparagraph shall be conditioned on such 
        monitoring and other requirements as the Administrator 
        may prescribe.
          (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. 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. 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) shall be conditioned by 
        the State upon compliance by the public water system 
        with the schedule prescribed by the State pursuant to 
        that subparagraph. The requirements of each schedule 
        prescribed by a State pursuant to that subparagraph 
        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. 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 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 un 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) 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 variances were complied with. A notice 
        under this clause shall--
                  (I) identify each public water system with 
                respect to which the finding was made,
                  (II) specify the reasons for the finding, and
                  (III) as appropriate, propose revocations of 
                specific variances or propose revised schedules 
                or other requirements for specific public water 
                systems granted variances, or both.
          (ii) The Administrator shall provide reasonable 
        notice and public hearing on the provisions of each 
        notice given pursuant to clause (i) of this 
        subparagraph. After a hearing on a notice pursuant to 
        such clause, the Administrator shall (I) rescind the 
        finding for which the notice was given and promptly 
        notify the State of such rescission, or (II) promulgate 
        (with such modifications as he deems appropriate) such 
        variance revocations and revised schedules or other 
        requirements proposed in such notice as he deems 
        appropriate. Not later than 180 days after the date a 
        notice is given pursuant to clause (i) of this 
        subparagraph, the Administrator shall complete the 
        hearing on the notice and take the action required by 
        the preceding sentence.
          (iii) If a State is notified under clause (i) of this 
        subparagraph of a finding of the Administrator made 
        with respect to a variance granted a public water 
        system within that State or to a schedule or other 
        requirements for a variance and if, before a revocation 
        of such variance or a revision of such schedule or 
        other requirement promulgated by the Administrator 
        takes effect, the State takes corrective action with 
        respect to such variance or schedule or other 
        requirement which the Administrator determines makes 
        his finding inapplicable to such variance or schedule 
        or other requirement, the Administrator shall rescind 
        the application of his finding to that variance or 
        schedule or other requirement. No variance revocation 
        or revised schedule or other requirement may take 
        effect before the expiration of 90 days following the 
        date of the notice in which the revocation or revised 
        schedule or other requirement was proposed.
          (2) If a State does not have primary enforcement 
        responsibility for public water systems, the 
        Administrator shall have the same authority to grant 
        variances in such State as the State would have under 
        paragraph (1) if it had primary enforcement 
        responsibility.
          (3) The Administrator may grant a variance from any 
        treatment technique requirement of a national primary 
        drinking water regulation upon a showing by any person 
        that an alternative treatment technique not included in 
        such requirement is at least as efficient in lowering 
        the level of the contaminant with respect to which such 
        requirement was prescribed. A variance under this 
        paragraph shall be conditioned on the use of the 
        alternative treatment technique which is the basis of 
        the variance.
    (b) Any schedule or other requirement on which a variance 
granted under paragraph (1)(B) or (2) of subsection (a) 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) 
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)] section 
1412(b)(7)(A).
    (e) Small System Variances._
          (1) In general._The Administrator (or a State with 
        primary enforcement responsibility for public water 
        systems under section 1413) may grant to a public water 
        system serving a population of 10,000 or fewer 
        (referred to in this subsection as a `small system') a 
        variance under this subsection for compliance with a 
        requirement specifying a maximum contaminant level or 
        treatment technique contained in a national primary 
        drinking water regulation, if the variance meets each 
        requirement of this subsection.
          (2) Availability of variances._A small system may 
        receive a variance under this subsection if the system 
        installs, operates, and maintains, in accordance with 
        guidance or regulations issued by the Administrator, 
        treatment technology that is feasible for small systems 
        as determined by the Administrator pursuant to section 
        1412(b)(15).
          (3) Conditions for granting variances._A variance 
        under this subsection shall be available only to a 
        system--
                  (A) that cannot afford to comply, in 
                accordance with affordability criteria 
                established by the Administrator (or the State 
                in the case of a State that has primary 
                enforcement responsibility under section 1413), 
                with a national primary drinking water 
                regulation, including compliance through--
                          (i) treatment;
                          (ii) alternative source of water 
                        supply; or
                          (iii) restructuring or consolidation 
                        (unless the Administrator (or the State 
                        in the case of a State that has primary 
                        enforcement responsibility under 
                        section 1413) makes a written 
                        determination that restructuring or 
                        consolidation is not feasible or 
                        appropriate based on other specified 
                        public policy considerations); and
                  (B) for which the Administrator (or the State 
                in the case of a State that has primary 
                enforcement responsibility under section 1413) 
                determines that the terms of the variance 
                ensure adequate protection of human health, 
                considering the quality of the source water for 
                the system and the removal efficiencies and 
                expected useful life of the treatment 
                technology required by the variance.
          (4) Applications._An application for a variance for a 
        national primary drinking water regulation under this 
        subsection shall be submitted to the Administrator (or 
        the State in the case of a State that has primary 
        enforcement responsibility under section 1413) not 
        later than the date that is the later of--
                  (A) 3 years after the date of enactment of 
                this subsection; or
                  (B) 1 year after the compliance date of the 
                national primary drinking water regulation as 
                established under section 1412(b)(10) for which 
                a variance is requested.
          (5) Variance review and decision._
                  (A) Timetable._The Administrator (or the 
                State in the case of a State that has primary 
                enforcement responsibility under section 1413) 
                shall grant or deny a variance not later than 1 
                year after the date of receipt of the 
                application.
                  (B) Penalty moratorium._Each public water 
                system that submits a timely application for a 
                variance under this subsection shall not be 
                subject to a penalty in an enforcement action 
                under section 1414 for a violation of a maximum 
                contaminant level or treatment technique in the 
                national primary drinking water regulation with 
                respect to which the variance application was 
                submitted prior to the date of a decision to 
                grant or deny the variance.
          (6) Compliance schedules._
                  (A) Variances._A variance granted under this 
                subsection shall require compliance with the 
                conditions of the variance not later than 3 
                years after the date on which the variance is 
                granted, except that the Administrator (or the 
                State in the case of a State that has primary 
                enforcement responsibility under section 1413) 
                may allow up to 2 additional years to comply 
                with a treatment technique, secure an 
                alternative source of water, or restructure if 
                the Administrator (or the State) determines 
                that additional time is necessary for capital 
                improvements, or to allow for financial 
                assistance provided pursuant to part G or any 
                other Federal or State program.
                  (B) Denied applications._If the Administrator 
                (or the State in the case of a State that has 
                primary enforcement responsibility under 
                section 1413) denies a variance application 
                under this subsection, the public water system 
                shall come into compliance with the 
                requirements of the national primary drinking 
                water regulation for which the variance was 
                requested not later than 4 years after the date 
                on which the national primary drinking water 
                regulation was promulgated.
          (7) Duration of variances._
                  (A) In general._The Administrator (or the 
                State in the case of a State that has primary 
                enforcement responsibility under section 1413) 
                shall review each variance granted under this 
                subsection not less often than every 5 years 
                after the compliance date established in the 
                variance to determine whether the system 
                remains eligible for the variance and is 
                conforming to each condition of the variance.
                  (B) Revocation of variances._The 
                Administrator (or the State in the case of a 
                State that has primary enforcement 
                responsibility under section 1413) shall revoke 
                a variance in effect under this subsection if 
                the Administrator (or the State) determines 
                that--
                          (i) the system is no longer eligible 
                        for a variance;
                          (ii) the system has failed to comply 
                        with any term or condition of the 
                        variance, other than a reporting or 
                        monitoring requirement, unless the 
                        failure is caused by circumstances 
                        outside the control of the system; or
                          (iii) the terms of the variance do 
                        not ensure adequate protection of human 
                        health, considering the quality of 
                        source water available to the system 
                        and the removal efficiencies and 
                        expected useful life of the treatment 
                        technology required by the variance.
          (8) 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.
          (9) Regulations and guidance._
                  (A) In general._Not later than 2 years after 
                the date of enactment of this subsection and in 
                consultation with the States, the Administrator 
                shall promulgate regulations for variances to 
                be granted under this subsection. The 
                regulations shall, at a minimum, specify--
                          (i) procedures to be used by the 
                        Administrator or a State to grant or 
                        deny variances, including requirements 
                        for notifying the Administrator and 
                        consumers of the public water system 
                        applying for a variance and 
                        requirements for a public hearing on 
                        the variance before the variance is 
                        granted;
                          (ii) requirements for the 
                        installation and proper operation of 
                        treatment technology that is feasible 
                        (pursuant to section 1412(b)(15)) for 
                        small systems and the financial and 
                        technical capability to operate the 
                        treatment system, including operator 
                        training and certification;
                          (iii) eligibility criteria for a 
                        variance for each national primary 
                        drinking water regulation, including 
                        requirements for the quality of the 
                        source water (pursuant to section 
                        1412(b)(15)(A)); and
                          (iv) information requirements for 
                        variance applications.
                  (B) Affordability criteria._Not later than 18 
                months after the date of enactment of the Safe 
                Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995, the 
                Administrator, in consultation with the States 
                and the Rural Utilities Service of the 
                Department of Agriculture, shall publish 
                information to assist the States in developing 
                affordability criteria. The affordability 
                criteria shall be reviewed by the States not 
                less often than every 5 years to determine if 
                changes are needed to the criteria.
          (10) Review by the administrator._
                  (A) In general._The Administrator shall 
                periodically review the program of each State 
                that has primary enforcement responsibility for 
                public water systems under section 1413 with 
                respect to variances to determine whether the 
                variances granted by the State comply with the 
                requirements of this subsection. With respect 
                to affordability, the determination of the 
                Administrator shall be limited to whether the 
                variances granted by the State comply with the 
                affordability criteria developed by the State.
                  (B) Notice and publication._If the 
                Administrator determines that variances granted 
                by a State are not in compliance with 
                affordability criteria developed by the State 
                and the requirements of this subsection, the 
                Administrator shall notify the State in writing 
                of the deficiencies and make public the 
                determination.
                  (C) Objections to variances._
                          (i) By the administrator._The 
                        Administrator may review and object to 
                        any variance proposed to be granted by 
                        a State, if the objection is 
                        communicated to the State not later 
                        than 90 days after the State proposes 
                        to grant the variance. If the 
                        Administrator objects to the granting 
                        of a variance, the Administrator shall 
                        notify the State in writing of each 
                        basis for the objection and propose a 
                        modification to the variance to resolve 
                        the concerns of the Administrator. The 
                        State shall make the recommended 
                        modification or respond in writing to 
                        each objection. If the State issues the 
                        variance without resolving the concerns 
                        of the Administrator, the Administrator 
                        may overturn the State decision to 
                        grant the variance if the Administrator 
                        determines that the State decision does 
                        not comply with this subsection.
                          (ii) Petition by consumers.--Not 
                        later than 30 days after a State with 
                        primary enforcement responsibility for 
                        public water systems under section 1413 
                        proposes to grant a variance for a 
                        public water system, any person served 
                        by the system may petition the 
                        Administrator to object to the granting 
                        of a variance. The Administrator shall 
                        respond to the petition not later than 
                        60 days after the receipt of the 
                        petition. The State shall not grant the 
                        variance during the 60-day period. The 
                        petition shall be based on comments 
                        made by the petitioner during public 
                        review of the variance by the State.

                               exemptions

    Sec. 1416. (a) A State which has primary enforcement 
responsibility may exempt any public water system within the 
State's jurisdiction from any requirement respecting a maximum 
contaminant level or any treatment technique requirement, or 
from both, of an applicable national primary drinking water 
regulation upon a finding that--
          (1) due to compelling factors (which may include 
        economic factors, including qualification of the public 
        water system as a system serving a disadvantaged 
        community pursuant to section 1473(e)(1), the public 
        water system is unable to comply with such contaminant 
        level of treatment technique requirement, or to 
        implement measures to develop an alternative source of 
        water supply,
          (2) the public water system was in operation on the 
        effective date of such contaminant level or treatment 
        technique requirement, a system that was not in 
        operation by that date, only if no reasonable 
        alternative source of drinking water is available to 
        such new system, and
          (3) the granting of the exemption will not result in 
        an unreasonable risk to health.
    (b)(1) If a State grants a public water system an exemption 
under subsection (a), the State shall prescribed, at the time 
the exemption is granted, a schedule for--
          (A) compliance [(including increments of progress)] 
        (including increments of progress or measures to 
        develop an alternative source of water supply) by the 
        public water system with each contaminant level 
        [requirement and treatment] requirement or treatment 
        technique requirement with respect to which an 
        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 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 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 if] not later than 3 years after the otherwise 
applicable compliance date established in section 1412(b)(10).
    (B) No exemption shall be granted unless 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] prior to the date 
        established pursuant to section 1412(b)(10);
          (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 assistance pursuant to part G, or any 
        other Federal or State program is reasonably likely to 
        be available within the period of the exemption; 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] a population of 3,300 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, but 
not to exceed a total of 6 years, if the system establishes 
that it is taking all practicable steps to meet the 
requirements of subparagraph (B).
    (D) Limitation.--A public water system may not receive an 
exemption under this section if the system was granted a 
variance under section 1415(e).
    (3) Each public water system's exemption granted by a State 
under subsection (a) shall be conditioned by the State upon 
compliance by the public water system with the schedule 
prescribed by the State pursuant to this subsection. The 
requirements of each schedule prescribed by a State pursuant to 
this subsection shall be enforceable by the State under its 
laws. Any requirements of a schedule on which an exemption 
granted under this section is conditioned may be enforced under 
section 1414 as if such requirement was part of a national 
primary drinking water regulation.
    (4) Each schedule prescribed by a State pursuant to this 
subsection shall be deemed approved by the Administrator unless 
the exemption for which it was prescribed is revoked by the 
Administrator under subsection (d)(2) or the schedule is 
revised by the Administrator under such subsection.
    (c) Each State which grants an exemption under subparagraph 
(a) 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) 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. 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 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 matter 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.
    (2)(A) If the Administrator finds that a State has, in a 
substantial number of instances, abused its discretion in 
granting exemptions under subsection (a) or failed to prescribe 
schedules is accordance with subsection (b), the Administrator 
shall notify the State of his finding. In determining if a 
State has abused its discretion in granting exemptions in a 
substantial number of instances, the Administrator shall 
consider the number of persons who are affected by the 
exemptions and if the requirements applicable to the granting 
of the exemptions were complied with. A notice under this 
subparagraph shall--
          (i) identify each exempt public water system with 
        respect to which the finding was made,
          (ii) specify the reasons for the finding, and
          (iii) as appropriate, propose revocations of specific 
        exemptions or propose revised schedules for specific 
        exempt public water systems, or both.
    (B) The Administrator shall provide reasonable notice and 
public hearing on the provisions of each notice given pursuant 
to subparagraph (A). After a hearing on a notice pursuant to 
subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall (i) rescind the 
finding for which the notice was given and promptly notify the 
State of such rescission, or (ii) promulgate (with such 
modifications as he deems appropriate) such exemption 
revocations and revised schedules proposed in such notice as he 
deems appropriate. Not later than 180 days after the date a 
notice is given pursuant to subparagraph (A), the Administrator 
shall complete the hearing on the notice and take the action 
required by the preceding sentence.
    (C) If a State is notified under subparagraph (A) of a 
finding of the Administrator made with respect to an exemption 
granted a public water system within the State or to a schedule 
prescribed pursuant to such an exemption and if before a 
revocation of such exemptions or a revision of such schedules 
promulgated by the Administrator takes effect the State takes 
corrective action with respect to such exemption or schedule 
which the Administrator determines makes his finding 
inapplicable to such exemption or schedule, the Administrator 
shall rescind the application of his finding to that exemption 
or schedule. No exemption revocation or revised schedule may 
take effect before the expiration of 90 days following the date 
of the notice in which the revocation or revised schedule was 
proposed.
    (e) 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(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).
    (f) If a State does not have primary enforcement 
responsibility for public water systems, the Administrator 
shall have the same authority to exempt public water systems in 
such State from maximum contaminant level requirements and 
treatment technique requirements under the same conditions and 
in the same manner as the State would be authorized to grant 
exemptions under this section if it had primary enforcement 
responsibility.
    (g) If an application for an exemption under this section 
is made, the State receiving the application of 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.

    [sec. 1417. prohibition on use of lead pipes, solder and flux.]

      prohibition on use of lead pipes, fittings, solder and flux

    Sec. 1417. (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 
                contaminant of their drinking water where such 
                contaminant results from either or both of the 
                following:
                          (i) The lead content in the 
                        construction materials of the public 
                        water system distribution system.
                          (ii) Corrosivity of the water supply 
                        sufficient to cause leaching of lead.
                The notice shall be provided in such manner and 
                form as may be reasonably required by the 
                Administrator. Notice under this paragraph 
                shall be provided notwithstanding the absence 
                of a violation of any national drinking water 
                standard.
                  (B) Contents of notice.--Notice under this 
                paragraph shall provide a clear and readily 
                understandable explanation of--
                          (i) the potential sources of lead in 
                        the drinking water,
                          (ii) potential adverse health 
                        effects,
                          (iii) reasonably available methods of 
                        mitigating known of potential lead 
                        content in drinking water,
                          (iv) any steps the system is taking 
                        to mitigate lead content in drinking 
                        water, and
                          (v) the necessity for seeking 
                        alternative water supplies, if any.
          (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.
    (b) State Enforcement.--
          (1) Enforcement of prohibition.--The requirements of 
        subsection (a)(1) shall be enforced in all State 
        effective 24 months after the enactment of this 
        section. States shall enforce such requirements through 
        State or local plumbing codes, or such other means of 
        enforcement as the State may determine appropriate.
          (2) Enforcement of public notice requirements.--The 
        requirements of subsection (a)(2) shall apply in all 
        States effective 24 months after the enactment of this 
        section.
    (c) Penalties.--If the Administrator determines that a 
State is not enforcing the requirements of subsection (a) as 
required pursuant to subsection (b), the Administrator may 
withhold up to 5 percent of Federal funds available to that 
State for State program grants under section 1443(a).
    (d) Definition of Lead Free.--For purpose 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.] 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.

                          capacity development

    Sec. 1418. (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, 1998, 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.
    (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) Variances and exemptions.--Based on information 
        obtained under subsection (c)(2)(B), the Administrator 
        shall, as appropriate, modify regulations concerning 
        variances and exemptions for small public water systems 
        to ensure flexibility in the use of the variances and 
        exemptions. Nothing in this paragraph shall be 
        interpreted, construed, or applied to affect or alter 
        the requirements of section 1415 or 1416.
          (4) 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.
          (5) 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.
    (e) Environmental Finance Centers._
          (1) In general.--The Administrator shall support the 
        network of university-based Environmental Finance 
        Centers in providing training and technical assistance 
        to State and local officials in developing capacity of 
        public water systems.
          (2) National capacity development clearinghouse.--
        Within the Environmental Finance Center network in 
        existence on the date of enactment of this section, the 
        Administrator shall establish a national public water 
        systems capacity development clearinghouse to receive, 
        coordinate, and disseminate research and reports on 
        projects funded under this title and from other sources 
        with respect to developing, improving, and maintaining 
        technical, financial, and managerial capacity at public 
        water systems to Federal and State agencies, 
        universities, water suppliers, and other interested 
        persons.
          (3) Capacity development techniques._
                  (A) In general.--The Environmental Finance 
                Centers shall develop and test managerial, 
                financial, and institutional techniques--
                          (i) to ensure that new public water 
                        systems have the technical, managerial, 
                        and financial capacity before 
                        commencing operation;
                          (ii) to identify public water systems 
                        in need of capacity development; and
                          (iii) to bring public water systems 
                        with a history of significant 
                        noncompliance with national primary 
                        drinking water regulations into 
                        compliance.
                  (B) Techniques.--The techniques may include 
                capacity assessment methodologies, manual and 
                computer-based public water system rate models 
                and capital planning models, public water 
                system consolidation procedures, and 
                regionalization models.
    (f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
to be appropriated to carry out subsection (e) $2,500,000 for 
each of fiscal years 1995 through 2003.

          source water quality protection partnership program

    Sec. 419. (a) Source Water Area Delineations.--Except as 
provided in subsection (c), not later than 5 years after the 
date of enactment of this section, and after an opportunity for 
public comment, each State shall--
          (1) delineate (directly or through delegation) the 
        source water protection areas for community water 
        systems in the State using hydrogeologic information 
        considered to be reasonably available and appropriate 
        by the State; and
          (2) conduct, to the extent practicable, vulnerability 
        assessments in source water areas determined to be a 
        priority by the State, including, to the extent 
        practicable, identification of risks in source water 
        protection areas to drinking water.
    (b) Alternative Delineations and Vulnerability 
Assessments.--For the purposes of satisfying the requirements 
of subsection (a), a State may use delineations and 
vulnerability assessments conducted for--
          (1) ground water sources under a State wellhead 
        protection program developed pursuant to section 1428;
          (2) 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)); or
          (3) 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).
    (c) Funding.--To carry out the delineations and assessments 
described in subsection (a), a State may use funds made 
available for that purpose pursuant to section 1473(f). If 
funds available under that section are insufficient to meet the 
minimum requirements of subsection (a), the State shall 
establish a priority-based schedule for the delineations and 
assessments within available resources.
    (d) Petition Program._
          (1) In general._
                  (A) Establishment.--A State may establish a 
                program under which an owner or operator of a 
                community water system in the State, or a 
                municipal or local government or political 
                subdivision of a government in the State, may 
                submit a source water quality protection 
                partnership petition to the State requesting 
                that the State assist in the local development 
                of a voluntary, incentive-based partnership, 
                among the owner, operator, or government and 
                other persons likely to be affected by the 
                recommendations of the partnership, to--
                          (i) reduce the presence in drinking 
                        water of contaminants that may be 
                        addressed by a petition by considering 
                        the origins of the contaminants, 
                        including to the maximum extent 
                        practicable the specific activities 
                        that affect the drinking water supply 
                        of a community;
                          (ii) obtain financial or technical 
                        assistance necessary to facilitate 
                        establishment of a partnership, or to 
                        develop and implement recommendations 
                        of a partnership for the protection of 
                        source water to assist in the provision 
                        of drinking water that complies with 
                        national primary drinking water 
                        regulations with respect to 
                        contaminants addressed by a petition; 
                        and
                          (iii) develop recommendations 
                        regarding voluntary and incentive-based 
                        strategies for the long-term protection 
                        of the source water of community water 
                        systems.
                  (B) State determination.--Not later than 1 
                year after the date of enactment of this 
                section, each State shall provide public notice 
                and solicit public comment on the question of 
                whether to develop a source water quality 
                protection partnership petition program in the 
                State, and publicly announce the determination 
                of the State thereafter. If so requested by any 
                public water system or local governmental 
                entity, prior to making the determination, the 
                State shall hold at least one public hearing to 
                assess the level of interest in the State for 
                development and implementation of a State 
                source water quality partnership petition 
                program.
    (C) Funding.--Each State may--
                          (i) use funds set aside pursuant to 
                        section 1473(f) by the State to carry 
                        out a program described in subparagraph 
                        (A), including assistance to voluntary 
                        local partnerships for the development 
                        and implementation of partnership 
                        recommendations for the protection of 
                        source water such as source water 
                        quality assessment, contingency plans, 
                        and demonstration projects for partners 
                        within a source water area delineated 
                        under subsection (a); and
                          (ii) provide assistance in response 
                        to a petition submitted under this 
                        subsection using funds referred to in 
                        subsections (e)(2)(B) and (g).
          (2) Objectives.--The objectives of a petition 
        submitted under this subsection shall be to--
                  (A) facilitate the local development of 
                voluntary, incentive-based partnerships among 
                owners and operators of community water 
                systems, governments, and other persons in 
                source water areas; and
                  (B) obtain assistance from the State in 
                directing or redirecting resources under 
                Federal or State water quality programs to 
                implement the recommendations of the 
                partnerships to address the origins of drinking 
                water contaminants that may be addressed by a 
                petition (including to the maximum extent 
                practicable the specific activities) that 
                affect the drinking water supply of a 
                community.
          (3) Contaminants addressed by a petition.--A petition 
        submitted to a State under this section may address 
        only those contaminants--
                  (A) that are pathogenic organisms for which a 
                national primary drinking water regulation has 
                been established or is required under section 
                1412(b)(2)(C); or
                  (B) for which a national primary drinking 
                water regulation has been promulgated or 
                proposed and--
                          (i) that are detected in the 
                        community water system for which the 
                        petition is submitted at levels above 
                        the maximum contaminant level; or
                          (ii) that are detected by adequate 
                        monitoring methods at levels that are 
                        not reliably and consistently below the 
                        maximum contaminant level.
          (4) Contents.--A petition submitted under this 
        subsection shall, at a minimum--
                  (A) include a delineation of the source water 
                area in the State that is the subject of the 
                petition;
                  (B) identify, to the maximum extent 
                practicable, the origins of the drinking water 
                contaminants that may be addressed by a 
                petition (including to the maximum extent 
                practicable the specific activities 
                contributing to the presence of the 
                contaminants) in the source water area 
                delineated under subparagraph (A);
                  (C) identify any deficiencies in information 
                that will impair the development of 
                recommendations by the voluntary local 
                partnership to address drinking water 
                contaminants that may be addressed by a 
                petition;
                  (D) specify the efforts made to establish the 
                voluntary local partnership and obtain the 
                participation of--
                          (i) the municipal or local government 
                        or other political subdivision of the 
                        State with jurisdiction over the source 
                        water area delineated under 
                        subparagraph (A); and
                          (ii) each person in the source water 
                        area delineated under subparagraph 
                        (A)--
                                  (I) who is likely to be 
                                affected by recommendations of 
                                the voluntary local 
                                partnership; and
                                  (II) whose participation is 
                                essential to the success of the 
                                partnership;
                  (E) outline how the voluntary local 
                partnership has or will, during development and 
                implementation of recommendations of the 
                voluntary local partnership, identify, 
                recognize and take into account any voluntary 
                or other activities already being undertaken by 
                persons in the source water area delineated 
                under subparagraph (A) under Federal or State 
                law to reduce the likelihood that contaminants 
                will occur in drinking water at levels of 
                public health concern; and
                  (F) specify the technical, financial, or 
                other assistance that the voluntary local 
                partnership requests of the State to develop 
                the partnership or to implement recommendations 
                of the partnership.
    (e) Approval or Disapproval of Petitions._
          (1) In general.--After providing notice and an 
        opportunity for public comment on a petition submitted 
        under subsection (d), the State shall approve or 
        disapprove the petition, in whole or in part, not later 
        than 120 days after the date of submission of the 
        petition.
          (2) Approval.--The State may approve a petition if 
        the petition meets the requirements established under 
        subsection (d). The notice of approval shall, at a 
        minimum, include--
                  (A) an identification of technical, 
                financial, or other assistance that the State 
                will provide to assist in addressing the 
                drinking water contaminants that may be 
                addressed by a petition based on--
                          (i) the relative priority of the 
                        public health concern identified in the 
                        petition with respect to the other 
                        water quality needs identified by the 
                        State;
                          (ii) any necessary coordination that 
                        the State will perform of the program 
                        established under this section with 
                        programs implemented or planned by 
                        other States under this section; and
                          (iii) funds available (including 
                        funds available from a State revolving 
                        loan fund established under title VI of 
                        the Federal Water Pollution Control Act 
                        (33 U.S.C. 1381 et seq.) or part G and 
                        the appropriate distribution of the 
                        funds to assist in implementing the 
                        recommendations of the partnership;
                  (B) a description of technical or financial 
                assistance pursuant to Federal and State 
                programs that is available to assist in 
                implementing recommendations of the partnership 
                in the petition, including--
                          (i) any program established under the 
                        Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
                        U.S.C. 1251 et seq.);
                          (ii) the program established under 
                        section 6217 of the Coastal Zone Act 
                        Reauthorization Amendments of 1990 (16 
                        U.S.C. 1455b);
                          (iii) the agricultural water quality 
                        protection program established under 
                        chapter 2 of subtitle D of title XII of 
                        the Food Security Act of 1985 (16 
                        U.S.C. 3838 et seq.);
                          (iv) the sole source aquifer 
                        protection program established under 
                        section 1427;
                          (v) the community wellhead protection 
                        program established under section 1428;
                          (vi) any pesticide or ground water 
                        management plan;
                          (vii) any voluntary agricultural 
                        resource management plan or voluntary 
                        whole farm or whole ranch management 
                        plan developed and implemented under a 
                        process established by the Secretary of 
                        Agriculture; and
                          (viii) any abandoned well closure 
                        program; and
                  (C) a description of activities that will be 
                undertaken to coordinate Federal and State 
                programs to respond to the petition.
          (3) Disapproval.--If the State disapproves a petition 
        submitted under subsection (d), the State shall notify 
        the entity submitting the petition in writing of the 
        reasons for disapproval. A petition may be resubmitted 
        at any time if--
                  (A) new information becomes available;
                  (B) conditions affecting the source water 
                that is the subject of the petition change; or
                  (C) modifications are made in the type of 
                assistance being requested.
    (f) Eligibility for Water Quality Protection Assistance.--A 
sole source aquifer plan developed under section 1427, a 
wellhead protection plan developed under section 1428, and a 
source water quality protection measure assisted in response to 
a petition submitted under subsection (d) shall be eligible for 
assistance under the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 
U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), including assistance provided under 
section 319 and title VI of such Act (33 U.S.C. 1329 and 1381 
et seq.), if the project, measure, or practice would be 
eligible for assistance under such Act. In the case of funds 
made available under such section 319 to assist a source water 
quality protection measure in response to a petition submitted 
under subsection (d), the funds may be used only for a measure 
that addresses nonpoint source pollution.
    (g) Grants to Support State Programs._
          (1) In general.--The Administrator may make a grant 
        to each State that establishes a program under this 
        section that is approved under paragraph (2). The 
        amount of each grant shall not exceed 50 percent of the 
        cost of administering the program for the year in which 
        the grant is available.
          (2) Approval.--In order to receive grant assistance 
        under this subsection, a State shall submit to the 
        Administrator for approval a plan for a source water 
        quality protection partnership program that is 
        consistent with the guidance published under paragraph 
        (3). The Administrator shall approve the plan if the 
        plan is consistent with the guidance published under 
        paragraph (3).
          (3) Guidance._
                  (A) In general.--Not later than 1 year after 
                the date of enactment of this section, the 
                Administrator, in consultation with the States, 
                shall publish guidance to assist--
                          (i) States in the development of a 
                        source water quality protection 
                        partnership program; and
                          (ii) municipal or local governments 
                        or political subdivisions of the 
                        governments and community water systems 
                        in the development of source water 
                        quality protection partnerships and in 
                        the assessment of source water quality.
                  (B) Contents of the guidance.--The guidance 
                shall, at a minimum--
                          (i) recommend procedures for the 
                        approval or disapproval by a State of a 
                        petition submitted under subsection 
                        (d);
                          (ii) recommend procedures for the 
                        submission of petitions developed under 
                        subsection (d);
                          (iii) recommend criteria for the 
                        assessment of source water areas within 
                        a State;
                          (iv) describe technical or financial 
                        assistance pursuant to Federal and 
                        State programs that is available to 
                        address the contamination of sources of 
                        drinking water and to develop and 
                        respond to petitions submitted under 
                        subsection (d); and
                          (v) specify actions taken by the 
                        Administrator to ensure the 
                        coordination of the programs referred 
                        to in clause (iv) with the goals and 
                        objectives of this title to the maximum 
                        extent practicable.
          (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
        subsection such sums as are necessary for fiscal years 
        1995 through 2003. Each State with a plan for a program 
        approved under paragraph (2) shall receive an equitable 
        portion of the funds available for any fiscal year.
    (h) Statutory Construction.--Nothing in this section--
          (1)(A) creates or conveys new authority to a State, 
        political subdivision of a State, or community water 
        system for any new regulatory measure; or
                  (B) limits any authority of a State, 
                political subdivision, or community water 
                system; or
          (2) precludes a community water system, municipal or 
        local government, or political subdivision of a 
        government from locally developing and carrying out a 
        voluntary, incentive-based, source water quality 
        protection partnership to address the origins of 
        drinking water contaminants of public health concern.

      Part C--Protection of Underground Sources of Drinking Water

                     regulations for state programs

    Sec. 1421. (a)(1) The Administrator shall publish proposed 
regulations for State underground injection control programs 
within 180 days after the date of enactment of this title. 
Within 180 days after publication of such proposed regulations, 
he shall promulgate such regulations with such modifications as 
he deems appropriate. Any regulation under this subsection may 
be amended from time to time.
    (2) Any regulation under this section shall be proposed and 
promulgated in accordance with section 553 of title 5, United 
States Code (relating to rulemaking), except that the 
Administrator shall provide opportunity for public hearing 
prior to promulgation of such regulations. In proposing and 
promulgating regulations under this section, the Administrator 
shall consult with the Secretary, the National Drinking Water 
Advisory Council, and other appropriate Federal entities and 
with interested State entities.
    (b)(1) Regulations under subsection (a) for State 
underground injection programs shall contain minimum 
requirements for effective programs to prevent underground 
injection which endangers drinking water sources within the 
meaning of subsection (d)(2). Such regulations shall require 
that a State program, in order to be approved under section 
1422--
          (A) shall prohibit, effective on the date on which 
        the applicable underground injection control program 
        takes effect, any underground injection in such State 
        which is not authorized by a permit issued by the State 
        (except that the regulations may permit a State to 
        authorize underground injection by rule);
          (B) shall require (i) in the case of a program which 
        provides for authorization of underground injection by 
        permit, that the applicant for the permit to inject 
        must satisfy the State that the underground injection 
        will not endanger drinking water sources, and (ii) in 
        the case of a program which provides for such an 
        authorization by rule, that no rule may be promulgated 
        which authorizes any underground injection which 
        endangers drinking water sources;
          (C) shall include inspection, monitoring, 
        recordkeeping, and reporting requirements; and
          (D) shall apply (i) as prescribed by section 1447(b), 
        to underground injections by Federal agencies, and (ii) 
        to underground injections by any other person whether 
        or not occurring on property owned or leased by the 
        United States.
    (2) Regulations of the Administrator under this section for 
State underground injection control programs may not prescribe 
requirements which interfere with or impede--
          (A) the underground injection of brine or other 
        fluids which are brought to the surface in connection 
        with oil or natural gas production or natural gas 
        storage operations, or
          (B) any underground injection for the secondary or 
        tertiary recovery of oil or natural gas, unless such 
        requirements are essential to assure that underground 
        sources of drinking water will not be endangered by 
        such injection.
    (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 of States.
    (ii) For the purpose of this subparagraph, a regulation 
prescribed by the Administrator under this section shall be 
deemed to disrupt a State underground injection control program 
only if it would be infeasible to comply with both such 
regulation and the State underground injection control 
programs.
    (iii) For the purpose of this subparagraph, a regulation 
prescribed by the Administrator under this section shall be 
deemed unnecessary only if, without such regulation, 
underground sources of drinking water will not be endangered by 
any underground injection.
    (C) Nothing in this section shall be construed to alter or 
affect the duty to assure that underground sources of drinking 
water will not be endangered by any underground injection.
    (c)(1) The Administrator may, upon application of the 
Governor of a State which authorizes underground injection by 
means of permits, authorize such State to issue (without regard 
to subsection (b)(1)(B)(i)) temporary permits for underground 
injection which may be effective until the expiration of four 
years after the date of enactment of this title, if--
          (A) the Administrator finds that the State has 
        demonstrated that it is unable and could not reasonably 
        have been able to process all permit applications 
        within the time available;
          (B) the Administrator determines the adverse effect 
        on the environment of such temporary permits is not 
        unwarranted;
          (C) such temporary permits will be issued only with 
        respect to injection wells in operation on the date on 
        which such State's permit program approved under this 
        part first takes effect and for which there was 
        inadequate time to process its permit application; and
          (D) the Administrator determines the temporary 
        permits require the use of adequate safeguards 
        established by rules adopted by him.
    (2) The Administrator may, upon application of the Governor 
of a State which authorizes underground injection by means of 
permits, authorize such State to issue (without regard to 
subsection (b)(i)(B)(i)), but after reasonable notice and 
hearing, one or more temporary permits each of which is 
applicable to a particular injection well and to the 
underground injection of a particular fluid and which may be 
effective until the expiration of four years after the date of 
enactment of this title, if the State finds, on the record of 
such hearing--
          (A) that technology (or other means) to permit safe 
        injection of the fluid in accordance with the 
        applicable underground injection control program is not 
        generally available (taking costs into consideration);
          (B) that injection of the fluid would be less harmful 
        to health than the use of other available means of 
        disposing of waste or producing the desired product; 
        and
          (C) that available technology or other means have 
        been employed (and will be employed) to reduce the 
        volume and toxicity of the fluid and to minimize the 
        potentially adverse effect of the injection on the 
        public health.
        (d) For purposes of this part:
                  (1) The term `underground injection' means 
                the subsurface emplacement of fluids by well 
                injection. Such term does not include the 
                underground injection of natural gas for 
                purposes of storage.
                  (2) Underground injection endangers drinking 
                water sources if such injection may result in 
                the presence in underground water which 
                supplies or can reasonably be expected to 
                supply any public water system of any 
                contaminant, and if the presence of such 
                contaminant may result in such system's not 
                complying with any national primary drinking 
                water regulation or may otherwise adversely 
                affect the health of persons.

                state primary enforcement responsibility

    Sec. 1422. (a) Within 180 days after the date of enactment 
of this title, the Administrator shall list in the Federal 
Register each State for which in his judgment a State 
underground injection control program may be necessary to 
assure that underground injection will not endanger drinking 
water sources. Such list may be amended from time to time.
    (b)(1)(A) Each State listed under subsection (a) shall 
within 270 days after the date of promulgation of any 
regulation under section 1421 (or, if later, within 270 days 
after such State is first listed under subsection (a)) submit 
to the Administrator an application which contains a showing 
satisfactory to the Administrator that the State--
                  (i) has adopted after reasonable notice and 
                public hearings, and will implement, an 
                underground injection control program which 
                meets the requirements of regulations in effect 
                under section 1421; and
                  (ii) will keep such records and make such 
                reports with respect to its activities under 
                its underground injection control program as 
                the Administrator may require by regulation.
The Administrator may, for good cause, extend the date for 
submission of an application by any State under this 
subparagraph for a period not to exceed an additional 270 days.
    (B) Within 270 days of any amendment of a regulation under 
section 1421 revising or adding any requirement respecting 
State underground injection control programs, each State listed 
under subsection (a) shall submit (in such form and manner as 
the Administrator may require) a notice to the Administrator 
containing a showing satisfactory to him that the State 
underground injection control program meets the revised or 
added requirement.
    (2) Within ninety days after the State's application under 
paragraph (1)(A) or notice under paragraph (1)(B) and after 
reasonable opportunity for presentation of views, the 
Administrator shall by rule either approve, disapprove, or 
approve in part and disapprove in part, the State's underground 
injection control program.
    (3) If the Administrator approves the State's program under 
paragraph (2), the State shall have primary enforcement 
responsibility for underground water sources until such time as 
the Administrator determines, by rule, that such State no 
longer meets the requirements of clause (i) or (ii) of 
paragraph (1)(A) of this subsection.
    (4) Before promulgating any rule under paragraph (2) or (3) 
of this subsection, the Administrator shall provide opportunity 
for public hearing respecting such rule.
    (c) If the Administrator disapproves a State's program (or 
part thereof) under subsection (b)(2), if the Administrator 
determines under subsection (b)(3) that a State no longer meets 
the requirements of clause (i) or (ii) of subsection (b)(1)(A), 
or if a State fails to submit an application or notice before 
the date of expiration of the period specified in subsection 
(b)(1), the Administrator shall by regulation within 90 days 
after the date of such disapproval, determination, or 
expiration (as the case may be) prescribe (and may from time to 
time by regulation revise) a program applicable to such State 
meeting the requirements of section 1421(b). Such program may 
not include requirements which interfere with or impede--
          (1) the underground injection of brine or other 
        fluids which are brought to the surface in connection 
        with oil or natural gas production or natural gas 
        storage operations, or
          (2) an underground injection for the secondary or 
        tertiary recovery of oil or natural gas,
unless such requirements are essential to assure that 
underground sources of drinking water will not be endangered by 
such injection. Such program shall apply in such State to the 
extent that a program adopted by such State which the 
Administrator determines meets such requirements is not in 
effect. Before promulgating any regulation under this section, 
the Administrator shall provide opportunity for public hearing 
respecting such regulation.
    (d) For purposes of this title, the term `applicable 
underground injection control program' with respect to a State 
means the program (or most recent amendment thereof) (1) which 
has been adopted by the State and which has been approved under 
subsection (b), or (2) which has been prescribed by the 
Administrator under subsection (c)
    (e) An Indian Tribe may assume primary enforcement 
responsibility for underground injection control under this 
section consistent with such regulations as the Administrator 
has prescribed pursuant to Part C and section 1451 of this Act. 
The area over which such Indian Tribe exercises governmental 
jurisdiction need not have been listed under subsection (a) of 
this section, and such Tribe need not submit an application to 
assume primary enforcement responsibility within the 270-day 
deadline noted in subsection (b)(1)(A) of this section. Until 
an Indian Tribe assumes primary enforcement responsibility, the 
currently applicable underground injection control program 
shall continue to apply. If an applicable underground injection 
control program does not exist for an Indian Tribe, the 
Administrator shall prescribe such a program pursuant to 
subsection (c) of this section, and consistent with section 
1421(b), within 270 days after the enactment of the Safe 
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986, unless an Indian Tribe 
first obtains approval to assume primary enforcement 
responsibility for underground injection control.

                         enforcement of program

    Sec. 1423. (a)(1) Whenever the Administrator finds during a 
period during which a State has primary enforcement 
responsibility for underground water sources (within the 
meaning of section 1422(b)(3) or section 1425(c)) that any 
person who is subject to a requirement of an applicable 
underground injection control program in such State is 
violating such requirement, he shall so notify the State and 
the person violating such requirement. If beyond the thirtieth 
day after the Administrator's notification the State has not 
commenced appropriate enforcement action, the Administrator 
shall issue an order under subsection (c) requiring the person 
to comply with such requirement or the Administrator shall 
commence a civil action under subsection (b).
    (2) Whenever the Administrator finds during a period during 
which a State does not have primary enforcement responsibility 
for underground water sources that any person subject to any 
requirement of any applicable underground injection control 
program in such State is violating such requirement, the 
Administrator shall issue an order under subsection (c) 
requiring the person to comply with such requirement or the 
Administrator shall commence a civil action under subsection 
(b).
    (b) Civil and Criminal Actions.--Civil actions referred to 
in paragraphs (1) and (2) of subsection (a) shall be brought in 
the appropriate United States district court. Such court shall 
have jurisdiction to require compliance with any requirement of 
an applicable underground injection program or with an order 
issued under subsection (c). The court may enter such judgment 
as protection of public health may require. Any person who 
violates any requirement of an applicable underground injection 
control program or an order requiring compliance under 
subsection (c)--
          (1) shall be subject to a civil penalty of not more 
        than $25,000 for each day of such violation, and
          (2) if such violation is willful, such person may, in 
        addition to or in lieu of the civil penalty authorized 
        by paragraph (1), be imprisoned for not more than 3 
        years, or fined in accordance with title 18 of the 
        United States Code, or both.
    (c) Administrative Orders.--(1) In any case in which the 
Administrator is authorized to bring a civil action under this 
section with respect to any regulation or other requirement of 
this part other than those relating to--
          (A) the underground injection of brine or other 
        fluids which are brought to the surface in connection 
        with oil or natural gas production, or
          (B) any underground injection for the secondary or 
        tertiary recovery of oil or natural gas,
the Administrator may also issue an order under this subsection 
either assessing a civil penalty of not more than $10,000 for 
each day of violation for any past or current violation, up to 
a maximum administrative penalty of $125,000, or requiring 
compliance with such regulation or other requirement, or both.
    (2) In any case in which the Administrator is authorized to 
bring a civil action under this section with respect to any 
regulation, or other requirement of this part relating to--
          (A) the underground injection of brine or other 
        fluids which are brought to the surface in connection 
        with oil or natural gas production, or
          (B) any underground injection for the secondary or 
        tertiary recovery of oil or natural gas,
the Administrator may also issue an order under this subsection 
either assessing a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for 
each day of violation for any past or current violation, up to 
a maximum administrative penalty of $125,000, or requiring 
compliance with such regulation or other requirement, or both.
    (3)(A) An order under this subsection shall be issued by 
the Administrator after opportunity (provided in accordance 
with this sub-paragraph) for a hearing. Before issuing the 
order, the Administrator shall give to the person to whom it is 
directed written notice of the Administrator's proposal to 
issue such order and the opportunity to request, within 30 days 
of the date the notice is received by such person, a hearing on 
the order. Such hearing shall not be subject to section 554 or 
556 of title 5, United States Code, but shall provide a 
reasonable opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.
    (B) The Administrator shall provide public notice of, and 
reasonable opportunity to comment on, any proposed order.
    (C) Any citizen who comments on any proposed order under 
subparagraph (B) shall be given notice of any hearing under 
this subsection and of any order. In any hearing held under 
subparagraph (A), such citizen shall have a reasonable 
opportunity to be heard and to present evidence.
    (D) Any order issued under this subsection shall become 
effective 30 days following its issuance unless an appeal is 
taken pursuant to paragraph (6).
    (4)(A) Any order issued under this subsection shall state 
with reasonable specificity the nature of the violation and may 
specify a reasonable time for compliance.
    (B) In assessing any civil penalty under this subsection, 
the Administrator shall take into account appropriate factors, 
including (i) the seriousness of the violation; (ii) the 
economic benefit (if any) resulting from the violation; (iii) 
any history of such violations; (iv) any good-faith efforts to 
comply with the applicable requirements; (v) the economic 
impact of the penalty on the violator; and (vi) such other 
matters as justice may require.
    (5) Any violation with respect to which the Administrator 
has commenced and is diligently prosecuting an action, or has 
issued an order under this subsection assessing a penalty, 
shall not be subject to an action under subsection (b) of this 
section or section 1424(c) or 1449, except that the foregoing 
limitation on civil actions under section 1449 of this Act 
shall not apply with respect to any violation for which--
          (A) a civil action under section 1449(a)(1) has been 
        filed prior to commencement of an action under this 
        subsection, or
          (B) a notice of violation under section 1449(b)(1) 
        has been given before commencement of an action under 
        this subsection and an action under section 1449(a)(1) 
        of this Act is filed before 120 days after such notice 
        is given.
    (6) Any person against whom an order is issued or who 
commented on a proposed order pursuant to paragraph (3) may 
file an appeal of such order with the United States District 
Court for the District of Columbia or the district in which the 
violation is alleged to have occurred. Such an appeal may only 
be filed within the 30-day period beginning on the date the 
order is issued. Appellant shall simultaneously send a copy of 
the appeal by certified mail to the Administrator and to the 
Attorney General. The Administrator shall promptly file in such 
court a certified copy of the record on which such order was 
imposed. The district court shall not set aside or remand such 
order unless there is not substantial evidence on the record, 
taken as a whole, to support the finding of a violation or, 
unless the Administrator's assessment of penalty or requirement 
for compliance constitutes an abuse of discretion. The district 
court shall not impose additional civil penalties for the same 
violation unless the Administrator's assessment of a penalty 
constitutes an abuse of discretion. Notwithstanding section 
1448(a)(2), any order issued under paragraph (3) shall be 
subject to judicial review exclusively under this paragraph.
    (7) If any person fails to pay an assessment of a civil 
penalty--
          (A) after the order becomes effective under paragraph 
        (3), or
          (B) after a court, in an action brought under 
        paragraph (6), has entered a final judgment in favor of 
        the Administrator,
the Administrator may request the Attorney General to bring a 
civil action in an appropriate district court to recover the 
amount assessed (plus costs, attorneys' fees, and interest at 
currently prevailing rates from the date the order is effective 
or the date of such final judgment, as the case may be). In 
such an action, the validity, amount, and appropriateness of 
such penalty shall not be subject to review.
    (8) The Administrator may, in connection with 
administrative proceedings under this subsection, issue 
subpoenas compelling the attendance and testimony of witnesses 
and subpoenas duces tecum, and may request the Attorney General 
to bring an action to enforce any subpoena under this section. 
The district courts shall have jurisdiction to enforce such 
subpoenas and impose sanction.
    (d) Nothing in this title shall diminish any authority of a 
State or political subdivision to adopt or enforce any law or 
regulation respecting underground injection but no such law or 
regulation shall relieve any person of any requirement 
otherwise applicable under this title.

              interim regulation of underground injections

    Sec. 1424. (a)(1) Any person may petition the Administrator 
to have an area of a State (or States) designated as an area in 
which no new underground injection well may be operated during 
the period beginning on the date of the designation and ending 
on the date on which the applicable underground injection 
control program covering such area takes effect unless a permit 
for the operation of such well has been issued by the 
Administrator under subsection (b). The Administrator may so 
designate an area within a State if he finds that the area has 
one aquifer which is the sole or principal drinking water 
source for the area and which, if contaminated, would create a 
significant hazard to public health.
    (2) Upon receipt of a petition under paragraph (1) of this 
subsection, the Administrator shall publish it in the Federal 
Register and shall provide an opportunity to interested persons 
to submit written data, views, or arguments thereon. Not later 
than the 30th day following the date of the publication of a 
petition under this paragraph in the Federal Register, the 
Administrator shall either make the designation for which the 
petition is submitted or deny the petition.
    (b)(1) During the period beginning on the date an area is 
designated under subsection (a) and ending on the date the 
applicable underground injection control program covering such 
area takes effect, no new underground injection well may be 
operated in such area unless the Administrator has issued a 
permit for such operation.
    (2) Any person may petition the Administrator for the 
issuance of a permit for the operation of such a well in such 
an area. A petition submitted under this paragraph shall be 
submitted in such manner and contain such information as the 
Administrator may require by regulation. Upon receipt of such a 
petition, the Administrator shall publish it in the Federal 
Register. The Administrator shall give notice of any proceeding 
on a petition and shall provide opportunity for agency hearing. 
The Administrator shall act upon such petition on the record of 
any hearing held pursuant to the preceding sentence respecting 
such petition. Within 120 days of the publication in the 
Federal Register of a petition submitted under this paragraph, 
the Administrator shall either issue the permit for which the 
petition was submitted or shall deny its issuance.
    (3) The Administrator may issue a permit for the operation 
of a new underground injection well in an area designated under 
subsection (a) only if he finds that the operation of such well 
will not cause contamination of the aquifer of such area so as 
to create a significant hazard to public health. The 
Administrator may condition the issuance of such a permit upon 
the use of such control measures in connection with the 
operation of such well, for which the permit is to be issued, 
as he deems necessary to assure that the operation of the well 
will not contaminate the aquifer of the designated area in 
which the well is located so as to create a significant hazard 
to public health.
    (c) Any person who operates a new underground injection 
well in violation of subsection (b), (1) shall be subject to a 
civil penalty of not more than $5,000 for each day in which 
such violation occurs, or (2) if such violation is willful, 
such person may, in lieu of the civil penalty authorized by 
clause (1), be fined not more than $10,000 for each day in 
which such violation occurs. If the Administrator has reason to 
believe that any person is violating or will violate subsection 
(b), he may petition the United States district court to issue 
a temporary restraining order or injunction (including a 
mandatory injunction) to enforce such subsection.
    (d) For purposes of this section, the term `new underground 
injection well' means an underground injection well whose 
operation was not approved by appropriate State and Federal 
agencies before the date of the enactment of this title.
    (e) If the Administrator determines, on his own initiative 
or upon petition, that an area has an aquifer which is the sole 
or principal drinking water source for the area and which, if 
contaminated, would create a significant hazard to public 
health, he shall publish notice of that determination in the 
Federal Register. After the publication of any such notice, no 
commitment for Federal financial assistance (through a grant, 
contract, loan guarantee, or otherwise) may be entered into for 
any project which the Administrator determines may contaminate 
such aquifer through a recharge zone so as to create a 
significant hazard to public health, but a commitment for 
Federal financial assistance may, if authorized under another 
provision of law, be entered into to plan or design the project 
to assure that it will not so contaminate the aquifer.

    optional demonstration by states relating to oil or natural gas

    Sec. 1425. (a) For purposes of the Administrator's approval 
or disapproval under section 1422 of that portion of any State 
underground injection control program which relates to--
    (1) the underground injection of brine or other fluids 
which are brought to the surface in connection with oil or 
natural gas production or natural gas storage operations, or
    (2) any underground injection for the secondary or tertiary 
recovery of oil or natural gas. in lieu of the showing required 
under subparagraph (A) of section 1422(b)(1) the State may 
demonstrate that such portion of the State program meets the 
requirements of subparagraphs (A) through (D) of section 
1421(b)(1) and represents an effective program (including 
adequate recordkeeping and reporting) to prevent underground 
injection which endangers drinking water sources.
    (b) If the Administrator revises or amends any requirement 
of a regulation under section 1421 relating to any aspect of 
the underground injection referred to in subsection (a), in the 
case of that portion of a State underground injection control 
program for which the demonstration referred to in subsection 
(a) has been made, in lieu of the showing required under 
section 1422(b)(1)(B) the State may demonstrate that, with 
respect to that aspect of such underground injection, the State 
program meets the requirements of sub-paragraphs (A) through 
(D) of section 1421(b)(1) and represents an effective program 
(including adequate recordkeeping and reporting) to prevent 
underground injection which endangers drinking water sources.
    (c)(1) Section 1422(b)(3) shall not apply to that portion 
of any State underground injection control program approved by 
the Administrator pursuant to a demonstration under subsection 
(a) of this section (and under subsection (b) of this section 
where applicable).
    (2) If pursuant to such a demonstration, the Administrator 
approves such portion of the State program, the State shall 
have primary enforcement responsibility with respect to that 
portion until such time as the Administrator determines, by 
rule, that such demonstration is no longer valid. Following 
such a determination, the Administrator may exercise the 
authority of subsection (c) of section 1422 in the same manner 
as provided in such subsection with respect to a determination 
described in such subsection.
    (3) Before promulgating any rule under paragraph (2), the 
Administrator shall provide opportunity for public hearing 
respecting such rule.

               [sec. 1426. regulation of state programs.]

                      regulation of state programs

    Sec. 1426. (a) Monitoring Methods.--Not later than 18 
months after enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
Amendments of 1986, the Administrator shall modify regulations 
issued under this Act for Class I injection wells to identify 
monitoring methods, in addition to those in effect on November 
1, 1985, including ground water monitoring. In accordance with 
such regulations, the Administrator, or delegated State 
authority, shall determine the applicability of such monitoring 
methods, wherever appropriate, at locations and in such a 
manner as to provide the earliest possible detection of fluid 
migration into, or in the direction of underground sources of 
drinking water from such wells, based on its assessment of the 
potential for fluid migration from the injection zone that may 
be harmful to human health or the environment. For purposes of 
this subsection, a class I injection well is defined in 
accordance with 40 CFR 146.05 as in effect on November 1, 1985.
    (b) Report.--The Administrator shall submit a report to 
Congress, no later than September 1987, summarizing the results 
of State surveys required by the Administrator under this 
section. The report shall include each of the following items 
of information:
          (1) The numbers and categories of class V wells which 
        discharge nonhazardous waste into or above an 
        underground source of drinking water.
          (2) The primary contamination problems associated 
        with different categories of these disposal wells.
          (3) Recommendations for minimum design, construction, 
        installation, and siting requirements that should be 
        applied to protect underground sources of drinking 
        water from such contamination wherever necessary.

        [sec. 1427. sole source aquifer demonstration program.]

               sole source aquifer demonstration program

    Sec. 1427. (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).
          (2) All or part of an area which is within an aquifer 
        designated as a sole source aquifer as of the enactment 
        of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986 and 
        for which an areawide ground water quality protection 
        plan has been approved under section 208 of the Clean 
        Water Act prior to such enactment.
    (c) Application.--Any State, municipal or local government 
or political subdivision thereof or any planning entity 
(including any interstate regional planning entity) that 
identifies a critical aquifer protection area over which it has 
authority or jurisdiction may apply to the Administrator for 
the selection of such area for a demonstration program under 
this section. Any applicant shall consult with other government 
or planning entities with authority or jurisdiction in such 
area prior to application. Applicants, other than the Governor, 
shall submit the application for a demonstration program 
jointly with the Governor.
    (d) Criteria.--Not later than 1 year after the enactment of 
the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986, the 
Administrator shall, by rule, establish criteria for 
identifying critical aquifer protection areas under this 
section. In establishing such criteria, the Administrator shall 
consider each of the following:
          (1) The vulnerability of the aquifer to contamination 
        due to hydrogeologic characteristics.
          (2) The number of persons or the proportion of 
        population using the ground water as a drinking water 
        source.
          (3) The economic, social and environmental benefits 
        that would result to the area from maintenance of 
        ground water of high quality.
          (4) The economic, social and environmental costs that 
        would result from degradation of the quality of the 
        ground water.
    (e) Contents of Application.--An application submitted to 
the Administrator by any applicant for a demonstration program 
under this section shall meet each of the following 
requirements:
          (1) The application shall propose boundaries for the 
        critical aquifer protection area within its 
        jurisdiction.
          (2) The application shall designate or, if necessary, 
        establish a planning entity (which shall be a public 
        agency and which shall include representation of 
        elected local and State governmental officials) to 
        develop a comprehensive management plan (hereinafter in 
        this section referred to as the ``plan'') for the 
        critical protection area. Where a local government 
        planning agency exists with adequate authority to carry 
        out this section with respect to any proposed critical 
        protection area, such agency shall be designated as the 
        planning entity.
          (3) The application shall establish procedures for 
        public participation in the development of the plan, 
        for review, approval, and adoption of the plan, and for 
        assistance to municipalities and other public agencies 
        with authority under State law to implement the plan.
          (4) The application shall include a hydrogeologic 
        assessment of surface and ground water resources within 
        the critical protection area.
          (5) The application shall include a comprehensive 
        management plan for the proposed protection area.
          (6) The application shall include the measures and 
        schedule proposed for implementation of such plan.
    (f) Comprehensive Plan.--
          (1) The objective of a comprehensive management plan 
        submitted by an applicant under this section shall be 
        to maintain the quality of the ground water in the 
        critical protection area in a manner reasonably 
        expected to protect human health, the environment and 
        ground water resources. In order to achieve such 
        objective, the plan may be designed to maintain, to the 
        maximum extent possible, the natural vegetative and 
        hydrogeological conditions. Each of the following 
        elements shall be included in such a protection plan:
                  (A) A map showing the detailed boundary of 
                the critical protection area.
                  (B) An identification of existing and 
                potential point and nonpoint sources of ground 
                water degradation.
                  (C) An assessment of the relationship between 
                activities on the land surface and ground water 
                quality.
                  (D) Specific actions and management practices 
                to be implemented in the critical protection 
                area to prevent adverse impacts on ground water 
                quality.
                  (E) Identification of authority adequate to 
                implement the plan, estimates of program costs, 
                and sources of State matching funds.
          (2) Such plan may also include the following:
                  (A) A determination of the quality of the 
                existing ground water recharged through the 
                special protection area and the natural 
                recharge capabilities of the special protection 
                area watershed.
                  (B) Requirements designed to maintain 
                existing underground drinking water quality or 
                improve underground drinking water quality if 
                prevailing conditions fail to meet drinking 
                water standards, pursuant to the Act and State 
                law
                  (C) Limits on Federal, State, and local 
                government, financially assisted activities and 
                projects which may contribute to degradation of 
                such ground water or any loss of natural 
                surface and subsurface infiltration of 
                purification capability of the special 
                protection watershed.
                  (D) A comprehensive statement of land use 
                management including emergency contingency 
                planning as it pertains to the maintenance of 
                the quality of underground sources of drinking 
                water or to the improvement of such sources if 
                necessary to meet drinking water standards 
                pursuant to this Act and State law.
                  (E) Actions in the special protection area 
                which would avoid adverse impacts on water 
                quality, recharge capabilities, or both.
                  (F) Consideration of specific techniques, 
                which may include clustering, transfer of 
                development rights, and other innovative 
                measures sufficient to achieve the objectives 
                of this section.
                  (G) Consideration of the establishment of a 
                State institution to facilitate and assist 
                funding a development transfer credit system.
                  (H) A program for State and local 
                implementation of the plan described in this 
                subsection in a manner that will insure the 
                continued, uniform, consistent protection of 
                the critical protection area in accord with the 
                purposes of this section.
                  (I) Pollution abatement measures, if 
                appropriate.
    (g) Plans Under Section 208 of the Clean Water Act.--A plan 
approved before the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
Amendments of 1986 under section 208 of the Clean Water Act to 
protect a sole source aquifer designated under section 1424(e) 
of this Act shall be considered a comprehensive management plan 
for the purposes of this section.
    (h) Consultation and Hearings.--During the development of a 
comprehensive management plan under this section, the planning 
entity shall consult with, and consider the comments of, 
appropriate officials of any municipality and State or Federal 
agency which has jurisdiction over lands and waters within the 
special protection area, other concerned organizations and 
technical and citizen advisory committees. The planning entity 
shall conduct public hearings at places within the special 
protection area for the purpose of providing the opportunity to 
comment on any aspect of the plan.
    (i) Approval or Disapproval.--Within 120 days after receipt 
of an application under this section, the Administrator shall 
approve or disapprove the application. The approval or 
disapproval shall be based on a determination that the critical 
protection area satisfies the criteria established under 
subsection (d) and that a demonstration program for the area 
would provide protection for ground water quality consistent 
with the objectives stated in subsection (f). The Administrator 
shall provide to the Governor a written explanation of the 
reasons for the disapproval of any such application. Any 
petitioner may modify and resubmit any application which is not 
approved. Upon approval of an application, the Administrator 
may enter into a cooperative agreement with the applicant to 
establish a demonstration program under this section.
    (j) Grants and Reimbursements.--Upon entering a cooperative 
agreement under subsection (i), the Administrator may provide 
to the applicant, on a matching basis, a grant of 50 per centum 
of the costs of implementing the plan established under this 
section. The Administrator may also reimburse the applicant of 
an approved plan up to 50 per centum of the costs of developing 
such plan, except for plans approved under section 208 of the 
Clean Water Act. The total amount of grants under this section 
for any one aquifer, designated under section 1424(e), shall 
not exceed $4,000,000 in any one fiscal year.
    (k) Activities Funded Under Other Law.--No funds authorized 
under this subsection 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) Report.--Not later than December 31, 1989, each State 
shall submit to the Administrator a report assessing the impact 
of the program on ground water quality and identifying those 
measures found to be effective in protecting ground water 
resources. No later than September 30, 1990, the Administrator 
shall submit to Congress a report summarizing the State 
reports, and assessing the accomplishments of the sole source 
aquifer demonstration program including an identification of 
protection methods found to be most effective and 
recommendations for their application to protect ground water 
resources from contamination whenever necessary.
    (m) 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.
    (n) 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....................................................20,000,000
      
    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 protection areas.]

         state programs to establish wellhead protection areas

    Sec. 1428. (a) State Programs.--The Governor or Governor's 
designee of each State shall, within 3 years of the date of 
enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986, 
adopt and submit to the Administrator a State program to 
protect wellhead areas within their jurisdiction from 
contaminants which may have any adverse effect on the health of 
persons. Each State program under this section shall, at a 
minimum--
    (1) specify the duties of State agencies, local 
governmental entities, and public water supply systems with 
respect to the development and implementation of programs 
required by this section;
    (2) for each wellhead, determine the wellhead protection 
area as defined in subsection (e) based on all reasonably 
available hydrogeologic information on ground water flow, 
recharge and discharge and other information the State deems 
necessary to adequately determine the wellhead protection area;
    (3) identify within each wellhead protection area all 
potential anthropogenic sources of contaminants which may have 
any adverse effect on the health of persons;
    (4) describe a program that contains, as appropriate, 
technical assistance, financial assistance, implementation of 
control measures, education, training, and demonstration 
projects to protect the water supply within wellhead protection 
areas from such contaminants;
    (5) include contingency plans for the location and 
provision of alternate drinking water supplies for each public 
water system in the event of well or wellfield contamination by 
such contaminants; and
    (6) include a requirement that consideration be given to 
all potential sources of such contaminants within the expected 
wellhead area of a new water well which serves a public water 
supply system.
    (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. 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). 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. If the Administrator determines that a 
        proposed State program (or any portion thereof) is 
        inadequate, the Administrator shall submit a written 
        statement of the reasons for such determination of 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, 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.
    (d) Federal Assistance.--After the date 3 years after the 
enactment of this section, no State shall receive funds 
authorized to be appropriated under this section except for the 
purpose of implementing the program and requirements of 
paragraphs (4) and (6) of subsection (a).
    (e) Definition of Wellhead Protection Area.--As used in 
this section, the term `wellhead protection area' means the 
surface and subsurface area surrounding a water well or 
wellfield, supplying a public water system, through which 
contaminants are reasonably likely to move toward and reach 
such water well or wellfield. The extent of a wellhead 
protection area, within a State, necessary to provide 
protection from contaminants which may have any adverse effect 
on the health of persons is to be determined by the State in 
the program submitted under subsection (a). Not later than one 
year after the enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
Amendments of 1986, the Administrator shall issue technical 
guidance which States may use in making such determinations. 
Such guidance may reflect such factors as the radius of 
influence around a well or wellfield, the depth of drawdown of 
the water table by such well or wellfield at any given point, 
the time or rate of travel of various contaminants in various 
hydrologic conditions, distance from the well or wellfield, or 
other factors affecting the likelihood of contaminants reaching 
the well or wellfield, taking into account available 
engineering pump tests or comparable data, field 
reconnaissance, topographic information, and the geology of the 
formation in which the well or wellfield is located.
    (f) Prohibitions.--
          (1) Activities Under Other Laws.--No funds authorized 
        to be appropriated under this section may be used to 
        support activities authorized by the Federal Water 
        Pollution Control Act, the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 
        the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, 
        and Liability Act of 1980, or other sections of this 
        Act.
          (2) Individual Sources.--No funds authorized to be 
        appropriated under this section may be used to bring 
        individual sources of contamination into compliance.
    (g) Implementation.--Each State shall make every reasonable 
effort to implement the State wellhead area protection program 
under this section 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 report shall include amendments 
to the State program for water wells sited during the biennial 
period.
    (h) Federal Agencies.--Each department, agency, and 
instrumentality of the executive, legislative, and judicial 
branches of the Federal Government having jurisdiction over any 
potential source of contaminants identified by a State program 
pursuant to the provisions of subsection (a)(3) shall be 
subject to and comply with all requirements of the State 
program developed according to subsection (a)(4) applicable to 
such potential source of contaminants, both substantive and 
procedural, in the same manner, and to the same extent, as any 
other person is subject to such requirements, including payment 
of reasonable charges and fees. The President may exempt any 
potential source under the jurisdiction of any department, 
agency, or instrumentality in the executive branch if the 
President determines it to be in the paramount interest of the 
United States to do so. No such exemption shall be granted due 
to the lack of an appropriation unless the President shall have 
specifically requested such appropriation as part of the 
budgetary process and the Congress shall have failed to make 
available such requested appropriations.
    (i) Additional Requirement.--
          (1) In General.--In addition to the provisions of 
        subsection (a) of this section, States in which there 
        are more than 2,500 active wells at which annular 
        injection is used as of January 1, 1986, shall include 
        in their State program a certification that a State 
        program exists and is being adequately enforced that 
        provides protection from contaminants which may have 
        any adverse effect on the health of persons and which 
        are associated with the annular injection or surface 
        disposal of brines associated with oil and gas 
        production
          (2) Definition.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
        term `annular injection' means the reinjection of 
        brines associated with the production of oil or gas 
        between the production and surface casings of a 
        conventional oil or gas producing well.
          (3) Review.--The Administrator shall conduct a review 
        of each program certified under this subsection.
          (4) Disapproval.--If a State fails to include the 
        certification required by this subsection or if in the 
        judgment of the Administrator the State program 
        certified under this subsection is not being adequately 
        enforced, the Administrator shall disapprove the State 
        program submitted under subsection (a) of this section.
          (j) Coordination with Other Laws.--Nothing in this 
        section shall authorize or require any department, 
        agency, or other instrumentality of the Federal 
        Government or State or local government to apportion, 
        allocate or otherwise regulate the withdrawal or 
        beneficial use of ground or surface waters, so as to 
        abrogate or modify any existing rights to water 
        established pursuant to State or Federal law, including 
        interstate compacts.
          (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 cost 
        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....................................................35,000,000
      

                        Part D--Emergency Powers

                            emergency powers

    Sec. 1431. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of this 
title, the Administrator, upon receipt of information that a 
contaminant which is present in or is likely to enter a public 
water system or an underground source of drinking water may 
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health 
of persons, and that appropriate State and local authorities 
have not acted to protect the health of such persons, may take 
such actions as he may deem necessary in order to protect the 
health of such persons. To the extent he determines it to be 
practicable in light of such imminent endangerment, he shall 
consult with the State and local authorities in order to 
confirm the correctness of the information on which action 
proposed to be taken under this subsection is based and to 
ascertain the action which such authorities are or will be 
taking. The action which the Administrator may take may include 
(but shall not be limited to) (1) issuing such orders as may be 
necessary to protect the health of persons who are or may be 
users of such system (including travelers), including orders 
requiring the provision of alternative water supplies by 
persons who caused or contributed to the endangerment, and (2) 
commencing a civil action for appropriate relief, including a 
restraining order or permanent or temporary injunction.
    (b) Any person who violates or fails or refuses to comply 
with any order issued by the Administrator under subsection 
(a)(l) 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 for each day in which 
such violation occurs or failure to comply continues.

           [sec. 1432. tampering with public water systems.]

                  tampering with public water systems

    Sec. 1432. (a) Tampering.--Any person who tampers with a 
public water system shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 
years, or fined in accordance with title 18 of the United 
States Code, or both.
    (b) Attempt or Threat.--Any person who attempts to tamper, 
or makes a threat to tamper, with a public drinking water 
system be imprisoned for not more than 3 years, or fined in 
accordance with title 18 of the United States Code, or both.
    (c) Civil Penalty.--The Administrator may bring a civil 
action in the appropriate United States district court (as 
determined under the provisions of title 28 of the United 
States Code) against any person who tampers, attempts to 
tamper, or makes a threat to tamper with a public water system. 
The court may impose on such person a civil penalty of not more 
than $50,000 for such tampering or not more than $20,000 for 
such attempt or threat.
    (d) Definition of `Tamper'.--For purposes of this section, 
the term `tamper, means--
          (1) to introduce a contaminant into a public water 
        system with the intention of harming persons; or
          (2) to otherwise interfere with the operation of a 
        public water system with the intention of harming 
        persons.

                       Part E--General Provisions

 assurance of availability of adequate supplies of chemicals necessary 
                         for treatment of water

    Sec. 1441. (a) If any person who uses chlorine, activated 
carbon, lime, ammonia, soda ash, potassium permanganate, 
caustic soda, or other chemical or substance for the purpose of 
treating water in any public water system or in any public 
treatment works determines that the amount of such chemical or 
substance necessary to effectively treat such water is not 
reasonably available to him or will not be so available to him 
when required for the effective treatment of such water, such 
person may apply to the Administrator for a certification 
(hereinafter in this section referred to as a ``certification 
of need'') that the amount of such chemical or substance which 
such person requires to effectively treat such water is not 
reasonably available to him or will not be so available when 
required for the effective treatment of such water.
    (b)(1) An application for a certification of need shall be 
in such form and submitted in such manner as the Administrator 
may require and shall (A) specify the persons the applicant 
determines are able to provide the chemical or substance with 
respect to which the application is submitted, (B) specify the 
persons from whom the applicant has sought such chemical or 
substance, and (C) contain such other information as the 
Administrator may require.
    (2) Upon receipt of an application under this section, the 
Administrator shall (A) publish in the Federal Register a 
notice of the receipt of the application and a brief summary of 
it, (B) notify in writing each person whom the President or his 
delegate (after consultation with the Administrator) determines 
could be made subject to an order required to be issued upon 
the issuance of the certification of need applied for in such 
application, and (C) provide an opportunity for the submission 
of written comments on such application. The requirements of 
the preceding sentence of this paragraph shall not apply when 
the Administrator for good cause finds (and incorporates the 
finding with a brief statement of reasons therefor in the order 
issued) that waiver of such requirements is necessary in order 
to protect the public health.
    (3) Within 30 days after--
          (A) the date a notice is published under paragraph 
        (2) in the Federal Register with respect to an 
        application submitted under this section for the 
        issuance of a certification of need, or
          (B) the date on which such application is received if 
        as authorized by the second sentence of such paragraph 
        no notice is published with respect to such 
        application,
the Administrator shall take action either to issue or deny the 
issuance of a certification of need.
    (c)(1) If the Administrator finds that the amount of a 
chemical or substance necessary for an applicant under an 
application submitted under this section to effectively treat 
water in a public water system or in a public treatment works 
is not reasonably available to the applicant or will not be so 
available to him when required for the effective treatment of 
such water, the Administrator shall issue a certification of 
need. Not later than seven days following the issuance of such 
certification, the President or his delegate shall issue an 
order requiring the provision to such person of such amounts of 
such chemical or substance as the Administrator deems necessary 
in the certification of need issued for such person. Such order 
shall apply to such manufacturers, producers, processors, 
distributors, and repackagers of such chemical or substance as 
the President or his delegate deems necessary and appropriate, 
except that such order may not apply to any manufacturer, 
producer, or processor of such chemical or substance who 
manufactures, produces, or processes (as the case may be) such 
chemical or substance solely for its own use. Persons subject 
to an order issued under this section shall be given a 
reasonable opportunity to consult with the President or his 
delegate with respect to the implementation of the order.
    (2) Orders which are to be issued under paragraph (1) to 
manufacturers, producers, and processors of a chemical or 
substance shall be equitably apportioned, as far as 
practicable, among all manufacturers, producers, and processors 
of such chemical or substance; and orders which are to be 
issued under paragraph (1) to distributors and repackagers of a 
chemical or substance shall be equitably apportioned, as far as 
practicable, among all distributors and repackagers of such 
chemical or substance. In apportioning orders issued under 
paragraph (1) to manufacturers, producers, processors, 
distributors, and repackagers of chlorine, the President or his 
delegate shall, in carrying out the requirements of the 
preceding sentence, consider--
    (A) the geographical relationship and established 
commercial relationships between such manufacturers, producers, 
processors, distributors, and repackagers and the persons for 
whom the orders are issued;
    (B) in the case of orders to be issued to producers of 
chlorine, the (i) amount of chlorine historically supplied by 
each such producer to treat water in public water systems and 
public treatment works, and (ii) share of each such producer of 
the total annual production of chlorine in the United States; 
and
    (C) such other factors as the President or his delegate may 
determine are relevant to the apportionment of orders in 
accordance with the requirements of the preceding sentence.
    (3) Subject to subsection (f), any person for whom a 
certification of need has been issued under this subsection may 
upon the expiration of the order issued under paragraph (1) 
upon such certification apply under this section for additional 
certifications.
    (d) There shall be available as a defense to any action 
brought for breach of contract in a Federal or State court 
arising out of delay or failure to provide, sell, or offer for 
sale or exchange a chemical or substance subject to an order 
issued pursuant to subsection (c)(1), that such delay or 
failure was caused solely by compliance with such order.
    (e)(1) Whoever knowingly fails to comply with any order 
issued pursuant to subsection (c)(1) shall be fined not more 
than $5,000 for each such failure to comply.
    (2) Whoever fails to comply with any order issued pursuant 
to subsection (c)(1) shall be subject to a civil penalty of not 
more than $2,500 for each such failure to comply.
    (3) Whenever the Administrator or the President or his 
delegate has reason to believe that any person is violating or 
will violate any order issued pursuant to subsection (c)(1), he 
may petition a United States district court to issue a 
temporary restraining order or preliminary or permanent 
injunction (including a mandatory injunction) to enforce the 
provisions of such order.
    (f) No certification of need or order issued under this 
section may remain in effect more than one year.

 research, technical assistance, information and training of personnel

    Sec. 1442. (a)(1) The Administrator may conduct research, 
studies, and demonstrations relating to the causes, diagnosis, 
treatment, control, and prevention of physical and mental 
diseases and other impairments of man resulting directly or 
indirectly from contaminants in water, or to the provision of a 
dependably safe supply of drinking water, including--
    (A) improved methods (i) to identify and measure the 
existence of contaminants in drinking water (including methods 
which may be used by State and local health and water 
officials), and (ii) to identify the source of such 
contaminants;
    (B) improved methods to identify and measure the health 
effects of contaminants in drinking water;
    (C) new methods of treating raw water to prepare it for 
drinking, so as to improve the efficiency of water treatment 
and to remove contaminants from water;
    (D) improved methods for providing a dependably safe supply 
of drinking water, including improvements in water purification 
and distribution, and methods of assessing health related 
hazards of drinking water; and
    (E) improved methods of protecting underground water 
sources of public water systems from contamination.
    [(2)(A) The Administrator shall, to the maximum extent 
feasible, provide technical assistance to the States and 
municipalities in the establishment and administration of 
public water system supervision programs (as defined in section 
1443(c)(1)).]
    (2) Information and research facilities.--In carrying out 
this title, the Administrator is authorized to--
          (A) collect and make available information pertaining 
        to research, investigations, and demonstrations with 
        respect to providing a dependably safe supply of 
        drinking water, together with appropriate 
        recommendations in connection with the information; and
          (B) make available research facilities of the Agency 
        to appropriate public authorities, institutions, and 
        individuals engaged in studies and research relating to 
        this title.
    [(3)(A) The Administrator shall conduct studies, and make 
periodic reports to Congress, on the costs of carrying out 
regulations prescribed under section 1412.
    (B) Not later than eighteen months after the date of 
enactment of this subparagraph, the Administrator shall submit 
a report to Congress which identifies and analyzes--
          (i) the anticipated costs of compliance with interim 
        and revised national primary drinking water regulations 
        and the anticipated costs to States and units of local 
        governments in implementing such regulations;
          (ii) alternative methods of (including alternative 
        treatment techniques for) compliance with such 
        regulations;
          (iii) methods of paying the costs of compliance by 
        public water systems with national primary drinking 
        water regulations, including user charges, State or 
        local taxes or subsidies, Federal grants (including 
        planning or construction grants, or both), loans, and 
        loan guarantees, and other methods of assisting in 
        paying the costs of such compliance;
          (iv) the advantages and disadvantages of each of the 
        methods referred to in clauses (ii) and (iii);
          (v) the sources of revenue presently available (and 
        projected to be available) to public water systems to 
        meet current and future expenses; and
          (vi) the costs of drinking water paid by residential 
        and industrial consumers in a sample of large, medium, 
        and small public water systems and of individually 
        owned wells, and the reasons for any differences in 
        such costs.
The report required by this subparagraph shall identify and 
analyze the items required in clauses (i) through (v) 
separately with respect to public water systems serving small 
communities. The report required by this subparagraph shall 
include such recommendations as the Administrator deems 
appropriate.]
    [(11)] (3) The Administrator shall carry out a study of 
polychlorinated biphenyl contamination of actual or potential 
sources of drinking water, contamination of such sources by 
other substances known or suspected to be harmful to public 
health, the effects of such contamination, and means of 
removing, treating, or otherwise controlling such 
contamination. To assist in carrying out this paragraph, the 
Administrator is authorized to make grants to public agencies 
and private nonprofit institutions.
    (4) The Administrator shall conduct a survey and study of--
          (A) disposal of waste (including residential waste) 
        which may endanger underground water which supplies, or 
        can reasonably be expected to supply, any public water 
        systems, and
          (B) means of control of such waste disposal.
Not later than one year after the date of enactment of this 
title, he shall transmit to the Congress the results of such 
survey and study, together with such recommendations as he 
deems appropriate.
    (5) The Administrator shall carry out a study of methods of 
underground injection which do not result in the degradation of 
underground drinking water sources.
    (6) The Administrator shall carry out a study of methods of 
preventing, detecting, and dealing with surface spills of 
contaminants which may degrade underground water sources for 
public water systems.
    (7) The Administrator shall carry out a study of virus 
contamination of drinking water sources and means of control of 
such contamination.
    (8) The Administrator shall carry out a study of the nature 
and extent of the impact on underground water which supplies or 
can reasonably be expected to supply public water systems of 
(A) abandoned injection or extraction wells; (B) intensive 
application of pesticides and fertilizers in underground water 
recharge areas; and (C) ponds, pools, lagoons, pits, or other 
surface disposal of contaminants in underground water recharge 
areas.
    (9) The Administrator shall conduct a comprehensive study 
of public water supplies and drinking water sources to 
determine the nature, extent, sources of and means of control 
of contamination by chemicals or other substances suspected of 
being carcinogenic. Not later than six months after the date of 
enactment of this title, he shall transmit to the Congress the 
initial results of such study, together with such 
recommendations for further review and corrective action as he 
deems appropriate.
    (10) The Administrator shall carry out a study of the 
reaction of chlorine and humic acids and the effects of the 
contaminants which result from such reaction on public health 
and on the safety of drinking water, including any carcinogenic 
effect.
    (11) Authorization of appropriations.--There are authorized 
to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out research 
authorized by this section $25,000,000 for each of fiscal years 
1994 through 2003, of which $4,000,000 shall be available for 
each fiscal year for research on the health effects of arsenic 
in drinking water.
    [(b) In carrying out this title, the Administrator is 
authorized to--
          (1) collect and make available information pertaining 
        to research, investigations, and demonstrations with 
        respect to providing a dependably safe supply of 
        drinking water together with appropriate 
        recommendations in connection therewith;
          (2) make available research facilities of the Agency 
        to appropriate public authorities, institutions, and 
        individuals engaged in studies and research relating to 
        the purposes of this title;]
    [(B)] (b) The Administrator is authorized to provide 
technical assistance and to make grants to States, or publicly 
owned water systems to assist in responding to and alleviating 
any emergency situation affecting public water systems 
(including sources of water for such systems) with the 
Administrator determines to present substantial danger to the 
public health. Grants provided under this [subparagraph] 
subsection shall be used only to support those actions which 
(i) are necessary for preventing, limiting or mitigating danger 
to the public health in such emergency situation and (ii) would 
not, in the judgment of the Administrator, be taken without 
such emergency assistance. The Administrator may carry out the 
program authorized under this [subparagraph] subsection as part 
of, and in accordance with the terms and conditions of, any 
other program of assistance for environmental emergencies which 
the Administrator is authorized to carry out under any other 
provision of law. No limitation on appropriations for any such 
other program shall apply to amounts appropriated under this 
[subparagraph] subsection. There are authorized to be 
appropriated to carry out this subsection $8,000,000 for each 
of fiscal years 1995 through 2003.
    (c) Not later than [eighteen months after the date of 
enactment of this subsection] 2 years after the date of 
enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1995, 
and every 5 years thereafter, the Administrator shall submit a 
report to Congress on the present and projected future 
availability of an adequate and dependable supply of safe 
drinking water to meet present and projected future need. Such 
report shall include an analysis of the future demand for 
drinking water and other competing uses of water, the 
availability and use of methods to conserve water or reduce 
demand, the adequacy of present measures to assure adequate and 
dependable supplies of safe drinking water, and the problems 
(financial, legal, or other) which need to be resolved in order 
to assure the availability of such supplies for the future. 
Existing information and data compiled by the National Water 
Commission and others shall be utilized to the extent possible.
    (d) The Administrator shall--
          (1) provide training for, and make grants for 
        training (including postgraduate training) of (A) 
        personnel of State agencies which have primary 
        enforcement responsibility and of agencies or units of 
        local government to which enforcement responsibilities 
        have been delegated by the State, and (B) personnel who 
        manage or operate public water systems[, and];
          (2) make grants for postgraduate training of 
        individuals (including grants to educational 
        institutions for traineeships) for purposes of 
        qualifying such individuals to work as personnel 
        referred to in paragraph (1)[.];
          (3) make grants to, and enter into contracts with, 
        any public agency, educational institution, and any 
        other organization, in accordance with procedures 
        prescribed by the Administrator, under which he may pay 
        all or a part of the costs (as may be determined by the 
        Administrator) of any project or activity which is 
        designed--
                  (A) to develop, expand, or carry out a 
                program (which may combine training education 
                and employment) for training persons for 
                occupations involving the public health aspects 
                of providing safe drinking water;
                  (B) to train inspectors and supervisory 
                personnel to train or supervise persons in 
                occupations involving the public health aspects 
                of providing safe drinking water; or
                  (C) to develop and expand the capability of 
                programs of State and municipalities to carry 
                out the purposes of this title (other than by 
                carrying out State programs of public water 
                system supervision or underground water source 
                protection (as defined in section 1443(c)))[.];
          (4) develop and maintain a system for forecasting the 
        supply of, and demand for, various professional 
        occupational categories and other occupational 
        categories needed for the protection and treatment of 
        drinking water in each region of the United States.
Reasonable fees may be charged for training provided under 
paragraph (1)(B) to persons other than personnel of State or 
local agencies but such training shall be provided to personnel 
of State or local agencies without charge. There are authorized 
to be appropriated to carry out this subsection $10,000,000 for 
each of fiscal years 1994 through 2003.
    (e) Certification of Operators and Laboratories._
          (1) Requirement.--Beginning 3 years after the date of 
        enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 
        1995--
                  (A) no assistance may be provided to a public 
                water system under part G unless the system has 
                entered into an enforceable commitment with the 
                State providing that any person who operates 
                the system will be trained and certified 
                according to requirements established by the 
                Administrator or the State (in the case of a 
                State with primary enforcement responsibility 
                under section 1413) not later than the date of 
                completion of the capital project for which the 
                assistance is provided; and
                  (B) a public water system that has received 
                assistance under part G may be operated only by 
                a person who has been trained and certified 
                according to requirements established by the 
                Administrator or the State (in the case of a 
                State with primary enforcement responsibility 
                under section 1413).
          (2) Guidelines.--Not later than 18 months after the 
        date of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
        Amendments of 1995 and after consultation with the 
        States, the Administrator shall publish information to 
        assist States in carrying out paragraph (1). In the 
        case of a State with primary enforcement responsibility 
        under section 1413 or any other State that has 
        established a training program that is consistent with 
        the guidance issued under this paragraph, the authority 
        to prescribe the appropriate level of training for 
        certification for all systems shall be solely the 
        responsibility of the State. The guidance issued under 
        this paragraph shall also include information to assist 
        States in certifying laboratories engaged in testing 
        for the purpose of compliance with sections 1445 and 
        1401(1).
          (3) Noncompliance.--If a public water system in a 
        State is not operated in accordance with paragraph (1), 
        the Administrator is authorized to withhold from funds 
        that would otherwise be allocated to the State under 
        section 1472 or require the repayment of an amount 
        equal to the amount of any assistance under part G 
        provided to the public water system.
    (f) There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
the pro-visions of this section, other than subsection 
(a)(2)(B) and provisions relating to research, $15,000,000 for 
the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975;$25,000,000 for the fiscal 
year ending June 30, 1976; $35,000,000 for the fiscal year 
ending June 30, 1977; $17,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 
1978 and 1979; $21,405,000 for the fiscal year ending September 
30, 1980; $30,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1981; and $35,000,000 for the fiscal year ending September 30, 
1982. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out 
subsection (a)(2)(B) $8,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 
1978 through 1982. There are authorized to be appropriated to 
carry out subsection (a)(2)(B) not more than the following 
amounts:
      
        Fiscal year:                                              Amount
1987..........................................................$7,650,000
1988.......................................................... 7,650,000
1989.......................................................... 8,050,000
1990.......................................................... 8,050,000
1991.......................................................... 8,050,000
      
There are authorized to be appropriated to carry out the 
provisions of this section (other than subsection (g), 
subsection (a)(2)(B), and provisions relating to research), not 
more than the following amounts:
      
        Fiscal year                                               Amount
1987.........................................................$35,600,000
1988..........................................................35,600,000
1989..........................................................38,020,000
1990..........................................................38,020,000
1991..........................................................38,020,000
      
    (g) 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'' and 
multi-State regional technical assistance 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.] The Administrator 
shall ensure that funds made available for technical assistance 
pursuant to this subsection are allocated among the States 
equally. Each nonprofit organization receiving assistance under 
this subsection shall consult with the State in which the 
assistance is to be expended or otherwise made available before 
using the assistance to undertake activities to carry out this 
subsection. There are authorized to be appropriated to carry 
out this subsection $15,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1992 
through 2003. 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.
    (h) Small Public Water Systems Technology Assistance 
Centers._
          (1) Grant program.--The Administrator is authorized 
        to make grants to institutions of higher learning to 
        establish and operate not fewer than 5 small public 
        water system technology assistance centers in the 
        United States.
          (2) Responsibilities of the centers.--The 
        responsibilities of the small public water system 
        technology assistance centers established under this 
        subsection shall include the conduct of research, 
        training, and technical assistance relating to the 
        information, performance, and technical needs of small 
        public water systems or public water systems that serve 
        Indian Tribes.
          (3) Applications.--Any institution of higher learning 
        interested in receiving a grant under this subsection 
        shall submit to the Administrator an application in 
        such form and containing such information as the 
        Administrator may require by regulation.
          (4) Selection criteria.--The Administrator shall 
        select recipients of grants under this subsection on 
        the basis of the following criteria:
                  (A) The small public water system technology 
                assistance center shall be located in a State 
                that is representative of the needs of the 
                region in which the State is located for 
                addressing the drinking water needs of rural 
                small communities or Indian Tribes.
                  (B) The grant recipient shall be located in a 
                region that has experienced problems with rural 
                water supplies.
                  (C) There is available to the grant recipient 
                for carrying out this subsection demonstrated 
                expertise in water resources research, 
                technical assistance, and training.
                  (D) The grant recipient shall have the 
                capability to provide leadership in making 
                national and regional contributions to the 
                solution of both long-range and intermediate-
                range rural water system technology management 
                problems.
                  (E) The grant recipient shall have a 
                demonstrated interdisciplinary capability with 
                expertise in small public water system 
                technology management and research.
                  (F) The grant recipient shall have a 
                demonstrated capability to disseminate the 
                results of small public water system technology 
                research and training programs through an 
                interdisciplinary continuing education program.
                  (G) The projects that the grant recipient 
                proposes to carry out under the grant are 
                necessary and appropriate.
                  (H) The grant recipient has regional support 
                beyond the host institution.
                  (I) The grant recipient shall include the 
                participation of water resources research 
                institutes established under section 104 of the 
                Water Resources Research Act of 1984 (42 U.S.C. 
                10303).
          (5) Alaska.--For purposes of this subsection, the 
        State of Alaska shall be considered to be a region.
          (6) Consortia of states.--At least 2 of the grants 
        under this subsection shall be made to consortia of 
        States with low population densities. In this 
        paragraph, the term `consortium of States with low 
        population densities' means a consortium of States, 
        each State of which has an average population density 
        of less than 12.3 persons per square mile, based on 
        data for 1993 from the Bureau of the Census.
          (7) Additional considerations.--At least one center 
        established under this subsection shall focus primarily 
        on the development and evaluation of new technologies 
        and new combinations of existing technologies that are 
        likely to provide more reliable or lower cost options 
        for providing safe drinking water. This center shall be 
        located in a geographic region of the country with a 
        high density of small systems, at a university with an 
        established record of developing and piloting small 
        treatment technologies in cooperation with industry, 
        States, communities, and water system associations.
          (8) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated to make grants under this 
        subsection $10,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1995 
        through 2003.
    (i) Biological Mechanisms.--In carrying out this section, 
the Administrator shall conduct studies to--
          (1) understand the mechanisms by which chemical 
        contaminants are absorbed, distributed, metabolized, 
        and eliminated from the human body, so as to develop 
        more accurate physiologically based models of the 
        phenomena;
          (2) understand the effects of contaminants and the 
        mechanisms by which the contaminants cause adverse 
        effects (especially noncancer and infectious effects) 
        and the variations in the effects among humans, 
        especially subpopulations at greater risk of adverse 
        effects, and between test animals and humans; and
          (3) develop new approaches to the study of complex 
        mixtures, such as mixtures found in drinking water, 
        especially to determine the prospects for synergistic 
        or antagonistic interactions that may affect the shape 
        of the dose-response relationship of the individual 
        chemicals and microbes, and to examine noncancer 
        endpoints and infectious diseases, and susceptible 
        individuals and subpopulations.
    (j) Research Priorities.--To establish long-term priorities 
for research under this section, the Administrator shall 
develop, and periodically update, an integrated risk 
characterization strategy for drinking water quality. The 
strategy shall identify unmet needs, priorities for study, and 
needed improvements in the scientific basis for activities 
carried out under this title. The initial strategy shall be 
made available to the public not later than 3 years after the 
date of enactment of this subsection.
    (k) Research Plan for Harmful Substances in Drinking 
Water._
          (1) Development of plan.--The Administrator shall--
                  (A) not later than 180 days after the date of 
                enactment of this subsection, after 
                consultation with the Secretary of Health and 
                Human Services, the Secretary of Agriculture, 
                and, as appropriate, the heads of other Federal 
                agencies, develop a research plan to support 
                the development and implementation of the most 
                current version of the--
                          (i) enhanced surface water treatment 
                        rule (59 Fed. Reg. 38832 (July 29, 
                        1994));
                          (ii) disinfectant and disinfection 
                        byproducts rule (Stage 2) (59 Fed. Reg. 
                        38668 (July 29, 1994)); and
                          (iii) ground water disinfection rule 
                        (availability of draft summary 
                        announced at 57 Fed. Reg. 33960 (July 
                        31, 1992)); and
                  (B) carry out the research plan, after 
                consultation and appropriate coordination with 
                the Secretary of Agriculture and the heads of 
                other Federal agencies.
          (2) Contents of plan._
                  (A) In general.--The research plan shall 
                include, at a minimum--
                          (i) an identification and 
                        characterization of new disinfection 
                        byproducts associated with the use of 
                        different disinfectants;
                          (ii) toxicological studies and, if 
                        warranted, epidemiological studies to 
                        determine what levels of exposure from 
                        disinfectants and disinfection 
                        byproducts, if any, may be associated 
                        with developmental and birth defects 
                        and other potential toxic end points;
                          (iii) toxicological studies and, if 
                        warranted, epidemiological studies to 
                        quantify the carcinogenic potential 
                        from exposure to disinfection 
                        byproducts resulting from different 
                        disinfectants;
                          (iv) the development of practical 
                        analytical methods for detecting and 
                        enumerating microbial contaminants, 
                        including giardia, cryptosporidium, and 
                        viruses;
                          (v) the development of reliable, 
                        efficient, and economical methods to 
                        determine the viability of individual 
                        cryptosporidium oocysts;
                          (vi) the development of dose-response 
                        curves for pathogens, including 
                        cryptosporidium and the Norwalk virus;
                          (vii) the development of indicators 
                        that define treatment effectiveness for 
                        pathogens and disinfection byproducts; 
                        and
                          (viii) bench, pilot, and full-scale 
                        studies and demonstration projects to 
                        evaluate optimized conventional 
                        treatment, ozone, granular activated 
                        carbon, and membrane technology for 
                        controlling pathogens (including 
                        cryptosporidium) and disinfection 
                        byproducts.
                  (B) Risk definition strategy.--The research 
                plan shall include a strategy for determining 
                the risks and estimated extent of disease 
                resulting from pathogens, disinfectants, and 
                disinfection byproducts in drinking water, and 
                the costs and removal efficiencies associated 
                with various control methods for pathogens, 
                disinfectants, and disinfection byproducts.
          (3) Implementation of plan.--In carrying out the 
        research plan, the Administrator shall use the most 
        cost-effective mechanisms available, including 
        coordination of research with, and use of matching 
        funds from, institutions and utilities.
          (4) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
        subsection $12,500,000 for each of fiscal years 1997 
        through 2003.
    (l) Subpopulations at Greater Risk._
          (1) Research plan.--The Administrator shall conduct a 
        continuing program of peer-reviewed research to 
        identify groups within the general population that may 
        be at greater risk than the general population of 
        adverse health effects from exposure to contaminants in 
        drinking water. Not later than 1 year after the date of 
        enactment of this subsection, the Administrator shall 
        develop and implement a research plan to establish 
        whether and to what degree infants, children, pregnant 
        women, the elderly, individuals with a history of 
        serious illness, or other subpopulations that can be 
        identified and characterized are likely to experience 
        elevated health risks, including risks of cancer, from 
        contaminants in drinking water.
          (2) Contents of plan.--To the extent appropriate, the 
        research shall be--
                  (A) integrated into the health effects 
                research plan carried out by the Administrator 
                to support the regulation of specific 
                contaminants under this Act; and
                  (B) designed to identify--
                          (i) the nature and extent of the 
                        elevated health risks, if any;
                          (ii) the groups likely to experience 
                        the elevated health risks;
                          (iii) biological mechanisms and other 
                        factors that may contribute to elevated 
                        health risks for groups within the 
                        general population;
                          (iv) the degree of variability of the 
                        health risks to the groups from the 
                        health risks to the general population;
                          (v) the threshold, if any, at which 
                        the elevated health risks for a 
                        specific contaminant occur; and
                          (vi) the probability of the exposure 
                        to the contaminants by the identified 
                        group.
          (3) Report.--Not later than 4 years after the date of 
        enactment of this subsection and periodically 
        thereafter as new and significant information becomes 
        available, the Administrator shall report to Congress 
        on the results of the research.
          (4) Use of research.--In characterizing the health 
        effects of drinking water contaminants under this Act, 
        the Administrator shall consider all relevant factors, 
        including the results of research under this 
        subsection, the margin of safety for variability in the 
        general population, and sound scientific practices 
        (including the 1993 and 1994 reports of the National 
        Academy of Sciences) regarding subpopulations at 
        greater risk for adverse health effects.

                       grants for state programs

    Sec. 1443. (a)(1) From allotments made pursuant to 
paragraph (4), the Administrator may make grants to States to 
carry out public water system supervision programs.
    (2) No grant may be made under paragraph (1) unless an 
application therefor has been submitted to the Administrator in 
such form and manner as he may require. The Administrator may 
not approve an application of a State for its first grant under 
paragraph (1) unless he determines that the State--
          (A) has established or will establish within one year 
        from the date of such grant a public water system 
        supervision program, and
          (B) will, within that one year, assume primary 
        enforcement responsibility for public water system 
        within the State.
    No grant may be made to a State under paragraph (1) for any 
period beginning more than one year after the date of the 
State's first grant unless the State has assumed and maintains 
primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems 
within the State. The prohibitions contained in the preceding 
two sentences shall not apply to such grants when made to 
Indian Tribes.
    [(3) A grant] (3) Amount of grant._
          (A) In general.--A grant under paragraph (1) shall be 
        made to cover not more than 75 per centum of the grant 
        recipient's costs (as determined under regulations of 
        the Administrator) in carrying out, during the one-year 
        period beginning on the date the grant is made, a 
        public water system supervision program.
          (B) Determination of costs.--To determine the costs 
        of a grant recipient pursuant to this paragraph, the 
        Administrator shall, in cooperation with the States and 
        not later than 180 days after the date of enactment of 
        this subparagraph, establish a resource model for the 
        public water system supervision program and review and 
        revise the model as necessary.
          (C) State cost adjustments.--The Administrator shall 
        revise cost estimates used in the resource model for 
        any particular State to reflect costs more likely to be 
        experienced in that State, if--
                  (i) the State requests the modification; and
                  (ii) the revised estimates ensure full and 
                effective administration of the public water 
                system supervision program in the State and the 
                revised estimates do not overstate the 
                resources needed to administer the program.
    (4) In each fiscal year the Administrator shall, in 
accordance with regulations, allot the sums appropriated for 
such year under paragraph (5) among the States on the basis of 
population, geographical area, number of public water systems, 
and other relevant factors. No State shall receive less than 1 
per centum of the annual appropriation for grants under 
paragraph (1): Provided, That the Administrator may, by 
regulation, reduce such percentage in accordance with the 
criteria specified in this paragraph: And provided further, 
That such percentage shall not apply to grants allotted to 
Guam, American Samoa, or the Virgin Islands.
    (5) The prohibition contained in the last sentence of 
paragraph (2) may be waived by the Administrator with respect 
to a grant to a State through fiscal year 1979 but such 
prohibition may only be waived if, in the judgment of the 
Administrator--
          (A) the State is making diligent effort to assume and 
        maintain primary enforcement responsibility for public 
        water systems within the State;
          (B) the State has made significant progress toward 
        assuming and maintaining such primary enforcement 
        responsibility; and
          (C) there is reason to believe the State will assume 
        such primary enforcement responsibility by October 1, 
        1979.
The amount of any grant awarded for the fiscal years 1978 and 
1979 pursuant to a waiver under this paragraph may not exceed 
75 per centum of the allotment which the State would have 
received for such fiscal year if it had assumed and maintained 
such primary enforcement responsibility. The remaining 25 per 
centum of the amount allotted to such State for such fiscal 
year shall be retained by the Administrator, and the 
Administrator may award such amount to such State at such time 
as the State assumes such responsibility before the beginning 
of fiscal year 1980. At the beginning of each fiscal years 1979 
and 1980 the amounts retained by the Administrator for any 
preceding fiscal year and not awarded by the beginning of 
fiscal year 1979 or 1980 to the States to which such amounts 
were originally allotted may be removed from the original 
allotment and reallotted for fiscal year 1979 or 1980 (as the 
case may be) to States which have assumed primary enforcement 
responsibility by the beginning of such fiscal year.
    (6) The Administrator shall notify the State of the 
approval or disapproval of any application for a grant under 
this section--
          (A) within ninety days after receipt of such 
        application, or
          (B) not later than the first day of the fiscal year 
        for which the grant application is made, whichever is 
        later.
    (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 yea 
rending 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..........................................................41,150,000
      
For the purpose of making grants under paragraph (1), there are 
authorized to be appropriated such sums as are necessary for 
each of fiscal years 1992 and 1993 and $100,000,000 for each of 
fiscal years 1994 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._
          (A) Reservation of 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 (based on the resource model 
        developed under paragraph (3)(B)), the Administrator 
        may reserve from the funds made available to the State 
        under section 1472 an amount that is equal to the 
        amount of the shortfall.
          (B) Duty of administrator.--If the Administrator 
        reserves funds from the allocation of a State under 
        subparagraph (A), the Administrator shall carry out in 
        the State--
                  (i) each of the activities that would be 
                required of the State if the State had primary 
                enforcement authority under section 1413; and
                  (ii) each of the activities required of the 
                State by this title, other than part C, but not 
                made a condition of the authority.
    (b)(1) From allotments made pursuant to paragraph (4), the 
Administrator may make grants to States to carry out 
underground water source protection programs.
    (2) No grant may be made under paragraph (1) unless an 
application therefor has been submitted to the Administrator in 
such form and manner as he may require. No grant may be made to 
any State under paragraph (1) unless the State has assumed 
primary enforcement responsibility within two years after the 
date the Administrator promulgates regulations for State 
underground injection control programs under section 1421. The 
prohibition contained in the preceding sentence shall not apply 
to such grants when made to Indian Tribes.
    (3) A grant under paragraph (1) shall be made to cover not 
more than 75 per centum of the grant recipient's costs (as 
determined under regulations of the Administrator) in carrying 
out, during the one-year period beginning on the date the grant 
is made, an underground water source protection program.
    (4) In each fiscal year the Administrator shall, in 
accordance with regulations, allot the sums appropriated for 
such year under paragraph (5) among the States on the basis of 
population, geographical area, and other relevant factors.
    (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....................................................20,850,000
      
    (c) State Ground Water Protection Grants._
          (1) In general.--The Administrator may make a grant 
        to a State for the development and implementation of a 
        State program to ensure the coordinated and 
        comprehensive protection of ground water resources 
        within the State.
          (2) Guidance.--Not later than 1 year after the date 
        of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments 
        of 1995, and annually thereafter, the Administrator 
        shall publish guidance that establishes procedures for 
        application for State ground water protection program 
        assistance and that identifies key elements of State 
        ground water protection programs.
          (3) Conditions of grants._
                  (A) In general.--The Administrator shall 
                award grants to States that submit an 
                application that is approved by the 
                Administrator. The Administrator shall 
                determine the amount of a grant awarded 
                pursuant to this paragraph on the basis of an 
                assessment of the extent of ground water 
                resources in the State and the likelihood that 
                awarding the grant will result in sustained and 
                reliable protection of ground water quality.
                  (B) Innovative program grants.--The 
                Administrator may also award a grant pursuant 
                to this paragraph for innovative programs 
                proposed by a State for the prevention of 
                ground water contamination.
                  (C) Allocation of funds.--The Administrator 
                shall, at a minimum, ensure that, for each 
                fiscal year, not less than 1 percent of funds 
                made available to the Administrator by 
                appropriations to carry out this subsection are 
                allocated to each State that submits an 
                application that is approved by the 
                Administrator pursuant to this subsection.
                  (D) Limitation on grants.--No grant awarded 
                by the Administrator may be used for a project 
                to remediate ground water contamination.
          (4) Coordination with other grant programs.--The 
        awarding of grants by the Administrator pursuant to 
        this subsection shall be coordinated with the awarding 
        of grants pursuant to section 319(i) of the Federal 
        Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1329(i)) and the 
        awarding of other Federal grant assistance that 
        provides funding for programs related to ground water 
        protection.
          (5) Amount of grants.--The amount of a grant awarded 
        pursuant to paragraph (1) shall not exceed 50 percent 
        of the eligible costs of carrying out the ground water 
        protection program that is the subject of the grant (as 
        determined by the Administrator) for the 1-year period 
        beginning on the date that the grant is awarded. The 
        State shall pay a State share to cover the costs of the 
        ground water protection program from State funds in an 
        amount that is not less than 50 percent of the cost of 
        conducting the program.
          (6) Evaluations and reports.--Not later than 3 years 
        after the date of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water 
        Act Amendments of 1995, and every 3 years thereafter, 
        the Administrator shall evaluate the State ground water 
        protection programs that are the subject of grants 
        awarded pursuant to this subsection and report to 
        Congress on the status of ground water quality in the 
        United States and the effectiveness of State programs 
        for ground water protection.
          (7) Authorization of appropriations.--There are 
        authorized to be appropriated to carry out this 
        subsection $20,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1995 
        through 2003.
    [(c)] (d) For purposes of this section:
    (1) The term `public water system supervision program' 
means a program for the adoption and enforcement of drinking 
water regulations (with such variances and exemptions from such 
regulations 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) which are no less stringent than the national primary 
drinking water regulations under section 1412, and for keeping 
records and making reports required by section 1413(a)(3).
    (2) The term `underground water source protection program' 
means a program for the adoption and enforcement of a program 
which meets the requirements of regulations under section 1421 
and for keeping records and making reports required by section 
1422(b)(1)(A)(ii). Such term includes, where applicable, a 
program which meets the requirements of section 1425.

    special study and demonstration project grants; guaranteed loans

    Sec. 1444. (a) The Administrator may make grants to any 
person for the purposes of--
          (1) assisting in the development and demonstration 
        (including construction) of any project which will 
        demonstrate a new or improved method, approach, or 
        technology, for providing a dependable safe supply of 
        drinking water to the public; and
          (2) assisting in the development and demonstration 
        (including construction) of any project which will 
        investigate and demonstrate health implications 
        involved in the reclamation, recycling, and reuse of 
        waste waters for drinking and the processes and methods 
        for the preparation of safe and acceptable drinking 
        water.
    (b) Grants made by the Administrator under this section 
shall be subject to the following limitations:
          (1) Grants under this section shall not exceed 66 per 
        centum of the total cost of construction of any 
        facility and 75 per centum of any other costs, as 
        determined by the Administrator.
          (2) Grants under this section shall not be made for 
        any project involving the construction or modification 
        of any facilities for any public water system in a 
        State unless such project has been approved by the 
        State agency charged with the responsibility for safety 
        of drinking water (or if there is no such agency in a 
        State, by the State health authority).
          (3) Grants under this section shall not be made for 
        any project unless the Administrator determines, after 
        consulting the National Drinking Water Advisory 
        Council, that such project will serve a useful purpose 
        relating to the development and demonstration of new or 
        improved techniques, methods, or technologies for the 
        provision of safe water to the public for drinking.
          (4) Priority for grants under this section shall be 
        given where there are known or potential public health 
        hazards which require advanced technology for the 
        removal of particles which are too small to be removed 
        by ordinary treatment technology.
    (c) For the purposes of making grants under subsections (a) 
and (b) of this section there are authorized to be appropriated 
$7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1975; and 
$7,500,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1976; and 
$10,000,000 for the fiscal year ending June 30, 1977.
    (d) The Administrator during the fiscal years ending June 
30, 1975, and June 30, 1976, shall carry out a program of 
guaranteeing loans made by private lenders to small public 
water systems for the purpose of enabling such systems to meet 
national primary drinking water regulations prescribed under 
section 1412. No such guarantee may be made with respect to a 
system unless (1) such system cannot reasonably obtain 
financial assistance necessary to comply with such regulations 
from any other source, and (2) the Administrator determines 
that any facilities constructed with a loan guaranteed under 
this subsection is not likely to be made obsolete by subsequent 
changes in primary regulations. The aggregate amount of 
indebtedness guaranteed with respect to any system may not 
exceed $50,000. The aggregate amount of indebtedness guaranteed 
under this subsection may not exceed $50,000,000. The 
Administrator shall prescribe regulations to carry out this 
subsection.

                        records and inspections

    Sec. 1445. (a)(1)(A) [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] 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 by accepted methods, 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.] such information as the Administrator may 
reasonably require--
          (i) to assist the Administrator in establishing 
        regulations under this title or to assist the 
        Administrator in determining, on a case-by-case basis, 
        whether the person has acted or is acting in compliance 
        with this title; and
          (ii) by regulation to assist the Administrator in 
        determining compliance with national primary drinking 
        water regulations promulgated under section 1412 or in 
        administering any program of financial assistance under 
        this title.
If the Administrator is requiring monitoring for purposes of 
testing new or alternative methods, the Administrator may 
require the use of other than accepted methods.
    (B) 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.
    (C) Review.--The Administrator shall not later than 2 years 
after the date of enactment of this subparagraph, 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.
    (D) State-established requirements._
          (i) In general.--Each State with primary enforcement 
        responsibility under section 1413 may, by rule, 
        establish alternative monitoring requirements for any 
        national primary drinking water regulation, other than 
        a regulation applicable to a microbial contaminant (or 
        an indicator of a microbial contaminant). The 
        alternative monitoring requirements established by a 
        State under this clause may not take effect for any 
        national primary drinking water regulation until after 
        completion of at least 1 full cycle of monitoring in 
        the State satisfying the requirements of paragraphs (1) 
        and (2) of section 1413(a). The alternative monitoring 
        requirements may be applicable to public water systems 
        or classes of public water systems identified by the 
        State, in lieu of the monitoring requirements that 
        would otherwise be applicable under the regulation, if 
        the alternative monitoring requirements--
                  (I) are based on use of the best available 
                science conducted in accordance with sound and 
                objective scientific practices and data 
                collected by accepted methods;
                  (II) are based on the potential for the 
                contaminant to occur in the source water based 
                on use patterns and other relevant 
                characteristics of the contaminant or the 
                systems subject to the requirements;
                  (III) in the case of a public water system or 
                class of public water systems in which a 
                contaminant has been detected at quantifiable 
                levels that are not reliably and consistently 
                below the maximum contaminant level, include 
                monitoring frequencies that are not less 
                frequent than the frequencies required in the 
                national primary drinking water regulation for 
                the contaminant for a period of 5 years after 
                the detection; and
                  (IV) in the case of each contaminant formed 
                in the distribution system, are not applicable 
                to public water systems for which treatment is 
                necessary to comply with the national primary 
                drinking water regulation.
          (ii) Compliance and enforcement.--The alternative 
        monitoring requirements established by the State shall 
        be adequate to ensure compliance with, and enforcement 
        of, each national primary drinking water regulation. 
        The State may review and update the alternative 
        monitoring requirements as necessary.
          (iii) Application of section 1413.--
                  (I) In general.--Each State establishing 
                alternative monitoring requirements under this 
                subparagraph shall submit the rule to the 
                Administrator as provided in section 
                1413(b)(1). Any requirements for a State to 
                provide information supporting a submission 
                shall be defined only in consultation with the 
                States, and shall address only such information 
                as is necessary to make a decision to approve 
                or disapprove an alternative monitoring rule in 
                accordance with the following sentence. The 
                Administrator shall approve an alternative 
                monitoring rule submitted under this clause for 
                the purposes of section 1413, unless the 
                Administrator determines in writing that the 
                State rule for alternative monitoring does not 
                ensure compliance with, and enforcement of, the 
                national primary drinking water regulation for 
                the contaminant or contaminants to which the 
                rule applies.
                  (II) Exceptions.--The requirements of section 
                1413(a)(1) that a rule be no less stringent 
                than the national primary drinking water 
                regulation for the contaminant or contaminants 
                to which the rule applies shall not apply to 
                the decision of the Administrator to approve or 
                disapprove a rule submitted under this clause. 
                Notwithstanding the requirements of section 
                1413(b)(2), the Administrator shall approve or 
                disapprove a rule submitted under this clause 
                within 180 days of submission. In the absence 
                of a determination to disapprove a rule made by 
                the Administrator within 180 days, the rule 
                shall be deemed to be approved under section 
                1413(b)(2).
                  (III) Additional considerations.--A State 
                shall be considered to have primary enforcement 
                authority with regard to an alternative 
                monitoring rule, and the rule shall be 
                effective, on a date (determined by the State) 
                any time on or after submission of the rule, 
                consistent with section 1413(c). A decision by 
                the Administrator to disapprove an alternative 
                monitoring rule under section 1413 or to 
                withdraw the authority of the State to carry 
                out the rule under clause (iv) may not be the 
                basis for withdrawing primary enforcement 
                responsibility for a national primary drinking 
                water regulation or regulations from the State 
                under section 1413.
          (iv) Oversight by the administrator.--The 
        Administrator shall review, not less often than every 5 
        years, any alternative monitoring requirements 
        established by a State under clause (i) to determine 
        whether the requirements are adequate to ensure 
        compliance with, and enforcement of, national primary 
        drinking water regulations. If the Administrator 
        determines that the alternative monitoring requirements 
        of a State are inadequate with respect to a 
        contaminant, and after providing the State with an 
        opportunity to respond to the determination of the 
        Administrator and to correct any inadequacies, the 
        Administrator may withdraw the authority of the State 
        to carry out the alternative monitoring requirements 
        with respect to the contaminant. If the Administrator 
        withdraws the authority, the monitoring requirements 
        contained in the national primary drinking water 
        regulation for the contaminant shall apply to public 
        water systems in the State.
          (v) Nonprimacy states.--The Governor of any State 
        that does not have primary enforcement responsibility 
        under section 1413 on the date of enactment of this 
        clause may submit to the Administrator a request that 
        the Administrator modify the monitoring requirements 
        established by the Administrator and applicable to 
        public water systems in that State. After consultation 
        with the Governor, the Administrator shall modify the 
        requirements for public water systems in that State if 
        the request of the Governor is in accordance with each 
        of the requirements of this subparagraph that apply to 
        alternative monitoring requirements established by 
        States that have primary enforcement responsibility. A 
        decision by the Administrator to approve a request 
        under this clause shall be for a period of 3 years and 
        may subsequently be extended for periods of 5 years.
          (vi) Guidance.--The Administrator shall issue 
        guidance in consultation with the States that States 
        may use to develop State-established requirements 
        pursuant to this subparagraph and subparagraph (E). The 
        guidance shall identify options for alternative 
        monitoring designs that meet the criteria identified in 
        clause (i) and the requirements of clause (ii).
    (E) Small system monitoring.--The Administrator or a State 
that has primary enforcement responsibility under section 1413 
may modify the monitoring requirements for any contaminant, 
other than a microbial contaminant or an indicator of a 
microbial contaminant, a contaminant regulated on the basis of 
an acute health effect, or a contaminant formed in the 
treatment process or in the distribution system, to provide 
that any public water system that serves a population of 10,000 
or fewer shall not be required to conduct additional quarterly 
monitoring during any 3-year period for a specific contaminant 
if monitoring conducted at the beginning of the period for the 
contaminant fails to detect the presence of the contaminant in 
the water supplied by the public water system, and the 
Administrator or the State determines that the contaminant is 
unlikely to be detected by further monitoring in the period.
    [(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 1995 and every 5 
                years thereafter, the Administrator shall issue 
                a list pursuant to subparagraph (A) of not more 
                than 20 unregulated contaminants to be 
                monitored by public water systems and to be 
                included in the national drinking water 
                occurrence data base maintained pursuant to 
                paragraph (3).
                  (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 by large systems.--A public water 
        system that serves a population of more than 10,000 
        shall conduct monitoring for all contaminants listed 
        under subparagraph (B).
          (D) 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 reserved under section 1478(c), the 
                Administrator shall pay the reasonable cost of 
                such testing and laboratory analysis as are 
                necessary to carry out monitoring under the 
                plan.
          (E) 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.
          (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 
        (h) 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 fiscal years 1995 
        through 2003.
    (3) National drinking water occurrence database._
          (A) In general.--Not later than 3 years after the 
        date of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act 
        Amendments of 1995, 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 paragraph (2) and reliable 
        information from other public and private sources.
          (B) Use.--The data shall be used by the Administrator 
        in making determinations under section 1412(b)(1) with 
        respect to the occurrence of a contaminant in drinking 
        water at a level of public health concern.
          (C) 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 paragraph (2). 
        Any recommendation submitted under this clause shall be 
        accompanied by reasonable documentation that--
                  (i) the contaminant occurs or is likely to 
                occur in drinking water; and
                  (ii) the contaminant poses a risk to public 
                health.
          (D) Public availability.--The information from the 
        data base shall be available to the public in readily 
        accessible form.
          (E) 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).
          (F) Unregulated contaminants.--With respect to 
        contaminants for which a national primary drinking 
        water regulation has not been established, the data 
        base shall include--
                  (i) monitoring information collected by 
                public water systems that serve a population of 
                more than 10,000, as required by the 
                Administrator under paragraph (2);
                  (ii) monitoring information collected by the 
                States from a representative sampling of public 
                water systems that serve a population of 10,000 
                or fewer; and
                  (iii) other reliable and appropriate 
                monitoring information on the occurrence of the 
                contaminants in public water systems that is 
                available to the Administrator.
    (b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the 
Administrator, or representatives of the Administrator duly 
designated by him, upon presenting appropriate credentials and 
a written notice to any supplier of water or other person 
subject to (A) a national primary drinking water regulation 
prescribed under section 1412, (B) an applicable underground 
injection control program, or (C) any requirement to monitor an 
unregulated contaminant pursuant to subsection (a), or person 
in charge of any of the property of such supplier or other 
person referred to in clause (A), (B), or (C), is authorized to 
enter any establishment, facility, or other property of such 
supplier or other person in order to determine whether such 
supplier or other person has acted or is acting in compliance 
with this title, including for this purpose, inspection, at 
reasonable times, of records, files, papers, processes, 
controls, and facilities, or in order to test any feature of a 
public water system, including its raw water source. The 
Administrator or the Comptroller General (or any representative 
designated by either) shall have access for the purpose of 
audit and examination to any records, reports, or information 
of a grantee which are required to be maintained under 
subsection (a) or which are pertinent to any financial 
assistance under this title.
    (2) No entry may be made under the first sentence of 
paragraph (1) in an establishment, facility, or other property 
of a supplier of water or other person subject to a national 
primary drinking water regulation if the establishment, 
facility, or other property is located in a State which has 
primary enforcement responsibility for public water systems 
unless, before written notice of such entry is made, the 
Administrator (or his representative) notifies the State agency 
charged with responsibility for safe drinking water of the 
reasons for such entry. The Administrator shall, upon a showing 
by the State agency that such an entry will be detrimental to 
the administration of the State's program of primary 
enforcement responsibility, take such showing into 
consideration in determining whether to make such entry. No 
State agency which receives notice under this paragraph of an 
entry proposed to be made under paragraph (1) may use the 
information contained in the notice to inform the person whose 
property is proposed to be entered of the proposed entry; and 
if a State agency so uses such information, notice to the 
agency under this paragraph is not required until such time as 
the Administrator determines the agency has provided him 
satisfactory assurances that it will no longer so use 
information contained in a notice under this paragraph.
    (c) Whoever fails or refuses to comply with any requirement 
of subsection (a) or to allow the Administrator, the 
Comptroller General, or representatives of either, to enter and 
conduct any audit or inspection authorized by subsection (b) 
shall be subject to a civil penalty of not to exceed $25,000.
    (d)(1) Subject to paragraph (2), upon a showing 
satisfactory to the Administrator by any person that any 
information required under this section from such person, if 
made public, would divulge trade secrets or secret processes of 
such person, the Administrator shall consider such information 
confidential in accordance with the purposes of section 1905 of 
title 18 of the United States Code. If the applicant fails to 
make a showing satisfactory to the Administrator, the 
Administrator shall give such applicant thirty days' notice 
before releasing the information to which the application 
relates (unless the public health or safety requires an earlier 
release of such information).
    (2) Any information required under this section (A) may be 
disclosed to other officers, employees, or authorized 
representatives of the United States concerned with carrying 
out this title or to committees of the Congress, or when 
relevant in any proceeding under this title, and (B) shall be 
disclosed to the extent it deals with the level of contaminants 
in drinking water. For purposes of this subsection the term 
`information required under this section' means any papers, 
books, documents, or information, or any particular part 
thereof, reported to or otherwise obtained by the Administrator 
under this section.
    (e) For purposes of this section, (1) the term `grantee' 
means any person who applies for or receives financial 
assistance, by grant, contract, or loan guarantee under this 
title, and (2) the term `person' includes a Federal agency.
    (f) Information Regarding Drinking Water Coolers.--The 
Administrator may utilize the authorities of this section for 
purposes of part F. Any person who manufactures, imports, 
sells, or distributes drinking water coolers in interstate 
commerce shall be treated as a supplier of water for purposes 
of applying the provisions of this section in the case of 
persons subject to part F.
    (g) Availability of Information on Small System 
Technologies.--For purposes of paragraphs (4)(E) and (15) of 
section 1412(b), 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 date by which information shall 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 paragraph (4)(E) 
or (15) of section 1412(b).
    (h) 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.

                national drinking water advisory council

    Sec. 1446. (a) There is established a National Drinking 
Water Advisory Council which shall consist of fifteen members 
appointed by the Administrator after consultation with the 
Secretary. Five members shall be appointed from the general 
public; five members shall be appointed from appropriate State 
and local agencies concerned with water hygiene and public 
water supply; and five members shall be appointed from 
representatives of private organizations or groups 
demonstrating an active interest in the field of water hygiene 
and public water supply, of which two such members shall be 
associated with small, rural public water systems. Each member 
of the Council shall hold office for a term of three years, 
except that--
          (1) any member appointed to fill a vacancy occurring 
        prior to the expiration of the term for which his 
        predecessor was appointed shall be appointed for the 
        remainder of such term; and
          (2) the terms of the members first taking office 
        shall expire as follows: Five shall expire three years 
        after the date of enactment of this title, five shall 
        expire two years after such date, and five shall expire 
        one year after such date, as designated by the 
        Administrator at the time of appointment.
The members of the Council shall be eligible for reappointment.
    (b) The Council shall advise, consult with, and make 
recommendations to, the Administrator on matters relating to 
activities, functions, and policies of the Agency under this 
title.
    (c) Members of the Council appointed under this section 
shall, while attending meetings or conferences of the Council 
or otherwise engaged in business of the Council, receive 
compensation and allowances at a rate to be fixed by the 
Administrator, but not exceeding the daily equivalent of the 
annual rate of basic pay in effect for grade GS-18 of the 
General Schedule for each day (including travel time) during 
which they are engaged in the actual performance of duties 
vested in the Council. While away from their homes or regular 
places of business in the performance of services for the 
Council, members of the Council shall be allowed travel 
expenses, including per diem in lieu of subsistence, in the 
same manner as persons employed intermittently in the 
Government service are allowed expenses under section 5703(b) 
of title 5 of the United States Code.
    (d) Section 14(a) of the Federal Advisory Committee Act 
relating to termination, shall not apply to the Council.

                            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) to any requirement whether substantive 
or procedural (including any recordkeeping or reporting 
requirement, any requirement respecting permits, and any other 
requirement whatsoever), (B) to the exercise of any Federal, 
State, or local administrative authority, and (C) 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.]
    (a) Compliance._
          (1) In general.--Each Federal agency shall be subject 
        to, and comply with, all Federal, State, interstate, 
        and local substantive and procedural requirements, 
        administrative authorities, and process and sanctions 
        concerning the provision of safe drinking water or 
        underground injection in the same manner, and to the 
        same extent, as any nongovernmental entity is subject 
        to, and shall comply with, the requirements, 
        authorities, and process and sanctions.
          (2) Administrative orders and penalties.--The 
        Federal, State, interstate, and local substantive and 
        procedural requirements, administrative authorities, 
        and process and sanctions referred to in paragraph (1) 
        include all administrative orders and all civil and 
        administrative penalties or fines, regardless of 
        whether the penalties or fines are punitive or coercive 
        in nature or are imposed for isolated, intermittent, or 
        continuing violations.
          (3) Limited waiver of sovereign immunity.--The United 
        States expressly waives any immunity otherwise 
        applicable to the United States with respect to any 
        requirement, administrative authority, or process or 
        sanction referred to in paragraph (2) (including any 
        injunctive relief, administrative order, or civil or 
        administrative penalty or fine referred to in paragraph 
        (2), or reasonable service charge). The reasonable 
        service charge referred to in the preceding sentence 
        includes--
                  (A) a fee or charge assessed in connection 
                with the processing, issuance, renewal, or 
                amendment of a permit, variance, or exemption, 
                review of a plan, study, or other document, or 
                inspection or monitoring of a facility; and
                  (B) any other nondiscriminatory charge that 
                is assessed in connection with a Federal, 
                State, interstate, or local safe drinking water 
                regulatory program.
          (4) Civil penalties.--No agent, employee, or officer 
        of the United States shall be personally liable for any 
        civil penalty under this subsection with respect to any 
        act or omission within the scope of the official duties 
        of the agent, employee, or officer.
          (5) Criminal sanctions.--An agent, employee, or 
        officer of the United States may be subject to a 
        criminal sanction under a State, interstate, or local 
        law concerning the provision of drinking water or 
        underground injection. No department, agency, or 
        instrumentality of the executive, legislative, or 
        judicial branch of the Federal Government shall be 
        subject to a sanction referred to in the preceding 
        sentence.
    (b) Waiver of Compliance._
          (1) In general.--The President may waive compliance 
        with subsection (a) by any department, agency, or 
        instrumentality in the executive branch if the 
        President determines waiving compliance with such 
        subsection to be in the paramount interest of the 
        United States.
          (2) Waivers due to lack of appropriations.--No waiver 
        described in paragraph (1) shall be granted due to the 
        lack of an appropriation unless the President has 
        specifically requested the appropriation as part of the 
        budgetary process and Congress has failed to make 
        available the requested appropriation.
          (3) Period of waiver.--A waiver under this subsection 
        shall be for a period of not to exceed 1 year, but an 
        additional waiver may be granted for a period of not to 
        exceed 1 year on the termination of a waiver if the 
        President reviews the waiver and makes a determination 
        that it is in the paramount interest of the United 
        States to grant an additional waiver.
          (4) Report.--Not later than January 31 of each year, 
        the President shall report to Congress on each waiver 
        granted pursuant to this subsection during the 
        preceding calendar year, together with the reason for 
        granting the waiver.
    (c)(1) Nothing in the Safe Drinking Water Amendments of 
1977 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, 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.
    (d) 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.
    (e) Washington Aqueduct.--The Washington Aqueduct 
Authority, the Army Corps of Engineers, and the Secretary of 
the Army shall not pass the cost of any penalty assessed under 
this title on to any customer, user, or other purchaser of 
drinking water from the Washington Aqueduct system, including 
finished water from the Dalecarlia or McMillan treatment plant.

                            judicial review

    Sec. 1448. (a) A petition for review of--
          (1) actions pertaining to the establishment of 
        national primary drinking water regulations (including 
        maximum contaminant level goals) may be filed only in 
        the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
        Columbia circuit; and
          (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.
    (b) The United States district courts shall have 
jurisdiction of actions brought to review (1) the granting of, 
or the refusing to grant, a variance or exemption under section 
1415 or 1416 or (2) the requirements of any schedule prescribed 
for a variance or exemption under such section or the failure 
to prescribe such a schedule. Such an action may only be 
brought upon a petition for review filed with the court within 
the 45-day period beginning on the date the action sought to be 
reviewed is taken or, in the case of a petition to review the 
refusal to grant a variance or exemption or the failure to 
prescribe a schedule, within the 45-day period beginning on the 
date action is required to be taken on the variance, exemption, 
or schedule, as the case may be. A petition for such review may 
be filed after the expiration of such period if the petition is 
based solely on grounds arising after the expiration of such 
period. Action 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.
    (c) In any judicial proceeding in which review is sought of 
a determination under this title required to be made on the 
record after notice and opportunity for hearing, if any party 
applies to the court for leave to adduce additional evidence 
and shows to the satisfaction of the court that such additional 
evidence is material and that there were reasonable grounds for 
the failure to adduce such evidence in the proceeding before 
the Administrator, the court may order such additional evidence 
(and evidence in rebuttal thereof) to be taken before the 
Administrator, in such manner and upon such terms and 
conditions as the court may deem proper. The Administrator may 
modify his findings as to the facts, or make new findings, by 
reason of the additional evidence so taken, and he shall file 
such modified or new findings, and his recommendation, if any, 
for the modification or setting aside of his original 
determination, with the return of such additional evidence.

                         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 (and associated 
        costs and interest) against any Federal agency that 
        fails, by the date that is 1 year after the effective 
        date of a final order to pay a penalty assessed by the 
        Administrator under section 1447(d), 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 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.
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.
    (c) In any action under this section, the Administrator or 
the Attorney General, if not a party, may intervene as a matter 
of right.
    (d) The court, in issuing any final order in any action 
brought under subsection (a) of this section, may award costs 
of litigation (including reasonable attorney and expert witness 
fees) to any party whenever the court determines such an award 
is appropriate. The court may, if a temporary restraining order 
or preliminary injunction is sought, require the filing of a 
bond or equivalent security in accordance with the Federal 
Rules of Civil Procedure.
    (e) Nothing in this section shall restrict any right which 
any person (or class of persons) may have under any statute or 
common law to seek enforcement of any requirement prescribed by 
or under this title or to seek any other relief. Nothing in 
this section or in any other law of the United States shall be 
construed to prohibit, exclude, or restrict any State or local 
government from--
          (1) bringing any action or obtaining any remedy or 
        sanction in any State or local court, or
          (2) bringing any administrative action or obtaining 
        any administrative remedy or sanction,
against any agency of the United States under State or local 
law to enforce any requirement respecting the provision of safe 
drinking water or respecting any underground injection control 
program. Nothing in this section shall be construed to 
authorize judicial review of regulations or orders of the 
Administrator under this title, except as provided in section 
1448. For provisions providing for application of certain 
requirements to such agencies in the same manner as to 
nongovernmental entities, see section 1447.

                           general provisions

    Sec. 1450. (a)(1) The Administrator is authorized to 
prescribe such regulations as are necessary or appropriate to 
carry out his functions under this title.
    (2) The Administrator may delegate any of his functions 
under this title (other than prescribing regulations) to any 
officer or employee of the Agency.
    (b) The Administrator, with the consent of the head of any 
other agency of the United States, may utilize such officers 
and employees of such agency as he deems necessary to assist 
him in carrying out the purposes of this title.
    (c) Upon the request of a State or interstate agency, the 
Administrator may assign personnel of the Agency to such State 
or interstate agency for the purposes of carrying out the 
provisions of this title.
    (d)(1) The Administrator may make payments of grants under 
this title (after necessary adjustment on account of previously 
made underpayments or overpayments) in advance or by way of 
reimbursement, and in such installments and on such conditions 
as he may determine.
    (2) Financial assistance may be made available in the form 
of grants only to individuals and nonprofit agencies or 
institutions. For purposes of this paragraph, the term 
`nonprofit agency or institution' means an agency or 
institution no part of the net earnings of which inure, or may 
lawfully inure, to the benefit of any private shareholder or 
individual.
    (e) The Administrator shall take such action as may be 
necessary to assure compliance with provisions of the Act of 
March 3, 1931 (known as the Davis-Bacon Act; 40 U.S.C. 276a-
276a(5)). The Secretary of Labor shall have, with respect to 
the labor standards specified in this subsection, the authority 
and functions set forth in Reorganization Plan Numbered 14 of 
1950 (15 F.R. 3176; 64 Stat. 1267) and section 2 of the Act of 
June 13, 1934 (40 U.S.C. 276c).
    (f) The Administrator shall request the Attorney General to 
appear and represent him in any civil action instituted under 
this title to which the Administrator is a party. Unless, 
within a reasonable time, the Attorney General notifies the 
Administrator that he will appear in such action, attorneys 
appointed by the Administrator shall appear and represent him.
    (g)The provisions of this title shall not be construed as 
affecting any authority of the Administrator under part G of 
title III of this Act.
    [(h) Not later than April 1 of each year, the Administrator 
shall submit to the Committee on Commerce of the Senate and the 
Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce of the House of 
Representatives a report respecting the activities of the 
Agency under this title and containing such recommendations for 
legislation as he considers necessary. The report of the 
Administrator under this subsection which is due not later than 
April 1, 1975, and each subsequent report of the Administrator 
under this subsection shall include a statement on the actual 
and anticipated cost to public water systems in each State of 
compliance with the requirements of this title. The Office of 
Management and Budget may review any report required by this 
subsection before its submission to such committees of 
Congress, but the Office may not revise any such report, 
require any revision in any such report, or delay its 
submission beyond the day prescribed for its submission, and 
may submit to such committees of Congress its comments 
respecting any such report.]
    (h) Report to Congress on Private Drinking Water.--The 
Administrator shall conduct a study to determine the extent and 
seriousness of contamination of private sources of drinking 
water that are not regulated under this title. Not later than 3 
years after the date of enactment of the Safe Drinking Water 
Act Amendments of 1995, the Administrator shall submit to 
Congress a report that includes the findings of the study and 
recommendations by the Administrator concerning responses to 
any problems identified under the study. In designing and 
conducting the study, including consideration of research 
design, methodology, and conclusions and recommendations, the 
Administrator shall consult with experts outside the Agency, 
including scientists, hydrogeologists, well contractors and 
suppliers, and other individuals knowledgeable in ground water 
protection and remediation.
    (i)(1) No employer may discharge any employee or otherwise 
discriminate against any employee with respect to his 
compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment 
because the employee (or any person acting pursuant to a 
request of the employee) has--
                  (A) commenced, caused to be commenced, or is 
                about to commence or cause to be commenced a 
                proceeding under this title or a proceeding for 
                the administration or enforcement of drinking 
                water regulations or underground injection 
                control programs of a State.
                  (B) testified or is about to testify in any 
                such proceeding, or
                  (C) assisted or participated or is about to 
                assist or participate in any manner in such a 
                proceeding or in any other action to carry out 
                the purposes of this title.
    (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 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.
    (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. 
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, 
(III) compensatory damages, and (IV) where appropriate, 
exemplary damages. 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) 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) 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. Civil actions filed under this paragraph 
shall be heard and decided expeditiously.
    (5) 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) 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.

                      [sec. 1451. indian tribes.]

                             indian tribes

    Sec. 1451. (a) In General.--Subject to the provisions of 
subsection (b), the Administrator--
          (1) is authorized to treat Indian Tribes as States 
        under this title,
          (2) may delegate such Tribes primary enforcement 
        responsibility for public water systems and for 
        underground injection control, and
          (3) may provide such Tribes grant and contract 
        assistance to carry out functions provided by this 
        title.
    (b) EPA Regulations.--
                  a) Specific Provisions.--The Administrator 
                shall, within 18 months after the enactment of 
                the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986, 
                promulgate final regulations specifying those 
                provisions of this title for which it is 
                appropriate to treat Indian Tribes as States. 
                Such treatment shall be authorized only if:
                  (A) the Indian Tribe is recognized by the 
                Secretary of the Interior and has a governing 
                body carrying out substantial governmental 
                duties and powers;
                  (B) the functions to be exercised by the 
                Indian Tribe are within the area of the Tribal 
                Government's jurisdiction; and
                  (C) the Indian Tribe is reasonably expected 
                to be capable, in the Administrator's judgment, 
                of carrying out the functions to be exercised 
                in a manner consistent with the terms and 
                purposes of this title and of all applicable 
                regulations.
          (2) Provisions Where Treatment as State 
        Inappropriate.--For any provision of this title where 
        treatment of Indian Tribes as identical to States is 
        inappropriate, administratively infeasible or otherwise 
        inconsistent with the purposes of this title, the 
        Administrator may include in the regulations 
        promulgated under this section, other means for 
        administering such provision in a manner that will 
        achieve the purpose of the provision. Nothing in this 
        section shall be construed to allow Indian Tribes to 
        assume or maintain primary enforcement responsibility 
        for public water systems or for underground injection 
        control in a manner less protective of the health of 
        persons than such responsibility may be assumed or 
        maintained by a State. An Indian tribe shall not be 
        required to exercise criminal enforcement jurisdiction 
        for purposes of complying with the preceding sentence.

  Part F--Additional Requirements To Regulate The Safety of Drinking 
                                 Water

                       [sec. 1461. definitions.]

                              definitions

    Sec. 1461. As used in this part--
    (1) Drinking water cooler.--The term `drinking water 
cooler' means any mechanical device affixed to drinking water 
supply plumbing which actively cools water for human 
consumption.
    (2) Lead free.--The term `lead free' means, with respect to 
a drinking water cooler, that each part or component of the 
cooler which may come in contact with drinking water contains 
not more than 8 percent lead, except that no drinking water 
cooler which contains any solder, flux, or storage tank 
interior surface which may come in contact with drinking water 
shall be considered lead free if the solder, flux, or storage 
tank interior surface contains more than 0.2 percent lead. The 
Administrator may establish more stringent requirements for 
treating any part or component of a drinking water cooler as 
lead free for purposes of this part whenever he determines that 
any such part may constitute an important source of lead in 
drinking water.
    (3) Local educational agency.--The term `local educational 
agency' means--
          (A) any local educational agency as defined in 
        section 198 of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
        Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 3381),
          (B) the owner of any private, nonprofit elementary or 
        secondary school building, and
          (C) the governing authority of any school operating 
        under the defense department's education system 
        provided for under the Defense Dependent's Education 
        Act of 1978 (20 U.S.C. 921 and following).
    (4) Repair.--The term `repair' means, with respect to a 
drinking water cooler, to take such corrective action as is 
necessary to ensure that water cooler is lead free.
    (5) Replacement.--The term `replacement', when used with 
respect to a drinking water cooler, means the permanent removal 
of the water cooler and the installation of a lead free water 
cooler.
    (6) School.--The term `school' means any elementary school 
or secondary school as defined in section 198 of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act 1965 (20 U.S.C.2854) and any 
kindergarten or day care facility.
    (7) Lead-lined tanks.--The term `lead-lined tank' means a 
water reservoir container in a drinking water cooler which 
container is constructed of lead or which has an interior 
surface which is not leadfree.

  [sec. 1462. recall of drinking water coolers with lead-lined tanks.]

         recall of drinking water coolers with lead-lined tanks

    Sec. 1462. For purposes of the Consumer Product Safety Act, 
all drinking water coolers identified by the Administrator on 
the list under section 1463 as having a lead-lined tank shall 
be considered to be imminently hazardous consumer products 
within the meaning of section 12 of such Act (15 U.S.C. 2061). 
After notice and opportunity for comment, including a public 
hearing, the Consumer Product Safety Commission shall issue an 
order requiring the manufacturers and importers of such coolers 
to repair, replace, or recall and provide a refund for such 
coolers within 1 year after the enactment of the Lead 
Contamination Control Act of 1988. For purposes of enforcement, 
such order shall be treated as an order under section 15(d) of 
the Act (15 U.S.C. 2064(d)).

          [sec. 1463. drinking water coolers containing lead.]

                 drinking water coolers containing lead

    Sec. 1463. (a) Publications of Lists.--The Administrator 
shall, after notice and opportunity for public comment, 
identify each brand and model of drinking water cooler which is 
not lead free, including each brand and model that has a lead-
lined tank. For purposes of identifying the brand and model of 
drinking water cooler under this subsection, the Administrator 
shall use the best information available to the Environmental 
Protection Agency. Within 100 days after the enactment of this 
section, the Administrator shall publish a list of each brand 
and model of drinking water cooler identified under this 
subsection. Such list shall separately identify each brand and 
model of cooler which has a lead-lined tank. The Administrator 
shall continue to gather information regarding lead in drinking 
water coolers and shall revise and republish the list from time 
to time as may be appropriate as new information or analysis 
becomes available regarding lead contamination in drinking 
water coolers.
    (b) Prohibition.--No person may sell in interstate 
commerce, or manufacture for sale in interstate commerce, any 
drinking water cooler listed under subsection (a) or any other 
drinking water cooler which is not lead free, including a lead-
lined drinking water cooler.
    (c) Criminal Penalty.--Any person who knowingly violates 
the prohibition contained in subsection (b) shall be imprisoned 
for not more than 5 years, or fined in accordance with title 18 
of the United States Code, or both.
    (d) Civil Penalty.--The Administrator may bring a civil 
action in the appropriate United States District Court (as 
determined under the provisions of title 28 of the United 
States Code) to impose a civil penalty on any person who 
violates subsection (b). In any such action the court may 
impose on such person a civil penalty of not more than $5,000 
($50,000 in the case of a second or subsequent violation).

       [sec. 1464. lead contamination in school drinking water.]

              lead contamination in school drinking water

    Sec. 1464. (a) Distribution of Drinking Water Cooler 
List.--Within 100 days after the enactment of this section, the 
Administrator shall distribute to the States a list of each 
brand and model of drinking water cooler identified and listed 
by the Administrator under section 1463(a).
    (b) Guidance Document and Testing Protocol.--The 
Administrator shall publish a guidance document and a testing 
protocol to assist schools in determining the source and degree 
of lead contamination in school drinking water supplies and in 
remedying such contamination. The guidance document shall 
include guidelines for sample preservation. The guidance 
document shall also include guidelines for sample preservation. 
The guidance documents shall also include guidance to assist 
States, schools, and the general public in ascertaining the 
levels of lead contamination in drinking water coolers and in 
taking appropriate action to reduce or eliminate such 
contamination. The guidance document shall contain a testing 
protocol for the identification of drinking water coolers which 
contribute to lead contamination in drinking water. Such 
document and protocol may be revised, republished and 
redistributed as the Administrator deems necessary. The 
Administrator shall distribute the guidance document and 
testing protocol to the states within 100 days after the 
enactment of this section.
    (c) Dissemination to Schools, Etc.--Each State shall 
provide for the dissemination to local educational agencies, 
private nonprofit elementary or secondary schools and to day 
care centers of the guidance document and testing protocol 
published under subsection (b), together with the list of 
drinking water coolers published under section 1463(a).
    (d) Remedial Action Program.--
          (1) Testing and remedying lead contamination.--Within 
        9 months after the enactment of this section, each 
        State shall establish a program, consistent with this 
        section, to assist local educational agencies in 
        testing for, and remedying, lead contamination in 
        drinking water from coolers and from other sources of 
        lead contamination at schools under the jurisdiction of 
        such agencies.
          (2) Public availability.--A copy of the results of 
        any testing under paragraph (1) shall be available in 
        the administrative offices of the local educational 
        agency for inspection by the public, including 
        teachers, other school personnel, and parents. The 
        local educational agency shall notify parent, teacher, 
        and employee organizations of the availability of such 
        testing results.
          (3) Coolers.--In the case of drinking water coolers, 
        such program shall include measures for the reduction 
        or elimination of lead contamination from those water 
        coolers which are not lead free and which are not 
        located in schools. Such measures shall be adequate to 
        ensure that within 15 months after the enactment of 
        this subsection all such water coolers in schools under 
        the jurisdiction of such agencies are repaired, 
        replaced, permanently removed, or rendered inoperable 
        unless the cooler is tested and found (within the 
        limits of testing accuracy) not to contribute lead to 
        drinking water.

   [sec. 1465. federal assistance for state programs regarding lead 
                contamination in school drinking water.]

 federal assistance for state programs regarding lead contamination in 
                         school drinking water

    Sec. 1465. (a) School Drinking Water Programs.--The 
Administrator shall make grants to States to establish and 
carry out State programs under section 1464 to assist local 
educational agencies in testing for, and remedying, lead 
contamination in drinking water from drinking water coolers and 
from other sources of lead contamination at schools under the 
jurisdiction of such agencies. Such grants may be used by 
States to reimburse local educational agencies for expenses 
incurred after the enactment of this section for such testing 
and remedial.
    (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 this section 1464. Not more 
than 5 percent of the grant may be used for program 
administration.
    (c) Authorization of Appropriation.--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.

                   Part G_State Revolving Loan Funds

                           general authority

    Sec. 1471. (a) Capitalization Grant Agreements.--The 
Administrator shall offer to enter into an agreement with each 
State to make capitalization grants to the State pursuant to 
section 1472 (referred to in this part as `capitalization 
grants') to establish a drinking water treatment State 
revolving loan fund (referred to in this part as a `State loan 
fund').
    (b) Requirements of Agreements.--An agreement entered into 
pursuant to this section shall establish, to the satisfaction 
of the Administrator, that--
          (1) the State has established a State loan fund that 
        complies with the requirements of this part;
          (2) the State loan fund will be administered by an 
        instrumentality of the State that has the powers and 
        authorities that are required to operate the State loan 
        fund in accordance with this part;
          (3) the State will deposit the capitalization grants 
        into the State loan fund;
          (4) the State will deposit all loan repayments 
        received, and interest earned on the amounts deposited 
        into the State loan fund under this part, into the 
        State loan fund;
          (5) the State will deposit into the State loan fund 
        an amount equal to at least 20 percent of the total 
        amount of each payment to be made to the State on or 
        before the date on which the payment is made to the 
        State, except as provided in subsection (c)(4);
          (6) the State will use funds in the State loan fund 
        in accordance with an intended use plan prepared 
        pursuant to section 1474(b);
          (7) the State and loan recipients that receive funds 
        that the State makes available from the State loan fund 
        will use accounting procedures that conform to 
        generally accepted accounting principles, auditing 
        procedures that conform to chapter 75 of title 31, 
        United States Code (commonly known as the `Single Audit 
        Act of 1984'), and such fiscal procedures as the 
        Administrator may prescribe; and
          (8) the State has adopted policies and procedures to 
        ensure that loan recipients are reasonably likely to be 
        able to repay a loan.
    (c) Administration of State Loan Funds._
          (1) In general.--The authority to establish 
        assistance priorities for financial assistance provided 
        with amounts deposited into the State loan fund shall 
        reside in the State agency that has primary 
        responsibility for the administration of the State 
        program under section 1413, after consultation with 
        other appropriate State agencies (as determined by the 
        State).
          (2) Financial administration.--A State may combine 
        the financial administration of the State loan fund 
        pursuant to this part with the financial administration 
        of a State water pollution control revolving fund 
        established by the State pursuant to title VI of the 
        Federal Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1381 et 
        seq.), or other State revolving funds providing 
        financing for similar purposes, if the Administrator 
        determines that the grants to be provided to the State 
        under this part, and the loan repayments and interest 
        deposited into the State loan fund pursuant to this 
        part, will be separately accounted for and used solely 
        for the purposes of and in compliance with the 
        requirements of this part.
          (3) Transfer of funds._
                  (A) In general.--Notwithstanding any other 
                provision of law, a Governor of a State may--
                          (i) reserve up to 50 percent of a 
                        capitalization grant made pursuant to 
                        section 1472 and add the funds reserved 
                        to any funds provided to the State 
                        pursuant to section 601 of the Federal 
                        Water Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 
                        1381); and
                          (ii) reserve in any year a dollar 
                        amount up to the dollar amount that may 
                        be reserved under clause (i) for that 
                        year from capitalization grants made 
                        pursuant to section 601 of such Act (33 
                        U.S.C. 1381) and add the reserved funds 
                        to any funds provided to the State 
                        pursuant to section 1472.
                  (B) State match.--Funds reserved pursuant to 
                this paragraph shall not be considered to be a 
                State match of a capitalization grant required 
                pursuant to this title or the Federal Water 
                Pollution Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.).
          (4) Extended period.--Notwithstanding subsection 
        (b)(5), a State shall not be required to deposit a 
        State matching amount into the fund prior to the date 
        on which each payment is made for payments from funds 
        appropriated for fiscal years 1994, 1995, and 1996, if 
        the matching amounts for the payments are deposited 
        into the State fund prior to September 30, 1998.

                         capitalization grants

    Sec.  1472. (a) General Authority.--The Administrator may 
make grants to capitalize State loan funds to a State that has 
entered into an agreement pursuant to section 1471.
    (b) Formula for Allotment of Funds._
          (1) In general.--Subject to subsection (c) and 
        paragraph (2), funds made available to carry out this 
        part shall be allotted to States that have entered into 
        an agreement pursuant to section 1471 in accordance 
        with--
                  (A) 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
                  (B) 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 1475(c), except that the 
                minimum proportionate share provided to each 
                State shall be the same as the minimum 
                proportionate share provided under subparagraph 
                (A).
          (2) Other jurisdictions.--The formula established 
        pursuant to paragraph (1) shall reserve 0.5 percent of 
        the amounts made available to carry out this part for a 
        fiscal year for providing direct grants to the 
        jurisdictions, other than Indian Tribes, referred to in 
        subsection (f).
    (c) Reservation of Funds for Indian Tribes._
          (1) In general.--For each fiscal year, prior to the 
        allotment of funds made available to carry out this 
        part, the Administrator shall reserve 1.5 percent of 
        the funds for providing financial assistance to Indian 
        Tribes pursuant to subsection (f).
          (2) Use of funds.--Funds reserved pursuant to 
        paragraph (1) shall be used to address the most 
        significant threats to public health associated with 
        public water systems that serve Indian Tribes, as 
        determined by the Administrator in consultation with 
        the Director of the Indian Health Service and Indian 
        Tribes.
          (3) Needs assessment.--The Administrator, in 
        consultation with the Director of the Indian Health 
        Service and Indian Tribes, shall, in accordance with a 
        schedule that is consistent with the needs surveys 
        conducted pursuant to section 1475(c), prepare surveys 
        and assess the needs of drinking water treatment 
        facilities to serve Indian Tribes, including an 
        evaluation of the public water systems that pose the 
        most significant threats to public health.
    (d) Technical Assistance for Small Systems._
          (1) Definitions.--In this subsection:
                  (A) Small system.--The term `small system' 
                means a public water system that serves a 
                population of 10,000 or fewer.
                  (B) Technical assistance.--The term 
                `technical assistance' means assistance 
                provided by a State to a small system, 
                including assistance to potential loan 
                recipients and assistance for planning and 
                design, development and implementation of a 
                source water quality protection partnership 
                program, alternative supplies of drinking 
                water, restructuring or consolidation of a 
                small system, and treatment to comply with a 
                national primary drinking water regulation.
          (2) Reservation of funds.--To provide technical 
        assistance pursuant to this subsection, each State may 
        reserve from capitalization grants received in any year 
        an amount that does not exceed the greater of--
                  (A) an amount equal to 2 percent of the 
                amount of the capitalization grants received by 
                the State pursuant to this section; or
                  (B) $300,000.
    (e) Allotment Period._
          (1) Period of availability for financial assistance._
                  (A) In general.--Except as provided in 
                subparagraph (B), the sums allotted to a State 
                pursuant to subsection (b) for a fiscal year 
                shall be available to the State for obligation 
                during the fiscal year for which the sums are 
                authorized and during the following fiscal 
                year.
                  (B) Funds made available for fiscal years 
                1995 and 1996.--The sums allotted to a State 
                pursuant to subsection (b) from funds that are 
                made available by appropriations for each of 
                fiscal years 1995 and 1996 shall be available 
                to the State for obligation during each of 
                fiscal years 1995 through 1998.
          (2) Reallotment of unobligated funds.--Prior to 
        obligating new allotments made available to the State 
        pursuant to subsection (b), each State shall obligate 
        funds accumulated before a date that is 1 year prior to 
        the date of the obligation of a new allotment from loan 
        repayments and interest earned on amounts deposited 
        into a State loan fund. The amount of any allotment 
        that is not obligated by a State by the last day of the 
        period of availability established by paragraph (1) 
        shall be immediately reallotted by the Administrator on 
        the basis of the same ratio as is applicable to sums 
        allotted under subsection (b), except that the 
        Administrator may reserve and allocate 10 percent of 
        the remaining amount for financial assistance to Indian 
        Tribes in addition to the amount allotted under 
        subsection (c). None of the funds reallotted by the 
        Administrator shall be reallotted to any State that has 
        not obligated all sums allotted to the State pursuant 
        to this section during the period in which the sums 
        were available for obligation.
          (3) Allotment of withheld funds.--All funds withheld 
        by the Administrator pursuant to subsection (g) and 
        section 1442(e)(3) shall be allotted by the 
        Administrator on the basis of the same ratio as is 
        applicable to funds allotted under subsection (b). None 
        of the funds allotted by the Administrator pursuant to 
        this paragraph shall be allotted to a State unless the 
        State has met the requirements of section 1418(a).
    (f) Direct Grants._
          (1) In general.--The Administrator is authorized to 
        make grants for the improvement of public water systems 
        of Indian Tribes, the District of Columbia, the United 
        States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the Northern 
        Mariana Islands, American Samoa, and Guam and, if funds 
        are appropriated to carry out this part for fiscal year 
        1995, the Republic of Palau.
          (2) Alaska native villages.--In the case of a grant 
        for a project under this subsection in an Alaska Native 
        village, the Administrator is also authorized to make 
        grants to the State of Alaska for the benefit of Native 
        villages. An amount not to exceed 4 percent of the 
        grant amount may be used by the State of Alaska for 
        project management.
    (g) New System Capacity.--Beginning in fiscal year 1999, 
the Administrator shall withhold the percentage prescribed in 
the following sentence of each capitalization grant made 
pursuant to this section to a State unless the State has met 
the requirements of section 1418(a). The percentage withheld 
shall be 5 percent for fiscal year 1999, 10 percent for fiscal 
year 2000, and 15 percent for each subsequent fiscal year.

                          eligible assistance

    Sec. 1473. (a) In General.--The amounts deposited into a 
State loan fund, including any amounts equal to the amounts of 
loan repayments and interest earned on the amounts deposited, 
may be used by the State to carry out projects that are 
consistent with this section.
    (b) Projects Eligible for Assistance._
          (1) In general.--The amounts deposited into a State 
        loan fund shall be used only for providing financial 
        assistance for capital expenditures and associated 
        costs (but excluding the cost of land acquisition 
        unless the cost is incurred to acquire land for the 
        construction of a treatment facility or for a 
        consolidation project) for--
                  (A) a project that will facilitate compliance 
                with national primary drinking water 
                regulations promulgated pursuant to section 
                1412;
                  (B) a project that will facilitate the 
                consolidation of public water systems or the 
                use of an alternative source of water supply;
                  (C) a project that will upgrade a drinking 
                water treatment system; and
                  (D) the development of a public water system 
                to replace private drinking water supplies if 
                the private water supplies pose a significant 
                threat to human health.
          (2) Operator training.--Associated costs eligible for 
        assistance under this part include the costs of 
        training and certifying the persons who will operate 
        facilities that receive assistance pursuant to 
        paragraph (1).
          (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; and
                          (ii) has a history of--
                                  (I) past violations of any 
                                maximum contaminant level or 
                                treatment technique established 
                                by a regulation or a variance; 
                                or
                                  (II) significant 
                                noncompliance with monitoring 
                                requirements or any other 
                                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.
    (c) Eligible Public Water Systems.--A State loan fund, or 
the Administrator in the case of direct grants under section 
1472(f), may provide financial assistance only to community 
water systems, publicly owned water systems (other than systems 
owned by Federal agencies), and nonprofit noncommunity water 
systems.
    (d) Types of Assistance.--Except as otherwise limited by 
State law, the amounts deposited into a State loan fund under 
this section may be used only--
          (1) to make loans, on the condition that--
                  (A) the interest rate for each loan is less 
                than or equal to the market interest rate, 
                including an interest free loan;
                  (B) principal and interest payments on each 
                loan will commence not later than 1 year after 
                completion of the project for which the loan 
                was made, and each loan will be fully amortized 
                not later than 20 years after the completion of 
                the project, except that in the case of a 
                disadvantaged community (as defined in 
                subsection (e)(1)), a State may provide an 
                extended term for a loan, if the extended 
                term--
                          (i) terminates not later than the 
                        date that is 30 years after the date of 
                        project completion; and
                          (ii) does not exceed the expected 
                        design life of the project;
                  (C) the recipient of each loan will establish 
                a dedicated source of revenue for the repayment 
                of the loan; and
                  (D) the State loan fund will be credited with 
                all payments of principal and interest on each 
                loan;
          (2) to buy or refinance the debt obligation of a 
        municipality or an intermunicipal or interstate agency 
        within the State at an interest rate that is less than 
        or equal to the market interest rate in any case in 
        which a debt obligation is incurred after October 14, 
        1993, or to refinance a debt obligation for a project 
        constructed to comply with a regulation established 
        pursuant to an amendment to this title made by the Safe 
        Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1986 (Public Law 99--
        339; 100 Stat. 642);
          (3) to guarantee, or purchase insurance for, a local 
        obligation (all of the proceeds of which finance a 
        project eligible for assistance under subsection (b)) 
        if the guarantee or purchase would improve credit 
        market access or reduce the interest rate applicable to 
        the obligation;
          (4) as a source of revenue or security for the 
        payment of principal and interest on revenue or general 
        obligation bonds issued by the State if the proceeds of 
        the sale of the bonds will be deposited into the State 
        loan fund;
          (5) as a source of revenue or security for the 
        payment of interest on a local obligation (all of the 
        proceeds of which finance a project eligible for 
        assistance under subsection (b)); and
          (6) to earn interest on the amounts deposited into 
        the State loan fund.
    (e) Assistance for Disadvantaged Communities._
          (1) 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.
          (2) Loan subsidy.--Notwithstanding subsection (d), in 
        any case in which the State makes a loan pursuant to 
        subsection (d) 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).
          (3) Total amount of subsidies.--For each fiscal year, 
        the total amount of loan subsidies made by a State 
        pursuant to paragraph (2) may not exceed 30 percent of 
        the amount of the capitalization grant received by the 
        State for the year.
    (f) Source Water Quality Protection and Capacity 
Development._
          (1) In general.--Notwithstanding subsection (b)(1), a 
        State may--
                  (A) provide assistance, only in the form of a 
                loan, to--
                          (i) any public water system described 
                        in subsection (c) 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; or
                          (ii) any community water system 
                        described in subsection (c) to provide 
                        funding in accordance with section 
                        1419(d)(1)(C)(i);
                  (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 1418(c); and
                  (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 
                1419, except that funds set aside for such 
                expenditure shall be obligated within 4 fiscal 
                years.
          (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 
                recommendations of source water quality 
                protection partnerships 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).

                     state loan fund administration

    Sec. 1474. (a) Administration, Technical Assistance, and 
Management._
          (1) Administration.--Each State that has a State loan 
        fund is authorized to expend from the annual 
        capitalization grant of the State a reasonable amount, 
        not to exceed 4 percent of the capitalization grant 
        made to the State, for the costs of the administration 
        of the State loan fund.
          (2) State program management assistance._
                  (A) In general.--Each State that has a loan 
                fund is authorized to expend from the annual 
                capitalization grant of the State an amount, 
                determined pursuant to this paragraph, to carry 
                out the public water system supervision program 
                under section 1443(a) and to--
                          (i) administer, or provide technical 
                        assistance through, source water 
                        quality protection programs, including 
                        a partnership program under section 
                        1419; and
                          (ii) develop and implement a capacity 
                        development strategy under section 
                        1418(c) in the State.
                  (B) Limitation.--Amounts expended by a State 
                pursuant to this paragraph for any fiscal year 
                may not exceed an amount that is equal to the 
                amount of the grant funds available to the 
                State for that fiscal year under section 
                1443(a).
                  (C) State funds.--For any fiscal year, funds 
                may not be expended pursuant to this paragraph 
                unless the Administrator determines that the 
                amount of State funds made available to carry 
                out the public water system supervision program 
                under section 1443(a) for the fiscal year is 
                not less than the amount of State funds made 
                available to carry out the program for fiscal 
                year 1993.
    (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.

                       state loan fund management

    Sec. 1475. (a) In General.--Not later than 1 year after the 
date of enactment of this part, and annually thereafter, the 
Administrator shall conduct such reviews and audits as the 
Administrator considers appropriate, or require each State to 
have the reviews and audits independently conducted, in 
accordance with the single audit requirements of chapter 75 of 
title 31, United States Code.
    (b) State Reports.--Not later than 2 years after the date 
of enactment of this part, and every 2 years thereafter, each 
State that administers a State loan fund shall publish and 
submit to the Administrator a report on the activities of the 
State under this part, including the findings of the most 
recent audit of the State loan fund.
    (c) Drinking Water Needs Survey and Assessment.--Not later 
than 1 year after the date of enactment of this part, and every 
4 years thereafter, the Administrator shall submit to Congress 
a survey and assessment of the needs for facilities in each 
State eligible for assistance under this part. The survey and 
assessment conducted pursuant to this subsection shall--
          (1) identify, by State, the needs for projects or 
        facilities owned or controlled by community water 
        systems eligible for assistance under this part on the 
        date of the assessment (other than refinancing for a 
        project pursuant to section 1473(d)(2));
          (2) estimate the needs for eligible facilities over 
        the 20-year period following the date of the 
        assessment;
          (3) identify, by size category, the population served 
        by public water systems with needs identified pursuant 
        to paragraph (1); and
          (4) include such other information as the 
        Administrator determines to be appropriate.
    (d) Evaluation.--The Administrator shall conduct an 
evaluation of the effectiveness of the State loan funds through 
fiscal year 1999. The evaluation shall be submitted to Congress 
at the same time as the President submits to Congress, pursuant 
to section 1108 of title 31, United States Code, an 
appropriations request for fiscal year 2001 relating to the 
budget of the Environmental Protection Agency.

                              enforcement

    Sec.  1476. The failure or inability of any public water 
system to receive funds under this part 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.

                        regulations and guidance

    Sec.  1477. The Administrator shall publish such guidance 
and promulgate such regulations as are necessary to carry out 
this part, including guidance and regulations to ensure that--
    (1) each State commits and expends funds from the State 
loan fund in accordance with the requirements of this part and 
applicable Federal and State laws; and
    (2) the States and eligible public water systems that 
receive funds under this part use accounting procedures that 
conform to generally accepted accounting principles, auditing 
procedures that conform to chapter 75 of title 31, United 
States Code (commonly known as the `Single Audit Act of 1984'), 
and such fiscal procedures as the Administrator may prescribe.

                    authorization of appropriations

    Sec.  1478. (a) General Authorization.--There are 
authorized to be appropriated to the Environmental Protection 
Agency to carry out this part $600,000,000 for fiscal year 1994 
and $1,000,000,000 for each of fiscal years 1995 through 2003.
    (b) Health Effects Research.--From funds appropriated 
pursuant to this section for each fiscal year, the 
Administrator shall reserve $10,000,000 for health effects 
research on drinking water contaminants authorized by section 
1442. In allocating funds made available under this subsection, 
the Administrator shall give priority to research concerning 
the health effects of cryptosporidium, disinfection byproducts, 
and arsenic, and the implementation of a research plan for 
subpopulations at greater risk of adverse effects pursuant to 
section 1442(l).
    (c) Monitoring for Unregulated Contaminants.--From funds 
appropriated pursuant to this section for each fiscal year 
beginning with fiscal year 1997, the Administrator shall 
reserve $2,000,000 to pay the costs of monitoring for 
unregulated contaminants under section 1445(a)(2)(D).
    (d) Small System Technical Assistance._
          (1) In general.--Subject to paragraph (2), from funds 
        appropriated pursuant to this section for each fiscal 
        year for which the appropriation made pursuant to 
        subsection (a) exceeds $800,000,000, the Administrator 
        shall reserve to carry out section 1442(g) an amount 
        that is equal to any amount by which the amount made 
        available to carry out section 1442(g) is less than the 
        amount referred to in the third sentence of section 
        1442(g).
          (2) Maximum amount.--For each fiscal year, the amount 
        reserved under paragraph (1) shall be not greater than 
        an amount equal to the lesser of--
                  (A) 2 percent of the funds appropriated 
                pursuant to this section for the fiscal year; 
                or
                  (B) $10,000,000.
                              ----------                              


                    Public Law 93-523, 93d Congress

                       S. 433, December 16, 1974

      
AN ACT To amend the Public Health Service Act to assure that the public 
    is provided with safe drinking water, and for other purposes
      
    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
the United States in Congress assembled,

                              short title

    Section 1. This Act may be cited as the ``Safe Drinking 
Water Act of 1974''.
          * * * * * * *
                              ----------                              


           UNITED STATES CODE, TITLE 21, SECTION 301, ET SEQ.

  [Changes to 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 
amendments.
    (b)(1) After the Administrator of the Environmental 
Protection Agency publishes a proposed maximum contaminant 
level, but not later than 180 days after the Administrator of 
the Environmental Protection Agency publishes a final maximum 
contaminant level, for a contaminant under section 1412 of the 
Public Health Service Act (42 U.S.C. 300g--1), the Secretary, 
after public notice and comment, shall issue a regulation that 
establishes a quality level for the contaminant in bottled 
water or make a finding that a regulation is not necessary to 
protect the public health because the contaminant is contained 
in water in the public water systems (as defined under section 
1401(4) of such Act (42 U.S.C. 300f(4)) and not in water used 
for bottled drinking water. In the case of any contaminant for 
which a national primary drinking water regulation was 
promulgated before the date of enactment of the Safe Drinking 
Water Act Amendments of 1995, the Secretary shall issue the 
regulation or make the finding required by this paragraph not 
later than 1 year after than date.
    (2) The regulation shall include any monitoring 
requirements that the Secretary determines to be appropriate 
for bottled water.
    (3) The regulation--
          (A) shall require that the quality level for the 
        contaminant in bottled water be as stringent as the 
        maximum contaminant level for the contaminant published 
        by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
        Agency; and
          (B) may require that the quality level be more 
        stringent than the maximum contaminant level if 
        necessary to provide ample public health protection 
        under this Act.
    (4)(A) If the Secretary fails to establish a regulation 
within the 180-day period described in paragraph (1), the 
regulation with respect to the final maximum contaminant level 
published by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection 
Agency (as described in such paragraph) shall be considered, as 
of the date on which the Secretary is required to establish a 
regulation under paragraph (1), as the final regulation for the 
establishment of the quality level for a contaminant required 
under paragraph (1) for the purpose of establishing or amending 
a bottled water quality level standard with respect to the 
contaminant.
      (B) Not later than 30 days after the end of the 180-day 
period described in paragraph (1), the Secretary shall, with 
respect to a maximum contaminant level that is considered as a 
quality level under subparagraph (A), publish a notice in the 
Federal Register that sets forth the quality level and 
appropriate monitoring requirements required under paragraphs 
(1) and (2) and that provides that the quality level standard 
and requirements shall take effect on the date on which the 
final regulation of the maximum contaminant level takes effect.

                              ----------                              


                   Public Law 102-486, 102d Congress

                       H.R. 776, October 24, 1992

      
AN ACT To provide for improved energy efficiency.
      
          * * * * * * *

                   [sec. 3013. geothermal heat pumps.

    The Secretary shall--
          (1) encourage States, municipalities, counties, and 
        townships to consider allowing the installation of 
        geothermal heat pumps, and, where applicable, and 
        consistent with public health and safety, to permit 
        public and private recipients to utilize the flow of 
        water form, and back into, public and private water 
        mains for the purpose of providing sufficient water 
        supply for the operation of residential and commercial 
        geothermal heat pumps; and
          (2) not discourage any local authority which allows 
        the use of geothermal heat pumps from--
                  (A) inspecting, at any reasonable time, 
                geothermal heat pump connections to the water 
                system to ensure the exclusive use of the 
                public or private water supply to the 
                geothermal heat pump system; and
                  (B) requiring that geothermal heat pumps 
                systems be designed and installed in a manner 
                that eliminates any risk of contamination to 
                the public water supply.]

                                    

      
