SEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
(4601)
EPA810-F-97-002
September 1997
The Safe Drinking Water Act
- ONE YEAR LATER -
Success in Advancing Public Health Protection
'ay we helped to ensure that
every family in America
will have safe, clean drinking water
to drink every time they turn on a faucet
or stop at a public water fountain.
From now on our water will be safer
and our country will be healthier for it. "
President Bill Clinton's remarks
at the signing of the
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendment of 1996.
On August 6, 1996, President Clinton signed amendments to the
Safe Drinking Water Act, the primary statute for protection of our
nation's public drinking water supply. Implementing this wide-ranging
Act is challenging, but one year after enactment EPA and our partners in
the drinking water community have laid the foundation for public health
protection into the 21st century.
-------
The Federal Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA) was first enacted in 1974. The
1996 Amendments to SDWA were the first
amendments in 10 years. The amendments
strengthened the Act's public health
protection by broadening its scope of action
and level of public involvement. They also
provided new tools to address changing
demands and increased scientific and
programmatic complexities. They embody
the concept that flexibility (within a baseline
of national public health protection) is
appropriate, if triggered by sound information
on relevant local conditions and based on
good science.
Amendments
-oa
have a bill based on Clinton Administration
recommendations that strengthens health standards
for drinking water, protects the rivers, lakes and streams
that are the sources of drinking water, and provides the public
with a right to know about contaminants in tap water. "
EPA Administrator Carol Browner
r
H
H
of the 1996 Amendments
The SDWA amendments em-
phasize comprehensive public
health protection through regulatory
improvements, increased funding,
prevention programs, and public par-
ticipation. The amendments improve the
existing regulatory framework in two
important ways. First, a new focus on
risk-based priority-setting means that
EPA will decide which contaminants
to regulate based on data about the ad-
verse health effects of the contaminant,
its occurrence in public water systems,
and the projected risk reduction. The
Act increased requirements for research
and sensitive population analysis to give
EPA more sound data and science on
which to base those decisions. Public
health protection remains the basis for
decisions on what level to set drink-
ing water standards. Second, states
now have greater flexibility to imple-
ment the Act responsibly to meet their
specific needs.
The new law seeks to prevent drink-
ing water problems by increasing states'
and public water systems' capacity to
provide safe water. Funding is signifi-
cantly increased through higher state
drinking water program grants and a
new multi-year, multi-billion dollar
Drinking Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) for infrastructure improve-
ments for water systems. In addition,
new state prevention initiatives were
created and funded. First, a source
water assessment program will give
states and water suppliers information
they need to prevent contamination of
a community's drinking water source
through the amendments' source wa-
ter protection authorities, thereby add-
ing an extra layer of defense to the cur-
rent treatment options. Second, the
amendments require national minimum
guidelines for states to certify opera-
tors of drinking water systems, that will
reduce drinking water problems and
boost consumers'confidence in the
competent handling of their drinking
water. Third, a water system capacity
development program can expand
states' tools to ensure that water sys-
tems have the managerial, technical, and
financial ability to effectively protect
drinking water supplies.
Finally, the amendments recognize
that effective drinking water protection
must be founded on a base of gov-
ernment accountability and public
The Safe Drinking Water Act-One Year Later
-------
understanding and support. The amend-
ments embody the principle of greater
public involvement in drinking water
protection, and ensure that the choices
made during implementation respond
to the public's needs and concerns.
Right-to-know provisions, such as the
consumer confidence reports, will give
consumers the information they need
to make their own health decisions.
These provisions will also promote ac-
countability in decision-making.
Providing safe water is a com-
prehensive and integrated endeavor,
involving EPA, states, Tribes, water
suppliers, local governments, and the
public in new roles and cooperative
.wr bill improved public health, gave states and local governments
the flexibility that they need to target their scarce resources
on high priority health risks, and laid the foundation for a safe and
affordable drinking water supply into the 21st century. "
Senator Dirk Kempthorne
partnerships. The new Act recognizes
that everyone has a stake in drinking
water protection. EPA's challenge is
to realize the principles of the Act, to
create an environment where all stake-
holders can best utilize the tools pro-
vided to better protect drinking water
and public health. One year into imple-
mentation, EPA and its partners have
begun to create that environment.
IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS:
Institutionalizing
Consultation & Partnership
with Stakeholders & the Public
EPA
has spent much of
this first year in-
stitutionalizing the new Act's ethic of
consultation, involvement, and partner-
ship. This ethic is consistent with the
Administration's overall emphasis on
public information and involvement.
EPA is committed to close and regu-
lar consultation with stakeholders, and
openness in decision-making, as a
way of doing business. As we begin
the second year of the new SDWA,
local implementation issues will be
emphasized along with national dis-
cussions. EPA will be working with
states and water suppliers to ensure
that they also incorporate public in-
formation and involvement into
their implementation activities as
the law directs.
First-year successes that we will
build on include:
•
Institutionalizing early and
frequent consultation with
stakeholders
•
While EPA is most directly ac-
countable to Congress for implemen-
tation of SDWA, protection of our
drinking water depends on a range of
stakeholders, from our state and Tribal
regulatory partners, to the suppliers
of drinking water, to the general pub-
lic who consume the water. These
non-Federal participants will ulti-
mately determine the success of
SDWA implementation. The Agency
is committed to frequent consultation
with them.
An important vehicle for EPA's
consultation process is the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council
(NDWAC). NDWAC is a Federal ad-
visory group chartered under SDWA.
Its function is to support EPA's
drinking water program by provid-
ing advice and recommendations to
EPA on drinking water issues.
NDWAC represents the drinking water
community, including the public.
EPA has expanded NDWAC's role and
established six working groups under
the NDWAC framework to provide fo-
cused advice to EPA as it implements
SDWA. Each of these groups is com-
posed of a wide range of stakeholder
interests. Although the tight deadlines
and diversity of opinion have proven a
challenge for all participants, the results
-------
Effective Stakeholder Consultation:
The Small Systems NDWAC Working Group
Some small water systems lack the basic technical, managerial, or finan-
cial capacity to meet SDWA public health standards. These systems may be
faced with a number of serious challenges such as a deteriorated system, cus-
tomers on limited or fixed incomes, or too few households to share the costs of
needed improvements. The SDWA amendments address this issue by requir-
ing EPA to draft capacity development guidance that will ensure that any new
public water system will be able to meet SDWA's public health requirements.
EPA formed the small systems working group to provide recommendations on
the guidance and other information needed. The diversity of the membership
takes advantage of the expertise that already exists in this field among states,
water suppliers, local governments, and environmental organizations. Although
individuals on the working group had clear differences of opinion, they all
recognized the need to ensure water system capacity. Due to the commitment
of each of the stakeholders to work together on these provisions, the working
group was able to reach near consensus. At its final meeting in July, the work-
ing group recommended the development of three guidance documents and
five information documents, and provided recommended language for each to
the full NDWAC, which will make recommendations to EPA.
justify the increased consultation. The
Agency has received valuable and timely
data and input, which has elevated the
quality and accelerated finalization of
EPA products. Stakeholders better un-
derstand EPA activities, and have in-
creased early influence on products and
decision-making.
In addition to the formal NDWAC
working groups, EPA has held a num-
ber of public meetings with stake-
holders on subjects ranging from the
Working Groups of the
National Drinking Water
Advisory Council
Consumer Confidence Reports
Source Water Protection
Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund
Small Drinking Water Systems
Water System
Operator Certification
Contaminant Selection
development of a drinking water stan-
dard for radon to creation of the national
occurrence data base. EPA has also
held hundreds of one-on-one meetings
with individual interest groups.
•
Establishing the microbial and
disinfectants/disinfection
byproducts advisory
committee
•
In its 1996 drinking water redirec-
tion effort, EPA identified microbial
contaminants, such as Cryptospo-
ridium and Giardia, and byproducts of
disinfection as the highest potential
drinking water risk to human health.
The 1996 amendments ratified this pri-
ority, and require EPA to issue several
rules to control microbial contaminants
and disinfectants/disinfection byprod-
ucts (DBP) in drinking water. EPA is
required to issue the first of these rules
- an Interim Enhanced Surface Water
Treatment Rule and a Stage 1 DBP
Rule - by November 1998.
In March 1997, EPA established
a committee under the Federal Advi-
sory Committee Act (FACA) to as-
sist the Agency in evaluating new
data and information that has become
available since the rules were proposed
in 1994, and to recommend regulatory
approaches. Committee members
represented a broad range of interests,
including water suppliers, regulators,
local government, manufacturers, and
environmental, consumer, and public
health groups. In July, following four
months of intensive discussions and
analysis of new data on several challeng-
ing issues, the committee successfully
produced consensus recommendations
that address the eight highest priority
elements of the two rules. The agree-
ments would broadly strengthen public
health protection through new limits
for disinfection byproducts in drink-
ing water, removal requirements for
Cryptosporidium, and tighter standards
forthe cloudiness in suppliers' incom-
ing water that can indicate both micro-
bial contamination and the potential to
generate DBFs.
•
Holding regional
source water protection
stakeholder meetings
Between April and June, EPA re-
gional offices hosted 22 meetings
"These [regional source water]
meetings really show that EPA has
taken a change in direction. Their
willingness to listen to our concerns,
the concerns of small towns,
and others gives us confidence that
we are all working on solutions. "
Rubin Miller, Former Mayor,
Fairfield, Idaho
The Safe Drinking Water Act-One Year Later
-------
around the country to get input on
source water protection. EPA's Regional
offices sent thousands of invitations
with the goal of bringing together a
broad representation of stakeholders
including state ground water, drinking
water, and Clean Water Act personnel,
water systems, watershed managers,
environmental and public health ad-
vocates, agricultural interests, local
governments, and others. As a result,
nearly 2000 people around the country
took the opportunity to participate di-
rectly in development of EPA guidance
and policy.
Creating implementation
partnerships
•
Partnerships are essential for
implementation. EPA has established
partnerships with other Federal agen-
cies (e.g., Centers for Disease Control
for waterborne disease occurrence
studies), drinking water utilities (e.g.,
Partnership for Safe Water), and non-
profit organizations such as the National
Sanitation Foun-
dation (for proto-
cols for small
system treatment
technologies).
One example
of a successful
partnership is the
Partnership for
Safe Water. The
Partnership for
Safe Water is a
voluntary joint
venture formed
in early 1995
among EPA,
states, and several
national organizations representing
drinking water systems. A phased pro-
gram was developed to accelerate en-
hanced public health protection from
Cryptosporidium and other microbial
contaminants by improving filtration
plant performance. Water utilities that
complete phases of the program re-
ceive recognition from their peers and
EPA for these voluntarily activities to
The City of Tampa Water Utility, Cleveland
Division of Water, and Southern California Water
Company received certificates from EPA for their
efforts in the Partnership for Safe Water.
pursue water quality goals more strict
than those required by regulation.
Working closely together, the water
supply industry and EPA have devel-
oped tools for systems to evaluate wa-
ter filtration operations and identify
needed quality improvements. Over
200 utilities that provide water to ap-
proximately 85 million persons are
members of the Partnership.
IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS:
Institutionalizing a Strong Science Base
SDWA emphasizes the need for solid scientific foundations for EPA 's rulemakings.
The research being conducted on arsenic and microbial contaminants and disinfectants/
disinfection byproducts are examples of efforts to strengthen the scientific basis for decisions.
EPA successes in this area:
Initiated studies to support
development of the microbial
and disinfectants/disinfection
byproducts (M/DBP) rules
•
In this first year of implementation,
EPA has bolstered the scientific under-
pinnings for its statutorily required
rulemaking. EPA met its February 2,
1997, deadline to develop a comprehen-
sive study plan outlining the research
needed to support the development of
the M/DBP rules, and has begun the
more than 200 studies identified in the
plan. The studies will provide infor-
mation on disinfection byproducts and
microbial pathogens in several critical
areas: health effects of contaminants,
exposure data, the effectiveness of
treatment technologies, and assess-
ments of risk - including studies on
the threats to sensitive populations
such as children and the elderly. In
addition, EPA has begun working with
other organizations such as the Na-
tional Institutes of Health (NIH) and
-------
the American Water Works Associa-
tion Research Foundation to develop
joint research efforts that will support
the M/DBP rules. For example, the
NIH has agreed to conduct almost $25
million of research on characterizing the
health effects from selected DBFs over
the next 5 years. EPA also developed
a research tracking system that will
ensure strong management of the
multi-million dollar M/DBP research
effort. Finally, EPA has directed to
critical projects the $ 10 million speci-
fied in the 1996 amendments to
strengthen the health effects research
program at EPA. As an example, EPA
has allocated over $1 million to begin
work, in collaboration with the Centers
for Disease Control, on characterizing
the national occurrence of water-borne
disease from microbial pathogens.
•
Initiated studies
to support development of
the arsenic rule
•
In the 1996 SDWA amendments
Congress recognized the need for
additional research to better assess the
health risks of exposure to low levels
of arsenic. The amendments specified
that EPA develop a plan of study to
support arsenic rulemaking that would
decrease the uncertainty of arsenic-
induced health risks. EPA met its
statutory deadline of February 2,1997,
by developing a comprehensive plan
for instituting these studies. When
completed, the arsenic studies, along
with existing research, will provide the
foundation for setting a new arsenic
standard.
Cancer
Studies,
Reproductive
Studies
with the National
Institute of
Environmental
Health
Science
M/DBP
Research
with American
Water Works Assoc.
Research
Foundation M/DBP
Research
Council
EPA
RESEARCH
PARTNERSHIPS
Waterborne
Disease Studies
and Sensitive
Subpopulation
Research
with Centers
for Disease
Control
Radon Research
with the National
Academy of
Sciences
Arsenic
Research
with American
Water Works Assoc.
Research
Foundation
and Assoc. of
California Water
Agencies
Arsenic Research Partnership
In March 1997, EPA issued a joint research proposal solicitation for
additional research to better assess the health risks of exposure to low levels
of arsenic. Pursuant to Congress' directive, this was done in cooperation
with public water utility associations. The American Water Works
Association Research Foundation and the Association of California Water
Agencies provided funds and agreed to a common, independent review of
proposals. The organizations blended their research grant methods, using
scientific experts of each group to develop appropriate arsenic topics for
funding. Although each group made independent funding decisions, the
cooperation avoids redundancy and maximizes the effectiveness of scarce
public and private research dollars. Through these collaborative efforts
EPA and the drinking water utilities are funding several high-priority
projects worth almost $3 million.
The Safe Drinking Water Act-One Year Later
-------
IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS:
Developing Implementation Tools
The new Act gave EPA many short deadlines to produce tools to help states, water suppliers,
and the public protect drinking water. We have met all of our statutory deadlines to date,
and have laid the groundwork for future successes. EPA 's achievements in this area:
Released the
Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (DWSRF) guidelines
The DWSRF provides states and
water suppliers with funding to improve
their drinking water infrastructure, and
with options to fund source water pro-
tection and enhanced water system
management. Congress authorized
$9.6 billion through 2003. This funding
will be a key to state implementation suc-
cess. While Congress did not provide a
deadline for developing guidelines, EPA
recognized that these funds are central to
states' and water systems' capabilities
to meet the demanding requirements
of the amended SDWA, and quickly
moved to develop and release interim
guidelines in October 1996. This was
only two months after passage of the Act.
EPA released final DWSRF guidelines
February 28, 1997. The first state capi-
talization grant was awarded to Georgia
in March 1997, and the first loan was
given to a local water system (Williams-
burg, PA) in May 1997. EPA's recent
Needs Survey shows that the costs to
make drinking water infrastructure im-
provements to protect public health fall
most heavily on customers of small
public drinking water systems. These
systems' problems result from a lack
of economies of scale, remoteness,
poor source water quality, and decades
of neglect. For this reason, the DWSRF
emphasizes assistance to small systems.
The DWSRF will fund improvements to
drinking water treatment facilities
Released Drinking Water
Infrastructure Needs Survey
•
EPA's Needs Survey provided lo-
cal, state, and national policy-makers
with comprehensive information on the
infrastructure needs of the nation's
community drinking water systems.
The statute also directed EPA to de-
velop its state allotment formula for
DWSRF funds for FY'98 and beyond
based on the Needs Survey. After
considering public comment and con-
sultation with the states, EPA released
its allotment formula March 12, 1997.
2/97 Statutory
Deadlines Met
Released Needs Survey
Developed
Arsenic Study Plan
Developed
M-DBP Study Plan
Published Review of
State Capacity
Development Efforts
Initiated Operator
Certification Partnership
-------
The 1996 amendments required that
EPA submit a report to Congress on
the Needs Survey. The Administrator
submitted this report January 29,
meeting the February 1997 statutory
deadline.
•
Published survey of state
capacity development efforts
•
As required by the 1996 amend-
ments, EPA published by February 2,
1997, a survey of existing state water
system capacity development efforts.
This survey will provide a baseline for
EPA as it drafts program guidelines and
information to help states ensure that all
new water systems have the technical, fi-
nancial, and managerial ability to provide
safe drinking water to their customers.
•
Initiated partnership for water
system operator certification
The amendments required EPA
by February 1997, to initiate a part-
nership with states, water suppliers,
and the public to develop information
for states on recommended water sys-
tem operator certification standards.
This partnership is currently working
to develop this information.
Released state source water
assessment and protection
program guidance
Source water assessments are the
centerpiece of the new SDWA's preven-
tion focus. They give states and com-
munities the tools they need to prevent
contamination in the source of the drink-
ing water supply, and thus comprise one
of the multiple barriers to drinking water
contamination, along with treatment.
Source water assessments identify the
source(s) of a community's drinking
water and the potential threats to which
a source is susceptible. The assessments
also provide a "good science" basis for
regulatory flexibility. EPA released to
the states its assessment guidance and
its source water petition program guid-
ance by the SDWA deadline of August
6, 1997. The petition program defines
how states can assist in the development
of local incentive-based partnerships, and
is one option among a wide range of
approaches the SDWA amendments au-
thorize for funding to protect a
community's source water.
•
Released alternative
monitoring guidance
SDWA gives states and localities
flexibility to reduce monitoring costs in
areas that good science identifies as
being of low vulnerability. States with
an approved source water assessment
program may adopt alternative monitor-
ing requirements for many contaminants
if they follow guidance that ensures that
the alternative monitoring will still
8/97 Statutory Deadlines Met
Released Source Water Assessment Guidance
Released Source Water Petition Program Guidance
Released Alternative Monitoring Guidelines
Released List of Alternative Technologies for Small Systems
Released Guidance for State Ground Water
Protection Grants
protect public health. Because states
may want to design their source water
assessment programs in part to provide
the scientific information base to
support alternative monitoring, EPA
was required to (and did) release this
guidance on August 6, 1997, as well.
Published list of technologies
that small drinking water
systems can use to meet the
requirements of the Surface
Water Treatment Rule
In some cases small systems have
difficulty affording the treatment tech-
nologies required to comply with national
drinking water regulations. Because the
Surface Water Treatment Rule is so funda-
mental to public health protection, the
SDWA amendments required that, by
August 6, 1997, EPA was to identify
a list of high quality, cost-effective
treatment technologies that will allow
small systems to meet the require-
ments of this rule. EPA published such
a list, and is conducting a pilot program
on verification testing of packaged
treatment systems with the National
Sanitation Foundation to enable states
to approve additional technologies.
Released guidance
establishing procedures for
state application for ground
water protection grants
EPA was required to develop a
guidance for ground water protection
grants by August 6, 1997. The guid-
ance identifies the key elements of state
ground water protection programs and
establishes grant application proce-
dures should funds become available
in the future. It clearly emphasizes
EPA's continuing encouragement to
states for the development and imple-
mentation of Comprehensive State
Ground Water Protection Programs.
The Safe Drinking Water Act-One Year Later
-------
State Implementation Activities
The states are EPA's regulatory
partners. 49 states have primacy,
or primary responsibility for running
the public drinking water protection
program. The Act assigns states the
challenging job of establishing several
important and complex new programs.
But it also provides them much flex-
ibility and substantial Federal funding
to do so, and a public participation
framework to win support for their ef-
forts. Below is a brief sampling of some
initial state implementation activities.
In March, Georgia became the first
state to receive its capitalization grant
for the new Drinking Water State Re-
volving Fund, and has awarded its first
infrastructure development loan. 44
states have established the necessary
legislative authorities for their
DWSRF.
For its capacity development pro-
gram, Texas has passed the necessary
authorizing legislation, and is work-
ing with an Environmental Finance
Center to formulate its capacity devel-
opment strategy. Two stakeholder
meetings have been held to gather in-
put on the capacity problems of small
water systems and on how those prob-
lems may be addressed.
In anticipation of the extensive
source water assessment work required
by SDWA, Massachusetts undertook
a preliminary assessment project for
surface water suppliers. This included
updating Geographic Information Sys-
tem maps that cover 213 surface water
sources, and contain surface water sup-
ply protection zone delineations, land
use information, open space parcels,
and some information on land uses
regulated by the state that may threaten
source waters. Massachusetts made
over 200 corrections to these maps
through this project, which will make
them more useful for assessments. In
addition, the state gained valuable in-
formation on the most effective ways
to display this data for use by local of-
ficials in their protection efforts. The
state of California has developed a draft
source water assessment guidance,
drawing on the initial draft Agency
guidance, to advance the assessment
process in the state.
The first loan under the DWSRF
program was awarded to the
Williamsburg (PA) Municipal Author-
ity, a small water supplier serving 855
customers. The system had old and
deteriorated distribution lines and was
having frequent and severe water
outages, but did not have the funds
needed to make infrastructure im-
provements. This threatened public
health because deteriorated pipes
make disinfectants less effective in
controlling microbiological growth.
Through the DWSRF program, the
system received a 20-year loan at 1%
interest to fix the problem. Approxi-
mately 62% of Pennsylvania's loans
from its first grant will be provided
to systems serving communities with
fewer than 10,000 people.
Implementation for the Future
The amendments contain vital
linkages among the different parts of
the law, together creating a tapestry of
interwoven provisions. Activities
within SDWA's new prevention pro-
grams, and the public involvement to
help direct them, are integrated with
and essential to the success of the law's
new regulatory flexibilities, particu-
larly for small systems, its risk
prioritization in setting standards, and
its addressing special risks to children
and other sensitive groups.
Thus, the first year activities do
more than simply meet statutory re-
quirements of individual provisions in
the SDWA amendments. They begin
to weave together the strong threads
of this tapestry, ensuring that the law
will function effectively to protect pub-
lic health in the future, and that all
Americans will have drinking water
that is clean and safe.
A New Role
for the Public
In the 1996 amendments, Presi-
dent Clinton and Congress adopted
extensive provisions for consumer
information and involvement that
herald a new era of public participa-
tion in drinking water protection.
These provisions are founded on the
principle that accountability to the pub-
lic and the understanding and support
of the public will be vital to address
and prevent the growing threats to
drinking water quality in the years
ahead. EPA has tried to facilitate pub-
lic involvement both in our processes
to develop implementation tools, and
in the operation of those tools in states
and water systems.
The 1996 amendments provide un-
-------
precedented opportunities for
the public to participate in drink-
ing water protection activities.
If the public uses them, these op-
portunities can ensure that the
choices made during implemen-
tation - particularly by EPA and
the states, but also by water sup-
pliers - respond to the public's
needs and concerns. A num-
ber of provisions specifically
discuss the need for public in-
volvement. These include the
consumer confidence reports
that will be provided by public
water suppliers. In addition,
there are requirements for states to
form citizen advisory committees to
develop their source water assessment
program, and for states to involve the
public in the development of their ca-
pacity development strategy and the
Intended Use Plans for the DWSRF.
The statute also requires that the pub-
lic have access to the completed
source water assessments, the national
contaminant occurrence database, and
early information on state variance de-
cisions (including the right to object).
All of this information will give con-
sumers a picture of the condition of
their drinking water supply.
With this information consumers
can make decisions for themselves and
their families. Consumer confidence re-
ports are the centerpiece for public
information about their drinking water.
Beginning in 1999, water systems will
have to prepare and distribute annual
reports to their customers. These re-
ports will contain information on the
source of the drinking water, informa-
tion on the quality of that source,
information on any detected con-
taminants in the drinking water, and
a plain-language explanation of the
health effects of these contaminants.
Revisions to the public notification
Areas for Public
Participation and Information
in the 1996 SDWA Amendments
Consumer Confidence Reports
DWSRF Intended Use Plans
Source Water Assessments
State Capacity Development Strategy
National Occurrence Data Base
Variances
State Annual Compliance Reports
rule, which requires water systems to
notify consumers when violations occur,
are also underway.
Preventing Drinking
Water Problems
The 1996 amendments' most in-
novative departures from past practice
are in the new prevention provisions -
in capacity development, to increase
public water systems' capacity to
provide safe drinking water, and in
source water protection, to prevent
contamination of the ground water and
the rivers, lakes, and streams from
which we draw our drinking water.
Source water assessment and ca-
pacity development strategies are core
prevention requirements, on which
states have substantial discretion in their
formulation and implementation. To
help them achieve success, states may
"set aside" substantial amounts, up to
10% or more, from their annual Drink-
ing Water State Revolving Fund
(DWSRF) allocation to pay for each of
these activities. That is why EPA was
so concerned to lay the foundation
through the timely guidances released
within the first year for these several
tasks, and will provide additional guid-
ance and continuing support to
ensure states have the analyses
and resources they need to com-
plete them.
Prevention activities are not
only vital in themselves, they are
essential to the implementation
success of the new regulatory
flexibilities in the amendments.
For instance, states can provide
monitoring flexibility to water
systems, but the flexibility must
be based on (among other things)
data from the source water as-
sessments of each system's sus-
ceptibility to contamination.
Similarly, the capacity development
strategy will be necessary for most
states to generate the information and
analysis needed to equip them to de-
cide on restructuring and water supply
alternatives, which are prerequisites to
offering variance or exemption flexibil-
ity to small systems. And systems
themselves can more readily achieve ca-
pacity if source water protection can
help provide cleaner source water that
requires little or no costly treatment,
and less frequent monitoring. As in the
source water guidance, EPA will con-
tinue to make an extra effort to de-
scribe and analyze these linkages in
order to maximize public health pro-
tection under SDWA, make the most
efficient use of taxpayers' invest-
ments in other, related environmen-
tal programs, and assist states to iden-
tify the program coordination options
that work best for them.
Improved and
Cost-Effective Drinking
Water Contaminant
- Standard Setting
The new risk-based contaminant
selection process and increased research
will lead to more effective regulations
1
3 The Safe Drinking Water Act-One Year Later
-------
focused on the contaminants that pose
the greatest threat to human health.
EPA will select contaminants to regu-
late based on answers to questions such
as: Where does a contaminant occur?
In what concentration, and from what
types of sources? What is the poten-
tial risk reduction? Who is likely to be
exposed to this contaminant in their
drinking water? What are the potential
health effects of exposure to the con-
taminant, and who is most vulnerable?
The Act gives us the tools to de-
velop these answers. For example, the
Microbials such as Cryptosporidium
are a focus of EPA 's research effort
National Contaminant Occurrence
Database, required to be operational
by August 1999, will store data on
contaminants occurring in finished,
raw, and source waters. Research is
being conducted, in conjunction with
the National Academy of Science, the
Centers for Disease Control, and other
organizations, as well as our partners
in the drinking water industry, to de-
termine health effects of various con-
taminants, and ascertain who is most at
risk. The 1996 amendments authorize
expanded consideration of costs in regu-
latory decision-making. The Agency
is collecting the data and developing
new tools, models, and protocols to
appropriately exercise this new flex-
ibility. Peer review ensures that our
science is strong and our data is sound.
Providing the tools to make better risk-
management decisions in contaminant
selection and control is one of
SDWA's primary means to achieving
the Act's fundamental goal - protecting
our nation's public health by assuring
clean, safe drinking water.
Greater
Protection for
Customers of Small
Water Systems
Implementation of the 1996
SDWA Amendments will lead to im-
proved health protection for Americans
who receive their drinking water from
small water systems. Small water sys-
tems are sometimes unable to meet safe
drinking water standards for a variety of
reasons, including limited technical, fi-
nancial, and managerial ability; a lack
of we 11-trained system operators; or
a lack of funding. The 1996 amend-
ments address these issues by giving
states a menu of provisions and re-
sources to apply in a comprehensive
small systems program. The provi-
sions include the DWSRF, a capacity
development program, an operator
certification program, alternative
small systems technology, source
water assessment and protection, and
variances and exemptions.
The state capacity development
strategy can be the mechanism for a
state to equip, coordinate, and focus
all of its small systems efforts. The
strategy allows states to target use of
the range of resources and authorities
provided in the Act. It can also be the
catalyst for broad stakeholder collabo-
ration to address small systems issues.
State capacity development strategies
will assist systems in acquiring and
maintaining technical, financial, and
managerial capacity. States will also
ensure that proposed new systems
demonstrate adequate capacity before
they begin to provide drinking water
to customers.
Many small systems do not have
the resources to repair or upgrade their
water distribution lines, treatment facili-
ties, and other infrastructure. A state
can use the financial resources of the
DWSRF to assist small systems. 15%
of astate's DWSRF grant must be used
to provide infrastructure loans to small
systems. 2% of the state's grant may
be used to provide technical assistance
to small systems. For small systems
that are disadvantaged, up to 30% of a
state's DWSRF may be used for in-
creased loan subsidies.
Small systems that cannot afford
to comply with drinking water require-
ments will have options. Exemptions
may provide systems with extra time
to come into compliance. Affordability
based variances will be available in cer-
tain cases to allow systems to use less
costly technology and other means to
protect public health. SDWA allows
states to use these alternatives only after
fully evaluating all possible compli-
ance options for a system, including
a new source and restructuring. Con-
ditions for these alternatives will be
based in part on the source water as-
sessments that will be completed by
the state for its public water systems.
Improved
Protection for Our
Children
New tools found in the 1996
SDWA Amendments will enable us
to better protect our children from
contaminants in the drinking water.
Children's health is a high priority of
-------
the Administration. On April 21,1997,
President Clinton issued an executive
order directing agencies to reduce en-
vironmental health and safety risks to
children. Also, apriority forthe United
States at the recent environmental
summit held in conjunction with the
G-8 economic summit was to ensure
microbiologically safe drinking water
for our children.
The executive order complements
the 1996 SDWA amendments, and
both will aid EPA to protect children.
Under the amendments, EPA identifies
subpopulations at greater risk than the
general public of experiencing ad-
verse health effects from exposure to
drinking water contaminants. These
sensitive subpopulations include in-
fants, children, pregnant women, the
elderly, and immunocompromised per-
sons. Drinking water standard setting
and contaminant selection processes
consider sensitive subpopulations, in-
cluding children, in two ways. First,
through its ongoing health risk assess-
ment, EPA sets Maximum Contami-
nant Levels (MCLs) for drinking water
with the goal of protecting those most
sensitive to contaminant exposure. This
assures that children's health will be
protected by the regulation.
Second, the Act calls for better
regulatory science, including an analy-
sis of the health effects to sensitive
subpopulations. EPA is conducting
several studies to determine the health
effects of drinking water contaminants
on children. These include: 1) com-
piling data that identifies subpopula-
tions, including children, at greater
risk of adverse health effects from
contaminant exposure, especially
Cryptosporidium, Giardia and en-
teric viruses, 2) analyzing Centers for
Disease Control data to determine the
effects of age and sex on morbidity and
mortality from waterborne diseases,
and 3) estimating consumption of tap
and bottled water in terms of popula-
tion demographics, including age,
gender, race, socioeconomic status,
and geographical region. This work
will allow EPA to better document the
susceptibility of children to microbial
diseases and respond appropriately.
For More Information
For more information on EPA's
SDWA implementation activities,
please call EPA's Safe Drinking Wa-
ter Hotline at 1-800-426-4791. EPA's
Office of Ground Water and Drink-
ing Water also maintains an Internet
home page, which has information on
public meetings and SDWA imple-
mentation events, and text of key
documents. The Internet address is
www.epa. gov/O G WD W
EPA
United States
Environmental Protection Agency
(4601)
Washington, DC 20460
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use
$300
BULK RATE
Postage & Fees Paid
EPA
G-35
------- |