United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of Water
4601
EPA810/S-94-001
February 1994
&EFA SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
REAUTHORIZATION OVERVIEW
Recycled/Recyclable
Printed with Soy/Canola Ink on paper that
contains at least 50% recycled fiber
-------
-------
INTRODUCTION
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
REAUTHORIZATION
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. February 1994.
DRINKING WATER PROTECTION
A GENERAL OVERVIEW OF
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT REAUTHORIZATION
THE DEBATE
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) has
become a symbol of the debate over
unfunded federal mandates. Two issues
seem to fuel the controversy:
Costs to small systems are increas-
mg. While 89% of US households pay an
average of $1-2 per month for SDWA
compliance, costs for households served by
some small systems can be more than ten-
fold higher.
Nation-wide standards address
contaminants not found in certain localities.
leading to costs that are said to be
disproportionate to benefits, and a poor
regulatory "buy."
THE ADMINISTRATION'S PLAN
No single change can solve all the problems.
The Administration's approach is a balanced
package to:
-* Address problems facing small
systems, including monitoring and treatment
costs;
-ป Revise the mandate to regulate 25
additional contaminants every 3 years and
focus only on those contaminants that pose
real health risks;
-ป Enact a State revolving fund (SRF) to
loan water systems the funds for capital
investments;
-* Increase State drinking water
program resources and work with States to
cut monitoring costs using existing
flexibilities;
-ป Emphasize pollution prevention by
protecting sources of drinking water.
BACKGROUND
Congress passed the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) in 1974 following public
concern over findings of harmful chemicals
in drinking water supplies. The SDWA
established the basic Federal-State
partnership for drinking water used today.
EPA sets standards to protect drinking water
and provides grants, guidance and technical
assistance to States and public water
systems. States ensure compliance by the
200,000 public water systems serving 241
million Americans.
EPA's authority to set standards under the
1974 Act was discretionary. Twelve years
later, when EPA had regulated only one
additional contaminant beyond the 22
originally covered by the Public Health
Service, Congress decided that a more
directive approach was warranted and
enacted the 1986 SDWA amendments.
The 1986 SDWA Amendments required reg-
ulations for 83 specific contaminants and 25
additional contaminants every 3 years. The
regulations, called National Primary Drin-
king Water Regulations (NPDWRs), include
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals based
-------
purely on health concerns, and enforceable
Maximum Contaminant Levels (or treatment
techniques) that reflect feasibility of
treatment.
ISSUES K)R REAUTHORIZATION
Focusing on Real Health Risks
Expenditures must be targeted to the highest
priority health risks. For current
regulations, about 75% of costs are for
(1) filtering and disinfecting to protect
against bacteria and viruses; and (2)
reducing lead in drinking water.
Targeting investment to Health
x- - ' Benefits
" - tJMปซt ^ 'Coppซ* Rwfe? WS pwtwct sn
600.ODO cases gf illnass annually.
Other regulations address significant,
nationwide drinking water risks such as
petroleum compounds leaked from storage
tanks, and widely used pesticides. Many
risks remain, however. In the 1990's,
SDWA costs will go up as EPA regulates
harmful disinfection byproducts and widely-
occurring natural contaminants (e.g.,
arsenic), and tightens protection against
waterborne microbes such as
Ciyptosporidium, the parasite that made
400,000 residents of Milwaukee sick in
April of 1993. It is critical to revise the "25
every 3 years" mandate so that future
expenditures can be used to combat only the
highest priority drinking water risks.
EPA proposes to consider health risks ur>
front before initiating a regulation. Sound
scientific information should be assembled
first, then EPA should regulate only those
contaminants that occur in drinking water at
levels posing real health risks.
The Critical Role of States
Nearly all States have "^primacy" to oversee
the day-to-day operations of the SDWA. In
recent years, SDWA regulations have
allowed greater State discretion and decision
making in program implementation (e.g.,
monitoring waivers) which allows for better
targeting of program resources toward prior-
ity health risks. However, State programs
often lack the funding necessary for meeting
basic primacy requirements, and few States
are able to take full advantage of existing
flexibilities. EPA estimates that States face
a resource shortfall of $162 million.
States need additional resources, particularly
if the SDWA is reformed to provide a
greater State role in implementing new
flexibilities and other approaches (e.g.,
pollution prevention).
Helping Small Systems
Nearly all Americans (89%) are supplied by
systems that serve more than 3,300 people.
Yet most water systems are small: 87% of
the systems serve fewer than 3,300 persons.
Small systems include much more than cities
and towns. Trailer parks, homeowner
associations, factories, churches and hos-
pitals that have their own water systems are
also regulated. Some small systems find it
too costly to filter surface waters or test for
chemical compounds that may threaten water
supplies. Many lack the technical, financial,
and managerial capability to consistently
comply with regulations. New approaches
are needed for small systems. For small
systems facing disproportionate costs, the
Administration recommends a streamlined
-------
variance to spur development of innovative,
low-cost technologies for small systems.
Reducing Monitoring Burdens
Everyone deserves to know whether the
water coming out of their faucet is safe.
However, water testing can be expensive,
especially for chemical contaminants.
SDWA regulations have a risk-based
monitoring approach. Most of the cost is
for tests to guard against bacteria, parasites
and viruses, tests that no one disputes are
essential. For chemical contaminants,
periodic testing is required to ensure water
is safe with State-issued waivers where
monitoring is clearly not needed.
Monitoring frequency drops if no
contamination is found.
EPA has put a new emphasis on using flexi-
bilities in SDWA regulations to focus on
cost-effective monitoring through:
"use" waivers to eliminate
monitoring where a chemical has
never been used, and "susceptibility"
waivers where a community has
protected wells or watersheds;
mixing samples together ("composit-
ing") to lower laboratory costs, and
use of previously collected
("grandfathered") data.
EPA has issued guidance and is funding
workshops to help States make use of
waivers. States with approved monitoring
waiver programs can cut monitoring costs
for some regulations by 50% or more. For
an investment of $500,000, Wisconsin is
cutting monitoring costs for water systems
by $15 million. With monitoring waivers,
Massachusetts estimates that approximately
$12.5 million could be saved by water
systems over a two year period.
Pollution Prevention
Preventing contaminants from reaching and
fouling our water supplies in the first place
will bring sensible, cost-effective protection
of our drinking water. This will help focus
monitoring on problem areas, reduce the
future need for treatment, and complement
similar tools under the Clean Water Act.
The Funding Challenge
No matter how hard we work to focus
SDWA on real public health risks and
address the disproportionate costs to small
systems, new funding is needed. States
require additional resources to take full
advantage of existing flexibilities and to
cany out new responsibilities. Many
systems need financial assistance to build
filtration plants, replace lead pipes and
comply with other protective standards.
CONCLUSION
The Administration's integrated proposals
address the funding challenge, small system
concerns, risk-based priority setting, and
pollution prevention. Cost-effective sol-
utions are possible without lessening public
health protection. The first step is
regulating only contaminants that pose real
health risks, then setting affordable
standards. Small systems should be allowed
to use innovative technologies to reduce
compliance" costs and ensure safe drinking
water. Targeted monitoring and flexible
compliance timeframes will save money.
Investments in pollution prevention will
provide long-term risk reduction at lower
costs. The proposed Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund addresses the need for
investment in drinking water infrastructure
and will help water systems defray the costs
of compliance. For more detail, see the
accompanying list of the Administration's
ten SDWA proposals.
-------
-------
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT
REAUTHORIZATION
RECOMMENDATIONS
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. February 1994.
ADMINISTRATION'S RECOMMENDATIONS
for
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT REAUTHORIZATION
In September, 1993, the Administration submitted to Congress a package often recommendations
for Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) reauthorization. These recommendations are a package
which, taken together, address the fundamental issues surrounding implementation of the
SDWA. The recommendations are summarized below.
1 Establish A Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Many communities and water
suppliers lack the financial capability to meet the rising costs of SDWA compliance. A
State revolving fund would provide low or zero interest loans to help water systems comply
with the provisions of the SDWA and protect the safety of drinking water.
2 Maintain State Primacy Through An Optional SDWA User Fee The Federal/State
partnership for drinking water is in jeopardy due to inadequate funding and rising program
responsibilities. The SDWA should require States to develop plans for implementing a
well-run primacy program. States that identify funding problems in their plan should have
the option of establishing a dedicated State "drinking water protection fund" into which
SDWA fees would be deposited. If the optional fund is established by the State, the fees
would be used, in conjunction with other resources, to cover the cost of State services and
functions related to SDWA implementation. If a State loses authority for implementing the
SDWA program, the fees would be paid to the Federal government to cover the cost of
EPA's administration of the program in that State.
3 Implement Programs To Protect Sources Of Drinking Water No level of monitoring
and treatment can protect against man-made contaminants as reliably as preventing
contamination in the first place. Requiring States, in cooperation with public water
suppliers and local government entities, to develop and implement a source water protection
program for both ground water and surface water will help prevent pollution, thereby
reducing the long-term costs associated with monitoring and treatment.
4 Provide Flexibility For States With Enhanced Source Water Protection Programs
States with primary enforcement authority for the Public Water Supply Supervision
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 support the development of these prevention-based
programs, such activities should be eligible for funding under the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (see recommendation #1).
-------
5 Ensure Viability Of Small Systems Eighty-seven percent of community water systems
are small systems (serving less than 3300 persons). Many of these systems lack the
financial, managerial, and technical capacity to meet the requirements of the SDWA. To
address these problems, States should adopt programs to improve system capabilities and
prevent the formation of new non-viable systems. Through sharing of administrative
functions and other restructuring options, many small systems may find they are better able
to afford the costs of providing water and complying with the regulations. An estimated
one half of the 50,000 small community water systems would benefit from restructuring.
6 Establish "Best Available Technology" (BAT) Alternative For Small Systems Due to
economies of scale, treatment technologies that are affordable for large systems often are
not affordable for small systems. Small system "BAT" provides a streamlined process for
States to grant 5-year treatment variances to groups of eligible systems that install
affordable technology and take other practical steps to protect public health.
7 Train And Certify Systems Operators Forty-five States currently have operator
certification programs. However, most States exempt small systems to some extent. States
should be required to implement a complete program for operator certification and training
as a condition of primacy. EPA would define minimum program criteria and address the
role of certified operators as appropriate within individual drinking water regulations.
8 Improve The Process For Selecting Contaminants For Regulation EPA is currently
required by the SDWA to establish standards for an additional 25 contaminants every 3
years regardless of health risk. This process should be replaced with a new process
whereby EPA, in consultation with States and the Science Advisory Board, would identify
priority contaminants and determine an appropriate regulatory response based on health risk
and occurrence. EPA would categorize contaminants into 2 tracks. Track 1 would warrant
immediate regulation based on analysis of risk and occurrence data. Track 2 contaminants
would receive further study before decisions are made regarding the need for regulatory
action.
9 Increase Flexibility For Setting Compliance Timeframes Under current law, drinking
water standards become effective 18 months after EPA promulgation. In 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 compliance timeframes of up to 60
months.
10 Streamline And Strengthen Enforcement Provisions The SDWA lacks enforcement
authorities found in other environmental statutes. Enforcement authorities within the
SDWA should be combined and revised to (1) provide uniform administrative, civil
judicial, and criminal enforcement authorities which are more consistent with other statutes
administered by EPA, and (2) increase deterrence and improve compliance with the lav/.
-------
DRINKING WATER ISSUES
AND
SOLUTIONS
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. Feburary 1994.
DRINKING WATER ISSUE
RISK REDUCTION AND DRINKING WATER STANDARDS
A rigid statutory requirement to regulate 25
contaminants every 3 years discourages cost-
effective regulation by diverting attention and
resources from priority public health risks, and
hampering science-based decisionmaking.
BACKGROUND
The 1986 Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) Amendments
require EPA to issue national
primary drinking water
regulations (NPDWRs) for 83
specified contaminants and for 25 more every
three years. EPA has now regulated 84
contaminants and will regulate about 110 by
1996. This mandate has served to strengthen the
Nation's drinking water safeguards for
example, the control of lead and the protection
against microbial waterborne disease. These
highly beneficial regulations address important
public health risks and account for three-fourths
of the cost of today's regulations.
However, the rigid "25 every 3 year" statutory
scheme prevents EPA from aiming future
regulations at only the highest priority drinking
water risks and therefore may produce relatively
small benefits hi a tune of constrained resources.
SOLUTIONS
'There should be no mandatory
m "quota" of contaminants to regulate.
EPA should have the flexibility and the time to
select contaminants based on sound scientific
data on occurrence and health effects. EPA
should regulate ONLY those contaminants that
pose real risks to health.
In consultation with the States, the scientific
community and the public, EPA periodically
should identify a limited number of contaminants
to be placed on a study track accompanied by a
published research plan. Following completion
of the necessary health and occurrence studies,
EPA would decide whether a regulation is
needed based on health risk.
By regulating only contaminants that
pose the greatest public health risks
Jp (rather than a large number of
contaminants that may pose small
risks) States and water systems will
be making the best possible use of limited
resources. Targeting priorities will foster
compliance and lead to full realization of the
Act's public health benefits.
Reforms to the regulatory process will benefit all
water systems and State programs. However,
for small systems facing disproportionate costs,
streamlined variances should be available for
systems that install special "small system best
available technology." This approach will spur
development of innovative, lower-cost small
system technologies while improving the
drinking water safety for small systems.
The Administration supports several other
measures that would improve the cost-
effectiveness of the drinking water program,
including more flexible compliance timeframes
and pollution prevention. (For more detail, see
the Administration's ten SDWA proposals.) The
Administration also supports more effective use
of risk-based monitoring regimes under
authorities already hi SDWA regulations.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. February 1994.
DRINKING WATER ISSUE
STATE CAPACITY
ISSUE
Insufficient resources prevent many State primacy
agencies from fully carrying-out ever increasing
State drinking water program responsibilities.
These States are at risk of losing their authority to
run the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) program.
Any loss of State primacy would severely weaken
the Nation's drinking water safeguards.
BACKGROUND
State drinking water programs perform a broad
range of activities which include:
I adopting drinking water regu-
lations at least as stringent as EPA's
(national primary drinking water
regulations (NPDWRs);
maintaining an inventory of public
water systems (PWSs);
reviewing requests for public water supply
system expansion;
assuring that the design and construction of new
or modified water systems will be capable of
compliance with the SDWA;
providing technical assistance to PWSs;
certifying and training PWS operators;
tracking PWS compliance with NPDWRs;
conducting or overseeing sanitary surveys;
making filtration determinations;
issuing waivers, variances and exemptions;
certifying and supervising laboratories;
ensuring water supplies are monitored;
making inspections;
carrying-out enforcement responsibilities; and
reporting data to EPA.
Combined Federal and State funding for State
drinking water programs grew from $96.5 million
in 1988 to $142 million in 1993, a 47 percent
increase. This increase has not kept up with State
needs. EPA estimates that State funding needs
totalled $304 million in 1993, creating a shortfall
of $162 million. This shortfall limits States'
ability to issue monitoring waivers that provide
cost savings for systems and hampers States'
ability to fulfill their primacy responsibilities,
particularly adopting and enforcing regulations in
a timely manner. Such delays may result in a loss
of State primacy and postpone health benefits for
millions of people.
SOLUTIONS
The solution? Increase the amount of resources
for State drinking water programs. In States
having trouble fulfilling their responsibilities due
to insufficient resources, Congress should establish
a SDWA drinking water "backstop" user fee and
provide States with an option to establish a
dedicated "drinking water fund" to receive SDWA
fees. These fees would be used by the State solely
to fulfill its SDWA responsibilities.
Already, 33 States dedicate user fees to their
drinking water programs. The most common fees
are water usage and connection fees received from
water systems. Some of these States increased
their revenue by $33 million for their drinking
water programs in FY 1992 and FY 1993. How-
ever, more is needed. The SDWA-authorized fee
would not interfere with successful State fee
systems, but would stimulate action in other States.
If a State fails to fulfill its primacy responsibilities
due to insufficient resources and fails to establish
a "drinking water fund," EPA would have the
authority to withdraw primacy. In States where
EPA is the primacy authority, the Federal
government would establish a fund to receive the
user fees to cover the cost of implementing the
SDWA hi that State.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. February 1994.
DRINKING WATER ISSUE
SMALL SYSTEM COMPLIANCE
ISSUE
Systems that serve fewer than 3,300 persons supply
water to approximately 11 percent of the
population, but comprise 87 percent of the
community -water systems. Many small systems
lack the financial, technical and managerial
capability to consistently comply with the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA).
BACKGROUND
[Current drinking water regulations are
affordable for most Americans the
average cost is a little more than $1 per month.
However, the cost can be much higher for 11
percent of Americans who drink water supplied by
one of the 50,000 small systems. For systems
serving 25-100 persons, the average annual
incremental household costs for SDWA compliance
are $145 as compared to $12 for systems serving
between 100,000 and 500,000 persons. In part
because of high household costs, many small
systems do not fully comply with SDWA
requirements. In 1992, 77 percent of "significant
non-compliers" were systems which served fewer
than 500 persons.
In addition to potentially high household costs,
many small systems suffer from:
limited customer/rate base;
limited technical/management
capacity;
inadequate or aging infrastructure;
inability to access capital.
Small community systems have many different
forms of ownership 15% of the small systems
are owned by homeowner associations; 15% by
private investors; 25% by mobile home parks;
40% by local governmental entities; and the
remaining 5% by other forms. This diversity
makes it difficult for regulatory agencies to address
the unique problems of small systems. We need a
new approach to ensure that small systems deliver
safe drinking water economically, while main-
taining strong national drinking water safety
standards.
SOLUTIONS
Several of the Administration's
proposals would relieve the financial,
technical and managerial problems
facing small systems. The drinking
water State revolving fund (SRF) would assist in
financing capital projects or source water protec-
tion programs. This proposal, along with the
proposal to allow special 5-year variances to
systems that install best available technology for
small systems (small system BAT), should assist
many systems to achieve compliance with the Act.
In addition, increased State resources should help
States provide additional technical assistance to
smalll systems, including monitoring waivers for
systems with little vulnerability to contamination.
Some small systems may no longer be able to "go
it alone." To address the underlying institutional
weaknesses of many small systems, the SDWA
should require States to adopt programs that assure
the viability of new and existing drinking water
systems. Among the many options available to
small systems are informal cooperative
agreements, sharing of administrative staff and
managerial and operator services, contracting for
operation and maintenance, management
consolidation and ownership transfer. These
solutions, as well as physical consolidation, are
called "restructuring." States should work with
individual systems to use one or more restructuring
options, as appropriate. By doing so, small
systems may find that they are better able to meet
compliance costs and other costs of supplying
water. An estimated one-half of the 50,000 small
community water systems would improve their
viability and benefit from restructuring.
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. February 1994.
DRINKING WATER ISSUE
SOURCE WATER PROTECTION
ISSUE
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) focuses on
expensive monitoring and treatment to assure safe
public water supplies without an equal focus on
protecting ground water and surface water supply
sources BEFORE they become contaminated.
BACKGROUND
Monitoring and treatment can never
protect drinking water supplies as
reliably as preventing contamination
in the first place. The environmental
paradigm of pollution prevention,
along with monitoring and treatment where
necessary, provides a stronger, more cost-effective
basis for safeguarding public water supplies.
Benefits of source water protection programs
include reduced treatment needed to comply with
the regulations, more focused and targeted
monitoring of vulnerable water supplies, avoided
costs for finding alternative sources of water, such
as drilling new wells, and citizen involvement in
protecting water supplies. In addition, source
water protection programs, in tandem with
monitoring or treatment, provide a safety net for
drinking water supplies.
JOnce contaminants reach the source
of drinking water supplies,
particularly ground water, clean-up or well
replacement costs can be high. Estimated costs for
the remediation of 50 of the Superfund sites which
affect ground water sources of drinking water
totaled over $370 million, with the vast majority of
sites costing over $1 million each and many
exceeding $10 million. Water well closures and
replacement costs range from $58,000 (for wells
serving fewer than 100 people) to hundreds of
thousands of dollars per well.
SOLUTIONS
As part of its pollution prevention
| initiatives, the Administration
recommends the development and implementation
of source water protection programs. Already 31
States have approved Wellhead Protection
Programs under the SDWA. This concept should
be broadened to include surface waters and
strengthened to assure implementation. At a
minimum, all States should be required to establish
a baseline protection program with local
participation and implementation to protect
community water supplies. These baseline
programs would include a delineation of drinking
water protection areas, inventories of significant
sources of contamination, vulnerability
assessments, contingency plans and local
involvement. The next step would be an optional
enhanced source water protection program. An
enhanced program, also developed with local
participation, would contain stronger, enforceable
prevention measures. Where enhanced programs
are in place, "States would be allowed to establish
tailored monitoring and treatment exemptions.
Such flexibility would benefit both large and small
water systems.
SDWA-authorized source water protection
programs would complement the watershed initia-
tive under consideration in the Clean Water Act
reauthorization process. To stimulate source water
protection programs, implementation activities
should be eligible for drinking water SRF funding,
including monitoring to assess vulnerability.
-------
MYTHS AND FACTS
ABOUT
DRINKING WATER
-------
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. February 1994.
MYTHS AND FACTS - THE "PINEAPPLE PESTICIDE"
MYTH:
"Chemicals such as the 'pineapple pesticide' were never used in
most of the United States, yet EPA needlessly requires every
system in every State to monitor for such chemicals."
FACT:
The so-called "pineapple pesticide" is dibromochloropropane
(DBCP), a pesticide that, in fact, has been detected in ground
water and surface water supplies across the country.
DBCP wasi detected in 16 out of 25 states for which
data were analyze.* At least ten of these States found
levels exceeding the drinking water standard. EPA is
currently reviewing data from other States.
DBCP was used on more than 40 crops including citrus, cotton,
grapes, soybeans, peanuts, almonds, strawberries, and commercial
vegetables prior to 1979. Its use was restricted by EPA to
pineapples in 1979, then banned completely in 1987.
The pesticide, considered a probable human carcinogen, is
highly persistent and mobile in the environment -- that is why it is
still showing up in water supplies.
Monitoring waivers an option under current regulations ~ can
reduce monitoring costs in places where a chemical is unlikely to
pose a contamination problem. To use this option, a State must
gain EPA approval of a program for evaluating the vulnerability
of water supplies. Through waivers and other flexibilities
Wisconsin is reducing monitoring costs by $15 million. Other
States are expected to reduce monitoring costs for some regulations
by up to half or more.
* States with detections: Alabama, California, Colorado, Massachusetts, North Carolina, Pennsylvania,
Delaware, North Dakota, New Mexico, New York, New Jersey, Ohio, Georgia, Tennessee, Texas,
and the Virgin Islands (counted as a State).
-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Office of Water. February 1994.
MYTH:
MYTHS AND FACTS - STANDARDS
"The current Safe Drinking Water Act requires such stringent
standards that regulating a single contaminant could cost billions
of dollars to avoid just a single case of illness."
FACT:
ป No SDWA regulations have the impact alleged by this
statement. The total annual cost of all 84 standards now on the
books is expected to reach $1.4 billion nationally by 1995. The
fact is that approximately 80 percent of households pay $3.00 to
$13.00 per year for compliance with all SDWA regulations.*
Studies that calculate the theoretical "cost per case avoided" are
often based on limited occurrence data and assume expenditures
that are not actually incurred by systems. There are many options
for compliance, including restructuring, use of alternative water
supplies, or the protection of source waters. Federal and State
infrastructure assistance programs help to defray costs incurred by
systems.
Measures of "illnesses or deaths avoided" for the regulation of
a contaminant often under-estimate the true value of drinking water
safeguards.
Most treatment processes, once in operation, will
protect against several potential threats not just a single
contaminant and its associated health impacts.
Calculations of "illnesses or deaths avoided" usually
ignore the extra margins of safety the public desires.
Safety not just illnesses and deaths avoided is a
valuable benefit of drinking water regulations. In fact, a
1993 study by the American Water Works Association-
Research Foundation found that 74 percent of-water system
customers were witting to pay additional costs in order to
raise drinking water quality above federal standards.
* 75% of the national SDWA investment is for the combined costs of filtration and the control of lead.
Filtration is expected to prevent 83,000 cases of illness, and the EPA lead rule is expected to protect
an estimated 600,000 children from unsafe blood lead levels.
-------
CHARTS AND TABLES
-------
-------
23
o cc
So
CC
02
UJ CC
C/)
UJ
<0
Q. LU
X l~
UJ <
uj Q
CO
CD
siueujiueiuoo |O
-------
(0
0)
o
.2
o
c/>f
c 8
O.E
>
(0
Q,
X
LU
(0
3
O
X
n
^ ฎ
ฃ? ^
'G ฐ
E ง.
O CD
^ o5
111 h-
- -B
-
CO
is
ZO
0) CD CD
.|_^ ^ป ""
^5 s ^
^> w Cu
^ CO O
0>
oo
O5
co
m
-------
-------
oj
"E
CD
v-
O
CD
c
CO
O)
1
CO
to
O
O
D)
O
c
O
CO
^
Q.
s
UJ
Hh-ป
0
O
$
10
jsoo Buuojiuoi^
DC
-------
EXHIB1T4.5
Change in Average Household Costs
For Drinking Water
(DOLLARS/YEAR)
SDWA
System Baseline Incremental Total Projected Percent
Size Costs1 Costs Costs Increase
(population served)
25-100 $264
101-500 314
501-1K 198
1K-3.3K 256
3.3K-10K 282
10K-25K 201
25K-50K 192
50K-75K 186
75K-100K 157
100K-500K 176
500K-1000K 169
> 1 0OOK 1 42
Weighted
Average2 $1 90
^FoT systems serving
$145
53
30
20
22
13
9
11
10
12
4
3
$14
less than 10,000,
Survey of Community Water Systems
$409
367
228
276
304
214
201
197
167
.188
173
145
$204
costs were derived from
55%
17
15
8
8
6
5
6
6
7
2
2
7%
the 1986
and updated according to the CPI;
for systems serving over 10,000, costs were derived from the
Water Industry Data Base
2Weighted according
to population served
Source: EPA's Report
to Congress, Sept 1993
-------
cu
*-ป
re
Q)
o
CO "
So
*= CO
co
10
o
I
. I
i s
** f
w ฃ
* i
2 I
C o
0) -o
H J
1 i
3 i
I I
O 6
o
JB0A jsd p|OL|9snoH/$
-------
-------
w -o o
o 3 o!
m
3-g"
* W.
^0 3"
IS
CD
c
CO
CD
------- |