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.

-------

-------