ISSUES
SRF
SAFE DRINKING WATER
ACT REAUTHORIZATION
ADMIN./EPA POSITION
-$599 million for FY 94, $1 billion FY 95-98
-20% state match
-Allotment by formula used to distribute state drinking
water program grants
-Needs Survey within 2 years and 4 years thereafter
to determine future allotment formula
-Zero interest loans allowed
-4% set aside for SRF administration.
-1% set aside for technical assistance/planning
-Davis-Bacon applies only to Fed. Cap. grant.
S. 2019 (Baucus) SENATE PASSED 5/19/94
- $600 mil. in FY 94, $1 bil./yr FY 95-2000.
- 20% match (State may delay FY 94/95 match
through FY 98).
- Allotment by formula used to distribute State
drinking water program grants.
- Needs survey within 2 years, and every 2 years
thereafter.
- 4% for SRF administration.
- Gov. may reserve up to 50% of SDWA SRF and add
to CWA SRF or reserve an equal amount of CWA
SRF in any given year and add to SDWA SRF.
- State may reserve up to $300,000 or 2% of the
Fed. cap grant for technical assistance to small
systems - includes developing source-water
protection plans, alternative DW supplies,
consolidation/restructuring, treatment to comply with
regs.
- Davis-Bacon applies to Fed. cap. grant and loan
repayments.
-------
- ADMIN./EPA POSITION
S. 2019 (Baucus) SENATE PASSED 5/19/94
Eligibility- limited to.
-capital costs ol SDWA compliance
-consolidation of systems
-must have ability to repay loans
-no land acquisition
-existing systems only
-funds may be used to buy/refinance debt incurred for
- eligible purposes after enactment
-source water protection projects,
- SRF can be used to cover up to 50% of the resource
shortfall in State drinking water programs in FY95
and FY99. 100% in FY96-98. State support for the
program must funds provided in FY 93.
- Eligibility: Land acquisition for a treatment facihty or
consolidation project; capital costs of compliance, to
consolidate (or for alt. water supply), upgrade a DW
treatment system, to replace a private system if the
water posesses “significant threat to human health.”
A State cannot loan $ for protect if consolidation is
appropriate (except to assist consolidation).
- No S for nonviable systems w/history of violations,
unless system restructures.
- Zero interest loans and up to 30% of Fed. cap grant
can be used for loan subsidies to “disadvantaged
communities’ as defined by State.
- Intended Use Plans - Priority for projects addressing
most serious risk to human health and where
residential water costs are high.
State Not addressed in Administration’s 10 Principles
- $100 million per year in F’i’ 94-2000.
- SRF monies can be used to fund resource shortfalls
in state drinking water programs and source water
protection programs at States’ discretion. (See SAF
above)
- EPA/ASDWA resource model to be used to identify
resource shortfalls (estimates subject to revision at
State’s request).
-Adjustable SDWA fee, which States can use to
supplement existing State resources.
-Fe’e available to EPA if EPA withdraws primacy
-Fee can be used for source water protection, other
SDWA services and functions, etc.
-Fed. backstop fee is eliminated. Administrator can
tap into the SRF cap grant where EPA has primacy to
run the state drinking water program.
-2-
-------
ISSUES
ADMIN./EPA POSITION
S. 2019 (Baucus) SENATE PASSED 5/19/94
Source Water
Protection
Program
(Pollution
Prevention
Section)
- Protection programs for both groundwater and
surface water
-“Mandatory state/local baseline protection program,
voluntary “enhanced” local program.
-Allows EPA approval of alternate monitoring and
treatment requirements if prevention programs are
comprehensive and enforceable.
-Allows citizenIPWS suits against pollution sources in
protected areas, where there is evidence that a
release of regulated contaminants may cause or
contribute to a significant threat.
-Source water protection proiects eligible for DW SRF
funding.
- States may establish voluntary petition process for
locals to seek assistance in addressing contaminants
of public health concern.
- State wellhead protection programs, currently
required under SDWA, are made voluntary.
- Authorizations: critical aquifer protection programs
($20 mil./yr for FY 94- 2000); wellhead protection
programs ($35 mil./yr for FY92-2000); source
water programs (“such sums as are necessary,” for
FY 95-2000); ground water protection grants ($20
mil./yr for FY94-2000).
- Source water measures and wellhead/sole source
plans eligible for CWA sec. 319 $ and CWA SRF $
Limited eligibility for source water plans under SDWA
SRF (see SRF section above).
Monitoring
Requirements
EPA encourages States to adopt waiver programs
based on sound science and to use additional
flexibility in current law that can lower monitoring
costs by 80%. Without a waiver, EPA believes it is
appropriate for systems to conduct 4 quarterly
samples for volatile and synthetic organic chemicals
before testing freq. drops to once every 3yrs for small
systems and twice in 3yrs for large systems
- EPA to establish a national database on the
occurrence of contaminants in drinking water.
- W/in 1 yr., EPA to review monitoring req’ments of
12 regulated contaminants and promuJgate revisions
w/in 2yrs.
- States may develop alternative monitoring programs
for NPDWR’s (except microibials) based on occurence
data and previous detections. (EPA shall modify
req’ments at non-primacy State’s request.)
- For systems < 10,000, the State may waive
quarterly monitoring for carcinogens for 3 yrs. if not
initially detected
- See Contaminant Selection below for Unregulated
contaminant monitoring
-3-
-------
ISSUES
ADMIN./EPA POSITION
S. 2019 (Baucus) SENATE PASSED 5/19/94
SmaU System
BAT/Variances
and Exemptions
- EPA to designate small system BAT for a
contaminant, State reviews/approves a system’s
notice of intent to use small system BAT and any
renewal requests.
-Small systems eligible for the BAT only if they cannot
achieve compliance through restructuring or
consolidation; apply to State for the variance.
- State may grant exemption from small system BAT
where restructuring/small BAT infeasible.
- Allows States to grant small systems ( < 10,000--
94% of all systems ) a 5 yr. variance from complying
with an MCL if the system uses a treatment
technology EPA deems “feasible” (mci. effectiveness
and cost) for small systems. Technology must
“adequately protects human health.”
- To be eligible for a small syst. treatment tech.
variance, system must be unable to afford to comply
w/ the MCL based on State criteria, cannot find an
alternative water supply, cannot restructure or
consolidate, and the terms of the variance ensure
adequate protection of human health.
- Moratorium on enforcement penalties while State
reviews a variance application.
- System has 3 yrs. to install technology w/possible 2
yr. extension.
- System w/disapproved variance request h s up to 4
yrs. to meet MCL.
- EPA to review State variance decisions periodically.
- Consumers may petition EPA to object to variances
- States shall review each variance at least every 5
years.
- No variance for pre-’86 MCL or for a microbial
contaminant.
- Systems up to 3,300 eligible for a 2 yr. non-
renewable extension of a Section 1416 exemption
- Adds forthcoming SRF or other assistance as
additional grounds for exemptions for all systems
-4-
-------
ISSUES
ADMIN./EPA POSITION
S. 2019 (Baucus) SENATE PASSED 5/19/94
Viability
Programs
- As a condition of primacy. States to implement
programs to prevent new non-viable systems and
w/legal authority to require restructuring of existing
systems where needed to ensure safe water supply.
.
- State must have a viability program, including
authority to prevent formation of new non-viable
systems after 1/97 and a program for voluntary
restructuring for existing systems that are in violation
and lack capacity to comply.
- 3 yr. moratorium on enforcement penalties for
systems complying w/State restructuring order.
- States shall not prohibit operation of complying
systems.
- EPA may withhold SRF funds from States w/out
viability programs -- 10% in FY 98, 30% in FY 99 and
50% thereafter.
- EPA guidance on factors that cause non-viability and
options for addressing.
- EPA survey to identify likely non-viable systems
Training,
certification of
system operators
- As a condition of primacy, States must implement an
operator training/certification program, including all
small systems.
- “Circuit rider’ or part-time operators allowed.
- EPA to define minimum program criteria,
- State certification of operators & labs required.
- EPA to publish guidance w/in 2 yrs. setting minimum
operator certification standards.
- Community and nontransient noncommunity
systems to have a certified operator within 4 years.
- EPA may withhold SRF $ if State program is lacking
or inconsistent w/guidance -- 10% in FY 99, 30% in
FY 2000 and 50% thereafter.
• Authorizes $10 mil./yr for FY94-2000 for
education/training.
- Authorizes $10 mil./yr for FY94-2000 for at least 5
small system technology research centers.
-5-
-------
ISSUES
ADMIN./EPA POSITION
S. 2019 (Baucus) SENATE PASSED 5/19/94
Contaminant
Selection
Replaces “25 contaminants every 3 years” with a risk-
based 2 track system giving the Administrator greater
flexibility to regulate only contaminants that occur in
drinking water and pose real risks to health.
-In consultation with SAB, EPA to ID a certain II of
contaminants and place in two categories:
Track 1 :immediate regulation based on existing data
that a contaminant poses real risks to health.
Track 2:further study - EPA would either regulate,
issue an advisory, or drop the contaminant after
determining whether the contaminant poses real risks
to health.
-opportunity for public comment provided.
- EPA to hst 1 5 contaminants with greatest public
health risk w/in 3 yrs.
- W/in 18 months of listing, EPA shall propose regs
for contaminants known or anticipated to occur at
levels and frequencies of public health concern,
publish a study plan (5 yrs. maximum), or determine
not to regulate.
- EPA has 2 yrs. to promulgate regs after proposal
- Every 5 yrs. after initial list, EPA to identity 7
additional contaminants for further study or regulation
if warranted.
- W/in 3 yrs., EPA must establish a national DW
contaminant occurrence database.
-EPA to publish criteria for monitoring unregulated
contaminants. Gov.’s of 7 or more States may
petition for a contaminant to be included. W/in 3 yrs,
& every 5 yrs. thereafter, EPA to issue list of not
more than 30 contaminants to be monitored by
systems > 10,000 (States complete representative
monitoring plans for smaller systems). States may
waive monitoring if criteria for listing eontaminant do
not apply in that State.
-EPA must review NPDWRs every 6 years (3 years in
current statute).
-6-
-------
ISSUES
ADMIN./EPA POSITION
S. 2019 (Baucus) SENATE PASSED 5/19/94
Standard Setting
:
- EPA would take into account risk when selecting
contaminants for regulation (see Contaminant
Selection above)
- Allows EPA to establish MCL which is less stringent
than feasible (as currently defined), if it results in
“substantially less’ compliance costs and no
significant increase in individual lifetime risks (for
carcinogens) or “reasonable certainty of no harm” (for
non-carcinogens, after development of NAS-approved
guidelines).
- Requires EPA to consider risk reduction benefits,
cost and effects on sensitive subpopulations.
- “Less stringent than feasible” MCLs may be
established to avoid increasing the concentration of
other drinking water contaminants or interfering with
treatment processes for other contaminants.
Anomaly
Contaminants
(DBPs, Corrosion
Byproducts,
Sulfate and
Radon)
Not addressed in Administration’s 10 Principles.
- Codifies schedule for disinfectant/disinfection by
product (D/DBP) reg neg. Stage 1 regs by 12/31/96,
Information Collection Rule (ICR) by 7/29/94 -
includes information on microbials (cryptosporidium
listed). Revised D/DBP rule based on ICR by
6/30/2000.
- Also, see Radon in Drinking Water below.
-7-
-------
ISSUES
ADMIN./EPA POSITION
S. 2019 (Baucus) SENATE PASSED 5/19/94
Radon in Drinking
Water
- A multi-media approach to radon should ensure that
verifiable risk reduction occurs in communities that
choose an alternate compliance level for radon in
drinking water. (10/27/93 Congressional testimony)
- Establishes a multi-media radon program, w/ NPDWR
for radon w/in 1 year.
- An alternative contaminant level (based on outdoor
air radon level) available to systems in States
w/indoor air radon programs. After NAS study, level
could be set at 50% of national average radon
concentration in outdoor air.
- If no State program, local system can comply
w/alternative program that includes indoor air testing
for 50% of homes w/in 5 yrs., require new homes to
be built to comply w/radon mitigation stds. developed
by EPA and ed. materials.
- EPA report to Congress in 7 yrs.
Extension of
Compliance
Timeframe
- EPA authority to specify up to 60 months br
compliance with NPDWRs if construction needed.
- 3 yrs. for compliance. EPA/States may approve a 2
yr. extension for capital improvements.
- Additional extensions available for small systems
that apply to State for a small system BAT variance
and to all systems eligible for the expanded section
1416 exemption process (see above)..
-8-
-------
ISSUES
ADMIN./EPA POSITION
S. 2019 (Baucus) SENATE PASSED 5/19/94
Enforcement
Strengthen and streamline enforcement provisions.
-Administrative, civil and criminal enforcement
strengthened to reflect consistency with other
environmental laws (increase penalty caps, etc.)
-Waiver of sovereign immunity
-Strengthen lead plumbing materials enforcement
-Information gathering/inspection authorities are
enhanced.
-Eliminates pre-enforcement review of admin orders.
Similar, but with these differences:
- Strengthen req’ments that systems notify public of
violations that could cause serious adverse effects on
human health, other violations reported annually.
- Regs w/in 2 yrs. for new pipe/fixture and water
pump maximum lead leaching levels, if voluntary
standards not effective.
- 3 yr moratorium on penalties for State/EPA approved
system consolidation.
- Does not establish criminal penalties for knowing
endangerment violations.
- States required to have administrative penalties
comparable to EPA as a condition of primacy.
- “Public water system” defined -- applies to pipes and
other constructed conveyances. Under limited
conditions, exempts non-piped water where principal
use is non-residential and piped water for existing
irrigation districts.
Tribes
- 1.5% of SRF reserved for Tribes.
- 1.5% of SRF reserved for Tribes (includes Alaska
Native villages).
- Governor may elect to have unobligated SRF funds
realloted to Tribes or EPA may reallot up to 10% of
such funds to Tribes.
- EPA shall consult Tribes on use of SRF funds and
needs assessments.
- EPA shall provide information on violations,
compliance and enforcement on Indian reservations as
part of an annual report which includes similar
information from States.
-9-
-------
ISSUES
ADMIN./EPA POSITION,
S. 2019 (Baucus) SENATE PASSED
5/19/94
Research & -
Not
addressed
in
Administration’s
ten
Principles
- $25 mil./yr for FY
Education
94-2000 for general DW research.
General research authorities are clarified.
- Education/training authorities are consolidated. $10
mil./yr. authorization.
- EPA to carry Out regulatory research and field
studies on DBP and microbials (inc. crypto).
Authorizations: $12.5 mil./yr., F’,’ 95-98.
- EPA to prepare and implement plan to address long-
term research needs.
Prepared by: Office of Congressional & Legislative Affairs/Office of Water
Revised June 2, 1994
-10-
------- |