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

-------