United States Environmental Protection ..Agency Office of Water J4601) EPA810/F-93-004 ..September 1993 ADMINISTRATION RECOMMENDATIONS FOR SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT REAUTHORIZATION ------- ------- United States Environmental Protection Agency Communications, Education/ And Public Aft airs (A-107) &EPA Environmental News FOR RELEASE: WEDNESDAY, SEPTEMBER 8, 1993 EPA RECOMMENDS CHANGES IN SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT In a speech before the National Association of Towns and Townships, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Carol M. Browner today described key elements of an Administration package to reform the Safe Drinking.Water Act (SDWA). The remarks were made in advance of a Report to Congress which -the Administrator will release later this week. Browner"also described administrative actions EPA is taking to help communities comply with the SDWA. "All Americans, whether they live in big cities or in small trailer parks, must be safe from harmful bacteria and toxic chemi- cals in drinking water," Browner said. "The changes we are proposing will help water systems of all sizes provide safe, reliable drinking water to their users. This Administration wants a more flexible Safe Drinking Water Act that eliminates unnecessary burdens on small communities, while protecting public health." Safe drinking water and its costs have recently been the subject of much public concern. Most water supply systems are small — 90 percent serve fewer than 3,300 people. Many of thes6 systems need help complying with the,SDWA. Large systems have also experienced problems. Recently, the residents of Milwaukee and New York were asked to boil their drinking water over a brief period of time to ensure safety. The Administration's proposals would: establish a loan fund to help communities build treatment plants and replace lead pipes; authorize user fees, where needed, to help States operate their drinking water programs; protect drinking water source waters from pollution; provide for assessment of water supply systems' capabilities and ensure long-term viability and compliance for R-187 (more) ------- streamline enforcement. . . . The Administration plan is to seek to Prevent oontam inants , voluntary measures to prevent pollution. Under the recommendations, f inane ially-strapped water systems billion in each of the following four fiscal years. The recommendations provide a determining which contaminants EPA and the currently, the SDWA requires EPA to s contaminants every three years even l^ »ni n drinking «« vioaii-h effects or if the presence of a contaminant in arinKing Sate? %u£pl"s is not till documented. The new proposal would .have , and standards for nearly 30 more contaminants in progress While Browner acknowledged that certain constituencies may have difficulty with one or more of the recommendations, she encouraged1 them7 to "judge the plan in entirety, as J fJ^SS^S^ package that will lead to safer drinking water for all Americans. in addition to recommending changes to the ^WA, the Agency 's Recort to Congress includes an assessment of the financial ana ?ecnnical capabilities of States and drinking water suppliers. - The report, "The Technical and Economic Capacity of States and Public Wate? Systems to Implement Safe Drinking Water Regulations," will be released later .this week. ------- September 8/1993 Administration Recommendations for Safe Drinking Water Act Reauthorization nm^ndation rh Establish a Drinking Water State Revolving Fund In A Viston of Chang* for America. President Clinton proposed a new drinking water State revolving fund to provide low interest loans to help water systems comply with the provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The President's budget provides $599 million for the fund in 1994, and $1 billion each year from 1995 through 1998. The Administration sent Congress statutory language for authorizing me fund on July 7, 1993. The Administration supports legislation as soon ss possible to create the drinking water State revolving fund program and provide appropriations beginning in Fiscal Year 1994. This program is urgently needed to help communities and water suppliers protect the safety of drinking water and meet the costs of SDWA compliance. EPA estimates that approximately $9 billion is needed in capital improvements to comply with existing drinking water regulations. Recommendation #2: Maintain State Primacy Through User Fees The Federal/State partnership-fbrprotecting drinking water is in jeopardy, due to inadequate funding and rapidly rising regulatory responsibilities. Maintaining and strengthening State primacy is a top SDWA reauthonzation •goal. EPA recommends that Congress establish a State fee program. borrowing many concepts from the Clean Air Act program, including a Federal "backstop" fee. The SDWA-authorized fees would be deposited in State-established drinking water funds, to be used by the States for services and functions related to implementing the requirements of the SDWA. If a State loses primacy, the SDWA-authorized fee would be collected by the Federal government to cover EPA's costs of implementing the SDWA in that State. ------- Recommendation #3: Protect Source Water The existing drinking water program relies almost exclusively on monitoring and treatment of drinking water to protect against contamination. However, no level of monitoring and treatment can protect against man-made contaminants as reliably as preventing contamination in the first place. EPA recommends that States, in cooperation with public water suppliers and local government entities, be required to develop and implement a Source Water Protection Program for both ground water and surface water, focussing on pollution prevention. A fundamental component of source water protection should be implementation of "baseline" programs for water systems, which include: delineation of all drinking water protection areas; an assessment of the susceptibility of the water supply to contamination from significant sources or categories of sources located within the drinking water protection area; and public education initiatives. Legal authority should also be provided for systems and citizens to prevent the release of regulated contaminants, or seek relief from polluters in drinking water protection areas where there is evidence that a release to source waters may cause or may contribute to a significant threat to the community's drinking water supply. Recommendation #4: Protect Source Water - "Enhanced" Programs This recommendation builds upon Recommendation #3. States with primacy for the Public Water Supply Supervision (PWSS) program should be allowed, with approval from EPA, to develop alternative monitoring and treatment approaches for public water supply systems with "enhanced" local (or area- wide) source water protection programs. To take advantage of this flexibility, States would adopt procedures and criteria defining the "enhanced" local source water program. Minimum elements of "enhanced" programs, which would be defined by EPA in regulations, would include those described in Recommendation #3, plus more detailed source inventories and related vulnerability assessments, enforceable controls, State oversight of implementation of controls, and a process to update the program components on a periodic basis. Where local "enhanced" progrrms are in place, systems would be eligible for alternatives from the usual EPA requirements, including alternative monitoring and prevention-based treatment exemptions. To support the development of local prevention programs, EPA recommends that such activities be eligible for funding under the Drinking Water SRF. ------- Recommendation #5: Ensure Viability of Small Systems Compared to large systems, the 50,000 small community water systems in the U.S. face significantly higher costs per household in meeting SDWA regulatory requirements. The number of "non-viable" systems - those Backing the financial, managerial, and technical capacity to meet the requirements of the SDWA -- continues to grow. States should implement a "small system viability" program as a condition of primacy. These State programs should prevent new "non-viable" systems, provide for carrying put a State workplan to assess the viability of existing systems, and assure States have authorities to order restructuring/consolidation for non-viable, non-compliant systems. Common techniques for restructuring water systems include contracting out for operation and maintenance, formation of service or utility districts, management consolidation, and physical consolidation. Approximately 50 percent of small systems appear to have the potential for restructuring. Recommendation »6: Establish Small System "Best Available Technology" Due to economies of scale, treatment technologies that are affordable for large systems often are not affordable for small systems. The SDWA should explicitly allow EPA to establish alternative "Best Available Technology" (BAT) for small systems or categories of systems that may not consistently produce finished water that meets the general standard {depending on source water quality), but is less expensive than conventional BAT. To ensure public health protection, certain additional measures may be applied as part of "small" BAT, including source water protection and a role for certified operators. Systems would be eligible to comply by using "small" BAT if they would not otherwise be able to achieve compliance through restructuring. After EPA designates "small" BAT for a contaminant (or group of contaminants), a system would have a fixed time period in which to notify the State of its intent to use the "small" BAT approach. The State could then approve an eligible system's application by issuing a "presumptive" variance with appropriate conditions. A reasonable level of State oversight (e.g., five year renewals of the "small" BAT request) is appropriate to ensure that systems continue to meet eligibility criteria A small system would still be eligible to apply to the State for a renewable exemption if it cannot restructure and cannot afford any BAT, taking into consideration: (1) the intended improvements in health risks; (2) the resources of the affected community; and (3) whether an alternative would pose an unreasonable level of health risk. ------- Recommendation #7: Train and Certify Systems Operators Forty-five States currently have operator certification programs. However, * these States exempt small systems to some extent. States should implement a complete program for operator certification and training, as a condition of primacy. EPA should define minimum program criteria and address the role of certified operators as appropriate within individual drinking water regulations. Systems that cannot afford to train staff or hire certified operators could contract for part-time services or develop cooperative agreements with nearby systems. Recommendation #8; Improve the Process for Selecting Contaminants for Regulation The 1986 SDWA amendments direct EPA to establish standards for an additional 25 contaminants every 3 years. Congress should replace this requirement with a new process for EPA, in consultation with the Science Advisory Board, to select contaminants and determine an appropriate regulatory response. EPA will publish a plan identifying a fixed number of contaminants that would be placed into two categories. "Track 1 contaminants" would warrant immediate regulation based on existing data on risk and occurrence in water supplies. "Track 2 contaminants" would receive further study. For Track 2, EPA will gather data for regulatory decisions. Following completion of necessary studies, EPA would determine whether to develop a regulation for the contaminant, delete the contaminant from further consideration, or take other appropriate actions such as the issuance of a health advisory. Adequate timeframes should be allowed for each Track, and the process should provide an opportunity for public comment. Recommendation #9; Provide EPA Flexibility to Set Compliance Timeframes Under current law, drinking water standards become effective 18 months after EPA promulgation. 4n many circumstances this timeframe is not realistic for systems that need to install treatment, particularly when major construction is necessary. EPA should have explicit authority to specify within regulations reasonably expeditious timeframes of up to 60 months for compliance. ------- Recomr"ttnri?tion en Enforcement Provisions The SDWA lacks authorities found in other ' Teded to enforce the Federal ban on lead plumbing materials and provs.ons ofthe Lea<; f Contamination Control Act. Finally, the SDWA's pubhc notification requirements need to be reformed. ------- ------- |