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.
-------
------- |