[Senate Hearing 106-70]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
S. Hrg. 106-70
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1996
SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS
=======================================================================
HEARING
BEFORE THE
SUBCOMMITTEE ON
FISHERIES, WILDLIFE AND DRINKING WATER
OF THE
COMMITTEE ON
ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
UNITED STATES SENATE
ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
MARCH 3, 1999
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Environment and Public Works
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-255 CC WASHINGTON : 1999
_______________________________________________________________________
For sale by the U.S. Government Printing Office
Superintendent of Documents, Congressional Sales Office, Washington DC
20402
COMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS
one hundred sixth congress
JOHN H. CHAFEE, Rhode Island, Chairman
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia MAX BAUCUS, Montana
ROBERT SMITH, New Hampshire DANIEL PATRICK MOYNIHAN, New York
JAMES M. INHOFE, Oklahoma FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming HARRY REID, Nevada
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri BOB GRAHAM, Florida
GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho BARBARA BOXER, California
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah RON WYDEN, Oregon
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas
Jimmie Powell, Staff Director
J. Thomas Sliter, Minority Staff Director
------
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife and Drinking Water
MICHAEL D. CRAPO, Idaho, Chairman
CRAIG THOMAS, Wyoming HARRY REID, Nevada
CHRISTOPHER S. BOND, Missouri FRANK R. LAUTENBERG, New Jersey
JOHN W. WARNER, Virginia RON WYDEN, Oregon
ROBERT F. BENNETT, Utah BOB GRAHAM, Florida
KAY BAILEY HUTCHISON, Texas BARBARA BOXER, California
(ii)
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
MARCH 3, 1999
OPENING STATEMENTS
Baucus, Hon. Max, U.S. Senator from the State of Montana......... 2
Boxer, Hon. Barbara, U.S. Senator from the State of California... 5
Chafee, Hon. John H., U.S. Senator from the State of Rhode Island 11
Crapo, Hon. Michael D., U.S. Senator from the State of Idaho..... 1
Graham, Hon. Bob, U.S. Senator from the State of Florida......... 5
Lautenberg, Hon. Frank R., U.S. Senator from the State of New
Jersey......................................................... 3
Reid, Hon. Harry, U.S. Senator from the State of Nevada.......... 13
WITNESSES
Biberstine, Jerry C., drinking water specialist, Colorado
Department of Public Health and Environment, on behalf of the
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators............. 22
List, Safe Drinking Water Act Principles..................... 65
Prepared statement........................................... 62
Responses to additional questions from Senator Crapo......... 65
Bingham, Merril, public works director, Provo City (UT) Water
Resources, on behalf of American Water Works Association....... 24
Prepared statement........................................... 67
Responses to additional questions from Senator Crapo......... 71
Chapman, Andrew, president, Elizabeth Town (NJ) Water Company, on
behalf of the National Association of Water Companies.......... 31
Prepared statement........................................... 89
Responses to additional questions from Senator Crapo......... 92
Fox, J. Charles, assistant administrator, Office of Water,
Environmental Protection Agency; accompanied by Cynthia
Dougherty, director, Office of Ground and Drinking Water....... 7
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Responses to additional questions from:
Senator Boxer............................................ 57
Senator Crapo............................................ 52
Senator Graham........................................... 54
Gunter, Gurnie, director, Kansas City Water Services Department,
on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies.... 28
Prepared statement........................................... 80
Levy, Steve, executive director, Atlantic States Rural Water
Association, on behalf of the National Rural Water Association. 30
Prepared statement........................................... 83
Noonan, Norine, assistant administrator, Office of Research and
Development, Environmental Protection Agency................... 9
Prepared statement........................................... 46
Olson, Erik D., senior attorney, Natural Resources Defense
Council........................................................ 26
Prepared statement........................................... 73
Responses to additional questions from Senator Crapo......... 80
(iii)
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE 1996 SAFE DRINKING WATER ACT AMENDMENTS
----------
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 3, 1999
U.S. Senate,
Committee on Environment and Public Works,
Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife,
and Drinking Water,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to notice, at 9:04 a.m. in
room 406, Senate Dirksen Building, Hon. Michael D. Crapo
(chairman of the subcommittee) presiding.
Present: Senators Crapo, Reid, Lautenberg, and Chafee [ex
officio].
Also present: Senator Baucus.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MICHAEL D. CRAPO,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF IDAHO
Senator Crapo. The hearing will come to order.
We welcome everyone here. This is the Safe Drinking Water
Act oversight hearing, for the Fisheries, Wildlife and Drinking
Water Subcommittee. We welcome those who are here to testify as
well as those who are here to observe and participate.
For an opening statement, I would just indicate that the
reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act in 1996 was
considered by most to be one of the successful collaborative
efforts in trying to find a path forward by bringing everyone
together to work out a statute that would provide the
regulatory flexibility necessary to let those who were involved
in State and local government as well as in the private sector,
work with the Federal Government as we seek to obtain the
common goal of making sure that our drinking water across the
country is protected and safe.
The purpose of this hearing is to take a look now several
years later to see how it's working and to hear from the EPA
and the other interested parties who are working and dealing
with the statute on a daily basis to see if the intended
results are being achieved and if there need to be any
corrections or revisions in the legislation or the approach of
EPA or the participants in the process.
I think drinking water clearly is one of the most important
environmental concerns that we face in the country. We do have
a strong, solid drinking water system in this country but it's
one of those things that we find has many different facets from
the large systems to the very small systems.
I come from a State where a lot of the systems are very
small and we have a continuous need to make sure that we have
the flexibility to deal with it properly. In my opportunity to
ask questions, I'm sure I'll get into some of those types of
issues.
Without anything further, I will turn to Senator Baucus to
see if you would like to make an opening statement.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. MAX BAUCUS, U.S. SENATOR FROM THE
STATE OF MONTANA
Senator Baucus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, I want to congratulate you, Senator Crapo, on
your chairmanship of this important subcommittee.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. As you well know, you have big shoes to
fill.
Senator Crap. That's true. I've got some help though and I
know where he is.
Senator Baucus. He knows where you are too.
[Laughter.]
Senator Baucus. I compliment Senator Kempthorne
particularly for his openmindedness and his desire to be
pragmatic and find solutions to problems. Certainly safe
drinking water is one.
I remember his work on the Endangered Species Act, where he
put in a lot of hard work and came within a gnat's eyelash of
getting that passed. We worked very closely together. I know
you'll do the same because you come from a great tradition of
getting things done.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Baucus. I think this hearing is important for a
couple of reasons. First, it shows that we intend to follow
through. Very often we pass legislation and then don't pay
enough attention to how it's working. Here we are with an
oversight hearing on the Safe Drinking Water Act to see what's
working, to see what adjustments, if any, should be made. I
compliment you for this hearing.
Second, it gives us a chance to consider the lessons of the
Act. We all know the Act has had a tortured history. It was
passed some time ago and then we thought that the statute was
not tight enough, so we passed the 1986 amendments and went way
overboard. Then we had to come back and provide some balance.
My guess is we're pretty close to the mark. This is probably
pretty good, although it's not perfect.
Some of these lessons are substantive. The 1996 Act, I
think, takes very innovative approaches to solving the primary
problems. For example, the Flexible State Revolving Fund is
patterned after the Fund in the Clean Water Act. It is an
innovation to help smaller communities get financing, with
special attention to the needs of small, rural communities. We
all know in drinking water issues, economies of scale matter,
and it is particularly important to pay attention to rural
communities.
Then there is the public empowerment that comes from
consumer confidence reports.
In addition, the measure to use cost-benefit analyses,
we're trying to get a little confidence in cost-benefit
analysis. People throw that term around a lot. We want to do
what we can to assure it is a usable tool, and also a flexible
multimedia approach to the regulation of radon. Radon is quite
vexing, but I think we found something that works pretty well
to deal with it. Certainly, let's find out.
By considering how well these approaches are working, we
hope to get some insight into other environmental laws. This
leads me to another point. That is, there is another lesson in
all this and it is a political one.
The enactment of the Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996 shows
that we can achieve consensus and find positive solutions to
environmental problems. I think that is an important statement,
that we can achieve consensus, we can find positive solutions
to environmental problems. We did it with the Safe Drinking
Water Act. The leadership came not only from Senator
Kempthorne, Senator Chafee, Senator Reid but all the members of
this committee. I compliment all of them.
It came from many others who are here in this room: Cynthia
Dougherty of EPA who worked very closely with Administrator
Browner and Bob Perciasepe, Erik Olson of the NRDC and Diane
Van De Hei of the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies.
The point here is that the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act was
passed not top down, but bottom up. The groups worked together,
rolled up their sleeves, did not grab any headlines, and came
to us with legislation that we'd been working on for a good
period of time. It was a ``done deal'' in many respects by the
time it came to us.
People had all kinds of different perspectives, they worked
hard. I take my hat off to them. This is really what service
is. Sure all of us are in public service but everyone else who
worked on this is in public service too and I take my hat off
to them particularly because their names aren't in the papers
or on marquees, they don't get a lot of the public credit for
the end result, but they know they've done a good job. I just
think it's important for us to recognize the hard work they
have all done.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Senator Baucus.
Senator Lautenberg.
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. FRANK R. LAUTENBERG,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW JERSEY
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much, Mr. Chairman.
I, too, want to congratulate you on your meteoric rise to
seniority.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
Senator Lautenberg. When I first got here, I sat in the
senior Senator's chair and at that time, I was next to Scoop
Jackson. He said, don't get used to it and about a week later,
I was off in the corner.
[Laughter.]
Senator Crapo. I'm used to that position as well.
[Laughter.]
Senator Lautenberg. Thanks very much for holding this
hearing on safe drinking water.
I think it is the ideal time to hold this hearing. EPA and
the States are at a very important stage in implementing the
Safe Drinking Water Act amendments of 1996. Among other things,
they are selecting the means by which they will identify and
publicly disclose potential threats to public health from
drinking water contamination.
Unfortunately, in evaluating the implementation of this law
in my State, I'd have to say that the program needs
improvement. When our drinking water bill passed in 1996, I
praised it because I believed the bill would enhance both the
quality of our drinking water and America's confidence in its
safety.
The bill did not require the States to perform every
measure necessary to protect public health but it provided
tremendous flexibility and it allowed discretion to the States
to do so. I was especially hopeful that in my State, the most
densely populated State in the country, a State with a legacy
of industry and thus, equally a legacy of industrial pollution,
and where newspaper articles routinely describe threats to
drinking water, and I would have hoped our State agencies would
exercise their discretion to be more protective of the public
health and the minimums required under the 1996 law.
I'm sad to say that I've been disappointed, that in my
State and probably in others as well, the State agency has
clung too closely to just the bare minimum requirements. A good
example of this is a plan called ``The Source Water Assessment
Plan,'' proposed by the State of New Jersey last November as
required by the 1996 law.
Under that law, the State is required to perform source
water assessments to identify geographic areas that are the
sources of public drinking water, assess the water systems'
susceptibility to contamination and to inform the public of the
results.
Mr. Chairman, there are serious deficiencies in my State's
proposed source water assessment plan. These are deficiencies
that I fear may characterize other States' plans as well. Most
importantly, under the proposed plan, the State will not
identify and evaluate the threat presented by contaminants
unless they are among the 80 or so specifically regulated under
the Safe Drinking Water Act. Radium 224, recently discovered in
drinking water across my State, might not be evaluated under
the State's plan until specifically regulated.
With a gap like that in our information, what do I tell the
families when they want to now what is in their drinking water,
is it safe? The public must have access to comprehensive
assessments with the right-to-know component of the Drinking
Water Program in order for it to be effective.
Soon, I will be formally introducing legislation to make
this happen. I hope we can consider improvements to this law in
this Congress. Mr. Chairman, this is a good step along the way
and I look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Senator. We appreciate your
comments and your concern on these issues.
We have two panels today. Our first panel is going to be
from the EPA and consists of: Mr. J. Charles Fox, assistant
administrator, Office of Water and Dr. Norine Noonan, assistant
administrator, Office of Research and Development. We welcome
you. You are accompanied by Ms. Cynthia Dougherty, director,
Office of Ground and Drinking Water.
We'd like to remind all witnesses that we try to keep to
the 5 minutes for your oral presentations. We've had your
written testimony in advance. I've read it, I know the other
Senators have read it, and it will be thoroughly reviewed and
will be made a part of the full record.
I also will place into the record the statements of
Senators Graham and Boxer.
[The prepared statements of Senators Graham and Boxer
follow:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Bob Graham, U.S. Senator from the
State of Florida
Mr. Chairman, members of the committee, Mr. Fox, Ms. Dougherty, Dr.
Noonan, representatives of states, water utilities, and the public,
thank you for the opportunity to speak briefly about implementation of
the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments in Florida.
Water supply and water quality are critical issues in many areas of
Florida, as our population of over 15 million continues to grow at a
rate of over 700 new residents each day. Floridians are highly
dependent on ground water for their drinking water supplies, with only
19 of 7,000 water systems using surface water. Small systems serving
fewer than 500 people make up 6400 of Florida's 7,000 water systems.
Naturally occurring radon is also an issue in some areas of my state.
I'd like to commend the Environmental Protection Agency for their
success to date in meeting the deadlines set forth in the 1996
amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act, and for their efforts to
work with the states and other stakeholders in implementing this
important program. Clean and safe drinking water is taken for granted
by many Americans, thanks to the efforts of local water suppliers with
the guidance and support of the states and the EPA. There are many
challenges ahead as EPA, the states, and water suppliers pursue an
aggressive schedule to conduct necessary research, develop new
regulations, upgrade our infrastructure, and educate consumers about
the quality of their drinking water.
The 1996 amendments call for consideration of risk to human health
as well as costs of implementation in the setting of new drinking water
standards. Much new research is needed on occurance of contaminants,
health effects, and treatment technologies in order to ensure that
standards are based on sound science. I encourage EPA to work closely
with Congress to set research priorities and assign adequate resources
to these important activities.
State agencies are on the front lines of implementation of Safe
Drinking Water Act requirements. The 1996 amendments allow flexibility
for states to choose the most effective approaches that are appropriate
for citizens of each state, with guidance and support provided by EPA.
The alternative multimedia approach to radon regulation currently under
consideration is an example of innovative environmental management that
I'd like to encourage.
Small water supply systems provide drinking water for many
Americans, particularly in more sparsely populated areas of the
country. These systems and their consumers have limited resources
available for implementation of new regulations. EPA and the states
need to work together to provide information and technical and
financial assistance to small systems so that the health of rural water
consumers is adequately protected at an affordable cost.
I look forward to today's discussions. Thank you.
______
Prepared Statement of Hon. Barbara Boxer, U.S. Senator from the
State of California
I would like to welcome the new chairman of this subcommittee,
Senator Crapo, and thank him for holding this hearing today.
When the Safe Drinking Water Act was passed in 1974 many Americans
took the purity of their drinking water for granted. Today, reports of
cryptosporidium, disinfection byproducts, MTBE and other contaminants
fouling our drinking water undermine public trust in that water.
The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments set us on a course to
reversing this lack of public confidence. One way of addressing that
problem was to give the public the right-to-know about the
contamination threats to its drinking water.
My consumer confidence reports provision, patterned after a similar
requirement of California law, was designed to provide that right. The
provision requires public water systems to tell consumers where they
get their drinking water from, and the contamination problems
threatening that water.
I am very pleased to see that EPA has issued regulations to
implement the consumer confidence provision. Thanks to that progress,
by October 1999, citizens in the rest of the country will join
Californians in receiving consumer confidence reports.
Although EPA has made significant progress implementing this and
other provisions of the 1996 amendments, children, pregnant women and
those with weakened immune systems may still face greater risks from
drinking water than the rest of us do.
During the debate on the 1996 amendments, I fought to ensure that
our drinking water standards specifically protect these groups. In this
connection, so-called disinfection byproducts--particularly
trihalomethanes--was a particular concern of mine.
As you may recall, in 1992, California's Department of Health
Services (DHS) released health studies finding higher miscarriage rates
among women who drank more tap water than bottled water in early
pregnancy. A follow-up 1998 DHS study (A Prospective Study of
Spontaneous Abortion: Relation to Amount and Source of Drinking Water
Consumed During Pregnancy, confirmed these earlier findings.
The study found that women who drank five or more glasses of tap
water per day containing high levels of common disinfection
byproducts--particularly trihalomethanes--were at greater risk of
miscarriage during their first trimester than women with less exposure.
I understand that in December 1998, EPA released the first stage of
its rule to deal with this threat. A second stage of that rule is now
being prepared to deal with that threat more comprehensively. As EPA
moves forward with that second stage, I would like to know whether it
has a research agenda designed to build on the work performed in
California.
In particular, I understand that the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) has identified some discrete studies it could perform to add to
the body of California's work. What action is EPA planning to take to
conduct such studies so that we can be sure that EPA's second rule on
disinfection byproducts protects pregnant women?
More broadly speaking, I am also interested to learn how EPA is
implementing my children's health provision of the 1996 amendments.
That provision requires EPA to consider the risks drinking water
contaminants present to children and other vulnerable subpopulations as
it sets standards for those contaminants.
This provision was patterned after my own Children's Environmental
Protection Act (CEPA) which would expand the application of that
requirement to provide that all standards EPA establishes under our
environmental laws protect children.
In addition, another provision I added to the 1996 amendments
requires EPA to present a related study to Congress by August 6, 2000.
That study must evaluate the extent to which children, pregnant women
and other vulnerable subpopulations are likely to experience elevated
health risks from contaminants in drinking water.
I would like to know what progress EPA has made in meeting this
deadline.
Finally, one of the most significant threats facing nation's
drinking water supply is contamination by the fuel additive methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE).
In January, Lake Tahoe closed its 13th drinking water well due to
MTBE contamination. All told, Tahoe has lost over 20 percent of its
drinking water supply due to this contamination. Just three days ago,
the Boston Globe reported that MTBE was detected in 137 drinking water
sources in New Hampshire.
On October 5, 1997, EPA placed MTBE on the Safe Drinking Water Act
``Contaminant Candidate List.'' Once placed on this list, EPA
determines whether or not to regulate that contaminant. I am interested
to learn whether EPA has any immediate plans to regulate MTBE under the
Safe Drinking Water Act.
I congratulate EPA and the state drinking water program
administrators here today for their work to implement the 1996
amendments. I look forward to hearing the testimony today.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. With that, why don't we get started. Mr.
Fox, would you please begin and be our first witness?
STATEMENT OF J. CHARLES FOX, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
WATER, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY; ACCOMPANIED BY CYNTHIA
DOUGHERTY, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF GROUND AND DRINKING WATER
Mr. Fox. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a real pleasure to
be here. I think this hearing is a very timely opportunity for
us to look at the progress that we've been making in
implementing the 1996 amendments. I think all of your comments
about the bipartisanship that brought us to this point is
absolutely correct. I know that spirit has guided our
implementation and we have found a lot of support and
cooperation with various members of the drinking water
community as we've developed a very aggressive implementation
schedule as outlined in the statute.
At this point, I'm proud to say that we have completed
every action that has been required of us under the statute.
These actions have provided a solid foundation of guidance and
assistance for the States, water suppliers and the public as
they take the next steps in implementation.
I would like to discuss some of our successes today as well
as some of the challenges that I see facing us over the next
couple of years.
As you all know, the 1996 amendments included regulatory
improvements, increased funding, new prevention programs and
expanded public participation. I'm pleased to relay that all 50
States and Puerto Rico received their first drinking water
State Revolving Loan Fund capitalization grants for the 1997
appropriations and that 32 States have received fiscal year
1998 capitalization grants for a total to date of $1.6 billion.
This is a remarkable accomplishment when you think about all
the progress that we had to make, in many cases getting State
laws passed to get us to this point.
States have provided more than 350 loans to water systems
to improve drinking water quality. A large percentage of the
loans given out to date, the initial estimates are
approximately 50 percent have gone to small systems and 47
States have taken the technical assistance setaside to provide
additional assistance to smaller systems throughout the
country.
The 1996 amendments also require States to complete
assessments of the source water for all public water systems
within the State as Senator Lautenberg mentioned. This source
water protection program is an important first step in
providing multiple barriers of public health protection which
underwrite many of the Act's requirements.
In 1997, EPA issued a source water assessment and
protection guidance developed through an advisory committee
that we created in response to the Act to assist States as they
developed their programs. Almost all States have submitted
programs by last month's deadline and others are on schedule to
do so shortly.
States are also working on two other prevention activities,
capacity development strategies and operator certification
programs. Last summer, EPA released guidance to help States
assure that all drinking water systems have the technical,
financial and managerial capacity to comply with drinking water
standards.
Last month, EPA released its final guidelines providing
States with the minimum standards for their operator
certification programs. Both of these EPA documents were
developed with the assistance of the advisory committee and I'm
confident that the States will develop both of these programs
within the statutory timeframe.
Last November, President Clinton joined Senator Chafee in
releasing two rules to improve filtration and reduce exposure
to harmful disinfection byproducts. These two rules will
provide additional protections for nearly all Americans who use
public water supplies by protecting them from microbiological
contamination such as cryptosporidium.
EPA has also established a new process for standard setting
based on the greatest risks to public health. The amendments
require EPA to make a regulatory determination on at least five
contaminants by the year 2001. EPA established its contaminant
candidate list to aid in this determination and to help set
priorities for the agency's drinking water program.
To provide sound occurrence data, EPA is developing its
national contaminant occurrence data base which will provide
information on the occurrences in drinking water of specific
contaminants.
The 1996 amendments included a requirement to create
consumer confidence reports that are the centerpiece of the
right-to-know provisions of the Act. The information contained
in these reports will enable Americans to make practical,
knowledgeable decisions about their health and their
environment.
Last August, President Clinton released the rules
specifying the requirements of these reports in California.
This fall, public water systems around the country will be
providing citizens with new information about where their water
comes from and what, if any, contaminants, were detected in
their water.
While I believe we have been very successful in
implementation to date, I realize there are many challenges
ahead of us as well. The biggest, single challenge of the next
4 or 5 years is simply the cumulative number and size of the
tasks that we face collectively with our State and local
partners. The regulatory products required of EPA over the next
4 to 5 years will need the support of a growing base of
research and data that will be costly for EPA and demanding of
our stakeholders. EPA will develop new regulatory products but
we will also have the burden of implementing the regulations
and programs developed since 1996.
Another challenge is to ensure that we have the science and
information we need to make good, well-founded regulatory
decisions on these standards. A third challenge is the issue of
data quality. Accurate information about the quality of our
drinking water and its compliance with drinking water standards
is vital to establishing new rules and evaluating the success
of our program.
In 1996, the Administration and Congress gave the American
people a sensible and comprehensive law to protect public
health. Implementation of the Act is moving forward very
successfully. Americans can feel very confident that the
quality of their drinking water is high, but I think as we have
all learned, this is something we can't take for granted and we
need to be ever vigilant to make sure their drinking water is
protected.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Fox.
Dr. Noonan.
STATEMENT OF NORINE NOONAN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, OFFICE OF
RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Dr. Noonan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm very pleased to have this opportunity to speak to the
committee this morning and briefly describe the Office of
Research and Development Drinking Water Research Program. It
continues to be a high priority, not only for us in ORD, but
for the Agency as well.
We've made tremendous advances over the years in our
understanding of the risks posed by chemical and microbial
contaminants in drinking water and in our ability to control or
prevent risks by implementing effective risk management
strategies. Nevertheless, there continues to be a critical need
to further reduce uncertainties in the assessment of exposure
and risks to these agents and to develop more cost-effective
methods of water treatments for both large and small systems in
the United States.
Our commitment to a strong drinking water research program
is evidenced by the fact that our total investment in drinking
water research in recent years has doubled, growing from a
level of almost $21 million in fiscal year 1995 to over $41
million in the fiscal year 2000 President's budget. That is, in
the context for ORD, of an essentially flat total budget for
the office.
To respond to these high priority needs, we have focused on
the areas of health effects, exposure, risk assessment and risk
management. We have ensured the scientific quality of EPA's
research activity through the development of peer reviewed
research plans for microbial and disinfection byproducts and
for arsenic, along with a strict adherence to the peer review
process for all technical and scientific products.
A number of the important underlying scientific issues that
are of concern to the drinking water program are also being
addressed through our core research program to improve health
risk assessment.
We have strived to meet the extensive research demands of
the 1996 amendments by establishing new drinking water research
partnerships with other Federal agencies such as the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention and the National Institute
of Environmental Health Sciences, and with outside research
organizations some of whom you will hear from today such as the
American Water Works Association Research Foundation.
By strengthening the Extramural Research Grants Program in
drinking water, we have also been able to substantially
increase the involvement of the academic community in helping
to solve the many difficult research challenges faced by the
Agency.
EPA research on waterborne pathogens in recent years has
provided new information and methods to better characterize and
control the risks posed by microbial contaminants in drinking
water. Studies to determine the infectious dose of two
important waterborne pathogens--cryptosporidium and norwalk
virus--have demonstrated that exposure to low levels of these
agents in drinking water may cause infection in healthy people.
New technologies have been developed for increasing the
operational efficiency of treatment, monitoring and predicting
disinfectant concentration in the distribution system to help
ensure the safety of drinking water delivered at the tap.
Areas of current emphasis in our program include research
to determine the nature and magnitude of waterborne disease in
the United States and the development of simple, inexpensive
and accurate detection methods for well-known waterborne
pathogens such as cryptosporidium and for emerging pathogens
such as the class known as microsporidia.
EPA researchers are also developing cost-effective water
treatment approaches for small systems and are conducting
research to better understand how microbial intrusion into the
distribution system occurs and how it can be detected.
Scientists at EPA are using state-of-the art research tools
to address key uncertainties in the risk assessment for
arsenic. Studies to evaluate arsenic risks at low environmental
exposure level are focused on trying to understand the
biological processes responsible for its effects and the
factors that influence human susceptibility.
Another important area of research for us is the
development of arsenic treatment technologies for small water
systems. EPA, as you have heard, has established a contaminant
candidate list to aid in priority-setting for the Agency's
drinking water program. Contaminants in the regulation
determination priority category are considered to have
sufficient data available or data that can be quickly collected
to evaluate both exposure and risk to public health and will be
considered for regulation by August 2001.
Contaminants listed under the research occurrence
priorities category require additional data for making a
determination. To determine the specific data needs in each of
these categories and to prioritize contaminants for research,
the Agency initiated the development of a strategic research
plan for the CCL in May 1998. ORD and the Office of Water have
been working in very close collaboration on a more refined plan
that will identify research needs and priorities for all
chemical and microbial contaminants on the list.
The types of needs addressed by the plan include,
information on the health effects and occurrence of CCL
contaminants as well as validated analytical methods and
effective treatment technologies. Research on a number of
critical contaminants on the CCL such as MTBE, sulfate and
waterborne microbial pathogens is already being conducted by
EPA and general solicitations have already been made under the
Agency's extramural grants program.
We will seek the guidance of our Science Advisory Board,
outside experts and drinking water stakeholders to make sure
that the highest priority needs are being addressed in the most
effective manner. Another key to meeting the research
challenges of the future will be to continue to leverage
capabilities and resources with other Federal agencies, the
drinking water industry, academia and other outside
organizations. We're confident that by following this path, we
will be able to ensure that future drinking water regulations
and risk management decisions will be focused on the most
important public health problems and will be based on the best
available science.
I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to
speak with you today and I look forward to answering your
questions.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Dr. Noonan.
We have been joined by our chairman, Senator Chafee.
Senator, would you care to make an opening statement?
OPENING STATEMENT OF HON. JOHN H. CHAFEE,
U.S. SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF RHODE ISLAND
Senator Chafee. I will put one in the record, if I might. I
just want to congratulate you for holding these hearings. This
is a bill that we worked on a couple of years ago. Every so
often we do something right around here and this worked out
right as I understand it.
Your predecessor, as you know, was the one who was the lead
horse in putting that across, so I think it has worked out
fine, but from this panel and the other panels we will find
where we can do some fine tuning of the legislation.
Thank you very much and I would ask my statement be put in
the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Chafee follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. John H. Chafee, U.S. Senator from the State
of Rhode Island
Good morning. I am pleased to be here today, and I want to thank
Senator Crapo for conducting this oversight hearing and congratulate
him on his chairmanship. I would like to welcome everyone and thank you
for coming. I especially want to thank Steve Levy, who works closely
with our numerous small systems in Rhode Island.
As you all know, it has been two and one-half years since Congress
overwhelmingly passed the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996.
This Act is an excellent example of what can be achieved when we work
together on a bipartisan basis. When we were drafting this legislation,
the committee worked closely with the Administration, state and local
governments, and stakeholders to ensure that when all was said and
done, the result would be safe and clean drinking water for the
American people.
I have to say that I am happy with the outcome and the list of
achievements is long. Since passage of the Act, EPA has worked closely
with the expanded Drinking Water Advisory Committee on a number of
issues. This process ensures that all interested parties are heard and
their concerns addressed to the extent possible prior to the release of
regulations. In addition, more than 350 loans have been issued from the
State Revolving Loan Fund totaling $849 million. These funds will
further aid compliance, especially for the numerous small systems.
I am extremely pleased to say that EPA has not missed one statutory
requirement included in the 1996 Amendments. This accomplishment would
not have been possible without Cynthia Dougherty, Director of EPA's
Office of Water. I applaud and thank her for all the hard work that she
has expended in making sure that implementation of the Act is
successful. I know my office has called her on a number of occasions
and she is always responsive to our questions or concerns.
Despite what has been achieved, there are a significant number of
challenges that lie ahead. One of our biggest challenges will be
ensuring that future regulations are based on sound and reliable
science. The hard work has just begun, and to make this Act a success
we will have to continue to work together.
I look forward to hearing from the witnesses.
Senator Crapo. Would you like to begin with questions?
Senator Chafee. Go ahead, please.
Senator Crapo. I'm going to focus the first part of my
questions on the issue of research. I don't know exactly which
of you should answer, so all of you are welcome to answer.
As we reviewed the current fiscal year's budget request, I
noticed that in the basic research and development activities
for drinking water, the request is $34.6 million, although it
has been estimated, I believe by the Office of Water, that a
$10-$12 million shortfall exists for the budget in that area.
The authorization is $41.5 million.
Then when you look at the general drinking water research
funding, that is actually reduced in this budget request from
$13.1 million down to $11.2 million, if I read the budget
documents correctly.
The question I have is, is the request level in both or
either of these two areas adequate for the needs that we see as
we seek to implement the drinking water statutes?
Mr. Fox. Senator, that is an excellent question and one
that we are spending a good deal of time trying to get the best
and most precise answer for. The short answer that I will give
you right now is that we feel very comfortable that we have
sufficient investment to meet some of our short-term research
needs in terms of the regulatory schedule that we are on. We
might have to revisit whether or not there is additional
investment required to meet some of our longer term needs. We
will be doing that as we prepare our fiscal year 2001 budget.
The work of the General Accounting Office has helped us to
focus on this. Jointly, my office and Dr. Noonan's office are
sitting down together to plan more specifically these longer
term strategies.
When you look at the deadlines that were laid out in the
amendments, the challenge is that they are ambitious. We have a
series of regulatory decisions that have to be made beginning
in the year 2001, followed up in the year 2005 and we need to
make sure we have an adequate scientific basis from which we
can make those decisions.
I feel comfortable that in terms of the more immediate
regulations--decisions we have to make on radon or arsenic, or
the next round of disinfection byproducts--that we have a very
sound research base to make those decisions. It is some of
these contaminants in the future that I think we're going to
have to assess as we put together our next budgets.
Dr. Noonan. Mr. Chairman, if I may add, our drinking water
budget, as I indicated in my testimony, for research has
doubled since 1995 in the context of essentially a flat budget
for ORD in total. This kind of additional commitment, I think
indicates the level of priority that drinking water has for us
and for me personally. I think it certainly is true, and I
agree with Mr. Fox, that for the near term, we have the
resources that we need to make the kind of progress we're going
to have to make in health effects exposure and assessment.
We're working very hard with the Office of Water. Right now
we are in the planning process for the fiscal year 2001 budget.
In fact, my staff, my executive leads and our drinking water
program managers are spending virtually all of their time
meeting and working with the Office of Water and attending
stakeholders meetings, hearing from them, trying to understand
what are the needs, evaluate them, so that we can make a
proposal in the 2001 budget that reflects our true need to meet
these regulatory time lines in the future.
Senator Crapo. It's my understanding that drinking water
research makes up only 7 percent of the ORD budget, is that
generally accurate?
Dr. Noonan. It's about 8 percent, Mr. Chairman. It's a
little over 8 percent in the fiscal year 1999 budget, about 8
percent in the 2000 budget.
Senator Crapo. I appreciate the answers you have both
given. The question I see here may even be one that goes beyond
the Safe Drinking Water Act and into other areas. It's this.
From what I've read in the testimony of those who will
participate later on, your own and others, research is sounding
like it's going to be a very critical issue and good science, I
think, is one of the key areas that we've got to address as we
proceed in trying to find the common ground in this country on
environmental issues because it is the science that should help
us do the cost-benefit analysis or to work within the cost-
benefit analysis and to get good results without devastating
communities or the economy.
Because of that, I think it's critical that we have a
strong commitment to research. As I see the numbers I've
reviewed in the testimony presented about what we need to look
at in the future, it raises the question to me whether we are
giving now the resources to the research that needs to be
given. I suspect this is an issue that is much broader than
just drinking water.
I see my time is up. In another round of questions, I'll
probably come back to this issue or something similar. I just
wanted to make you aware of my concern that we may be running
into a problem where if we don't get on the leading edge of
this issue, we may face some real serious problems in the
future in terms of being ready to achieve the results required
by the Act.
Senator Reid, did you want to make an opening statement?
Senator Reid. I'll ask it be made a part of the record.
[The prepared statement of Senator Reid follows:]
Prepared Statement of Hon. Harry Reid, U.S. Senator from the
State of Nevada
Good Morning, Mr. Chairman.
Congratulations to you, Senator Crapo, on your chairmanship of this
subcommittee. The state of Idaho has sent many Senators to this
committee and all have represented the state and our nation with
distinction. I am certain that you will continue that fine tradition.
Your most immediate predecessor, Senator, now Governor Kempthorne,
and I worked together on many issues in this subcommittee during his
six years in the Senate, but I think the one that both of us are the
most proud of is the Safe Drinking Water Act.
During the 104th Congress, this subcommittee and this committee,
wrote a sweeping reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act. The
original Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974 was a landmark piece of
legislation, but was deeply flawed. Its implementation was a regulatory
mess.
In particular, small systems had tremendous problems in complying
with the requirements both due to regulatory and resource problems.
Also, the public was inadequately informed of health risks associated
with contaminated or improperly treated water.
The reauthorization that we wrote adds flexibility to the
regulatory process, forces EPA to focus on contaminants posing the
greatest health risk, and provided funding through a revolving loan
fund to assist communities, especially small communities, comply with
safe drinking water regulations. We also added language designed to
prevent the contamination of source waters and to increase public
awareness of drinking water issues.
If I sound pleased with the Safe Drinking Water Act, it is because
I am. Fortunately, I have also read all of the testimony that our
witnesses are set to give today, and most of you seem positive about
progress so far.
Obviously, there are concerns, so of which may grow in the coming
years. I am very concerned about funding issues. This is not an example
of a program, like some in Washington, that can thrive while
underfunded.
Rural systems concern me the most. My state is dotted with hundreds
of small water systems that provide services to only a few thousand, or
more frequently, only a few hundred people. These systems simply cannot
take advantage of the economies of scale that the larger, more urban or
suburban systems can.
However, the need for rural residents to have access to safe
drinking water is no less important than for any other citizens.
Before the day is over, I feel confident that we will come back to
the issue of funding again and again, so I won't dwell on it now.
However, to the extent possible, I would ask each of our witnesses to
focus a little attention in their comments on rural implementation of
the Safe Drinking Water Act and also on the Consumer Confidence Reports
that are coming due later this year.
Finally, as most of you know, in the West we are unable to separate
issues of drinking water quality from drinking water quantity.
Groundwater sources are being depleted more quickly than nature is
refilling them in many areas. As the aquifers are drained, water
quality, for a variety of reasons, typically declines.
I bring this up for two reasons. First, it underscores the long-
term importance of having mechanisms in place to ensure that all
Americans are drinking safe water. Secondly, I raise it because we as a
nation are doing little to address the coming problems of water
shortages. We trail much of the world in research and development of
technologies that will allow us to inexpensively recycle and desalinate
water.
Although this is an issue for another day, it is one that I hope to
focus some attention on during this Congress.
Mr. Chairman. Welcome aboard. Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Without objection, so ordered.
Did you want to ask any questions at this point?
Senator Reid. No, I don't.
Senator Crapo. Thank you. We will turn next to Senator
Baucus.
Senator Baucus. I'm curious whether States are using
alternative technologies. One of the visions in the Act, as you
well know, allowed States, particularly smaller States, to do
some innovation. Some of these systems are really small, some
are trailer parks, not big cities. What's happening?
Mr. Fox. Senator, the challenge of small systems is really
one of the biggest challenges we face as a Nation. When you
look at the structure of our drinking water systems, the vast
majority of community water systems are very small systems.
Senator Baucus. Are they using alternative systems?
Mr. Fox. We've done some initial analysis pursuant to the
requirements of the Act and found under the existing
requirements, there are affordable technologies that are
available for small systems today. We've done an analysis of
that and have issued some technical guidance documents to small
systems which list currently available technologies that they
can use to meet these requirements.
In the future, this is an area where we are going to have
to continue to do some work. The way the flexibility is
included in the new statute, if we wanted to allow a small
system to implement some technology that wasn't quite at the
overall standard for the other systems in the country, they can
get a variance from the overall technology standards.
We haven't issued any variances yet under the provisions of
the 1996 Amendments. Our analysis suggests that so far, none of
the requirements need these variances. This will be something
we have to look at as we come up with some of the new
requirements in the future.
Senator Baucus. You published a list of technologies, is
that correct, in 1997?
Mr. Fox. That's correct.
Senator Baucus. As far as you know, you haven't heard any
significant complaints from small communities?
Ms. Dougherty. We don't have any information as to whether
States are actually allowing systems to use those technologies
but we presume they should be doing that.
Senator Baucus. You don't have information?
Ms. Dougherty. We haven't asked for it yet from the States
but the technology lists are out. We put out two lists, one in
1997 for the surface water treatment rule, and one in 1998 for
the other existing rules that we have. That information is out
publicly for systems and States both to take advantage of.
Senator Baucus. Does the same apply to alternative
monitoring programs? Is it too early to tell or what is
happening there?
Ms. Dougherty. I think it's still a bit early to tell. We
did put out guidance in terms of how States could use
alternative monitoring programs, but I haven't heard the extent
to which States have taken advantage of that yet.
Senator Baucus. What about the cost-benefit analysis, how
is that coming along? I know it's early. You just published
your first rule February 26. Since we passed the Act and since
you've been working on cost benefit, and I know you've applied
it to radon, you've got this multimedia proposal, which I think
is a good one, because it takes air as well as water into
account. What is your advice on whether we should do anything
about it. Tell us how well it's working thus far?
Mr. Fox. As you suggested Senator, when Congress passed
this statute you included some new cost-benefit analysis
requirements that hadn't been included in other environmental
statutes, basically requiring a lot more detailed work to be
done as part of our development of rulemaking.
The way the statute was constructed, these new cost-benefit
requirements were only going to apply to some of the future
rulemakings we were doing, as you suggested. The radon rule is
actually the first one out of the door that is going to have
this new analysis accompanying it. We published the draft
health risk reduction and cost analysis for radon just in
February of this year, so we are just now starting to get
comments on it.
In general, my reaction is that this is a valuable
analytical tool that we can use to help make common sense
decisions in the future about drinking water regulations, but
it is also something that is going to have to evolve with time.
When you analyze the health benefits and try to monetize
the value of a human life or the cost of admission to a
hospital, it gets to be difficult analysis. This is the kind of
thing we're looking at for the future and hopefully will be
refined for future regulation.
Senator Baucus. With respect to radon, you're not looking
at that because it's a cancer standard--a noncarcinogenic
standard, if I understand it.
Mr. Fox. That's correct.
Senator Baucus. So you've taken the mid-range for value of
life and applied it to your MCL and figured the benefits do
exceed the costs, is that correct?
Mr. Fox. That's correct. Under the statute the
Administrator can make a determination and generally if she
would decide to issue a rule, even if the cost outweighed the
benefits, that is something she could do under the statute.
Senator Baucus. Is it also true if States used your
multimedia approach with respect to radon, in virtually every
case, the benefits would exceed the cost?
Mr. Fox. I want to get some more comments on this. That is
generally our analysis right now. Just so others are aware, the
Senator from Montana is very familiar with this rule but there
is a very unique procedure we are developing for radon under
the Safe Drinking Water Act allowing these tradeoffs between
water sources of radon as well as air sources of radon. This
analysis is a pathway for States to make some intelligent
decisions about whether they could do radon controls more cost
effectively from air programs, as opposed from the water
programs. That is the promise of this rulemaking that we're
developing right now.
Senator Baucus. I see my time is up but is it also true
that when you move into noncarcinogenic rules, the cost-benefit
analysis can be much more complicated?
Mr. Fox. That is correct.
Senator Baucus. I look forward to seeing how you come
along.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Senator Lautenberg.
Senator Lautenberg. One of the things that I mentioned in
my remarks which is a concern of mine is that my State, New
Jersey, doesn't do much more than the minimum required. I
mentioned also New Jersey being the most densely populated
State in the country. We have a serious drain on quality water
and quality water supplies. We have all kinds of contaminants
in our drinking water.
The minimum program doesn't adequately deal with the
drinking water problems in the State. Is there anything EPA can
do in overseeing New Jersey's drinking water program to make
the State look beyond the minimum protections?
Mr. Fox. I would like to suggest that perhaps on some case-
by-case basis, we can look at whether or not the State is
taking sufficient action to protect its citizens from threats
of drinking water. In general, the way the statute and the
programs are set up is we set Federal minimums and the States
try to implement those minimums. Some States want to go beyond
that and that's their prerogative. Our job is generally to set
the Federal minimums and let the States make those decisions.
Senator Lautenberg. There is an awareness now, and one of
the things I'd like to see changed, is to go beyond those
materials that are regulated, especially when there is an
awareness that something is threatening the human health, not
to take forever to get them on a regulated list or get
attention paid to those. So what can we do to encourage a State
like mine or any State in the country to go beyond that which
is a minimum, yet there is an awareness this is a threatening
material?
Mr. Fox. Two reactions to that. One is I think the consumer
confidence reports that will be made available to all citizens
beginning this fall will significantly increase the public's
understanding of drinking water issues, where their drinking
water comes from and probably end up stimulating more citizen
engagement in what the States and local governments are doing
to protect their water. I think that will be very valuable in
spurring that kind of action. Similarly, the source water
assessments that are going on will also tend to do that.
I've been amazed in this job how often people aren't aware
where their water comes from, they think they just turn on
their tap and out it comes. They don't realize here in the
District of Columbia, it comes from the Potomac River, or that
someone may get their water from a groundwater source that
might be near a gas station. I think in general that kind of
increasing awareness will tend to spur more appropriate action
by States and locals.
Senator Lautenberg. They focus only on regulated materials,
right?
Mr. Fox. That's what the minimum standards generally focus
on, regulated materials.
Senator Lautenberg. Again, the same question, how do we get
beyond those that are regulated, that we know pose a threat to
human health or believe there is an assumption that can be
made, what do we do to encourage States, besides writing new
law?
Mr. Fox. We do have an unregulated contaminant monitoring
requirement which does broaden the base of monitoring
information that we will have, and ultimately citizens will
have to make some of those judgments.
In the case of the specific radium compounds that you're
concerned about in New Jersey, this might be something we need
to look at in terms of its ability to be captured under other
parts of the drinking water standards.
Senator Lautenberg. You mentioned there's a lack of
awareness in many cases of the source of drinking water. I have
a State office in Newark, our State's largest city which draws
some of its drinking water from the Passaic River, a river that
I knew as a child that you could fish in and my mother used to
swim in, but upstream from Newark, the drinking water intake on
the Passaic River is industrial and sewage discharges.
During a recent drought, 90 percent of the river's flow was
sewage discharge. No doubt some of the contaminants dumped into
the river from those industrial and sewage sources are not
included on the list of the 80 contaminants regulated under
safe drinking water. Wouldn't you say the State ought to
evaluate the threats of these unregulated contaminants and
shouldn't the water consumers, myself included, have the right
to know about these contaminants. Shouldn't they have that
right?
Mr. Fox. I'm confident that the consumer confidence reports
due out this fall will give citizens a lot more information
than they have ever had before. I'm hopeful that the source
water assessment programs the States are doing will look at all
these various sources of pollution to the drinking water and
encourage the kind of pollution control that we all would
believe would be appropriate.
Senator Lautenberg. One of the things that concerns me is
who gets to know there may be a problem with the water supply.
Should notice be sent to consumers rather than to the customer.
The customer could be an apartment complex. Shouldn't the
consumers be made aware of what the problems are?
Mr. Fox. We faced a number of very difficult, practical
implementation questions about how to make sure the people were
aware of what was in their drinking water and to comply with
the requirements in the consumer confidence provisions of the
Act.
Basically, we erred on the side of trying to encourage
utilities to include it in their water bills so that most
people would actually get it. In some of the smaller systems,
we allowed them to make notices in newspapers, there could be
notices put up in some of those apartment buildings. So we did
have to offer some flexible, practical ways to reach consumers
that might not get monthly water bills, for example.
Senator Lautenberg. So they were suggestions rather than
rules?
Mr. Fox. That's correct.
Senator Lautenberg. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Baucus. Mr. Chairman, I have an obligation to
another committee but I'd like to come back and talk with the
other panels.
Senator Crapo. We would welcome you to do so. Thank you,
Senator.
I think we will do another round of questions right now. I
would turn first to Chairman Chafee.
Senator Chafee. I just want to say in line with what
Senator Baucus was asking, I think trying to develop innovative
technologies for this is terribly important. In my State, we
have few trailer parks, basically we don't have the problem
that some of the other States have but after all, this panel
represents our Nation, not just one or two States.
I urge you to keep up your work on that. It's important to
us, to my State, but far more important to other States,
perhaps Montana, Idaho and States like that, so I would urge
you on.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. Noonan. Mr. Chairman, if I may address both Senator
Baucus and Senator Chafee, and perhaps this is something the
committee knows already, but we have a pretty robust program.
We have a wide range of projects, both research and technology
development to try to get cost-effective, portable, easy to
manage systems for small communities or small water systems
that don't require a large amount of monitoring or day-to-day
care and feeding.
In addition to that, we have a program in ORD called the
Environmental Technology Verifications Program which with
private sector partners, we help validate innovative
technologies that vendors bring to us. Many of these have been
in the drinking water area. We have standardized verification
protocols and test plans and this has been a real boon to small
businesses particularly who are looking to offer innovative
solutions for small water systems.
In addition to that, we have also focused our Small
Business Innovation Research Program in the drinking water area
so there are a lot of activities going on in the research
directorate to address innovative technology for small systems.
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. In fact, I think I'll use my questions to
follow up on that general line.
Mr. Fox, I believe it was you who said that in the
revolving loan system, there had been 350 loans to date. I
believe you said half of them were to small water systems. My
recollection is that there are thousands, maybe tens of
thousands, of small water systems around the country, isn't
that correct?
Mr. Fox. Yes, tens of thousands.
Senator Crapo. Tens of thousands. So half of 350 loans is
175 and what struck me is that using those numbers, we're not
reaching out very far, very fast yet. Am I seeing that
correctly?
Mr. Fox. That is correct. There are some other pools of
money that have been authorized and are finding their way to
small systems that are worth mentioning. There was a set aside
provision of the SRF that allows the States to take up to 2
percent to provide technical assistance to small systems to
help them implement the requirements.
Congress has consistently provided an additional $8 million
to $10 million worth of earmarks to again provide technical
assistance to help small systems. So there are other pools of
money that are out there trying to help them.
Senator Crapo. One of those earmarks I believe is out in my
State. Senator Kempthorne was very interested in the Treasure
Valley Project. Are you aware of that particular one?
Ms. Dougherty. Yes.
Senator Crapo. Ms. Dougherty, how is that project
proceeding?
Ms. Dougherty. I haven't had an update on it recently but
it's been underway for a couple of years now, so I think it's
proceeding well.
Senator Crapo. The latest update I've had is that it is
proceeding well to date, but they are concerned, as I suspect
everyone in the country is in these circumstances, about the
resources to finish the project. I'll let you know at this
point of that concern of mine as well.
I noted in the budget that the State Revolving Fund Program
request this year is at $825 million, which is a $50 million
increase over 1999. Then I also noted in reading your's and
some of the other testimony that the needs analysis shows the
need is something like $138 billion. Again, we have an
incredibly large differential between what the apparent need is
and the resources that are being committed to it.
I guess the question I have is, is that $138 billion figure
accurate and if so, are we even scratching the surface of the
need that we have?
Mr. Fox. The $138 billion figure is as accurate as we had
at the time. My estimate and my guess is that it is not
completely accurate and that the needs are greater than $138
billion.
I think the important factor here is that we make sure we
compare apples to apples and that $138 billion figure is
actually a 20-year needs estimate, so it's kind of like the
price of your house but then you have to figure out what your
annual/monthly payment is.
In general, drinking water was never perceived as a Federal
responsibility that the Federal Government was going to provide
assistance for, until Congress enacted the Safe Drinking Water
Act amendments. So we are now wrapping up the Federal
assistance and the Federal contribution in meeting these
drinking water needs.
We haven't done any analysis yet to figure out what the
total annual needs are for the Federal Government versus State
and local, and that's something we are looking at.
Senator Crapo. I want to shift to one other area before the
clock turns to yellow on me. That is there is some testimony I
expect we will receive today that perhaps the standards that
are being applied here are too onerous for small systems in
that they may be requiring the cleanup be implemented when
there isn't an actual danger shown or maybe there is a risk
shown but not an actual problem in the system, or perhaps the
levels of cleanup being required are as we often hear in many
environmental debates, cleaner than the natural environment. We
hear that a lot.
Is it correct that there may be occasions in which the
standards being used or developed for large systems are being
imposed on smaller systems or that the standards, wherever they
came from imposed on smaller systems, are creating a financial
burden with very low health increase?
Mr. Fox. Certainly my hope is the answer to that is ``no,''
and that we will, in the future, as we develop new standards
make sure that we are including affordability in our evaluation
of technology requirements, best available technology.
The old law really didn't allow us to look at affordability
for smaller systems. So under the new law, we are looking at
that. We have come up with an affordability criteria based on
some work we did with advisory committees that looks at
different sizes, small systems to see what would be affordable.
So I'm hopeful we will have some good answers to that in the
future.
Senator Crapo. One other quick question. I note the 1996
law allowed for variances to be provided to small systems. Have
any variances been granted to any small systems?
Mr. Fox. Not to my knowledge yet.
Senator Crapo. Is that because they haven't asked for them?
Ms. Dougherty. Some States may have done variances under
the old, existing law, but under the new law, no.
Senator Crapo. Do you know whether there have been a
significant number of requests for variances? In other words,
are they all being turned down or are you not getting any
requests?
Ms. Dougherty. I'm not aware there are any requests. Most
of the existing rules have been in place too long for systems
to ask for variances against them.
Mr. Fox. We have not heard of any reports under the 1996
variance provisions.
Senator Crapo. I'd appreciate that.
Senator Reid.
Senator Reid. We had some folks in from Nevada yesterday.
As you know, Nevada, about 90 percent of the people live in the
two metropolitan areas of Las Vegas and Reno; the 10 percent
covers huge areas, Nevada being the seventh largest State in
area in the country.
In short, the rural water company interests were pleased
with how they had been treated with the Revolving Fund. They
felt there was a minimum amount of red tape and that it was
relatively easy to get their hands on that money. I know that
might surprise you but they felt very good about it.
Arsenic occurs naturally in many areas of Nevada and can be
found in fairly large numbers of rural water systems,
especially in Churchill County. Could you describe EPA's
efforts concerning the development of arsenic treatment
technology for small water systems, Ms. Noonan?
Dr. Noonan. Senator, I'd first like to indicate that we
have developed a peer-reviewed arsenic research plan that
includes both short- and long-term research needs. The four
components of that plan are toxicology and epidemiology
studies, analytical methods, a comprehensive assessment of the
risks and the development of treatment technologies for small
water systems.
Senator Reid. They asked for this?
Dr. Noonan. Yes, it was directed by the statute and we have
developed this peer-reviewed arsenic research plan.
Senator Reid. My point is do they have to ask for this
before it comes forward?
Dr. Noonan. Have to ask for?
Senator Reid. If there is a county, for example, that has a
lot of problems with arsenic, do they come to you and ask for
this process or is it done automatically?
Dr. Noonan. We're already field testing some innovative
technologies for removing arsenic from small water systems.
Ours is a research and technology development program, not a
mitigation program in the sense of operationalizing the removal
of arsenic in any existing system.
Senator Reid. My question though is if a water system knows
they have arsenic, how can you help them?
Ms. Dougherty. We can provide technical assistance to the
regional offices as well.
Dr. Noonan. I think on a research scale, we can certainly
provide technical assistance, we can work with them to
understand what the key questions are and where they are, but
from an operational point of view, we're not in a position to
provide technical assistance to every water system that asks
for it.
Mr. Fox. Arsenic is a particularly difficult contaminant.
We are under a deadline in the new law to come up with a new
drinking water standard by the year 2001 which will likely make
the current standard even more stringent, so this will cause
even more treatment difficulties with communities.
As Dr. Noonan suggested, we need to do more research on
what kinds of technologies are affordable to remove arsenic.
Some of the early data suggests that there are clearly some
expensive technologies that are available, but we still have to
find some affordable technologies to make this one work.
Ms. Dougherty. When we put out new regulations in the
future, at the time we put out the new rule, we'll be putting
out what affordable technologies there are for smaller systems
in the different size categories the law requires, along with
any variance technologies if there are some size systems for
which there would not be an affordable compliance technology.
Hopefully we will have all that as well when we put out the new
rule.
Senator Reid. Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to excuse
myself. I appreciate your holding these hearings. We have the
President coming to the Hill and I have to go greet him.
I do very much appreciate your taking over the Idaho seat.
We had good relations with Senator Kempthorne. Some of the best
work we did never got completed. We had a great Endangered
Species Act that we almost got completed. Maybe you can step in
there and get us over the finish line on that.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Senator Reid. I appreciate your
comments and look forward to working with you. We will try to
get that one pushed over the finish line.
Thank you.
I have a lot more questions for this panel but in the
interest of time, what I will do, and all the Senators will
have this opportunity, is submit those questions to the panel
in writing and ask for your response to them. We do need to
bring forward the next panel.
Senator Chafee, unless you have any further questions at
this time?
Senator Chafee. I don't, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Then we will excuse this panel. Thank you
very much for your testimony.
Now I'd like to call our second panel from the stakeholder
organizations: Mr. Gerry C. Biberstine on behalf of the
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators; Mr. Merril
Bingham on behalf of the American Water Works Association; Mr.
Erik Olson representing the National Resources Defense Council;
Mr. Gurnie Gunter on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan
Water Agencies; Mr. Steve Levy on behalf of the National Rural
Water Association; and Mr. Andrew Chapman on behalf of the
National Association of Water Companies.
I would remind each of you that we do operate under a 5-
minute rule for the presentation of oral testimony. We ask you
to try to keep your eye on this clock. If you go over very far,
I'll tap the gavel to try to remind you to wrap up. We have
your written testimony, we have reviewed it and will thoroughly
review it. We want to have as much time as possible for us to
engage in questions and answers.
With that, we will start with Mr. Biberstine on behalf of
the Association of State Drinking Water Administrators.
STATEMENT OF JERRY C. BIBERSTINE, DRINKING WATER SPECIALIST,
COLORADO DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC HEALTH AND ENVIRONMENT, ON BEHALF
OF THE ASSOCIATION OF STATE DRINKING WATER ADMINISTRATORS
Mr. Biberstine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'm the drinking water specialist for the State of
Colorado, Public Health and Environment. I'm representing the
State drinking water programs and the Association of State
Drinking Water Administrators.
First, I'd like to thank you and your committee and the
other stakeholders for the passage of the Safe Drinking Water
Act amendments of 1996. They made some very timely and needed
improvements to the Safe Drinking Water Act. The States fully
believe in and support the direction of the new Act which is
based on public health protection, risk reduction, sound
science and flexibility in funding.
I've been asked to talk today about the progress over the
last 2\1/2\ years and some of the challenges and concepts and
concerns that we're facing in State implementation.
I am pleased to report that significant progress in
implementing the new provisions of the Safe Drinking Water Act
have taken place. All States, as mentioned, presently have a
State revolving fund in place; we've made over 354 loans
totaling over $850 million for improvements to drinking water
systems.
Almost all the States met the deadline requirements to
submit source water protection programs to EPA for their final
approval. The States have produced second compliance reports
and the third one will be out in July. These are reports to the
public on the conditions of drinking water systems across the
country.
We're in the process of capacity development program
formation across all the States and are actively seeking the
administrative penalty authority and strengthening operator
certification requirements.
All these things present an enormous challenge to the State
programs in implementing the Safe Drinking Water Act. We
believe these changes are necessary and will result in a much
strengthened Safe Drinking Water Act and better protection of
public health.
We do know we need the help and assistance of all the
stakeholders who had a hand in the law's creation.
Specifically, the States are concerned about a number of
things, including funding and staff resources for the States,
State input into the regulatory development process; the timing
of the various new programs and other implementation issues.
The States are prepared to begin the process of writing,
adopting and implementing the rules in the 2 years authorized
in the law. Thus, some regulations would be in the initial
stage of adoption, others would be in implementation, others
would be winding down. This was envisioned as a way for the
States to maximize the limited personnel and resources
available to them.
Unfortunately, the timing of several new provisions is
putting States in the position where they must redirect their
resources and personnel before they have even adopted their own
State regulations. The consumer confidence report is an example
where implementation takes place 1 to 2 years prior to State
requirements to adopt the rule. This leads to partial primacy
whereby EPA comes into the State and actually enforces part of
the rule package. This causes confusion among the water systems
and generally is disagreeable to the utilities, the State and
probably the EPA as well.
In order to prevent EPA coming in, the State is basically
forced to redirect their existing resources into programs
earlier than anticipated and away from other needed programs.
The stakeholder participation process is going very well.
There are presently 30 to 40 working groups that State
administrators are working on to involve stakeholders in
regulations, new programs and data management issues. Primary
among those are small system issues which I spend a lot of my
time on.
While this is definitely a drain on State resources, it
tends to lend a greater buy-in and support to the State Safe
Drinking Water Act and the requirements that we are developing.
It does result in some requirements that are more complex and
sometimes overly prescriptive. We think the public input to
rulemaking is very effective but that the implementation issues
need to remain a State/EPA partnership whereby a State's
suggestions and recommendations on how to achieve maximum
efficiency and effectiveness are strongly supported by the
agency.
Funding and staff resources are two additional challenges
that States face. Interestingly, there is an ever-widening
disparity in the State's capabilities to respond to many of
these new requirements. While some States can access and
utilize the many new funding sources that Congress provided, in
some cases other States cannot access that money.
Political issues of using drinking water State revolving
funds for non-capital improvement such as program
implementation is causing some real severe political problems
in some States. In other States where we have either a voter
imposed spending cap or hiring freezes, it causes additional
problems whereby we're forced to go out for contracting for
training, technical assistance and inspections. It is necessary
to ensure that the maximum funding is possible, and the full
funding authorized in the law is made available to the States
for these implementation purposes.
We also feel there are insufficient resources for the
research needs necessary for this Act. EPA shows significant
improvement in the area of acknowledging the research needed
but there is no question it will take more research and more
time than is currently available to include sound science
before we go to rule adoption.
We're concerned that the expectations of EPA and other
stakeholders far exceeds the resources, both monetary and
personnel, available to the States to adopt and implement these
many new provisions.
Senator Chafee [presiding]. Mr. Biberstine, your time is
up, so please plan to wind up soon.
Mr. Biberstine. Over the next 3 to 5 years, we expect at
least 12 new regulatory and rule provisions under the Safe
Drinking Water Act that will significantly impact utilities in
the States. We just want you to understand that the States are
working through it and strongly support the Safe Drinking Water
Act. We want success in all phases of this Act and look forward
to working under the Safe Drinking Water Act for that purpose.
Thank you.
Senator Chafee. Thank you.
Mr. Bingham.
STATEMENT OF MERRIL BINGHAM, PROVO CITY WATER RESOURCES, ON
BEHALF OF AMERICAN WATER WORKS ASSOCIATION
Mr. Bingham. Good morning, Senator Chafee.
I'm director of Public Works for the city of Provo, UT, and
also chair the Legislative Committee of the Water Utility
Council of the American Water Works Association. I'm here today
speaking for AWWA.
I commend the committee for having this hearing today. I
think it is important to take kind of a mid-term checkup on
where we're heading with the Safe Drinking Water Act
amendments. We believe that the amendments of 1996 were a very
important step and that they are not without their major
challenges. We strongly believe that the successful
implementation of the amendments of the 1996 reforms are
essential in providing effective regulations that really
protect public health.
AWWA believes that the EPA Office of Groundwater and
Drinking Water has made a good faith effort to implement the
spirit and intent of the 1996 amendments. EPA has involved the
public in the regulatory process to an extent not equaled by
other Federal agencies and stands as a model for Federal
rulemaking. This exemplary approach to public involvement
should result in better regulations to protect public health.
However, we do have some concerns. Drinking water research
is not adequate to provide the good science necessary to
support new contaminant regulations. The use of best-available,
peer-reviewed, good science is the foundation of the new
drinking water standard-setting process. The Safe Drinking
Water Act amendments will require extensive drinking water
research, particularly in the health effects area.
EPA, in formal research funding projections discussed with
stakeholders, indicates a shortfall to meet drinking water
research needs from fiscal year 1999 through fiscal year 2005
of approximately $20 million a year. Without a substantial
investment on a continuing basis and a research program based
on drinking water regulatory needs, EPA and public water
suppliers cannot assure the American public that the
contaminants selected for regulation are the appropriate ones
and that health standards have been adequately established.
Senator Chafee. You must have heard the Administration
testify they thought they were getting enough money for
scientific research? You were here when they testified earlier,
weren't you?
Mr. Bingham. Yes.
Senator Chafee. What do you say to that?
Mr. Bingham. We just believe there is a shortfall. I think
their testimony would indicate really there is some shortfall.
Additionally, one of our major concerns is that without
investment in a carefully focused research program, we can't
assure our consumers that the limited resources of our
utilities are not being spent on water treatment scenarios that
have little or no health effect benefits.
Each day there are approximately 50,000 deaths in the world
attributed to microbial contamination of drinking water. Much
of this threat has essentially been eliminated in the United
States through disinfection. However, it is now known that
disinfection of drinking water can produce chemical byproducts
some of which are suspected to be human carcinogens or which
may cause other toxic effects.
Controlling risks from these byproducts must be carefully
balanced against the microbial risk to ensure that when
reducing disinfection levels to lower byproduct risks,
significant microbial risks are not created.
The cost to the Nation of disinfection byproduct
regulations under the Safe Drinking Water Act will certainly be
in the billions and could be as high as $60 billion or more
depending on the final rule. An appropriate investment in
health effects research will ensure the cost of regulations
will be commensurate with the health benefit and not driven to
the extremes by lack of data. The cost of research is
relatively minimal when compared to the cost of implementing
this cluster of regulations.
The 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act amendments also require
the development of a comprehensive research plan on the health
effects of low level or naturally occurring arsenic. Since
significant start has not been made on the bulk of the
necessary health effects research, which will take several
years to complete, it is likely that very little of the
necessary research will be completed in time to be used in
developing a revised arsenic standard.
I appreciate Dr. Noonan's stated commitment this morning to
EPA's best effort to keep drinking water research appropriately
ahead of the regulatory curve.
I'd like to speak very briefly on the State revolving fund.
AWWA has a long-term concern that the authorization of the new
drinking water State Revolving Fund may not be adequate to
address all of the needs identified to comply with Safe
Drinking Water Act regulations. According to the EPA needs
survey released in January 1997, between 1995 and 2015, a total
of $138.4 billion will be needed to upgrade the infrastructure
of the Nation's water utilities to meet the requirements of the
Safe Drinking Water Act. Current SRF authorization provides for
only 15 percent of those needs. This figure does not include
other drinking water infrastructure needs such as replacing
aging transmission or distribution facilities which are not
eligible for State Revolving Fund funding.
AWWA studies indicate that the combined need is in the
neighborhood of $325 billion. AWWA does not expect that Federal
funds will be available for 100 percent of the infrastructure
needs for the Nation's water utilities, however, the State
Revolving Fund funding is a major issue requiring future
congressional oversight.
AWWA also believes that it is not too early to begin
exploring some of the issues that may be important during the
next reauthorization of the Safe Drinking Water Act. In our
written statement, we have outlined a few of those issues for
your consideration.
This concludes AWWA's statement on the implementation of
the Drinking Water Act amendments of 1996. We appreciate our
opportunity to testify today and will be happy to respond to
questions or provide additional information.
Thank you.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Bingham.
Mr. Olson.
STATEMENT OF ERIK D. OLSON, SENIOR ATTORNEY, NATURAL RESOURCES
DEFENSE COUNCIL
Mr. Olson. I am Erik Olson, a senior attorney with the
Natural Resources Defense Council and also serve as a
coordinator of the 300-group Campaign for Safe and Affordable
Drinking Water, though I speak today only for NRDC.
I wanted to take just a moment to note that I think we're
in the midst of what really is a historic change in how water
is dealt with in the United States. We call it the third
revolution in how drinking water is provided, the first being
during the time of the Romans when water started being piped,
the second being around the turn of the 20th century when we
started treating water with chlorine, filtering it and using
coagulation and sedimentation.
We're on the cusp right now of significant change, with
major new innovative technologies--some of which have been
around for a while, some of which are new--that will improve
how water is treated, and that will remove a broad spectrum of
contaminants simultaneously.
In addition, we believe part of that revolution is going to
have to be source water protection as well as improvements in
something we haven't heard a lot about today--the distribution
systems themselves. These are the pipes that deliver the water;
increasing evidence indicates the pipes are the source of some
of the microbial and other problems that we continue to find in
our drinking water.
The 1996 amendments will move us toward solutions to some
of these problems, but clearly there are some major challenges
ahead of us. I would like to completely agree with the American
Water Works Association that we need additional resources for
health effects research as well as for treatment technology
research. We believe that EPA does not have adequate resources.
There was an unfortunate court decision that you may know
about that ruled that the SRF set-aside that this committee
wrote into the State Revolving Fund for health effects research
is not a mandatory set-aside under the statute. Therefore,
we're back to the traditional approach, every year going for
appropriations for this research.
We also wanted to identify one extremely high priority area
of research. We think EPA needs to immediately fund which is
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and Agency for
Toxic Substances Disease Registry, to conduct some expedited
research on birth defects from disinfection byproducts. The
research would cost about $.5 million and could be fed into the
negotiated rulemaking that is going forward starting this
month.
We think it is unfortunate that research hasn't been funded
yet. It's a small amount of money. The costs of treatment could
be large. We think it could narrow some of the uncertainties--
although we do believe we know enough to act now--but we think
it's a high priority that needs to be funded immediately.
We also think it is important to have an open process in
planning for the research, as EPA has done in some cases, for
example with disinfection byproducts. We're concerned about how
in other cases, for example in the arsenic area, EPA
essentially sat down with American Water Works Association
Research Foundation and mapped out a research strategy and
there wasn't much public participation until fairly late in the
process.
Finally, we're concerned about an apparent lack of progress
in the research area under a provision this committee wrote
into the Act. This provision requires EPA to do vulnerable
population research, for example, on pregnant women and
children and what the effects of drinking water contaminants
are on those vulnerable populations.
There is a requirement in the Act that EPA report back to
this committee on its progress, and we have seen very little
progress in that area and think it needs to be a high priority
for the agency.
On the right-to-know issue, we would certainly agree that
we need to build public understanding. The new right-to-know
reports that will be coming out will help educate the public
why $138 billion-plus is going to have to be spent on improving
our drinking water supply. We think, however, those reports
alone are going to be insufficient and that the agency needs to
have a major public education campaign to explain what those
reports mean to help the public understand them.
In addition, we certainly support some improvements in how
those reports are issued and in our written testimony have some
recommendations on that front.
In the source water protection area, we think there are
major opportunities there as well to improve, with cost-
effective approaches, ways to reduce drinking water
contamination. We feel a lot of progress can and should be
made, but that it has to be an open public process.
On the State Revolving Fund issue, we believe that the
current Federal resources of under $10 billion that has been
set aside for State Revolving Fund will only make a small dent
in the overall need. Clearly the Federal Government is not
going to pay for all these improvements but we think a long-
term, larger commitment is going to be necessary.
In the standard-setting arena, there are huge challenges
for issuing numerous new standards. We've gone through them in
our testimony but I think the bottom line is that we need to be
thinking about new approaches for how we deal with drinking
water contaminants.
One new approach that we certainly think needs to be
considered is the adoption of broad spectrum treatment in
addition to source water protection, treatment that will remove
multiple contaminants simultaneously so we're not addressing
microbial contaminants today or arsenic today and tomorrow
we're having to address radon or some other contaminant. There
are technologies that can remove most of these simultaneously.
To wrap up, we believe there are some compliance issues,
there are some issues with implementation so far, but we think
EPA largely is on the right track in implementing the new Act,
but the jury is still out on exactly how and what the
implications of that are.
Senator Crapo. Thank you, Mr. Olson.
Mr. Gunter.
STATEMENT OF GURNIE GUNTER, DIRECTOR, KANSAS CITY WATER
SERVICES DEPARTMENT, ON BEHALF OF THE ASSOCIATION OF
METROPOLITAN WATER AGENCIES
Mr. Gunter. I'm the director of the Kansas City, MO, Water
Services Department and I serve on the Board of Directors for
the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies. I appreciate
the opportunity to testify today.
I'm here today to represent AMWA, an association comprised
of the Nation's largest, publicly-owned water suppliers,
altogether serving over 100 million people with clean, safe
drinking water.
Largely through the efforts of the Senate Environment and
Public Works Committee and its counterpart in the House, the
Safe Drinking Water Act was reauthorized in 1996 making sure
that the reforms instituted by the 1996 statute were
implemented is one of many important jobs of the subcommittee.
In the few minutes that I have for oral testimony, I would
briefly like to touch on three issues: the need for research on
future contaminants, the importance of the second stage of the
MDBP rulemaking and last, the essential public information and
cost-benefit analysis required under the 1996 amendments.
Under the 1996 law, EPA is required to develop a list of
contaminants for possible future regulation, study them and
every 5 years make a decision on not fewer than five whether
they should be regulated. In order for EPA to make a decision
to regulate or not, research is essential.
Both the General Accounting Office and the National
Drinking Water Advisory Council have raised the issue that
research funding is estimated to have a shortfall of between
$10-$20 million annually for the next 3 to 5 years to address
the regulation of future contaminants.
Funding the necessary research to support development of
future regulation is a priority for AMWA in fiscal year 2000,
not 2001 and although this subcommittee does not have
appropriations within its jurisdiction, we ask your help in
obtaining the needed dollars to do this research.
Second, later this spring, EPA will begin to develop Stage
II of the microbial and disinfection byproducts rules. Stage II
will look at further reducing disinfection byproducts and
increasing microbial protection. So that the Stage II rules
would be based on more science than was available in Stage I,
EPA and the water supply community committed to providing
millions of dollars to conduct health effects research and
occurrence studies. To date, the Nation's largest water systems
have invested well over $100 million in this data collection
effort. The uncertainties we face without this information
cannot be overemphasized.
Unfortunately, there have been significant delays in
executing the necessary research program. As a result,
negotiations on the second stage of the MDBP rules may begin
without the benefit of studies that are ongoing but not yet
completed. AMWA is committed to looking at the science that is
completed and the treatment that is available. We are committed
to looking at what more can be done now but are also committed
to looking at the research that is underway but won't be
available in the timeframe laid out in the law and asking the
question, what more will we know a year or two from now and
should we ask Congress for more time so that the science can be
completed.
We request that the subcommittee remain open to the option
of altering the compliance date for Stage II of the MDBP rules
should reason dictate.
The 1996 amendments require EPA to present information on
public health effects and to conduct and publish an analysis of
quantifiable and non-quantifiable benefits and costs. This
provision, as indicated, does not require the Administrator to
demonstrate that the dollar value of the benefits are greater
or lesser than the dollar value of the cost but it does require
her to make a determination with respect to the relative cost
and benefits of each regulation when it is proposed.
AMWA urges you to ensure that the letter and intent of the
law are followed and that this analysis is conducted for all
future rulemakings.
EPA is making great strides to implement the requirements
of the 1996 amendments but much remains to be done.
Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, thank you for
the opportunity to testify. I'd be happy to answer any
questions and I met the 5-minute deadline.
Senator Crapo. I noticed that. Thank you very much, Mr.
Gunter. You set the standard for everybody.
Mr. Levy.
STATEMENT OF STEVE LEVY, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, ATLANTIC STATE
RURAL WATER ASSOCIATION, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL RURAL WATER
ASSOCIATION
Mr. Levy. My name is Steven Levy and I'm executive director
of the Atlantic States and Maine Rural Water Association,
serving Rhode Island, Connecticut and Maine. I am here today on
behalf of the National Rural Water Association.
I testified before this committee in May 1990 on financing
environmental facilities. I discussed the plight of the Long
Pond Water Company, a tiny, 160-customer, private, unfiltered
surface water supplier in Sorrento, ME. They faced the daunting
prospect of compliance with the Safe Drinking Water Act which
required them to install a filter plant. Their story
demonstrates the impact of the Safe Drinking Water Act on small
communities.
The company and the town wanted to comply but did not know
how to pay for the $1 million mandate. That mandate came with
no funding and most small towns don't know what to do when hit
by such costs. They did what thousands of other communities do
in other States. They called the Rural Water Association. Each
year rural water associations assist thousands of Long Ponds
handle the onslaught of drinking water regulations.
With Rural Water's help, the town stepped up and accepted
the challenge of bringing that water system into compliance.
With our technical assistance program, they created a non-
profit water district and with our help, secured a $1.5 million
grant/loan from USDA to pay for their new treatment plant and a
standpipe. Average water rates, however, went from about $81 a
year to around $500 per year for that small system.
The point of this story is that small towns will take the
necessary measures to protect their water. However, they need
common sense assistance in a form they can understand. It takes
someone sitting down with them evening after evening, working
with them through the entire process. Giving them a copy of the
Federal Register and a phone number to call is no help at all.
Each time we help a community, they learn how to handle it
on their own the next time. This is the key, encouraging local
responsibility. If the community does not accept and support
measures to protect their water, no amount of regulation will
protect it.
Long Pond's work is not over. The system is now requiring
approximately $1 million of additional funding through the SRF
to replace their antiquated transmission line. This is the case
with small systems everywhere. The flood of new regulations is
increasing--consumer confidence reports, radon, groundwater
rule, operator certification, source water protection,
disinfection byproducts, capacity development, et cetera, et
cetera.
We urge the committee to expand technical assistance under
the Act. We also urge you to expand the capital resources
available to small systems, especially the USDA water and sewer
grant and loan package and the SRF.
Enormous progress has been made in drinking water
protection since the passage of the 1986 and 1996 amendments.
Much of the progress has been made by local people taking local
actions. For example, in Rhode Island and Connecticut, Rural
Water has assisted 44 communities and 13 non-community systems
develop source water protection plans and waiver forms saving
thousands of dollars per system in testing costs.
EPA rulemaking has been especially challenging to our small
public water systems who often lack full-time, trained help and
can't take full advantage of the waivers in the Act. This is
where we come in. In Maine, our staff in the last 6 months has
helped 175 community and non-transient systems complete
wellhead assessment forms and waiver forms for a total savings
of about $186,000.
The way to achieve long-term success in groundwater
protection is to have the people who benefit from a cleaner
environment take responsibility for protecting it. More
regulation will not help poor communities who can't afford
them. Providing resources to the folks at the grassroots level
and recognizing local initiative has resulted in more
environmental improvement than the regulatory alternative,
increased enforcement.
We encourage you to continue in this effort.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Levy.
Mr. Chapman.
STATEMENT OF ANDREW CHAPMAN, ON BEHALF OF THE NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION OF WATER COMPANIES
Mr. Chapman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Andrew Chapman. I am president of the Elizabeth
Town Water Company, an investor-owned water utility serving a
population of 1 million in New Jersey. I am also a vice
president and member of the executive committee of the National
Association of Water Companies, the trade association for the
Nation's investor-owned drinking water utilities.
Our 320 companies in 42 States provide safe, reliable
drinking water for 21 million Americans every day, including
communities in Rhode Island and in Idaho.
We share the comments from the earlier witnesses in terms
of our appreciation for scheduling these hearings. We actively
supported the 1996 Act and our members consider it to be a
great example of how Congress can promote effective
collaboration among diverse interests and produce good results
for the public.
We're also happy to report that based on our experience,
the overall implementation of the Act has been successful. We
commend officials at the EPA for meeting the Act's deadlines,
while involving the diverse stakeholders in the regulatory
process.
There are two issues that our association would like to
bring to your attention. The first relates to the State
Revolving Fund and the second relates to tort litigation in
California which frankly threatens to undermine the system of
uniform national drinking water standards that we all support
and that we have all spent so much time trying to develop.
First, the State Revolving Loan Fund. The plain language of
the SDWA amendments, as well as the legislative history, makes
it clear that Congress intended these funds to benefit all
consumers of public water systems regardless of the ownership
of those systems. The policy was a deliberate departure from
that of the Clean Water Act SRF which provides funds to
publicly-owned wastewater systems only.
EPA has supported this policy change and should be
commended for their efforts to implement the SRF equitably.
However, in spite of these efforts, implementation has been
uneven in the States. According to a recent survey by our
association, only 11 SRF applications have been approved for
NAWC companies since the amendments became effective, for a
total of $40 million across eight States.
Senator Chafee. Just one question. NAWC, is that a private-
owned company?
Mr. Chapman. Yes, NAWC represents privately-owned and
investor-owned companies.
Most significantly, 19 States, through their constitutions
or statutes or official policies, have declared privately-owned
systems to be ineligible for SRF assistance. Presently, the EPA
is considering a policy that would base a State's SRF
allocation only on those infrastructure needs that the State
has determined to be eligible. This makes perfect sense. Why
award an allocation to a State for infrastructure needs which
it has no intention of assisting?
NAWC believes that such a revised policy would be fair for
all water systems and their customers, as well as the States.
We urge the EPA to formally announce such a policy soon. If EPA
concludes that it lacks legal authority, we urge Congress to
make the authority explicit.
Now to the second matter, the tort litigation in
California. We are alarmed by ongoing lawsuits which seriously
threaten the drinking water industry and the water quality
regulatory system under which it has operated successfully for
many years. In California, the plaintiff 's bar has organized
and commenced 11 mass tort lawsuits against several community
water systems, both municipally-owned and investor-owned, for
allegedly delivering contaminated water, even though the
companies claim to have been in full compliance with Federal
and State standards.
As you know, these standards have been developed by
regulatory agencies over many years based on the health effects
of contaminants, measurement capabilities and the feasibility
of treatment. They are the product of extensive debate over the
public health issues and the cost of treatment.
If 12 jurors, after hearing so-called scientific testimony
from so-called expert witnesses conclude that the national
standards are inadequate, water systems all over the country
will need to consider whether to comply with the uniform
standards, or the standards set by the litigation.
Furthermore, the litigation has the effect of frustrating
research about the occurrence of contaminants, which is an
essential part of the regulatory process. There are many of our
member companies who are submitting information to EPA
regarding unregulated substances. That is an essential part of
the regulatory process, but to the extent that this data
available on the Internet becomes grist for the plaintiff 's
bar, companies will be less forthcoming and as a result, sound
science, effective regulation and the public will suffer.
Congress may want to examine more closely the potential impact
of these lawsuits on the national drinking water standards
program as well as possible legislative remedies.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much, Mr. Chapman.
Mr. Chairman, would you like to ask questions?
Senator Chafee. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Unfortunately, I have to leave in about 5 minutes but I
have a couple of questions if I might.
Mr. Bingham, where do you get this figure that $138 billion
will be needed for infrastructure improvements?
Mr. Bingham. I think that is an EPA estimate that came from
their needs study that was completed in 1997, I believe.
Senator Chafee. It is a pretty sobering statistic. I get
the impression from the testimony here and the previous panel
that things are going along pretty well. You each have specific
suggestions and certainly what Mr. Chapman was just talking
about, the possible suits is a sobering thought, but I didn't
know that $138 billion was lying in wait out there for
improvements to the infrastructure.
Mr. Bingham. One of the things that really concerns us is
that this figure does not consider, as I indicated in my
testimony, the need for distribution system and transmission
system replacement which are not eligible at present for
revolving fund funding. That, when coupled with those needs
that are necessary to meet the requirements of the Safe
Drinking Water Act, is sobering indeed.
Senator Chafee. All of you seem to believe that more
research has to be done, suggesting the science include
additional funding. That was one of your points, wasn't it, Mr.
Olson?
Mr. Olson. Yes.
Senator Chafee. Yet you heard the prior panel say that
don't worry, we've got enough funding. What do you say to that?
Mr. Olson. The President has submitted a budget and I
assume that is what they are sticking with. Our concern is that
this is certainly an area Congress needs to take a very careful
look at, and there are pretty clear shortfalls that virtually
everyone has put their finger on, including GAO.
Senator Chafee. What do you say to the point Mr. Chapman
was making about these suits? Supposed someone gets sick
drinking your water, you've complied with all the regulatory
requirements of the State and Federal Governments, and then you
get hit with a lawsuit? You're one of the ones that probably
would be suing.
Mr. Olson. That's right. I think it's a great idea.
Senator Chafee. You're the wrong one to ask.
[Laughter.]
Mr. Olson. At least I'll give you our take. We think there
is a long tradition in anglo-American jurisprudence that just
because you meet a regulatory standard, if someone is injured
because of your activities, even though you meet a regulatory
standard, that shouldn't necessarily be a defense.
Senator Chafee. McPhearson v. Buick, was that the case.
Mr. Gunter, what do you say to that, to the possibility of
these suits?
Mr. Gunter. One of the things we argued for was the
research money and we believe we are going to come up with more
contaminants that are required to be removed from drinking
water, but we need to do it in a good science way.
I think they will have a hard time in court proving that
beyond the regulation, folks are going to have to come up with
anything, but we would like to know, through research, what
else we need to do in order to make sure it's safe.
Senator Chafee. Mr. Levy, I thought what you had to say was
very interesting. Certainly your organization has been of
tremendous assistance as you pointed out to these small water
companies. In some instances, like the one you cited, Long
Pond, their clientele is such that they can afford to go from
$100 to $500, but that's not true with many systems.
In any event, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think this has
been a good panel. I appreciate the opportunity.
Regrettably, I have to leave but I want to thank you for
having this hearing.
Senator Crapo. Thank you.
It looks like I'm going to get to go without a 5-minute
limit since I don't have anybody waiting for me.
I have a number of questions that I'm going to direct to
some of the individuals but if others on the panel would like
to pitch in on some of the answers or have a comment to make,
please indicate and I'd be glad to let you make a comment on
the question I ask.
Mr. Bingham, in your testimony you indicated that one of
the areas we really need to focus on is research to make sure
we have the solid science to back up the regulations. I think a
very solid commitment to good science, which means funding the
necessary research, is probably key to not only solving a lot
of the problems we have with the drinking water statutes but
also with a number of other environmental problems that we
face.
In fact, I think one of the ways we can build common ground
through collaboration to get successes like we've had with the
drinking water statute is through good science. As I looked at
the numbers, what was authorized, what has been funded and read
the testimony of everyone on this panel as well as the
testimony from the EPA, it became evident to me in just this
one area alone, drinking water, we are far below what we need
to be doing.
I guess I'm tossing you an open-ended question. How do you
think we ought to approach this issue of funding adequate
research?
Mr. Bingham. That is a difficult question and I certainly
wouldn't presume to tell you your business because obviously
there are a lot of other needs and you have to take the
resources available and split them as your wisdom would
dictate.
I appreciated Ms. Noonan's expressed commitment to keeping
the research effort ahead of the regulatory curve. While it
might be presumptuous to suggest that regulations be delayed
pending the research being completed that is necessary to
support good regulation and support sound science in making
regulations, that might be a better alternative if the
resources are simply not there than proceeding with regulations
where the science is not available and make sure we're making
good regulations.
It's difficult for me to explain to my consumers increased
treatment costs if I can't also assure them that this increased
treatment cost is really going to buy them better water and
safer water.
Senator Crapo. So with regard to the cluster of regulations
coming due in 2001, if those regulations are generated and
promulgated without solid science behind them, what is the
impact of that incomplete research on the community?
Mr. Bingham. It's hard to say specifically because it
depends on where the final numbers end up but the AWWA studies
indicate the cost of compliance with the disinfection
byproducts cluster of regulations is in the multiple of
billions of dollars and could be as high as $60 billion to
comply with that one cluster of regulations.
Obviously we certainly don't want to make a mistake and
drive the regulations either way, either too high or too low
because we don't have the research in place to support those
regulations. The mistake could be tragic on either side of that
issue.
Mr. Olson. I'd like to add something. I think one lesson we
need to keep in mind is what happened under the Safe Drinking
Water Act prior to the 1996 amendments which was basically
there wasn't much research funded. That was problematic. We
think it would be a mistake to simply automatically start
delaying all the regulations because then there wouldn't be any
incentive to do the research. That was sort of the conundrum we
were in before where we kept seeing delays.
The arsenic standard has not been changed since 1942, for
example. The science that standard is based on is very poor. So
I think if we get into the game of delaying all the standards
because the research isn't done, research is never done. I've
never seen a researcher make a presentation and say, we're done
with the research in this area. I think we need a balancing
act, but starting to delay the rules for which we already have
deadlines would be a formula for a real problem.
Mr. Bingham. I just want to make it clear that I'm not
suggesting that it would be a good thing for the regulations to
be delayed. I think we need to hold our collective feet to the
fire to make sure the research is done in time to support good
science-based regulations. I hope I didn't imply otherwise.
Senator Crapo. I appreciate both comments. Mr. Olson, maybe
I'll pursue with you the question of cost benefit.
As we talk about research and how far it can take us in
terms of analyzing the health risks and the contaminants, there
has been testimony in this panel and I've seen it on many other
occasions where the argument is made with our ever increasing
ability to detect more and more minute contaminants, we go from
parts per million to parts per billion to parts per trillion,
the argument is made that we approach a point at which there is
a de minimis level of contaminant left. It's sometimes put in
the context of saying we're identifying contaminants below the
level they naturally occur in the environment or below a level
where there is any reasonable health risk benefit in addressing
them at those levels.
Do you accept that argument and is there a point, do you
believe, that science should be able to show us, if we do the
necessary research, where we don't have to literally eradicate
the level of contaminants beyond the point of their natural
occurrence in the environment?
Mr. Olson. My answer would be there of course is a level
for many contaminants at which we're no longer worried about
them and we shouldn't have to remove them.
As you know, in the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking
Water Act, there are some extremely carefully crafted cost-
benefit provisions that apply to certain rules, that don't
apply to other rules, that were negotiated by many people in
this room into the wee hours of the night. I think they are
very delicate and we haven't yet really seen how they work.
We're optimistic that they can work and we've got a couple
of rules coming up, including last Friday a radon assessment
came out. I haven't had a chance to look at it but I think
there will be in the next year or two, several examples we can
evaluate as to whether the Act is really working or not.
Senator Crapo. Whether we're actually getting the right
balance?
Mr. Olson. Right.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Levy, I know you had some comments in
your testimony about the impact on small systems in terms of
the very rigid rules that require cleanup beyond even the
levels of what is natural. Is that correct and would you like
to comment on this issue?
Mr. Levy. I'd love to comment. For the last 20 years, I've
been working with small towns in three States much like the
small towns that you represent. I have yet to see a small town
that did not want to comply and provide the safest drinking
water possible but they also had to be able to afford it. This
is the dilemma that faces small communities throughout the
country, they want to do the best they can, they want to meet
all the standards and they have small communities and limited
pocketbooks and a limit on how much they can do.
We represented a very tiny water system, 24 customers and a
small private school which had just spent $750,000 on a
treatment plant. I was out with the superintendent and the
media because they had a level higher than another water
district on trihalomethanes which is a disinfectant byproduct.
The report said, don't you think your customers deserve as good
a water as that system.
He said, we just spent $.75 million, what else can we do. I
think that's the thing I'm faced with everyday when I work with
these small towns.
Senator Crapo. In that context, you submitted with your
testimony the reprint from USA Today which raised the question
of whether we really are getting the drinking water in this
country clean. The thrust of that article was that there is not
very good oversight and that results in a high risk of drinking
water violations.
I note Administrator Browner responded by saying 85 percent
of the public is getting water from a system that does not have
a violation. There is a bit of a debate underway as to what is
the level of protection of our drinking water in the country
today.
Mr. Levy indicated that a lot of the violations and a lot
of the concern that we see here is related more to process than
to the regulatory system itself, in other words, we may have
procedural violations out there as opposed to actually
representing a risk to the quality of the water being consumed.
Am I correct?
Mr. Levy. Yes.
Senator Crapo. The question I'm proposing is in this
country do we have reasonably safe drinking water or not, Mr.
Olson?
Mr. Olson. I would say most water systems in the United
States provide pretty safe drinking water. That's our view.
We've said that repeatedly. However, there are many water
systems that are providing water that doesn't meet the
standards. That is what the USA Today piece was about.
There are two sets of violations, the procedural ones, or
for example, failing to test the water for contaminants. Those
are called monitoring violations. Then there are the actual
violations of the health standards. I believe the number is
around 30 million people are served by water systems per year
that fail to treat their water in accordance with EPA health
standards or that fail to comply with EPA maximum contaminant
levels.
Senator Crapo. Those are actual health risks?
Mr. Olson. Those are the health standards and then there is
debate about is it the entire system that is affected by that
violation or is it a subset. Those are the rough numbers.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Levy, State and Federal agencies do have
overlapping primacy responsibilities as new regulations are
implemented until the States receive the authority from the
Federal Government. Does this present a problem for the small
systems, the fact the States don't get primacy until later on
in the process?
Mr. Levy. I hate to answer a question with ``It depends,''
but I will answer this question and say, ``It depends.''
With the surface water treatment rule, for example, the
State of Maine did not have primacy over that rule during most
of the 1990's, which meant that the systems we were
representing, who had surface water that needed to filter, were
dealing with EPA and not the State of Maine. We felt the State
of Maine had a better understanding of what they needed.
However, they did not have primacy over that rule and that did
present certain difficulties.
The State of Maine now has primacy over the surface water
treatment rule and that confusion has been eliminated. However,
now we're looking at the consumer confidence reports which have
been discussed quite a bit. The three States we're working in
do not have primacy over that rule. In other words, we're
dealing with EPA. Because of that, there are limits on guidance
and understanding, on how this rule is going to be implemented.
I think that is creating confusion.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Bingham, I thought you had some very
good suggestions for oversight with regard to resources that
are being provided as well as the series of questions or issues
that were at the conclusion of your testimony relating to areas
we need to address as we approach the next reauthorization of
the Safe Drinking Water Act.
I think all of them were very interesting and may form a
basis from which we could conduct some additional and helpful
oversight. One I wanted to ask you about is you raised the
question can safe drinking water be provided through a
regulatory system in which the EPA sets broad health goals and
local communities have the flexibility to choose how to meet
those goals.
Again, in a number of environmental arenas, one of the
issues that comes up is Federal control versus State and local
control. It seems to me that simply the fact you raised that
question should cause us to address whether a better approach
would be to have the Federal Government set the broad
objectives or maybe even the standards but let the standards be
met on an individual basis by the local communities.
Do you think the Safe Drinking Water Act in its current
form has the flexibility if properly administered to achieve
that objective or do we need to make some structural changes if
we wanted to approach that type of regulatory policy?
Mr. Bingham. I don't think there's any question that the
Safe Drinking Water, as amended in 1996, provides for more
local control. I don't know that it goes so far as to provide
the opportunity for Federal guidance, that is the general
standards being set at the Federal level and then the local,
State and even municipalities and other privately- and
publicly-held water utilities meeting those standards as they
can.
The intriguing thing about that is I think that kind of
circumstance would represent a fertile breeding ground for
innovative technologies and innovative approaches to meeting
those standards. It would not be without its problems. I think
oversight, the opportunity to make sure the local agencies were
rising to that challenge, to make sure they were not cutting
corners, to make sure they really were meeting those general
guidelines as established by the Federal Government, that kind
of oversight would have to be in place. We believe there may
well be some interesting opportunities in the future for that
kind of an approach.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Biberstine, the deadline for the States
submitting programs for source water assessments passed in
February and the deadline for completing the local source water
assessments and delineations is May 2003, if I understand the
statute correctly.
The question I have is what is the impact of the early rule
implementation? What I mean is, how does this affect State
regulatory primacy?
Mr. Biberstine. In a way that's two different questions.
Senator Crapo. Go ahead and answer them both.
Mr. Biberstine. Source water protection I think started out
a few years ago with groundwater protection programs and is
moving smoothly I think in most States to look at sources of
contamination prior to treatment, protecting the water supply
before it is used as water. I think most States welcome that
effort and it's going to be a very widespread effort.
It's not so much that we have a primacy issue related to
source water protection, it's a program we're required to have
and implement over a period of time. I think there is enough
flexibility that will allow the States to pretty well do that
job in a timely manner.
It's not a program where EPA would come in and take over
the source water protection program, as they do in other areas,
if the State had not adopted rules and regulations in a timely
manner, which is where the utilities tend to get confused. In
that case, do they respond to EPA, do they respond to the State
and how do you switch back and forth over that.
The State implementation is usually much smoother than
Federal implementation, especially related to small systems. So
the States prefer not to have Federal action or have EPA step
in to implement rules just because implementation dates are set
prior to when the State has to adopt them.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Gunter, you indicated with regard to the
necessary research funding, that is a big priority for AMWA. In
our previous discussion about research, it appears to me that
there is a very significant gap in terms of the resources we
have available and the research that needs to be done.
I'm curious if you have a suggestion as to how we should
approach it right now other than to simply try to beef up the
research dollars available in the Federal system as much as
possible. How are we going to address the entire need?
Mr. Gunter. First of all, I think it's going to require
some discussions on our part, and I mean all of us on the panel
with EPA, to try to get them to realize it is very important to
us that they increase that portion of their budget. We are in
conversation with EPA and we're doing that.
We're bringing the issue to Congress in order to get you to
take a hard look at what we're saying and recognizing what Mr.
Olson was saying about they have priorities and we will try to
get them to change those priorities, but if they don't, we
would appreciate it if you would get them to change those
priorities.
Senator Crapo. I can assure you one of my priorities is
environmental research, not just on drinking water but in
general. I think there may be a need to develop a very strong
renewed commitment at the Federal level for environmental
research. We've had a lot of research in the National Institute
of Health, human health research. Does anyone of the panel
know, does a significant amount of the drinking water research
get benefited by the NIEHS, National Institute of Environmental
Health Sciences?
Mr. Olson.
Mr. Olson. One of the areas we think EPA could leverage
more research is by working with NIEHS which does have a pretty
active environmental research program. Very little of it is
targeted to specific drinking water research. The same is true
of the Agency for Toxic Substances, Disease Registry down in
Atlanta and the Centers for Disease Control, all of which have
some research on drinking water.
I think there is a need for better integration of these
programs. For example, both CDC and ATSDR want to do, at a very
low cost, some research that EPA could fund jointly for a lot
less than they could pay for if they had to go outside the
Federal Government.
Senator Crapo. So we have CDC, the ATSDR, the NIEHS and the
EPA.
Mr. Olson. And NCI.
Senator Crapo. And NCI. Is that where we need to look in
general at least as to the way we are currently structured in
approaching environmental research in the company?
Mr. Olson. There is also several other institutes at NIH
that have active programs; the National Institute for Allergy
and Infectious Disease would be another potential partner I
don't think EPA has done much outreach to.
Senator Crapo. There's been some discussion and I don't
know if this is a good idea or not, but I think we have to at
least talk about the options. There's been some discussion
about trying to bring under one roof the various efforts to
approach environmental research. Anybody want to comment on
that suggestion?
[No response.]
Senator Crapo. No one is going to jump on that one? All
right.
Mr. Chapman, I too was very concerned about the issue you
raised with regard to the tort litigation in California. Could
you please give me a little more background on the current
status of the case? If I understood your testimony, the case is
sort of in abeyance right now while there is some PUC activity
underway or did I read that wrong?
Mr. Chapman. That's correct, Senator. There are 11 cases
pending in California and in March 1998, the California PUC
stepped in and essentially said, we're responsible for
regulating drinking water in California, it's really not a
State court issue, it's properly a PUC issue and they are
conducting their own investigation on this matter.
That investigation is still open. It's not clear at this
point what the resolution will be obviously, or what the legal
effects would be on the litigation when that investigation is
done.
Senator Crapo. Do I also understand correctly that these
cases relate to allegations against drinking water providers
who are meeting Federal and State drinking water standards?
Mr. Chapman. That is correct.
Senator Crapo. So the allegation is that unrelated
contaminants are harming people who are consumers of this
water?
Mr. Chapman. That's correct, regulated and unregulated
contaminants, and the defendants in the cases are not only the
drinking water purveyors, both municipal- and investor-owned,
but also the supposed generators of these substances. So there
is a whole basket of defendants in these cases. The industry's
concern is that when you look at our business, there is a fair
amount of order. There always has been a fair amount of order.
There's been order in the standard-setting process, there is an
effort about supporting the standard-setting process with sound
science and so forth.
The outcome of this litigation could be simply to upend all
of that and that is our concern.
Senator Crapo. I think that is a very valid concern and I
can tell the chairman was very concerned and interested in that
as am I. So we will look into this issue. It is a very
disturbing trend if it were to become a trend.
Mr. Olson. Senator, may I speak to that.
Senator Crapo. Yes.
Mr. Olson. As you probably know, there is a movie out now
called ``A Civil Action'' and the controversy around Toms
River, NJ, and other locations. I think this committee needs to
keep in mind the situation where there are examples of a mother
with a kid that has leukemia, whose child may have gotten
leukemia because of a contaminant in the drinking water that
EPA hasn't gotten around to regulating.
The traditional approach has been that the Safe Drinking
Water Act and other environmental statutes are baseline
minimum, and the States are free to go above that minimum.
That's always been the case in the Safe Drinking Water Act. It
is certainly our very strongly held view that we should stick
with that approach of a Federal floor and if the States choose
to go beyond that, that's fine.
Our concern is that we not see a situation where parents
are barred from protecting their kids for illnesses they may
have gotten from contaminated water, because we know there are
a lot of contaminants out there that are not regulated by the
Federal Government or that are poorly regulated.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Chapman, is the allegation negligence in
these lawsuits?
Mr. Chapman. Essentially, yes, plus strict liability under
product liability theory, and the contaminants involved are not
only materials that are unregulated but also regulated. Let me
describe a bit the kind of chicken and egg problem we have with
this.
Using testing technology, we always find things in the
water before we really know whether they are bad for us, before
there are regulations and before we really figure out the
technology to get rid of these materials. I think there is a
history among the water purveyors in this industry, certainly
in the NAWC companies, of erring on the side of safety. There
is a culture in these companies that puts, frankly, drinking
water quality and safety at the top of the list.
The way that process has worked in the industry is there
has been a fair amount of information exchange among the people
who run these plants, the vice presidents for water quality and
all the various associations and so forth about what's coming
down the pike and if there are contaminants that have come up
suspected of being a problem and so forth. The reaction by the
industry is basically, change the source, solve the problem,
lead the regulation. I know our company does that all the time.
The difficulty with this litigation is that public
discourse within the industry could end up getting snuffed out
because, all of a sudden there will be this perceived liability
on all these issues. That really has our water treatment
professionals very concerned.
Senator Crapo. If the lawsuits are based on negligence,
then it seems to me there would have to be a showing that
someone, a purveyor or provider of water, or someone who caused
a contaminant to get into the water, knew about it, knew it was
harmful or at least didn't take reasonable precautions to
prevent it and so forth, would you agree with that, Mr. Olson?
Mr. Olson. I haven't read all the complaints in these cases
but these suits are not easy to win. I think what will happen
is that it will become clear that in only a very narrow set of
cases will these suits be won where there is some degree of
proof. Generally, there is a causation test in most State law.
Generally, you have to make several elements of proof in order
to win a case like this, and as we saw in Woburn, MA, and
elsewhere, it doesn't happen easily. Generally, a case like
this is only going to be filed I think if there is a strong
degree of proof. If there isn't, they are going to lose.
Senator Crapo. The proof would be of some type of
negligence?
Mr. Olson. Not necessarily negligence, it's a question of
State law. Different States have different requirements. Some
have other tests for strict liability, in some cases for
abnormally dangerous activities for other areas.
Senator Crapo. Mr. Chapman.
Mr. Chapman. I agree with Mr. Olson's comments on causation
as well. It's not altogether a strict negligence standard but
again, take it to the real world. The real world is this
subject and the health-related issues are being discussed all
the time by the purveyors. Frankly, reasoned decisions are made
all the time on basically taking sources in and out of service,
whether a particular treatment methodology will solve a problem
and so forth.
Then you, after the fact, through the litigation process,
come back and revisit all of those deliberations. The fact is
those decisions are being made without the research having been
done, they are being made by professionals trying to do the
right thing, then all of a sudden, through the litigation
process, you're coming back and revisiting all of those
decisions years after the fact based on information known at
that future date, not the information known at that time. So it
puts the purveyor in an extremely difficult situation.
Senator Crapo. I appreciate the discussion we've had on
this. It's a difficult issue. We do want to be sure those who
are wronged in society do not lose their right for civil
redress. By the same token, we want to be sure that we don't
create a standard by which there is no way to avoid liability
in a strict liability sense where we could actually injure the
health of our society at large by discouraging activities that
would help increase public health.
It's a difficult policy line and it's certainly an issue
that if these suits proceed, will need to be addressed.
I assume you were all listening when we had EPA before us.
I asked a question with regard to variances. The information we
received is that no variances have been granted to small
systems by the EPA to date. The question I have is, is that
because the EPA is just not granting variances or is it because
variances aren't being requested, or for some other reason.
To the whole panel, does anyone here know whether there are
small systems in the country requesting variances?
Mr. Levy.
Mr. Levy. I can only share the experience of my work in
three States and I'm not aware of anyone in any of the three
States who has asked for one. Typically, the areas where
variances may be necessary, people tend not to have problems.
One of the areas in which we would like to have seen a
variance was possibly in the surface water treatment because it
was so expensive for so many small systems, but variances are
not allowed under that rule. There were none for that.
Senator Crapo. I don't know the law well enough to
understand why there aren't variances allowed for that rule.
Mr. Levy. I believe it was in the law, there were no
variances on the surface water treatment.
Senator Crapo. The statute itself provided that particular
set of rules would not be open to variance. Anybody else know?
Mr. Biberstine.
Mr. Biberstine. Most of the States I'm aware of have not
had any small systems apply for variances. One of the issues is
that under the new rules, it requires innovative technology to
go into place. At this point, there are no identified
innovative technologies from EPA to be used in that case.
Generally the cost of a variance under the old requirements
was such that it was too expensive to implement for a variance.
I would say no, there are very few variances anyplace in
existence at this point.
Senator Crapo. When you refer to the innovative
technologies, is that a term of art? Is that something the EPA
is supposed to be identifying and making known and available or
is that just something the stakeholders need to identify
themselves and propose to the EPA for a variance?
Mr. Biberstine. EPA, for each of its rules, is required to
identify innovative technology for small system compliance.
Since the existing technologies may be too expensive for a
small system to use, they are supposed to identify them. We're
still in the process of new rule promulgation. I expect we will
see more of that going on. At this point, EPA in their
statement said there is no innovative technologies available at
this time.
As we get into rules such as the arsenic rule and the radon
rule, I think they will probably be identifying innovative
technology. States have been using alternative technologies for
small systems for years. In fact, the States actually have a
protocol on identifying alternative technologies for compliance
purposes for small systems. So in that aspect, it is in use.
It's just not official.
Senator Crapo. Anybody else on that question?
Mr. Levy.
Mr. Levy. Three of the Senators have mentioned the need of
alternative technology for small systems and there has also
been a lot of discussion about research. I think there is a lot
of room for growth in terms of developing research projects and
innovative technology to help small systems comply with the
variety of rules. Not only is it necessary to work on this type
of technology but there also needs to be a means of informing
systems of its existence and how to use it.
Senator Crapo. I did want to get into the issue of cost-
benefit analysis. The 1996 reauthorization tried to institute
the principle of cost-benefit analysis into the Safe Drinking
Water Act. The question I have is has that been successful? Are
we in the process now of seeing a success story generate where
we can see how cost-benefit analysis should be done? Is it
working? Are we getting that principle instituted in such a way
that we are truly getting the most bang for the buck and
getting good results for the lowest cost?
Mr. Biberstine. From my perspective at the State level,
we've not seen enough rules generated using the cost-analysis
aspect yet to know how well it's being used or whether it's
going to be effective. I think over the course of the next
couple of years with the many rules coming out, we will get a
much better feel for it. At this point, it's kind of a gray
area yet as to where it's going.
Senator Crapo. So we're not far enough along to answer the
question yet?
Mr. Biberstine. That's my feeling, yes.
Mr. Chapman. We're also watching it and we're particularly
watching it in the context of the promulgation of the radon
MCLs and the cost-benefit analysis shows reasonably equivalent
costs and benefits under a fairly wide range of potential MCLs.
The issue we're wrestling with is whether the dollar spent
on the radon rule at whatever level is set is best spent by the
drinking water community to alleviate the prevalence in
drinking water or whether it should be done on the air side and
just indoor air, getting it out of basements and so forth, does
that get you more bang for your buck.
I would urge as we go through this process that we look at
resources generally.
Senator Crapo. Rather than limiting it simply to drinking
water or air quality or whatever the issue may be.
Mr. Chapman. Right and that the opportunity is going to
vary tremendously from substance to substance.
Senator Crapo. Is that what the 1996 reauthorization did in
the Drinking Water Act or is the cost-benefit analysis in the
Safe Drinking Water Act simply related to drinking water?
Mr. Olson. As a general matter, it's a drinking water
analysis that is done. I think radon is the one exception to
that.
Senator Crapo. Other comments?
Mr. Bingham. I was going to say, ``I think one of the
gentlemen on the earlier panel alluded to the very difficult
challenge represented sometimes by cost-benefit analysis
work.'' I saw a paper recently on the cost-benefit analysis of
radon regulation and one of the numbers it listed which was
fairly constant over the range of proposed MCLs was a cost per
cancer death avoided. As I recall that number was in the $5-$6
million range.
I think what Mr. Chapman alluded to is, is that cost
reasonable when weighed against the other risks associated with
radon? For example, with the ambient air, and those become
very, very difficult questions. If you're the guy who gets
cancer, that number is probably reasonable but when you look at
$5-$6 million to avoid a death, and compare it with the other
risks associated with radon, then the analysis, in my mind, is
very, very difficult. That's a very difficult call and I think
that's one of the challenges that EPA will face as we begin to
set those contaminant levels, even giving due consideration to
cost-benefit analysis.
Mr. Gunter. The point we were trying to make in our
testimony is that it's a part of the law, it's a very, very
difficult thing to do, and it's probably going to be different
in every regulation that they write, but that's a cop out if
they say they can't do it because every agency is required to
come up with some parameters they can use that we can generally
agree on to use as a basis of benefit-cost ratio. We're willing
to work with them on every regulation to set those parameters
and to agree on what they ought to be in order for us to at
least have some measure to go by.
Senator Crapo. You just raised another issue but there is
an argument made that a part of the entire cost-benefit
analysis needs to be the impact on health of taking resources
away from a community. So it is not just a cost benefit in
terms of how much is it going to cost and what is it going to
mean to public health in a particular arena but what is it
going to do to public health if we take these dollars from this
use and put them over to this use, within the government or
take these dollars away from this family and put them into
government use in reducing this particular health risk.
Is that all a part of the analysis that is going on now?
Mr. Biberstine. No, it's not.
Mr. Olson. It's too early to say but certainly one concern
is that those are very speculative things to look at. How do
you know if money doesn't go into this, it's going to go into
something else. Some of our concern about how cost benefit has
been done in the past is that there is a fair amount of
speculation that's necessary to complete a cost-benefit
analysis and there is only so much weight you can put in a
document that is by necessity going to be somewhat speculative.
Senator Crapo. I would think that would be true across the
board. I would think cost-benefit analysis would be very
difficult to do in a precise objective manner, but the
speculative aspects of it are issues, as Mr. Gunter says, that
we've got to address and we've got to deal with because even
though they may not be able to be quantified, that doesn't mean
they are not real.
I'm curious how it's going to work out. Maybe we'll have
another oversight hearing on that issue as we get further down
the line and see what we can find.
Thank you all for coming today. We will probably have
further questions to respond to and would each of you be
willing to respond in writing to further questions?
Mr. Gunter. Yes, sir.
Senator Crapo. Thank you very much. This panel is excused.
Since we have no further business before the committee,
this hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 11:29 a.m., the committee was adjourned, to
reconvene at the call of the chair.]
[Additional statements submitted for the record follow:]
Prepared Statement of J. Charles Fox, Assistant Administrator, Office
of Water, and Norine Noonan, Ph.D., Assistant Administrator, Office of
Research and Development, Environmental Protection Agency
introduction
Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the opportunity to address the
committee today. We are pleased to be able to discuss the Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA's) implementation of the Safe Drinking Water
Act Amendments of 1996. We would like to describe the progress that we
have made in carrying out the new amendments, and in changing how we do
business. EPA has been working in partnership with the entire drinking
water community to implement the legislation, and we believe that
together we can be proud of our accomplishments to date.
Two and a half years ago President Clinton signed into law
amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) passed by Congress.
The bipartisan cooperation among this committee's members provided
critical leadership to enact effective and workable changes to the law.
The Amendments were well-crafted and widely supported, as shown by the
unanimous Senate support for their passage. Congress and the
Administration agreed to make some significant changes in the Act to
increase public health protection while controlling costs, and EPA and
its partners in the drinking water community have spent the last two
and a half years making those changes a reality.
We have completed every action required of us to date. These
actions have provided a solid foundation of guidance and assistance for
States, water suppliers, and the public as they take the next steps in
implementation. At the same time we are planning for the future, to
ensure that we will be able to meet the challenges of providing safe
water into the future. I would like to discuss both our successes to
date and highlight some of the challenges that we face over the next
several years.
The 1996 Amendments made significant changes in how the SDWA works,
emphasizing cost-effective public health protection through regulatory
improvements, increased funding, prevention programs, and public
participation. A focus on risk-based priority-setting means that EPA
will decide which contaminants to regulate based on data about the
adverse health effects of the contaminant, its occurrence in public
water systems, and the projected risk reduction. The Amendments also
expanded the role for consideration of benefits and costs in standard
setting and implementation. Also, States now have greater flexibility
to implement the Act responsibly to meet their specific needs. Funding
is significantly increased through higher State drinking water program
grants and a new multi-year, multi-billion dollar Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF) for infrastructure improvements for water
systems. In addition, new State prevention initiatives were created and
funded, including a source water assessment program, which will give
States and water suppliers information they need to prevent
contamination of a community's drinking water source, thereby better
enabling them to add an extra layer of defense to the current treatment
options. Finally, the Amendments recognize that effective drinking
water protection must be founded on a base of government accountability
and public understanding and support. 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 accountability in decision-making.
The 1996 Amendments also acknowledge that drinking water protection
must be a shared effort across the entire drinking water community. EPA
has used this concept to guide implementation of the new statute.
Through our stakeholder process, the drinking water community has come
together to work through a number of issues. We have greatly expanded
the SDWA-authorized National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC)
through a series of working groups on issues ranging from small system
needs to a new approach to benefits assessment. All participants should
be commended for their efforts.
success in implementing the amendments
Developing State and Local Programs
The success in implementing the 1996 Amendments will be determined
as much by our partners in the States, water systems, and public as by
EPA. We have made great strides in this effort over the past 2\1/2\
years.
Funding is necessary for States and water systems to implement the
new requirements of the Amendments. I am pleased to announce that all
50 States and Puerto Rico received their first Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund capitalization grant from the fiscal year 1997
appropriations, 32 States have received their fiscal year 1998
capitalization grant, and Arizona has received its fiscal year 1999
capitalization grant for a total to date of $1.696 billion. Continued
federal capitalization will help us meet our long-term goal of the
Drinking Water State Revolving Funds providing about $500 million in
annual financial assistance to help communities ensure safe drinking
water supplies. In order to address important drinking water needs,
several States are leveraging their federal grants or considering
transfers from their Clean Water State Revolving Funds to increase the
amount of funds available to finance needed infrastructure projects. I
believe that this is a remarkable achievement. Before passage of the
1996 Amendments, there was no drinking water loan infrastructure
program at the national level. Now States have provided more than 350
loans to water systems to improve their ability to provide safe
drinking water.
Congress also provided flexibility by allowing States to reserve a
portion of their DWSRF grants to fund a number of programmatic set-
asides, and States have taken advantage of that flexibility.
Approximately 20 percent of the States' fiscal year 1997 capitalization
grants and 13 percent of the fiscal year 1998 capitalization grants
have been used to fund set-aside programs supporting State drinking
water programs, source water assessment and protection efforts, and
measures to enhance the technical, financial and managerial capacity of
drinking water systems.
Recognizing that preventing contamination of the source water is
the first step in the multiple barrier approach to drinking water
protection, the Amendments require States to complete assessments of
the source water for all public water systems within the State. In
1997, EPA issued a source water assessment and protection guidance,
developed through a NDWAC working group, to assist States as they
developed their programs. Almost all States submitted programs by the
statutory February 6 deadline, and the others are on schedules to do so
shortly. All States took the DWSRF set-aside that will help them fund
the assessments.
Implementation of the source water assessment and protection
provisions will benefit from another Administration initiative, the
Clean Water Action Plan. The Clean Water Action Plan brings together a
wide range of federal agencies in support of clean water, including
sources of drinking water. In October, federal agencies signed an
agreement to support States as they conduct their source water
assessments.
The 1996 Amendments created capacity development tools to support
drinking water systems in acquiring and maintaining the technical,
financial, and managerial capability to plan for, achieve, and maintain
compliance with drinking water standards. Last summer EPA released
guidance, developed with the assistance of a NDWAC working group, to
help States work together with water systems to carry out new capacity
development provisions of the law, including a requirement that States
have authority to prevent the formation of new public water systems
that lack the capability to operate and manage a drinking water system
that is in compliance. States must also implement a strategy to help
existing systems develop the capability to operate and maintain their
system and ensure long-term compliance. States have been working very
hard on these provisions, and most States have developed, or are
developing, their programs to ensure new system capacity. We have seen
many creative, well-thought-out programs.
Earlier this month EPA released its final operator certification
guidelines. The final guidelines provide States with the minimum
standards for the development, implementation, and enforcement of
operator certification programs for community and nontransient
noncommunity public water systems. These were also created with the
assistance of a NDWAC working group, and will help ensure that all
water systems have trained, qualified operators. Many States already
have some type of operator training, so I am confident that States will
develop these programs within the statutory time frame.
We have also moved forward in implementing the several provisions
which benefit small drinking water systems. In 1997 EPA released a
listing of alternative technologies that small systems can use to
achieve compliance with existing drinking water standards. The DWSRF
requires that a percentage of loans go to small water systems, and
provides a set-aside for technical assistance to small systems. A large
percentage of the loans given out to date--initial estimates are nearly
50 percent--have gone to small systems, and forty-seven States have
taken the technical assistance set-aside. EPA has also funded small
public water system Technical Assistance Centers in nine States.
Finally, EPA issued regulations implementing the new small system
variance procedures of the Act, and National Affordability Criteria
that EPA will use in determining whether to list small system variance
technologies. Affordable compliance technologies have been identified
for all current standards, so no variance technologies have yet been
listed.
Standard-setting
In the area of new drinking water standards, the Amendments laid
out four major areas of work for EPA: completing priority rulemakings
for contaminants named in the law; improving the science and data
supporting rulemakings and risk management decisions; establishing a
new process to make determinations on future standards that includes
explicit consideration of the costs and benefits of proposed standards;
and, reviewing existing standards. We are moving forward in all of
these areas.
Last November, President Clinton released the Interim Enhanced
Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) and the Disinfectants/
Disinfection Byproducts Rule (DBPR). These rules were among Congress'
highest priorities in 1996 Amendments. The two rules, which between
them will provide additional protections for nearly all Americans who
use public water supplies, both protect from microbiological
contamination and address the risk trade-offs with disinfection
byproducts. The IESWTR will protect persons who get their water from
large water systems drawing from rivers, lakes, and streams by
addressing, for the first time, Cryptosporidium, and tightening water
treatment plant performance requirements. The DBPR complements this
rule by addressing potential health threats that may be related to the
disinfection process itself. It strengthens standards for
trihalomethane, establishes new drinking water standards for seven
disinfectant byproducts and three disinfectants, and requires treatment
techniques to further reduce exposure to disinfection byproducts.
We have tried very hard to incorporate SDWA's ethic of public
involvement in our rulemakings. I am proud to say that EPA developed
these complex rules by using an extensive stakeholder involvement
process, which included an advisory committee and numerous public
meetings. As a result, we have two widely supported and understood
rules that strengthen public health protection. We are now beginning a
new round of discussions on the second phase of these rules, which will
incorporate the results of the microbial and disinfection byproducts
research that is currently ongoing.
EPA has also established a new process for standard-setting based
on the greatest risks to health. The Amendments require EPA to make a
regulatory determination on at least five contaminants by 2001. Using
recommendations from the public, the scientific community, and a NDWAC
working group, EPA established its Contaminant Candidate List, to aid
in this determination, and to help set priorities for the Agency's
drinking water program. In establishing the list, EPA has divided the
contaminants among those which are priorities for additional research,
those which need additional occurrence data, and those which are
priorities for consideration for rulemaking. To provide sound
occurrence data, EPA is developing its National Contaminant Occurrence
Database, which will provide information on the occurrences in drinking
water of specific contaminants. Finally, EPA will begin development of
a process for reviewing the current drinking water standards.
At a time of great debate over the right framework for
environmental and public health regulation, Congress and the
Administration reached agreement on how to strengthen the consideration
of cost and benefits in drinking water standards while continuing to
ensure that health protection is maintained. Under the Amendments, EPA
must conduct more extensive cost-benefit analyses for each regulation,
and the Administrator may exercise new flexibility to ensure cost-
effective standards based on these analyses. EPA is working with its
stakeholders, through a National Drinking Water Advisory Council
workgroup, to improve our cost-benefit tools to enable us to carry out
this new approach. In February, EPA released the Health Risk Reduction
and Cost Analysis as part of the rulemaking process for radon. The
radon rule will be the first rule that uses SDWA's new cost-benefit
framework.
Consumer Confidence Reports
The 1996 Amendments include a strong and pervasive ethic of public
information and involvement. EPA has worked hard to incorporate this
ethic by providing stakeholders with multiple opportunities to provide
input into our rule development and implementation activities, and we
are very proud of our efforts.
The Administration believes that every American has the right to
know about their environment, and consumer confidence reports are the
centerpiece of the right-to-know provisions in SDWA. SDWA requires
water systems to provide these annual reports to their customers on the
state of their drinking water supply. The information contained in
these reports will enable Americans to make practical, knowledgeable
decisions about their health and their drinking water. Last August, EPA
finalized its rule specifying the requirements of these reports. All
water systems are required to issue these reports by this October. Last
fall we formed the Public Right-to-Know working group of the NDWAC to
discuss how to increase public knowledge of these reports. I would like
to recognize the efforts of the many water systems who are working to
make these reports an important new means to communicate with the
public and build partnerships with their consumers.
challenges
While I believe that we have been very successful in implementation
to date, I realize that we have many challenges as well. The biggest
single challenge over the next four to five years for the drinking
water community as a whole, including EPA, is simply the cumulative
number and size of the tasks we face. With greatly heightened efforts
internally, with strong financial support from the Administration and
Congress, with energetic and extensive cooperation from States and
stakeholders, so far EPA has been able to produce--virtually all on
time--durable and effective implementation products required by the
law.
But from here, it gets harder for everyone. The regulatory products
required of EPA over the next four to five years will need not only to
continue to address the intent of their respective provisions in the
law and the fundamental concerns of stakeholders, they will also need
to be supported by a growing base of research and data that will be
costly for EPA and demanding of stakeholders. States, water systems and
other stakeholders will not only continue their active participation in
helping EPA develop these new regulatory products, they will also have
the burdens of implementing the new regulations and programs already
developed since 1996. EPA, in turn, will have the additional
responsibilities of assisting with, and overseeing, this implementation
as the law specifies.
All of us in the drinking water community, including EPA, will face
difficult choices on how to balance our efforts and resources to
address all of the requirements under the law. Other key challenges
flow from this most basic challenge. As we face the task of setting new
drinking water standards, EPA must make sure that we have the science
and information we need to make good, well-founded regulatory decisions
on these standards. The Administration and the Congress increased
funding for drinking water research shortly after passage of the 1996
Amendments. Much of the increase for health effects research has
supported the M/DBP rules. We have developed a long-term research plan
in support of the rules, and are working with many partners, such as
the National Institutes of Health and the Centers for Disease Control.
We would like to express appreciation to the National Institute of
Environmental Health and Safety for their assistance as we conduct the
research in support of our rulemakings. To meet the statutory
requirements and deadlines for the new rulemakings, we must initiate
research and data collection to evaluate the contaminants on the
Contaminant Candidate List and to undertake the six-year review of
existing standards. Under the 1996 Amendments, EPA is also required to
establish a National Contaminant Occurrence Database that is available
to the public. In fiscal year 2000, we will begin to shift resources to
support research of contaminants on the Contaminant Candidate List. Our
challenge is to balance these research needs over the next several
years to ensure that we have the science we need to make sound
regulatory decisions.
A third challenge is the issue of data quality. Accurate
information about the quality of our drinking water and its compliance
with drinking water standards is vital to establishing new rules,
evaluating the success of our programs, judging compliance trends and
establishing priorities, and providing the public with information
about drinking water quality. We have made great progress in making our
information about drinking water quality available to the public. We
have also found in doing so that the old adage applies: namely, that if
you make data widely available, you must be exacting about the quality
of that data, and you may need to improve it. We have recently had that
experience with drinking water violations data in our Safe Drinking
Water Information System (SDWIS). As we made SDWIS data available on
the Internet, water systems pointed out errors in the information. We
have developed with our stakeholders, and are implementing, a data
reliability action plan to characterize and correct the data quality
problems and put in place a long-term process to ensure data newly
entered is correct.
drinking water research
Drinking water continues to be one of EPA's highest priority areas
of research because of the public concern with drinking water safety
and the need to: enhance our understanding of the health effects of
chemical and microbial contaminants in drinking water; reduce
uncertainties in the assessment of exposure and risks to these agents;
and, develop more cost-effective methods of water treatment for both
large and small systems in the U.S. EPA's total annual investment in
drinking water research in recent years has doubled, growing from a
level of $20.8M for the Office of Research and Development (ORD) in
fiscal year 1995 to $41.5M in the fiscal year 2000 President's Budget.
To respond to the critical research needs and requirements
identified in the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, EPA's
drinking water research program has focused on the high priority
science needs in the areas of health effects, exposure, risk
assessment, and risk management. The scientific quality of EPA's
research activities has been ensured through the development of peer-
reviewed research plans for Microbial Pathogens and Disinfection By-
Products (1997) and for Arsenic (1998), along with a strict adherence
to the peer-review process for all technical and scientific products. A
number of the important underlying scientific issues that are of
concern to the drinking water program are also being addressed through
the EPA's core research program to improve health risk assessment.
EPA has strived to meet the extensive research demands of the 1996
Amendments by establishing new drinking water research partnerships
with other federal agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention and the National Institute for Environmental Health
Sciences, and with outside research organizations such as the American
Water Works Association Research Foundation. By strengthening the
extramural research grants program, known as the STAR program, in
drinking water, EPA has been able to substantially increase the
involvement of the academic community in helping to solve the many
difficult research challenges faced by the Agency.
Research on Microbial Pathogens and Disinfection By-Products
EPA's research activities on microbial pathogens and DBPs in
drinking water are consistent with the highest priorities identified in
the Research Plan for Microbial Pathogens and Disinfection By-Products
in Drinking Water. This research program represents hundreds of
projects to support more informed risk management decisions for the
Stage 1 and Stage 2 DBP rules and the new microbial rules that apply to
surface water and ground water.
Microbial Pathogens.
EPA research on waterborne pathogens in recent years has provided
new information and methods to better characterize and control the
risks posed by microbial contaminants in drinking water. Studies to
determine the infectious dose of two important waterborne pathogens,
Cryptosporidium and Norwalk virus, have demonstrated that exposure to
low levels of these agents in drinking water may cause infection in
healthy humans. Less conventional treatment methods such as membrane
filtration and alternatives to chlorination (e.g. ozonation) have been
evaluated to determine their effectiveness in removing or inactivating
waterborne pathogens. New technologies have been developed for
increasing the operational efficiency of treatment processes to control
microbial and chemical contaminants, and new methods for monitoring and
predicting disinfectant concentrations in the distribution system have
been developed to help ensure the safety of drinking water delivered at
the tap.
Current areas of emphasis include research to determine the nature
and magnitude of waterborne disease in the U.S., and the development of
simple inexpensive and accurate detection methods for well-known
waterborne pathogens such as Cryptosporidium and for emerging pathogens
such as microsporidia. EPA researchers are also developing cost-
effective water treatment systems for small systems, and are conducting
research to better understand how microbial intrusion into the
distribution system occurs and can be prevented.
Disinfection By-Products.
In the area of disinfection byproducts, EPA has been a leader in
development of an expanding scientific data base to assess DBP health
effects. New and improved tools for conducting toxicology and
epidemiology research on these substances are being applied to better
understand the mechanisms by which effects occur in laboratory animals
and humans, and to characterize the nature and magnitude of the problem
in both the general population and in subpopulations that may be more
susceptible to harm. In addition to the long-standing research program
addressing the carcinogenic potential of DBPs, a major new investment
has been made to better understand whether adverse reproductive,
immunological, or neurologic effects may also be of concern.
As with microbial issues, DBP methods development is an essential
focus both to improve occurrence information, and to expand our
knowledge about what DBPs are formed from different treatment
processes. To address these needs, EPA is developing analytical methods
to support large-scale exposure surveys and facilitate regulatory
compliance monitoring. Researchers are also applying highly sensitive
analytical techniques to identify previously uncharacterized by-
products that are formed with the use of alternative disinfectants.
Finally, EPA is conducting a range of studies to determine the
effectiveness of various treatment processes in minimizing and
controlling the formation of DBPs, with a special focus on the needs of
small systems.
Research on Arsenic
The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 mandate that EPA
promulgate a new regulation for arsenic by January 2001, and develop a
plan for long-term research. EPA has designed and initiated
implementation of a research plan which describes high priority
research activities to address key areas of scientific uncertainty.
Researchers at EPA are conducting studies to better characterize the
toxicity of arsenic and the factors that influence human
susceptibility. Improved analytical methods are being developed to
better distinguish toxic forms of arsenic in the diet and in biological
materials. Another important area of research is the development of
arsenic treatment technologies for small water systems.
Research on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL)
As mentioned previously, the EPA has established a Contaminant
Candidate List (CCL) to aid in priority setting for the Agency's
drinking water program. Contaminants in the Regulatory Determination
Priority category are considered to have sufficient data available, or
data that can be quickly collected, to evaluate both exposure and risk
to public health and will be considered for regulation by August 2001.
Contaminants listed under the Research or Occurrence Priorities
category require additional data for making a determination. To
determine the specific data needs in each of these categories and to
prioritize contaminants for research, the Agency initiated the
development of a strategic research plan for the CCL in May 1998. EPA
has been working on a more refined plan that will identify research
needs and priorities for all chemical and microbial contaminants on the
list. The types of needs addressed by the plan include information on
the health effects and occurrence of CCL contaminants, as well as
validated analytical methods and effective treatment technologies.
A three-phase approach is being used to define the data needs for
contaminants on the CCL. The current CCL represents the results of a
Phase I analysis in which the available data on a particular
contaminant were evaluated to determine if and in which category it
should be placed on the list. In a Phase II screening-level analysis,
minimum data set requirements are established to evaluate the adequacy
of available health effects data, analytical methods, occurrence
information, and treatment removal potential. Contaminants on the CCL
are subjected to intensive research efforts in Phase III to develop
more robust data sets in each of the areas described above.
Research on a number of critical contaminants on the CCL (e.g.,
MTBE, sulfate, and waterborne microbial pathogens such as Norwalk
virus) is already being conducted by EPA, and general solicitations
have been made under the Agency's external grants program. Additional
Phase II and III research needs for CCL contaminants will be addressed
beginning in fiscal year 2000, following the priorities outlined in the
CCL research plan that is currently under development.
Looking to the Future
EPA is conducting a detailed, comprehensive analysis of research
needs and resource requirements to address the entire spectrum of
drinking water research issues in the future. This analysis includes an
examination of the needs for DBPs, arsenic, chemical and microbial
contaminants on the CCL, and substances for which national drinking
water standards have already been established but must be reevaluated
in the coming years. EPA will seek the guidance of the Agency's Science
Advisory Board, outside experts and the drinking water stakeholders to
make sure that the highest priority needs are being addressed in the
most sound scientific manner. Another key to meeting the research
challenges of the future will be to continue to leverage capabilities
and resources with other Federal agencies, the drinking water industry,
academia, and other outside organizations. We are confident that by
following this path, we will ensure that future drinking water
regulations and risk management decisions will be focused on the most
important public health problems and based on the best available
science.
conclusion
In 1996 the Administration and Congress gave the American people a
sensible and comprehensive law to protect public health. The law
dramatically increased the effort needed from all members of the
drinking water community, and challenged each of them by giving them a
key role in ensuring the safety of our nation's drinking water
supplies. I am happy to report that all participants have accepted this
challenge. Implementation of the Act is moving forward very
successfully. In the past two years, EPA and its partners have created
a framework that embodies the principles of the 1996 Amendments, and
developed many of the tools necessary to provide cost-effective public
health protection into the 21st Century.
______
Responses of Charles Fox to Additional Questions from Senator Crapo
Question 1. Have stakeholders communicated to you their reaction to
the research budget request? Where their comments considered in the
development of the funding plan?
Response. The EPA has received a number of comments from
stakeholders regarding the adequacy of the drinking water research
budget. Some of these comments have indicated concerns that the budget
is inadequate to meet the extensive near-and long-term regulatory
needs, particularly in the areas of health effects research, small
systems technologies, and analytical methods development. In assessing
the resource needs for fiscal year 2000, EPA determined that the
overall level of funding requested was adequate to meet the near-term
requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments in a
timely and scientifically sound manner. The specific priorities within
the funding plan reflect careful consideration of the comments provided
by the stakeholders. We are committed to working closely with
stakeholders to conduct a comprehensive evaluation of research needed
to support the longer-term requirements of the wide range of regulatory
activities facing the Agency in the coming years. This comprehensive
evaluation will inform the Agency's future budget requests.
Question 2. The fiscal year 2000 request calls for a reduction in
research spending from $4.4 million to $2.8 million for the arsenic,
radon, and sulfate rules. Is this funding reduction appropriate to meet
this mandate?
Response. The discontinuation of funding for fiscal year 1999
Congressional earmarks in the fiscal year 2000 budget request accounts
for a decrease in this area of approximately $1.5 million from the
fiscal year 1999 enacted level. When this is taken into account, the
fiscal year 2000 budget request actually shows a steady level of
funding from the fiscal year 1999 enacted. All of these funds will be
used to address important research needs for arsenic. No additional
research is considered necessary to meet the mandates for the radon and
sulfate rules.
Question 3. The Needs Survey estimates that public water system
infrastructure requirements over the twenty-year period from 1996-2014
total $138 billion. Is the EPA on track to address those needs through
SRF? If other sources are envisioned, could you outline those?
Response. Of the $138 billion in need identified in the Needs
Survey, only $12.1 billion is needed now for compliance with the SDWA.
EPA believes that this need is the appropriate target for the Drinking
Water State Revolving Loan Fund (DWSRF). Other needs identified in the
Needs Survey include distribution piping replacement, new storage
tanks, and treatment for contaminants that cause unpleasant tastes or
odors.
Congress authorized $9.6 billion for the DWSRF through fiscal year
2003. In addition to the DWSRF, other federal agencies make funds
available for drinking water infrastructure improvements. The most
significant include Water and Waste Water Loans and Grants from the
Rural Utility Service in the Department of Agriculture and the
Department of Housing and Development's Community Development Block
Grants. When the DWSRF was proposed, the Administration did not
envision that EPA or the federal government would fulfill the entire
need. EPA also anticipates that many projects will be funded locally.
Question 4. The Needs Survey only estimates costs for complying
with current standards, not future ones. How would you estimate the
additional infrastructure needs to meet future regulations?
Response. The Needs Survey includes costs for some recently
promulgated, but not yet effective, regulations. Of the $138 billion of
capital improvements identified by the 1995 Needs Survey, approximately
$14 billion were related to the costs of the Disinfection Byproducts
Rule (DBPR) and the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
(IESWTR). These rules protect against microbial contaminants and by-
products of disinfection. Cost estimates for these regulations were
taken from Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) conducted by EPA. These
costs were based on EPA's best knowledge of existing infrastructure and
on estimates of the paths most likely to be adopted by water systems
reaching compliance. These cost estimates are approximate, and should
not be considered as accurate as the cost estimates for existing
regulations derived from the Needs Survey.
EPA does not have cost estimates for other future rules because the
precise method of regulation has not been set. The 1999 Need Survey
Report to Congress is due in February of 2001. This report will include
cost estimates for other new rules, including Radon, Radionuclides,
Arsenic, and improvements for treatment of microbiological
contaminants.
Question 5. If new information shows that a standard is more
stringent than needed to achieve a targeted level of protection, do you
interpret the statute as allowing the EPA to permit a higher numerical
value that maintains the same level of public protection?
Response. Yes, under certain circumstances. Scientific
understanding of the health effects of drinking water contaminants is
continually evolving. Similarly, information concerning the occurrence
of potential drinking water contaminants is improving. Data and
information about both the health effects and occurrence of drinking
water contaminants will be thoroughly examined as EPA fulfills the
statutory requirements of Section 1412(b)(9) of the Safe Drinking Water
Act which requires that National Primary Drinking Water Regulations
(NPDWRs) be reviewed, and revised as appropriate, every 6 years.
In carrying out these provisions, EPA will also adhere to other
relevant statutory requirements in this context, including the
requirements that Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) be set as close as
feasible to the Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) [Section
1412(b)(4)(B)] and that revised drinking water regulations provide for
equivalent or greater human health protection than the regulations they
replace (Section 1412(b)(9)). An example of a situation that would
represent a clear cut case of an NPDWR that would warrant a higher
numerical value would be where new information indicates that the MCLG
should be revised upward to a level greater than the current MCL. Under
these circumstances, a higher MCL (than the current standard) would be
appropriate.
Question 6. What funding levels are you requesting under the
following categories: Operator Certification, Wellhead Protection,
Small System technical Assistance?
Question 7. Do you envision these activities being funded by set-
asides in the DWSRF?
Response. EPA has not requested specific funding under any of these
categories. However, we believe that adequate funding exists through
the DWSRF set-asides and other sources, and EPA is encouraging States
to implement these programs using DWSRF set-asides.
Operator Certification. The DWSRF provides two sources of funding
for operator certification activities. First, a State may set aside up
to 10 percent of its allotment for State program management, which
includes activities related to operator certification programs. States
reserved $38 million (3 percent) from their fiscal year 1997 grants to
fund activities under this set-aside, which also includes activities
related to the public water system supervision, source water protection
and capacity development programs. States are required to provide a 1:1
match for funds reserved for this set-aside.
The second avenue of funding is from a national set-aside that the
Administrator may take from the annual appropriation of DWSRF funds.
The Administrator can set-aside funds to provide grants to States for
the reimbursement of the costs of training operators of small water
systems serving fewer than 3,300 persons. EPA is currently evaluating
alternatives concerning the funding for operator certification for
small systems and will be publishing a future Federal Register notice
requesting comments.
Wellhead Protection. A State may set aside up to 15 percent of its
capitalization grant to fund a variety of other State activities, which
can include assistance for development and implementation of wellhead
protection programs, source water protection programs (fiscal years
1996 and 1997 only), and capacity development strategy implementation.
A State can direct no more than 10 percent of the grant for any one
activity eligible under the set-aside. States reserved $136 million (11
percent) from this set-aside in fiscal year 1997. Most of the funds
($111 million, 9 percent) were reserved to conduct source water
assessments of ground water and surface water sources of drinking
water, an activity which could only be funded using the fiscal year
1997 appropriation. A portion of the remaining funds was directed
towards wellhead protection. We anticipate seeing a greater amount of
funding from this set-aside directed towards wellhead protection in the
future as States move to implement protection measures for ground water
sources of drinking water in source water protection areas.
Small System Technical Assistance. EPA did not request specific
funding under Section 1442(e) for small system technical assistance,
because current funding levels far exceed the $15 million authorized
under this section. In fiscal year 1999 EPA is also managing $9.555
million for significant technical assistance and training initiatives
for small water systems using Congressionally earmarked funds. The
Rural Community Assistance Program is receiving $1.555 million in
fiscal year 1999. The National Rural Water Association is receiving $8
million for the Drinking Water Training and Technical Assistance
Program and the Wellhead/Ground Water Protection Program. States may
also take a set-aside from the DWSRF for technical assistance to small
systems. States set aside 1.6 percent, or $20.2 million, of their
fiscal year 1997 capitalization grants for this purpose. States that
have received fiscal year 1998 funds have set aside approximately the
same percentage.
______
Responses of Charles Fox to Additional Questions from Senator Graham
Question 1. What is EPA doing to ensure that small water systems
have the technical and financial resources necessary to comply with new
drinking water regulations?
Response. EPA is committed to ensuring that all Americans served by
regulated water systems, regardless of the size of their water system,
receive the public health protection benefits envisioned in the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA), as amended. The Agency recognizes the
significant challenges faced by small water systems in achieving SDWA
compliance. We have a variety of initiatives underway designed to help
ensure that small water systems have the technical and financial
resources necessary to comply.
The capacity development provisions of the 1996 SDWA amendments
offer a powerful tool for ensuring that small systems acquire and
maintain the technical, financial, and managerial capacity they need
for SDWA compliance. EPA has been working with the States, small water
systems, technical assistance providers, and other stakeholders to
implement these provisions in the most effective manner possible.
Working with our stakeholders we have developed appropriate guidance
and information to assist the States in developing programs to ensure
that new systems demonstrate adequate capacity prior to start-up and
that existing systems receive assistance in acquiring and maintaining
technical, financial, and managerial capacity. We have established a
Small Systems Team within the Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water
to provide programmatic focus on small systems issues. That team has
established a network of coordinators in each of EPA's 10 regional
offices.. Through this network we are working directly with the States
to assist them in developing programs to enhance and ensure small
system capacity. Within the past year we have provided direct, detailed
technical assistance to about two dozen States who requested it. Our
focus has been on assisting States to fashion programs suited to their
unique circumstances and taking advantage of the full range of
flexibility offered by the SDWA amendments.
Closely related to Capacity Development is the Drinking Water State
Revolving Fund (DWSRF). EPA is providing States with a total of nearly
$2.8 billion for fiscal years 1997-1999, with which they are
capitalizing their own drinking water revolving funds. These DWSRF's
provide financial assistance to systems for compliance with SDWA
objectives. At a minimum, States are required to target at least 15
percent of their assistance to small systems. Information from the
States show that, to date, over 50 percent of loans made have gone to
small systems. DWSRF assistance to systems generally takes the form of
loans at or below market interest rates. States have the option of
offering additional subsidies, including forgiveness of principal, to
systems they determine to be disadvantaged. States also have the option
of setting aside funds from their DWSRF to support a number of SDWA
priority initiatives including capacity development, operator
certification, and source water protection, all of which will help
small water systems improve their public health protection. Finally,
States may also take an additional optional set-aside from the DWSRF
for technical assistance to small systems. States set aside 1.6
percent, or $20.2 million, of their fiscal year 1997 capitalization
grants for this purpose. States that have received fiscal year 1998
funds have set aside approximately the same percentage.
EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water manages a
significant technical assistance and training initiative for small
water systems using Congressionally earmarked funds. The Rural
Community Assistance Program is receiving $1.555 million in fiscal year
1999. Working through their six regional affiliates they cover all 50
States. They are providing on-site technical assistance to small water
systems helping these systems assess their needs, prioritize their
needs, and develop and assist in implementing a plan of action
including steps necessary for compliance with SDWA. The National Rural
Water Association conducts two major projects. The first, funded at
$4.2 million in fiscal year 1999, is the Drinking Water Training and
Technical Assistance Program which reaches the 48 contiguous States and
Alaska. Through this program rural water system staff receive classroom
training and on-site training. The second program is the Wellhead/
Ground Water Protection Program, funded at $3.8 million in fiscal year
1999. This program covers the 48 contiguous States, and helps systems
complete the five-step wellhead protection program with on-site
technical assistance.
EPA has also established a network of Technology Assistance Centers
to assist small systems with technical issues. These centers provide a
wide range of services including development of training materials and
assessment of technologies. The centers are located at the University
of New Hampshire, Pennsylvania State University, Charles County
Community College, Western Kentucky University, University of Missouri,
University of Alaska Southeast, California State University, Montana
State University, and the University of Illinois.
For sometime the EPA's Office of Research and Development (ORD) has
conducted a significant amount of research to help small communities
cost-effectively provide drinking water that meets national drinking
water standards. While much of this research has been conducted in
association with specific communities, the overarching objective is to
provide research information that can be applied to small community
problems in general.
For example, in 1989, a small systems technology initiative was
launched that consisted of cooperative efforts among EPA, water utility
management, and equipment manufacturers to field demonstrate cost-
effective technologies that were appropriate for use by small
communities. One such study was in the King's Point subdivision of
Suffolk, Virginia. This three-year study showed that reverse osmosis
point-of-use (POU) treatment units were the best alternative for the
community to reduce naturally occurring fluoride in their water. The
results from this study provided information supporting the inclusion
of centrally managed POU treatment as a compliance option in the 1996
SDWA amendments.
ORD is also evaluating innovative technologies such as pulsed UV
and integrated electrotechnology inactivation of Cryptosporidium, a
water-borne pathogenic protozoan.
A spiral-wound ultrafiltration membrane package plant, bag filters,
cartridge filters, and onsite oxidant generation are technologies under
study at our research facilities in Cincinnati. Also, the Environmental
Technology Verification (ETV) program being administered by ORD is
providing small communities with verified cost and performance data for
treatment technologies that address common small community problems
such as microbials, particulates, and disinfection byproducts.
As ORD provides technical assistance and does research on small
system issues, many reports and peer-reviewed journal articles are
produced. These documents are used by other organizations such as the
National Drinking Water and National Small Flows Clearinghouse at West
Virginia University to help small systems. In addition, internal ORD
documents such as a small systems resource directory has provided
information on research and contacts that can provide assistance.
Technology Transfer documents include: Drinking Water Treatment for
Small Communities, Wastewater Treatment/Disposal for Small Communities,
Wellhead Protection: A Guide for Small Communities, and Optimizing
Water Treatment Plant Performance Using the Composite Correction
Program.
Question 2. How is EPA working with the States to allow appropriate
flexibility in implementation, as allowed for in the Act?
Response. States are extensively involved in the development of
guidance, policies, and regulations. States are given an opportunity to
not only help shape the policies as they are being developed but are
also provided a chance to review and comment on the policies at various
stages of their development. Often a State/EPA workgroup is formed to
provide a forum for States and EPA to discuss issues and recommend
approaches to addressing them. For instance, State/EPA workgroups were
formed to help shape the drinking water State revolving fund program
and to develop operator certification guidelines. Other times, EPA
develops a working group of representatives of EPA, States, and other
stakeholders to provide advice on regulations and emerging policies. To
get this advice, EPA has greatly expanded the SDWA-authorized National
Drinking Water Advisory Council. EPA has created several working groups
of the Council to provide input on specific EPA actions, including
consumer confidence reports, operator certification requirements,
capacity development strategies, the contaminant candidate list, and
source water assessment and protection programs.
EPA recognizes that State programs vary widely and that a ``one-
size-fits-all approach'' is not the best way to manage the national
drinking water and ground water program. The extensive State
involvement in the development of our policies and regulations has
helped identify areas where greater flexibility is needed and, as a
result, where the statute allows flexibility, our policies, guidelines,
and regulations have left some room for States to tailor programs to
meet State specific needs as well as national requirements.
For example, the operator certification guidelines allow States to
develop their own method for classifying water systems and to specify
the training that is required for operators within each classification.
The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) guidelines allows
States to develop their own system for prioritizing infrastructure
projects as long as it meets the minimum criteria specified in the Safe
Drinking Water Act. It also allows States to decide the amount and type
of set-asides to take from the DWSRF capitalization grants, up to the
limits specified in the statute. The alternative monitoring guidelines
allows States to modify the monitoring requirements of public water
systems depending on the vulnerability of the system to contamination
and if a source water assessment was completed for the system.
State and local flexibility is a hallmark of the Congress' and
EPA's intended approach to the Source Water Assessment and Protection
Program, both in regards to how these programs are designed and how
they will be used. In guidance to the States, EPA provided considerable
flexibility for States to choose what methods and benchmarks they will
use to: establish source water protection areas; identify significant
potential contamination sources in those areas; determine the
susceptibility of the public water supply to these identified potential
contamination sources; and provide such information to the public. The
source water assessment results will also provide the information
necessary for water systems to seek help from States in protecting
source water, or initiating local government efforts. States may use
set asides in the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund to protect source
water (1 ) if they choose to adopt source water petition programs to
voluntarily reduce existing contamination, (2) to develop or continue
other types of source water protection programs, which can focus on
preventing contamination, or (3) for loans for certain source water
protection activities.
Another example is in capacity development. EPA's capacity
development guidance to States was designed to give States the maximum
flexibility to meet the requirements of SDWA to develop and implement a
program to ensure that drinking water systems have the technical,
managerial, and financial capacity to provide water that meets EPA
public health standards. States are taking full advantage of this
flexibility. For example, South Dakota enacted specific statutory
changes authorizing their Secretary of Environment and Natural
Resources to issue rules establishing what new water systems would have
to demonstrate. The State has promulgated regulations requiring new
systems to obtain a Certificate of Approval, which requires systems to
complete a business plan review, an operations and maintenance manual,
a construction inspection, and a notice of completion. The State of New
York took a very different approach to the new systems issue. They
built their program around a variety of already existing statutes and
regulations. Their program involves close coordination among a number
of different State agencies, including the New York State Departments
of Health, Environmental Conservation and Public Service and the Office
of the State Comptroller. New systems in New York demonstrate capacity
during their application for water supply, their plan and specification
review, and for privately owned systems during their proposed rate
review.
Question 3. How does EPA implement guidance documents developed to
assist States and the regulated community as opposed to regulations?
Response. Regulations contain mandatory requirements and deadlines
that States and public water systems must comply with. Guidance
documents are developed to provide assistance to States and water
systems but do not contain mandatory requirements. The Safe Drinking
Water Act Amendments of 1996 required EPA to develop guidance, not
regulations, for States in many areas. States are mandated by the Act
to meet certain requirements in these areas, and the EPA guidance
provides assistance with ways to meet those requirements. In most
cases, as with the Source Water Assessment and Protection Guidance and
the Capacity Development Guidance, EPA provides substantial technical
and financial assistance to States to implement their programs.
EPA has also developed guidelines that States must follow in order
to receive a drinking water State revolving fund grant or to not be
subject to statutory grant withholding provisions for operator
certification and capacity development. EPA developed these guidelines
with extensive State input and the guidelines are designed to provide
States with an overall framework to use while still allowing for
considerable State flexibility.
Question 4. How is EPA evaluating the costs and benefits of radon
reduction in drinking water vs. ambient air?
Response. Costs and benefits of reducing radon in drinking water
were published in the Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (HRRCA)
in February 1999 for various radon levels. EPA also developed two
implementation scenarios, one assuming 50 percent State participation
in Multimedia Mitigation (MMM) programs and one assuming 100 percent
State participation in MMM. The cost per life saved through reducing
radon in drinking water is estimated to be $5.9 to $11 .3 million
(depending upon the radon level selected), compared to $700,000 per
life saved through reducing radon in indoor air.
Background
Drinking Water Costs--Capital and O&M costs were
calculated for systems, based on typical estimated design and average
flow rates.
Drinking Water Benefits--The calculated health benefits
are attributable to the reduced incidence of fatal and non-fatal lung
and stomach cancer cases. Value of a Statistical Life (VSL) estimates
were applied to each fatal cancer avoided which involves inferring
individuals' implicit tradeoffs between small changes in mortality risk
and monetary compensation. Willingness to pay (WTP) to avoid chronic
bronchitis was used to estimate the WTP to avoid non-fatal lung and
stomach cancers.
Indoor Air Costs and Benefits--MMM program costs were
estimated by multiplying the cost per fatal cancer case avoided
($700,000) by the number of fatal cases avoided in reducing radon in
drinking water from the AMCL (4,000 psi/l) to each of the lower levels
analyzed in the HRRCA. As expected, the annual costs of implementing
MMM are, on average, significantly lower compared to reducing radon
exposures in drinking water alone.
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Report--The report confirmed
that indoor air contamination arising from soil gas typically accounts
for the bulk of total individual risk due to radon exposure. Radon in
domestic water generally contributes a small proportion of the total
radon in indoor air.
______
Responses of Charles Fox to Additional Questions from Senator Boxer
Question 1. As you know, my children's health provision of the 1996
amendment required EPA to consider the risks drinking water
contaminants presents to children and other vulnerable subpopulations
as it sets standards for those contaminants. How is this provision
being implemented? For example, in the proposed analysis for radon
health risk reduction issue in this past Friday, how were risks to
children's health considered?
Response. Current Office of Water Approaches--The Safe Drinking
Water Act was enacted in 1974 by the United States Congress. In 1986,
Congress updated the program to set mandatory guidelines for regulating
key contaminants. The Section 1412 of the SDWA requires EPA to publish
Maximum Contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) and promulgate National Primary
Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) for contaminants that may cause any
adverse effect on human health and that are known or anticipated to
occur in public water systems. The MCLG for each contaminant is to be
set at a nonenforceable level at which ``no known or anticipated
adverse effect on the health of persons occur and which allows an
adequate margin of safety''. The NPDWR is to include enforceable
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) that are to be set as close to MCLG
as possible with the consideration of other factors such as treatment
technology.
The 1996 SDWA amendments stipulated that, in establishing maximum
contaminant levels (MCLs), the Agency should consider ``the effects of
the contaminant on the general population and on groups within the
general population such as infants, children, pregnant women, the
elderly, individuals with a history of serious illness or other
subpopulations that are identified as likely to be at greater risk of
adverse health effects due to exposure to contaminants in drinking
water than the general population.'' On April 21, 1997, the President
signed an Executive Order (13045) that ordered agencies to provide an
evaluation of the environmental health or safety effects on children in
planned regulations that are economically significant.
EPA's Office of Water has historically considered risks to
sensitive populations in the determination of the MCLGs. EPA generally
reviewed all available data and asked the following questions for each
contaminant:
1. Is there information which shows that the contaminant causes
effects in the developing fetus or impairs ability to conceive and bear
children?
2. Is there information which shows that the contaminant causes
other noncancer systemic effects? If so, are children or other
vulnerable subpopulations more likely to be affected by it than the
general population?
3. Is there information which show the contaminant causes cancer?
The MCLG for each specific contaminant is then established based on
the available evidence of carcinogenicity or noncancer adverse health
effects from drinking water exposure using EPA's guidelines for risk
assessment. For carcinogens, when a linear low dose extrapolation is
used, the MCLG is set at zero. For noncarcinogens, the MCLG is based on
a quantitative reference dose (RfD) derived from the no-observed-
adverse-effect level (NOAEL) or a lowest observed toxic endpoint
(developmental/reproductive or other systemic effect) with uncertainty/
modifying factors. An uncertainty factor of 10 has usually been applied
for additional margins of safety for sensitive subpopulations. The
safety factor is employed where there is uncertainty concerning
differences in intra-species (i.e., within the human population)
responses to a particular contaminant. Such a safety factor can be
reduced where definitive intra-species dose-response information exists
for the contaminant being considered. However, currently ``the
sensitive subpopulations'' is not further divided into subcategories
such as children.
Special efforts are now in progress to ensure that the
aforementioned policy and statutory requirements regarding sensitive
subpopulations and Executive Order 13045 protecting children from
environmental health and safety risks are followed in establishing
drinking water assessments, advisories or other guidance, and standards
for various contaminants. The efforts that have been made for radon,
specified in this inquiry, are described below.
Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis (HRRCA) for Radon in
Drinking Water--As a part of 1996 SDWA amendment requirements for
radon, EPA completed its HRRCA for radon in drinking water on February
5, 1999. (The HRRCA was formally published in the Federal Register on
February 26, 1999.) The purpose of the HRRCA is to provide a factual
analysis of the costs, risk reduction benefits, and other impacts of
controlling radon levels in drinking water, and to obtain public
comments. Although the HRRCA does not include any decisions regarding
the choice of a MCL for radon in drinking water, it will be used to
support a new EPA regulation proposal for radon in drinking water (to
be published by August 6, 1999).
As also required by the SDWA 1996 amendment, EPA arranged for the
National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to assess the health risks of radon
in drinking water. The risk estimates of waterborne radon used in the
HRRCA Report was based on the NAS prepublication copy of the ``Risk
Assessment of Radon in Drinking Water'' (NAS, 1998). The NAS Report
represents a comprehensive assessment of scientific data gathered to
date on radon in drinking water. The report, in general, confirms
earlier EPA scientific conclusions and analyses of the total risk of
radon in drinking water (USEPA, 1994). The NAS estimated individual
lifetime fatal cancer risks associated with exposure to radon from
domestic water use for both ingestion and inhalation pathways. The
results show that the inhalation of radon decay products derived from
the volatilized radon accounts for most (about 89 percent) of the
individual risk associated with domestic water uses, with almost all of
the reminder (11 percent) resulting from directly ingesting radon in
drinking water. Inhalation of radon progeny is associated primarily
with elevated risk of lung cancer, while ingestion exposure is
associated primarily with elevated risk of stomach cancer.
EPA requested NAS to estimate the risks to susceptible population
(i.e. infants, children, pregnant women, elderly, and seriously ill
persons). NAS concluded that there is insufficient information to
permit separate estimates for susceptible populations of lung cancer
caused by inhalation of the decay products derived from waterborne
radon. The NAS report did note, however, that approximately 30 percent
of the fatal lifetime cancer risk is attributed to exposure between
ages 0 and 10 The NAS identified smokers as the only group that is more
susceptible to inhalation exposure of radon progeny. Inhalation of
cigarette smoke and radon progeny result in a greater increased risk
than if the two exposures act independently to induce lung cancer.
The report did note, that approximately 30 percent of the lifetime
cancer risk from ingested radon is attributable to exposure between age
0 to 10. However, the ingested radon only accounts for a small
percentage (11 percent) of the total risk of waterborne radon. EPA has
also asked NAS to review teratogenic and reproductive risks of radon.
NAS concluded that there is no scientific evidence of teratogenic and
reproductive risks associated with radon in tissues from either
inhalation or ingestion.
References
NAS, 1998. Risk Assessment of Radon in Drinking Water. National
Research Council, National Academy of Sciences.
USEPA, 1994. Report to the United States Congress on Radon in
Drinking Water, Multimedia Risk and Cost Assessment of Radon (EPA 811-
R-94-001)
USEPA. 1999. Health Risk Reduction and Cost Analysis from Radon in
Drinking Water (EPA-815-Z-99-002), Office of Water, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
Question 2. The 1996 amendments also include a provision requiring
EPA to study what degree children and other vulnerable subpopulations
are likely to experience elevated health risks, including risks of
cancer, from contaminants in drinking water. The study must be
completed by August 6, 2000. Has EPA begun this study? Please detail
the progress that has been made in the study.
Response. EPA has initiated a number of activities to characterize
whether and to what degree subpopulations such as infants, children,
pregnant women, the elderly, or individuals with a history of serious
illness may be likely to experience elevated health risks from exposure
to contaminants in drinking water. Several studies that will provide
baseline data for identifying vulnerable subpopulations and health
risks have either been completed or will soon be finalized. These
include analyses of the demographics of sensitive populations and of
age-related illness and death caused by microbial diseases,
characterization of the chronic effects of microbial illnesses,
evaluation of the potential immunotoxic effects of chemical
contaminants in drinking water, and assessment of water consumption
rates based on sex, age, racial, ethnic, socioeconomic and geographic
distributions.
In addition to these activities, EPA is conducting laboratory and
field research to evaluate the extent to which exposure to disinfection
by-products may be associated with adverse reproductive outcomes (see
response to Question No. 3 below). Studies are underway to evaluate if
there are subgroups within the general population that may be at
increased risk of cancer or other adverse health effects because of
differences in ability to metabolize chemical contaminants to which
they are exposed through the drinking water. Finally, EPA is conducting
studies in the laboratory and field to characterize host factors (e.g.,
immune status) that may impact the risks posed by waterborne microbial
pathogens such as Cryptosporidium. The results of these analyses and
research activities will be fully described in the Report to Congress
that will be submitted on schedule in August of 2000.
Question 3. As EPA moves forward with the second stage of the DBP
rule], I would like to know whether it has a research agenda designed
to build on the work performed in California [that reported higher
miscarriage rates among women who drank more tap water than bottled
water early in pregnancy].
In particular, I understand that the Centers for Disease Control
(CDC) and ATSDR have identified some discrete studies it could perform
to add to the body of California's work. Is EPA coordinating with the
CDC and ATSDR? Does it plan to perform these studies? What action is
EPA planning to take to conduct such studies so that we can be sure
that EPA's second rule of disinfection by-products protects pregnant
women?
Response. Epidemiology and toxicology research to evaluate this
potential threat to pregnant women has become a major focus of the
EPA's drinking water health effects research program in recent years.
EPA convened two expert panels of epidemiologists, toxicologists and
exposure assessors in 1993 and 1997 to review the existing epidemiology
and toxicology literature. The original California study was one of the
publications that was critically reviewed by the panel in 1997. The
panels' research recommendations have been used to guide EPA's research
program in these areas, with a specific objective of providing the
types of data that will support more scientifically sound regulatory
decisions to protect sensitive subpopulations. A description of the
studies being conducted or supported by EPA to address this issue is
provided below:
(a) Studies of birth defects. The EPA is collaborating with CDC to
evaluate if there is an association between exposure to DBPs and birth
defects in different cities in the U.S. Data from at least two cities
being investigated will be available in time for the DBP Stage 2
negotiations.
We are currently coordinating with representatives from CDC and
ATSDR to evaluate the nature and time frame of studies that could be
conducted in additional cities in the U.S. with established birth
defect registries. We are also looking internally and externally to
identify sources of funds that might be made available immediately to
support these studies. If it is determined that studies will yield
valuable data and can be completed and peer reviewed within a time
frame to be used for the second DBP rule, we will do what is necessary
to ensure that support for these studies is made available to CDC in a
timely manner.
(b) Follow-up to California study on spontaneous abortions. EPA is
supporting a reanalysis of the California study population using
improved estimates of exposure to DBPs. A more complete DBP exposure
data base is being developed by asking water utilities in the study
areas to provide additional information, including levels of other
types of by-products (e.g., haloacetic acids). This analysis will be
completed in time for the DBP Stage 2 deliberations.
(c) Study of DBP exposures and birth weight in Colorado. This
recently completed study has evaluated possible associations between
changes in birth weight and exposure to residual chlorine and selected
DBPs.
(d) Identification of geographic areas for additional reproductive
epidemiology studies. EPA is co-sponsoring a research effort through
the Microbial/Disinfection By-Product (M/DBP) Research Council to
evaluate various areas of the U.S. that may be suitable for
epidemiology studies of drinking water and adverse reproductive
outcomes. The final report of this evaluation will be available within
the next two months.
(e) ``California-type'' study of drinking water and spontaneous
abortions in other parts of the U.S. EPA is supporting this major
investment in a new study, in coordination with the M/DBP Research
Council, to replicate the California spontaneous abortion study in
another location in the U.S. This study will be initiated in 1999. Due
to the time required to plan and implement such a complex, prospective
study, the results will not be available until after the Stage 2
deadline.
(f) Pilot study of male reproductive effects. EPA is evaluating
methods for conducting a large population-based male reproductive
health study. Components of this effort include the development of a
questionnaire specific to male reproductive effects, and the
development of a container for home semen collection that is easy to
use and that preserves specimen integrity. A full scale study is
planned for 2000, with the results available after the Stage 2
deadline.
(g) Toxicology of DBPs. EPA has established a comprehensive in-
house research program that is focused on improving the scientific
basis for assessing the potential reproductive risks associated with
exposure to DBPs and mixtures of by-products in drinking water.
Screening level toxicity studies are being conducted in collaboration
with the National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) to
identify which DBPs may be of public health concern. EPA scientists are
conducting research to characterize dose-response relationships for
priority DBPs and to determine if there is a biological basis for the
effects reported in epidemiology studies. A large number of these
studies are already completed, and additional data will be available in
time for the Stage 2 deliberations.
Due to the long length of time required to conduct large scale
epidemiology studies, the results of some new research (e.g., the
replication of a ``California-type'' study in another part of the
country) will not be completed until after the Stage 2 regulatory
deadline. However, a number of these important studies that are
evaluating potential risks to pregnant women will be completed in time
for the rulemaking.
Question 4. In the case of developing a research strategy for
microbial and disinfection by-products, EPA ensured that all
stakeholders, including the public, were involved in crafting that
strategy. I commend you for ensuring that the process was inclusive. I
have heard concerns, however, that in other cases public input has not
been sought. In the development of the research program for arsenic,
for example, I understand that the public was not involved until very
late in the process.
How can EPA's Office of Research and Development ensure that the
public is involved in the very beginning of EPA's development of such
research strategies? What specific steps can EPA take?
Response. The EPA is committed to ensuring that all stakeholders
have an opportunity to be involved in the development of the Agency's
research strategies. The EPA receives public input during the
development of these research strategies through an open process that
involves Agency-sponsored stakeholder meetings, technical workshops and
conferences, formal peer reviews conducted by the EPA Science Advisory
Board or the Board of Scientific Counselors, and public comment
periods. These same opportunities will be provided during 1999 and 2000
as the EPA prepares the new strategic research plan for chemicals and
microbes on the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL), and the comprehensive
drinking water research strategy that will cover all priority areas of
drinking water research.
In the case of arsenic, EPA developed a final, peer-reviewed
research plan within 18 months. Despite the tight time frame for
developing this plan, the EPA provided multiple opportunities for input
through public meetings, scientific meetings and workshops to develop a
draft plan that was peer reviewed by ORD's Board of Scientific
Counselors in January, 1997. In addition, the draft research plan was
discussed with stakeholder groups prior to the plan's finalization.
This included individual consultation by senior Agency officials with
environmental groups such as Natural Resources Defense Council.
Finally, EPA issued the draft research plan for a formal public comment
period. Thus, in combination, these activities provided significant
opportunities for full and open participation in this drinking water
research planning process. These activities improved the quality of the
ultimate research plan and promoted better understanding of our arsenic
research priorities and their relationship to our rulemaking
requirements. The EPA is now communicating the results of research
being conducted under the plan through a continuing series of
stakeholder meetings and scientific workshops.
Question 5a. Has EPA made any progress in doing the research
necessary to support a drinking water standard for MTBE? What research
is EPA currently performing in this area?
Response. The Agency recognizes MTBE as a priority and is taking
steps to ensure that there will be a sound scientific basis to support
the development?of a drinking water standard for this contaminant. To
address the need for additional information on occurrence, EPA has
included MTBE in the proposed Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring
Regulation, which will be finalized by August 1999. This will require
all large and a representative sample of small and medium community
water systems nationwide to monitor for MTBE in ground and surface
water. This comprehensive data will provide a better understanding of
MTBE occurrence patterns across the nation.
EPA also recently issued a document entitled ``Oxygenates in Water:
Critical Information and Research Needs'' (December 1998), which
identifies needed information and research in the areas of source
characterization, transport, transformation, environmental occurrence,
exposure, aquatic toxicity, health effects, release prevention and
contaminant removal. This document also lists over 40 projects related
to oxygenates in water that are currently underway or anticipated to be
conducted by EPA as well as other organizations.
Selected research activities in which EPA is participating include:
Staff from EPA Region IX are working with scientists from
the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory to identify methods for
assessing aquifer vulnerability to contamination from MTBE.
EPA has provided funds to the University of California-
Davis to monitor the fate and effects of MTBE in Donner Lake,
California.
EPA Region IX in collaboration with ORD is initiating a
study of MTBE exposure levels during showering.
ORD investigators are collaborating with scientists from
the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in a study of the human
metabolism of MTBE following oral, inhalation and dermal exposures.
In addition to these studies, EPA is requiring the fuels industry
to perform health effects testing under the Clean Air Act for
conventional and oxygenated gasoline, including gasoline with MTBE. The
final notification to industry was issued in November 1998. These
inhalation data, including pharmacokinetics data collected under CAA
Section 211 and separately by scientists at EPA and the Chemical
Institute of Toxicology, are expected to contribute to a health risk
assessment of MTBE (and other oxygenates) by ingestion as well as by
inhalation.
Question 5b. Generally speaking, can EPA make any progress setting
standards for candidate contaminants [on the CCL] given the research
constraints it faces?
Response. A number of contaminants on the CCL have already been
identified as having sufficient data available to evaluate both
exposure and risk to the public health, and these will be considered
for regulation by the August 2001 statutory deadline for regulatory
determinations. Many other contaminants on the list will require
extensive additional data on health effects, monitoring methods,
treatment or occurrence before a regulatory determination can be made.
A CCL strategic research plan that will guide the priorities for
research on these contaminants is being developed by EPA and will be
coordinated with interested stakeholders.
Some studies of CCL contaminants have been initiated while the
comprehensive plan is being developed. Among this work is research on a
number of critical contaminants (e.g., MTBE, perchlorate), and targeted
requests for applications have already been published under EPA's
Science to Achieve Results (STAR) program of university-based,
competitive, extramural grants.
The funding level for priority contaminants (e.g., M/DBP, arsenic)
and elements of the Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) are considered
adequate for fiscal year 1999 and 2000. EPA is currently conducting a
comprehensive evaluation of resource needs for the balance of the CCL
and other Congressionally mandated parts of the drinking water research
program for fiscal year 2001 and beyond. This comprehensive evaluation
will inform the Agency's future budget requests.
__________
Prepared Statement of Jerry C. Biberstine, Drinking Water Specialist,
Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment, on behalf of the
Association of State Drinking Water Administrators
introduction
The Association of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA) is
pleased to provide written testimony to the Senate Committee on
Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Fisheries, Wildlife, and
Drinking Water on implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
of 1996. ASDWA represents the 56 states and territorial drinking water
programs directly responsible for implementing the provisions of the
SDWA. States currently regulate approximately 170,000 public water
systems that deliver drinking water to over 273 million people
nationwide.
summary
The Successes
ASDWA is pleased to report that the states, EPA, and the water
utilities nationwide have made significant progress in implementing the
numerous new provisions of the SDWA over the last two and one half
years. All states now have drinking water state revolving loan programs
in place and to date, 354 loans have been made totaling around $850
million. This number also includes funds being leveraged by several
states. Fifty-two states and territories met the February 6, 1999
deadline to submit source water assessment and delineation programs to
EPA for final review and approval. The remaining states are completing
their public involvement process and will be submitting their programs
in the near future.
All states have completed and published two state annual compliance
reports to provide specific drinking water compliance information to
the public. States are currently working on the third report which is
due by July 1 to EPA. Five state programs to prevent the formation of
new non-viable water systems have been formally approved by EPA and 36
are on track to meet the deadline for this requirement. States are
actively seeking new administrative penalty authorities as well.
States have also been very active in the numerous stakeholder
committees giving thousands of hours of their time working with EPA and
others to develop many of these new programs as well as working on the
Unregulated Contaminant Monitoring Rule, the Interim Enhanced Surface
Water Treatment Rule, the Stage 2 D/DBP Rule, the Consumer Confidence
Report Rule, the Radionuclides and Radon Multi-Media Regulations, the
Arsenic Rule, Operator Certification Guidelines, and modifications to
the Lead and Copper Rule to name just a few. States are also working on
the National Ground Water Report due to Congress in August 1999 and are
working diligently with EPA and other interested stakeholders in
developing and implementing a data reliability action plan to
significantly improve the quality of the drinking water data provided
to the public. All of this work has been accomplished in addition to
states continuing to implement the numerous pre-1996 provisions of the
law.
The Challenges
All of this new work represents an enormous challenge for state
drinking water programs as they continue to implement the many rules
established before the 1996 Amendments to the law. These challenges
cannot be met without the assistance of all the stakeholders who had a
hand in the law's creation. This assistance must include adequate
funding, technical assistance, support, flexibility, and reasoned and
rational implementation requirements and schedules. Specifically,
states are concerned about funding and staff resources, state input
into the regulatory development process, the timing of the various new
programs, identifying priorities among all of the new requirements, and
the establishment of artificial barriers that may significantly hinder
full and effective implementation.
In order to be successful, states believe that a reasoned, rational
approach to implementation requirements and schedules must be adhered
to. States have already been put in a position where one new
regulation--the Consumer Confidence Report Rule-will become effective
before many have their own state rules in place. This leads to
confusion on the part of the water utilities and public as to which
agency--the state or Federal Government-is responsible for implementing
the provisions in the rule. This rule also establishes artificial
barriers to success by requiring utilities to report results in numbers
that are not used anywhere else by EPA or the states. This will require
water utilities to convert numbers, the public to understand how to
relate those numbers to different numbers published elsewhere, and for
the states to convert the numbers back to assess compliance with form
and content requirements.
Funding and staff resources are two additional challenges that
states face. States are finding themselves in a position where there is
an ever-widening spectrum of state capabilities to respond to these
many new requirements. While some states can access and utilize the
many new funding sources that are available, others cannot. Political
issues of using drinking water SRF funds for non-capital improvements
such as for program implementation have become concerns in several
states. A number of states have hiring caps that will not enable them
to hire new staff to fully implement the many new provisions in the
law. There is concern that the enormous expectations engendered by
these new rules and programs may not be able to be met by all states.
States are committed to meeting these new challenges and want to be
successful. This success, however, will be dependent on the resources
and implementability of these new provisions. To address many of these
issues, the states jointly crafted a document in October at the ASDWA
Annual Conference entitled, Safe Drinking Water Act Implementation
Principles. These principles describe a program path or alignment under
which states believe implementation of the SDWA will be best achieved.
A copy of the Principles is attached to this document.
overview
As members of Congress and this subcommittee are aware, the new
SDWA, which was passed on August 6, 1996, greatly expanded requirements
on state programs as well as water utilities in the provision of safe
drinking water to the citizens of this nation. While the old law
focused primarily on providing safe water through the regulation of
specific contaminants in finished water, the new law includes expansive
new programs designed to ensure improved quality of source water as
well as improved operations and management at water utilities and new
provisions to inform the public about the quality of their drinking
water. The following list represents many of the new programs mandated
in the law.
New and expanded operator certification requirements
Source water assessments and delineations
A drinking water state revolving loan fund
Capacity development programs to ensure water system
technical, financial, and managerial capabilities
State Annual Compliance Reports on water system compliance
Federal Annual Compliance Reports
Consumer Confidence Reports
New small system initiatives
Unregulated contaminant monitoring
Development of a National Contaminant Occurrence Database
A new standard setting process incorporating peer-reviewed
science
New state administrative penalty enforcement provisions
Changes to the PWS definition to include systems using
irrigation water for potable purposes
The strong foundation of the new law is based on improved public
health protection and risk reduction, sound science, state flexibility,
and funding for state programs, research, and infrastructure needs. The
intent of Congress was also to expand the role of the public in
participation in drinking water issues. Throughout the statute,
reference is made to citizen and technical advisory groups, public
outreach and education, and public/private efforts to improve water
quality. EPA acknowledged this new approach and has incorporated public
outreach and involvement in many of the Agency's decision-making
activities over the course of the last two and one-half years.
the state perspective
Resources
Many of these new initiatives and programs represent significant
new challenges to states as well as water utilities. In the negotiation
of the SDWA of 1996, the authorizers recognized these new burdens and
authorized funding to ensure that these provisions did not become
unfunded mandates. The statute authorizes $100 million per year for
state PWSS grants to implement the program, $1 billion each year for a
drinking water SRF, $35 million each year for health effects research
and an additional $10 million each year from the SRF for this research,
$30 million each year to train and certify small system operators,
funding for technology assistance and finance centers, funding for sole
source aquifer and wellhead protection programs, funding for ground
water protection grants, funding for demonstration projects for a New
York City watershed protection program, $10 million each year for
unregulated contaminant monitoring in small systems and an additional
$2 million each year from the SRF, $5 million each year for source
water petition programs, funding for colonias, $12.5 million each year
for studies of harmful substances in drinking water, funding for water
borne disease occurrence studies, and health care provider training and
a public education campaign.
While the states agreed to support many of these new initiatives
during the reauthorization process, the understanding was that there
would be money authorized and requested to ensure full implementation
of these many new provisions. To date, EPA has requested no new funding
for state PWSS programs and while they have requested increasing
funding for the Drinking Water SRF, the fund is still not at its
authorized level. States are also concerned that the Drinking Water SRF
may become the primary funding mechanism of ``convenience'' with the
serious risk of eroding the corpus of an already limited fund which,
according to EPA's own estimated need of $138.4 billion, will not be
sufficient to fully fund actual and anticipated infrastructure needs.
Adequate funding for research is also critical if we are to ensure that
future regulations are based on occurrence and meaningful public health
protection.
While states are authorized to take up to 30 percent of their SRF
funding for various set-asides, it can be politically and financially
unfeasible for states to take this ``share.'' At the state level they
face strong opposition to reducing the corpus of the SRF fund and
further reduce the amount of funding available for much needed capital
improvement projects. Some of the set asides also come with a high
price where states are required to match funding dollar for dollar with
``new'' state funds.
On the other side, some states are facing a challenge of limited
personnel due to hiring freezes and ceilings at the state level. They
are being asked to do more and more with no new or limited additional
staff. Thus for some, more money may not be the answer unless those
funds can be used for contracting vehicles to implement some of these
new programs. In order for all states to be successful, Congress, EPA,
and other stakeholders must understand this situation and use this as a
factor when programs and regulations are being developed. The intent is
not to develop programs to meet the lowest common denominator but to
understand that regulations can be made easier or harder to implement
and that artificial barriers that unduly complicate these new
provisions should be limited to ensure the ability of all states to
maximize full and effective implementation.
Implementation and Timing
To ensure full implementation of the many new provisions in the
law, states were prepared to address new schedules in an orderly and
efficient manner that allowed them the ability to write, adopt, and
implement rules in the two years authorized by the law. Thus as some
programs would be in the initial stages of adoption, others would be at
the implementation phase, and still others would be winding down. This
was envisioned as a way for states to maximize potentially limited
personnel and resources. Unfortunately, the timing of several new
provisions are putting states in a position where they must redirect
resources and personnel to programs before they have even adopted their
own state regulations. The Consumer Confidence Report Rule is an
example of where systems must submit their reports a year before states
are required to have even adopted the regulation. This establishes a
situation of partial primacy where EPA is implementing all or parts of
the rule until states have primacy. If the states to not want EPA to
implement the rule, then they must redirect their resources to tackle
this effort earlier than they anticipated and using resources that had
been directed for some other activity. This type of artificial barrier
to full and effective implementation is untenable for the states, for
the water systems, and for the public.
On a positive note, the Agency does appear to be committed to
ensuring that training and guidance documents are available at or near
the time of rule promulgation to allow states and the Regions to
proceed expeditiously with implementation. The Agency should be
complimented on this commitment and encouraged to ensure that this
process continues as new rules are promulgated. EPA Headquarters, the
Regions, and the states also need to build on communication tools such
as newsletters, mailings, and the internet such that vehicles exist to
ask questions, receive timely responses, share questions and answers
raised by all parties, and share drafts of developing programs. States,
through ASDWA, would like to work with EPA to ensure that these
communication vehicles are developed and used to the benefit of all
those implementing the new law.
Public Involvement and Decision Making
ASDWA would like to commend EPA for their efforts over the last two
and a half years in encouraging and seeking public involvement in the
regulatory, policy, and guidance development process. By bringing the
major affected stakeholders to the table, issues, concerns, and
perspectives can be identified and shared providing a greater
understanding as regulations are developed by EPA. It appears that, for
the most part, the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC)
working group process has been effective in including interested
stakeholders. Clearly, a broader perspective assists the Agency in
developing their policies and regulations.
While public involvement may ultimately lead to greater stakeholder
buy-in and support of the final product, it also tends to lend itself
to establishing regulations and programs that are more complex and
sometimes overly prescriptive in an effort to meet numerous, sometimes
conflicting positions. States are ultimately responsible for
implementing these new provisions and their suggestions and
recommendations on how to ensure maximum efficiency and effectiveness
needs to be strongly supported by the Agency.
conclusion
In conclusion, Congress, states, EPA, and other stakeholders should
be commended for the broad vision and approach taken in the new SDWA to
ensure the protection of drinking water from source to tap with the
involvement of the public and interested consumers. As we celebrate the
25th Anniversary of the SDWA this year, we should be proud of the
accomplishments achieved to date and the opportunity for greater public
health protection in the future.
States, as the implementers of these new provisions, are committed
to ensuring their success. The opportunities are many. The challenge
will be whether collectively we can structure the provisions of the new
law such that they are fully and efficiently implemented for the good
of all consumers in this country. We must together ensure that the
positive momentum and success achieved to date will continue to be
realistic and possible in the future.
ASDWA appreciates the opportunity to provide this testimony and
looks forward to working with EPA, Congress, and other stakeholders to
ensure effective implementation of the new provisions of the SDWA of
1996.
______
Safe Drinking Water Act Implementation Principles
The following principles describe, from the states' perspective, a
program path or alignment under which implementation of the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) will work the best:
1. States are EPA's principal partners in implementing safe
drinking water programs, and have the knowledge of and experience with
local needs.
2. States are committed to making the fullest possible use of the
authorities in the SDWA to improve drinking water safety.
3. States are committed to making maximal use of available
resources to address the highest priority health protection and risk
reduction measures.
4. Needs for the National program, state programs, and public water
systems are great and funding at full authorized levels is imperative.
5. States need maximal freedom to focus on outcomes rather than
process, and to prioritize workloads to address the highest health
needs in the state first.
6. States need consistent, clearly articulated, and predictable
processes for EPA review and approval of new and revised state program
efforts.
7. States need to be able to engage in orderly rule adoption and
implementation, and EPA rules need to accommodate this.
8. State programs welcome direct assistance with implementation
efforts from EPA Headquarters, EPA Regions, and other organizations and
stakeholders to leverage all available resources.
9. States require clear, consistent, and unified expectations from
EPA for ongoing programs that are in sync with available resources.
10. Routine Regional oversight of state programs needs to be
consistent, reasonable, and appropriate in scope.
______
Responses of Jerry Biberstine to Additional Questions from Senator
Crapo
Question 1. Are states and water systems adequately prepared to
meet the ground water rule? What are the key challenges states face
with this rule?
Response. The answer to the first question will very much depend on
how the final rule is written and the expectations for state and water
system implementation. States have been very active in the rule
development process over the last several years, and more recently over
the last one to two yours. We have advised EPA about the concerns and
issues that states and water systems will face during implementation
and have indicated that modifications to EPA's proposed approach are
needed.
A key challenge that states face include the enormous number of
ground water systems that may potentially be impacted by the rule. The
majority of these systems are small and typically require a more
intensive technical assistance approach to reach compliance. While EPA
has projected that perhaps 5 to 15 percent of wells nationwide may be
contaminated, they are still the early stages of identifying an
appropriate microbial indicator organism as well as an analytical
method that would allow for cost-effective, routine monitoring.
Therefore, it will be difficult to evaluate which if any, wells are
contaminated without extremely resource intensive and costly site-by-
site analysis. States have requested that EPA stab coordinate Ground
Water Rule activities involving well sensitivity with the work that
states are now beginning on the Source Water Assessment and Protection
(SWAP) Program to ensure that the information gathered under the SWAP
can be used to meet the requirements of the Ground Water rule.
An appropriate and cost-effective analytical method must also be
approved and in use by an adequate number of laboratories before
monitoring begins under the rule and, increased source water monitoring
should only be triggered when the state has sound reason to believe
that a source may be susceptible to contamination.
The timing of the rule may also pose a problem. While it is
important to move expeditiously, promulgation of the rule should occur
only after the technical issues have been resolved. The EPA must also
allow states adequate time to write, adopt, and begin implementing the
rule before monitoring or other required elements become effective.
Question 2. What is the Federal vs. State division of funds used
and projected for drinking water spending at the local level? Do you
believe this is an appropriate cost-sharing?
Response. The Safe Drinking Water Act (Sec. 1443 (a)(3) indicates
that a grant shall be made to the states to cover not more than 75 per
centum of the cost of carrying out the public water supply supervision
program. ASDWA and others have tracked the contribution of state and
Federal funds over the last 10 years and have found that nationally,
the states continue to contribute approximately 65 percent of the
funding while the Federal Government contributes 35 percent. That said,
some additional funding is now available to state programs under the
drinking water SRF if they are able to find a one-to-one match with new
state dollars and if they can obtain approval to use the set-aside for
state program implementation rather than water system construction
costs.
While states currently are paying a disproportionate share to
implement the Federal SDWA, the bigger question is whether the funds
currently available from all sources are adequate to effectively and
fully implement all the provisions of the SDWA. Our answer to that
question would be ``no.'' To evaluate the difference between resources
needed and resources available, the Office of Water at EPA is currently
conducting a resource gap analysis for drinking water, waste water,
UIC, and ground water programs. Once this work is completed, we expect
to have a better understanding of the unmet needs related to each of
the programs--particularly drinking water. Our initial investigation
seems to indicate that a significant number of states will simply not
have the necessary staffing and resources to carry out the drinking
water program over the next several years. We hope to work with your
committee, the Appropriations Committee, and EPA to evaluate state
program needs and identify and find sufficient sources of funding to
allow these programs to fully achieve the goals set forth in the SDWA
for public heals protection.
Question 3. How many states have co-mingled funds between the
drinking water and clean water revolving funds?
Response. To date, very few states have co-mingled (e.g.,
transferred) funds between the drinking water and clean water revolving
loan funds. According to staff at EPA, New York, Colorado, Maryland,
and possibly New Jersey are considering transferring funds from the
clean water to the drinking water SRF.
The ability to transfer the funds is at the discretion of the
Governor and cannot occur until at least a year after the state has
received its first drinking water capitalization grant. Our
understanding is that for the most part, it will take a few years
before the states are comfortable with the drinking water SRF program
and its administration and have a better sense of the cumulative need
on the drinking water side. Once the program has become ``stabilized,''
more states may decide to transfer funds.
Question 4. Are any systems being dissuaded from applying for SRF
loans because of Federal or state rules for qualification?
Response. ASDWA does not believe that any systems are being
dissuaded from applying for SRF loans although some states may have
constitutional or statutory prohibitions against loaning Federal money
to private water systems. In some instances, states are actively
seeking to change these prohibitions where possible while others arc
attempting to address this concern through use of state match or other
funds that may not have such a restriction.
The program should also be reviewed within the next year or two to
evaluate whether some of the restrictions and requirements in the
program itself, like the environmental cross-cutters, are dissuading
systems, particularly small systems, from applying for loans or
establishing barriers to full and effective use of the funding.
__________
Prepared Statement of Merril Bingham, Director of Public Works, Provo
City Water Resources, on behalf of the American Water Works Association
introduction
Good morning Mr. Chairman. I am Merril Bingham, Director of Public
Works for the City of Provo, Utah. I am also the Chair of the
Legislative Committee of the American Water Works Association (AWWA)
Water Utility Council. I am here today on behalf of AWWA.
AWWA appreciates the opportunity to present its views on the
implementation of the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of
1996. AWWA is the world's largest and oldest scientific and educational
association representing drinking water supply professionals. The
association's 55,000 members are comprised of administrators, utility
operators, professional engineers, contractors, manufacturers,
scientists, professors and health professionals. The association's
membership includes over 3,900 utilities which provides over 80 percent
of the nation's drinking water. Since our founding in 1881, AWWA and
its members have been dedicated to providing safe drinking water.
In my role as Public Works Director, among other duties, I have
primary responsibility for Provo's drinking water supply. Provo has a
population of approximately 112,000 people and is located at the base
of the Wasatch Mountain range 45 miles south of Salt Lake City. Provo
is home to Brigham Young University, which, with an enrollment of
35,000 students, is the largest privately-owned university in the
nation. At present, we utilize about 8.5 billion gallons of drinking
water annually with peak day demands slightly in excess of 50 million
gallons. Our water supply source is primarily ground water in the form
of canyon springs and valley deep wells.
AWWA utility members are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water
Act (SDWA) and other statutes. AWWA believes few environmental
activities are more important to the health of this country than
assuring the protection of water supply sources, and the treatment and
distribution of a safe and healthful supply of drinking water. AWWA
strongly believes that the successful implementation of the reforms of
the SDWA Amendments of 1996 is essential to effective regulations that
protect public health.
epa drinking water program
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking water program
took on greatly increased responsibilities in the 1996 SDWA amendments.
These responsibilities included developing a new regulatory process
requiring additional science and risk analysis for regulations,
creating a contaminant occurrence data base and methodology to select
contaminants for regulation, promulgating microbial and disinfectant/
disinfection by-products regulations, identifying new treatment
technologies for small systems, administering the newly created
drinking water state revolving fund, and developing regulations and
guidelines for consumer confidence reports, operator certification
programs, source water assessment and monitoring relief.
In satisfying these requirements, EPA has involved the public in
the regulatory process to an extent not equalled by any other federal
agency and stands as a model for federal rule making. EPA has involved
private citizens, scientists, drinking water professionals, medical
professionals, public health officials, economists, and environmental
and consumer advocacy representatives, as well as other experts, to
provide recommendations on how to carry out these new regulatory
responsibilities. AWWA believes that the EPA Office of Groundwater and
Drinking Water has made a good faith effort to implement the spirit and
intent of the 1996 SDWA Amendments. The EPA Office of Groundwater and
Drinking Water is to be commended for taking this exemplary approach
for public involvement which should result in better regulations that
protect public health.
Many of the new regulations are either in their infancy or not yet
promulgated, so there is not yet much experience to determine whether a
specific regulation will work as intended in accordance with the 1996
SDWA reforms. However, AWWA does have a major concern that the EPA
drinking water research program is not adequate to provide the good
science necessary to support new contaminant regulations. There is also
a long-term concern that the authorizations for the new drinking water
state revolving fund will not be adequate to address the needs
identified to comply with SDWA regulations. In this statement, AWWA
will focus on the research and infrastructure needs, highlight some
regulations of concern and outline potential future SDWA issues.
drinking water research funding
The use of best-available, peer-reviewed good science as the
foundation of the new drinking water standard-setting process under the
SDWA amendments of 1996 will require extensive drinking water
research--particularly health effects research. Funding for drinking
water research is becoming more of a critical issue. The 1996 SDWA
Amendments require EPA to develop comprehensive research plans for the
Microbial/Disinfection By-Products (M/DBP) Rule Cluster and arsenic.
The plans have been completed but the plans are not readily
understandable to all stakeholders and do not develop relative
priorities between all the high priority projects. While tracking is
marginally improving, EPA still has difficulty assessing research gaps
as well as developing future priorities. It is AWWA's opinion that the
EPA resources directed to drinking water research does not meet the
statutory needs of the 1996 SDWA Amendments and will ultimately result
in either delayed regulations or regulations promulgated without the
necessary research to support good science.
AWWA believes that there is a serious problem regarding the amount
of funding currently allocated to contaminant research. EPA informal
research funding projections discussed with stakeholders indicate a
shortfall to meet drinking water research needs from fiscal year 1999
through fiscal year 2005. Due to the extensive amount of research
needed to determine whether to regulate contaminants on the Contaminate
Candidate List (CCL), annual research needs are expected to ``bulge''
in fiscal year 2000 through fiscal year 2003. These projections show
research needs rising to $56-$57 million annually, leaving a shortfall
of approximately $20 million per year. Although EPA projections
indicate that drinking water research needs will begin to decline after
the ``bulge'', there is no firm basis on which to assume that research
funding needs will decline.
EPA contends that they have substantially increased drinking water
research funding over the past few years, but it is not clear how this
additional funding is being used to address critical drinking water
research needs. An estimated total of over $150 million is needed for
the combined arsenic and M/DBP research plans which will result in
finalizing regulations within the next five years as required by the
SDWA amendments of 1996. This figure does not include other needed
drinking water research on radon, sulfate, and other contaminants that
will require additional occurrence, treatment, and health effects
research based on the CCL. It has become evident that EPA's research is
focusing on M/DBP's and arsenic, which are important, but little
research is being done on the contaminants on the CCL to make future
regulatory decisions and much of that research is not focused on the
drinking water regulatory needs. Without a substantial investment on a
continuing annual basis and a research program focused on drinking
water regulatory needs, EPA and public water suppliers cannot assure
the American public that the contaminants selected for regulation are
the appropriate ones or that health standards have been adequately
established.
We need to break the cycle of drinking water research lagging
behind the regulatory needs. Assume that EPA develops an overall
contaminant research plan that is peer reviewed by mid-1999. Then, EPA
issues a research request, receives proposals, selects specific
proposals, and contracts for the research. This process will take at
least six months, so the research would not start until early 2000.
Most research takes a minimum of two to three years to complete, with
an added year for complete peer review, so the results would not be
available until well past the statutory deadline for the first round of
regulatory determinations (2001). Since EPA has put a strong emphasis
on meeting statutory deadlines, the result may be the promulgation of
regulations without the good science which was envisioned in the 1996
SDWA Amendments.
microbial, disinfectant & disinfection by-products cluster
This ``cluster'' of regulations is the most significant and
potentially the most costly of all drinking water regulations required
in the 1996 SDWA amendments. It includes Disinfectant/Disinfection By-
Product Rules, Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rules, a filter
Backwash rule and the Groundwater rule. The regulations in this
``cluster'' require substantial research all of which will not be
completed by the time indicated in the SDWA.
Research on microbial contaminants and disinfectants and
disinfection by-products is a critical need. Each day there are roughly
50,000 deaths in the world attributed to microbial contamination of
drinking water. Much of this threat has essentially been eliminated in
the United States through disinfection of drinking water. However, it
is now known that disinfection of drinking water can produce chemical
by-products, some of which are suspected human carcinogens or may cause
other toxic effects. Controlling risks from these by-products must be
carefully balanced against microbial risks to ensure that when reducing
disinfection levels to lower by-product risk, significant microbial
risks are not created.
Research on disinfectants and disinfection by-products, as endorsed
by the National Academy of Sciences and EPA's Science Advisory Board,
is essential. The cost to the nation of disinfection by-products
regulations under the SDWA will certainly be in the billions and could
be as high as $60 billion or more depending on the final rule. An
appropriate investment in health effects research will ensure that
costs of regulation will be commensurate with the health benefit and
not driven to extremes because of the lack of data.
Cryptosporidium has emerged as a microbial pathogen of major
concern to drinking water supplies. The Centers for Disease Control, in
correspondence with EPA, has pointed out that extensive research on the
health implications of this pathogen and dramatic improvements in
analytical methods for its detection are necessary before it is
possible to evaluate the public health implications of its occurrence
at low levels and determine the appropriate regulatory response.
Adequate funding for research on cryptosporidium is essential to
protect the health of millions of Americans.
The final Filter Backwash Rule, which will prevent unsafe
concentrations of contaminants in the drinking water treatment process,
is scheduled to be promulgated by August 2000. However, this rule has
become a major concern since there is not much data on which to base a
regulation and the potential for significant compliance costs.
The final Groundwater Rule, which will provide for the additional
treatment or other protective measures of drinking water from
groundwater when necessary, is scheduled to be promulgated in November
2000; however, there is a lack of data on which to base a regulation
and what data is available is under debate. This rule, as currently
reported, will be very expensive for small groundwater systems and
states to implement.
arsenic
The 1996 SDWA Amendments requires EPA to propose a revised arsenic
regulation by January, 2000, and promulgate a final regulation by
January, 2001. The National Academy of Sciences' (NAS) comprehensive
review of the arsenic risk assessment, which is expected to be
available by later this month, will be a critical component. The 1996
SDWA Amendments also require EPA to develop a comprehensive research
plan on low-levels or naturally occurring arsenic. The objective of the
plan was to develop an extensive arsenic research program. The plan has
been completed but has not yet been fully executed. The key issue for
the arsenic regulation is that the health effects data and the results
of the health effects research needs to be available by mid-1999 to
meet the deadlines in the SDWA. Only five major arsenic research
projects have been started so far. Since EPA has not made a significant
start on the bulk of the necessary health effects (which will take
several years to complete), it is likely that very little of the
necessary research will be completed in time to be used in developing a
revised arsenic regulation.
The lack of realistic prioritization of the arsenic research, from
the AWWA viewpoint, has minimized the potential for the ongoing
research to substantially reduce the uncertainty in the arsenic risk
assessment. The ongoing research projects may (or may not) be the
specific projects that could have the most impact in reducing that
uncertainty, but nobody know for sure at this point. AWWA is concerned
that some of the ongoing research may simply lead to the need for more
research rather than give answers that are meaningful for the
regulatory process.
drinking water state revolving fund (dwsrf)
According to the EPA Drinking Water Infrastructure Needs Survey
released on January 31, 1997, $12.1 billion is needed in the immediate
future to protect drinking water supplies. Of this amount, $10.2
billion, or 84 percent, is needed to protect water from microbial
contaminants which can produce immediate illness or death. According to
the needs survey, between 1995 and 2015, a total of $138.4 billion will
be needed to upgrade the infrastructure of the nation's water utilities
to meet requirements of the SDWA. It is also important to note that
this figure does not include other drinking water infrastructure needs,
such as replacing aging transmission and distribution facilities, which
are not eligible for DWSRF funding.
If the current authorized DWSRF funding level of $1 billion per
year is maintained to 2015 only $20 billion plus approximately $4
billion state match for a maximum total of approximately $24 billion
will be available to meet these needs from the DWSRF. Since
appropriations have not matched authorizations and there are
indications that the actual needs, just for the projects eligible under
current SDWA DWSRF criteria, may be underestimated by about 55 percent
(which may be reflected in the next EPA needs survey), the shortfall
may be greater.
AWWA believes that the total drinking water infrastructure need is
in the $325 billion range (in 1998 dollars) in capital investment,
which could easily translate into a much higher need for available
funds over 20 years.
AWWA does not expect that federal funds will be available for 100
percent of the infrastructure needs of the nation's water utilities.
The SURF is a loan program with a state match. Ultimately, the rate-
paying public will have to pay for the nation's drinking water
infrastructure, regardless of whether financing comes from the SURF or
other sources. However, AWWA does believe that SURF funding is a major
issue for future Congressional oversight to ensure that federal funding
is adequately available to meet the intended purposes of the SDWA.
Oversight should take place in the context of the total need and how
the needs should be apportioned among the various financing mechanisms
and sources.
The DWSRF program is still in its infancy so the outlay of funds
for loans and available funds has not yet become critical. However,
DWSRF authorized funding levels is an issue which Congress may need to
address in the future, possibly before the next scheduled
reauthorization of the SDWA.
future sdwa issues
The next reauthorization of the SDWA will clearly take drinking
water into the 2010 timeframe. AWWA believes that it is not too early
to begin exploring future issues and possible innovative solutions now.
EPA and Congressional forums must be held to explore the future of
drinking water. The 25th Anniversary of the SDWA this year would be an
ideal time to start the process. I will briefly outline a few issues
and questions that should be addressed to develop the issues most
important to the next SDWA reauthorization.
a. The individual contaminant-by-contaminant regulatory approach
should be examined to determine if there is a more efficient and
effective means to regulating drinking water. We are already
approaching the point where regulating one contaminant may cause a
problem with regulating another contaminant.
b. The total cost of providing drinking water should be studied.
What are the cost issues facing the nation's water systems (including
infrastructure repair and replacement and paying for new treatment
technologies)? Should the SURF be expanded to include total needs? How
can resources be more efficiently allocated among local, state and
federal governments, and water systems?
c. Are there feasible alternatives to centralized treatment and
distribution for compliance with the SDWA to provide safe drinking
water? Are we reaching a point of creating such stringent standards
that standards cannot be maintained in a distribution system? After
all, less than one percent of treated water is used for human
consumption. Can consolidation and restructuring provide economies of
scale and still comply with more stringent standards? Is the reduction
in health risk relevant when compared with the health risk of all the
other ingested products?
d. Should the drinking water program be decentralized to provide
local consumer driven decision-making on how to provide safe drinking
water in the community? Can safe drinking water be provided through a
regulatory system in which EPA sets broad health goals and local
communities have flexibility to chose how to meet those goals? Should
compliance be based on community risk reduction aggregate goals and
cost/benefit analysis? Are there creative alternatives for providing
drinking water for vulnerable subpopulations without driving treatment
costs to an unaffordable level? This also requires a clear definition
of what vulnerable subpopulations really are (eg: certainly AIDS
patients and cryptosporidium is clear; however, far less clear is the
issue of smokers and radon).
e. What can be done to assure the availability of an adequate
drinking water supply in the future? There needs to be a closer
integration of various statutes (e.g., Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act,
Superfund, etc.) to protect drinking water sources to assure an
adequate and clean supply of water. Drinking water priorities should be
set appropriately. The use of gray water systems, reclaimed waste
water, desalinization and conservation measures should be studied. The
Clean Water Action Plan is a step in the right direction for
integration of water resource management and stewardship.
AWWA believes that addressing the above issues and questions will
provide potential solutions for coping with localized or regional water
shortages, new strains of contaminants, and unaffordable treatment
costs or technological challenges which had not been anticipated or
addressed by the 1996 SDWA Amendments. Some of these issues also may
emerge in the next five years.
summary
In conclusion, I want to highlight the main points of the
testimony:
AWWA believes that the EPA Office of Groundwater and
Drinking Water has made a good faith effort to implement the spirit and
intent of the 1996 SDWA Amendments.
AWWA has a major concern that the EPA drinking water
research program is not adequate to provide the good science necessary
to support new contaminant regulations.
The regulations in the Microbial, Disinfectant &
Disinfection By-Products ``cluster'' require research, all of which
will not be completed by the deadlines indicated in the SDWA.
It is likely that very little of the necessary research
will be completed in time to be used in developing a revised arsenic
regulation.
AWWA has a long-term concern that the authorizations for
the new drinking water state revolving fund may not be adequate to
address the needs identified to comply with SDWA regulations.
AWWA believes that Congress and EPA should hold forums to
begin exploring future SDWA issues and possible innovative solutions
now.
This concludes the AWWA statement on the implementation of the 1996
Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments. I would be pleased to answer any
questions or provide additional material for the committee.
______
Responses of Merril Bingham to Additional Questions from Senator Crapo
Question 1. How would a comprehensive contaminant research program,
as described in your testimony, operate? Would it eliminate
inconsistencies across individual regulations and optimize resources?
Response. The goal of having a comprehensive contaminant research
and regulatory program would be to eliminate inconsistencies across
individual regulations and optimize resources. How to attain that goal
is the issue to be discussed among stakeholders. One means for this
discussion will be the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) Futures
Forum which will be held later this year as part of the celebration of
the SDWA 25th Anniversary.
The Environmental Protection Agency, through the SDWA, has
regulated most contaminants on a contaminant-by-contaminant basis.
Regulations are developed for each contaminant that include a specific
standard, the best available technology (BAT) for treatment, and an
analytical method. Utilities will analyze their water for each of the
regulated contaminants and determine their potential compliance
strategy based on each individual contaminant.
However, many water treatment technologies are effective for a
class of contaminants. For example, conventional coagulation and
sedimentation removes a portion of most inorganic chemicals to
realistic levels. Granular Activated Carbon (GAC) is effective for the
removal of many synthetic organic chemicals. Some advanced technologies
could be considered, as part of the regulatory process, to be effective
against a class or a group of chemicals and some microbes, and that
group could be regulated as a class, rather than a contaminant-by-
contaminant basis. These advanced technologies could be considered to
``leap-frog'' the current approach and regulate a broader class of
contaminants. Regulation by group or class can also help eliminate
conflicting treatment requirements for individual contaminants.
Research on advanced technologies is ongoing. Wholesale changes in
water treatment technologies cannot be undertaken without full-scale
operational data in a variety of waters. All recognized and proven
treatment technologies should be made available as appropriate in a
menu of options available for public choice in satisfying regulatory
compliance.
We must keep an open mind and evaluate all regulatory options such
as broad-based federal public health standards met through local public
choices. However, alternative regulatory approaches may require an
amendment to the SDWA to authorize regulation of contaminants by group
or class rather than on the contaminant-by-contaminant approach
currently authorized in the SDWA. That is why this issue needs to be
discussed and possible alternatives developed for the next
reauthorization of the SDWA.
The other aspect of this question addresses the research program
necessary to achieve a more comprehensive drinking water regulations.
The cycle of the necessary research lagging behind the regulatory
development process needs to be broken and research must be focused on
classes of contaminants. An integrated, comprehensive drinking water
research program is needed to achieve this. Research schedules that
meet regulatory needs must be developed. A research tracking system
needs to be developed so that the researchers and their EPA project
officers can be held accountable. With meaningful Congressional
appropriations and oversight, EPA, the drinking water community and
consumers can work together to ensure that sound science yields the
most appropriate regulations and practices possible for provision of
safe drinking water for all the people in America.
It also is suggested that EPA work closely with other federal
agencies such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
the National Institutes of Health, the US Department of Agriculture,
the US Army Corps of Engineers, etc., to leverage resources so that the
research efforts can be maximized. The Congress and EPA need to
continue to look for innovative research partnerships to get the job
done, similar to what was developed for the Microbial/Disinfectant By-
Products (M/DBP) cluster of regulations and arsenic. Congress should
also consider funding these partnerships for drinking water research
independent of other environmental research to give the drinking water
program, a public health program that affects every person in the
United States, the priority it deserves.
Recent discussions with the EPA Administrator regarding the
strategic planning of drinking water research have indicated the
possibility of a stakeholder effort dedicated to resolution of this
issue.
Question 2. If not all ``infrastructure'' costs are estimated in
the $138 billion needs assessment and are not eligible for SRF dollars,
how do you envision those needs will be met?
Response. AWWA does not expect that federal funds will be available
for 100 percent of the infrastructure needs of the nations water
utilities. The DWSRF is a loan program with a state match which is more
of a stimulus for funding than a total answer. Ultimately, the rate-
paying public will have to pay for the nations drinking water
infrastructure, regardless of whether financing comes from the DWSRF or
other sources. However, AWWA does believe that DWSRF funding is a major
issue for future Congressional oversight to ensure that federal funding
is adequate to meet the intended purposes of the SDWA. Oversight should
take place in the context of the total need and how funding the needs
should be apportioned among the various financing mechanisms.
Congress; the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); other federal,
state and local government agencies; public water suppliers; and other
interested parties need to examine the funding options for drinking
water costs in the near-term. The following are options to consider in
determining how the funding sources can be more efficiently allocated
among local, state and federal governments and private capital and
considering what the ratepaying public can bear:
Increase DWSRF Authorizations: AWWA believes that DWSRF
funding is a major issue for near-term Congressional oversight to
ensure that federal funding is adequately available to meet the
intended purposes of the SDWA. The DWSRF program is still in its
infancy so the outlay of funds for loans and available funds has not
yet become critical. However, it is clear that the current DWSRF
authorized funding levels do not meet the needs identified by EPA for
SDWA compliance as was the intent. Increased DWSRF federal
capitalization funding is an issue which Congress should address in the
future, possibly before the next scheduled reauthorization of the SDWA
as part of a total water infrastructure funding policy.
Expand DWSRF Eligibility: The upgrading, rehabilitation
and replacement of aging drinking water distribution systems currently
is not eligible for DWSRF loans, unless related to compliance with a
drinking water regulation. However, these infrastructure funding needs
are the largest part of the total need identified for the next twenty
years. As drinking water regulations become more stringent, upgrading
the distribution system, like protecting drinking water sources,
becomes a larger factor in maintaining the regulated safety level until
the water reaches the consumer. At some point, it may be necessary to
expand regulation into the distribution system for compliance.
Consideration must be given to expanding DWSRF eligibility beyond SDWA
compliance to include the total drinking water system infrastructure
needs.
Federal Grants: It is becoming increasingly apparent that
in many areas, both urban and rural, there is not a sufficient tax-base
to build a drinking water system that can comply with the requirements
of the SDWA. Consideration needs to be given to establishing an
appropriate grant program based on need, with a local and state cost
share, to build viable drinking water systems for needy areas. Any
grant program must be incorporated into the mix of other SDWA capacity
development measures that can be taken to provide a viable water supply
for the public involved. These grants could come from a variety of
federal sources such as the Bureau of Reclamation, the US Army Corps of
Engineers, rural development programs, and urban development programs
or even a new program. Such grants could be used for such things as
replacing aging distribution systems in economically disadvantaged
urban or rural communities.
Private Capital: The role of private capital in meeting
infrastructure needs is important and increasing. In the public water
supply sector, various forms of privatization are taking place
including purchase of assets, contract operations, and design-build-
operate arrangements. Many local governments and local government
organizations are evaluating privatization alternatives. Private
capital can be a significant portion of funding drinking water
infrastructure needs and must be factored into an assessment of the
total need.
Question 3. How would you propose to decentralize the drinking
water program for decision-making purposes?
Response. This question really has no answer at this time. However,
the current regulatory compliance requirements of the SDWA should be
evaluated to determine if they will continue to meet the needs of
providing safe drinking water to the American public in the early part
of the twenty-first century. This evaluation should begin now so that
options for consideration can be developed prior to the next
reauthorization of the SDWA.
Congress and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA should hold
forums involving public water suppliers and other interested parties to
explore and develop options to address this issue. Some of the
questions to be asked are: Should the drinking water program be
decentralized to provide local consumer driven decisionmaking on how to
provide safe drinking water in the community? Can safe drinking water
be provided through a regulatory system in which EPA sets broad health
goals and local communities have flexibility to choose from a broad
menu of treatment and provision methods that answer how to meet those
goals? Should compliance be based on community risk reduction aggregate
goals and cost/benefit analysis? Are there creative alternatives for
providing drinking water for vulnerable subpopulations without driving
treatment costs to an unaffordable level? This also requires a clear
definition of vulnerable subpopulations (e.g. AIDS patients and
cryptosporidium is clear; however, far less clear is the issue of
smokers and radon). Can self-regulation of public water systems based
on federally mandated performance goals improve compliance?
There has been a movement in the United States away from federal
domination of the regulatory process and decentralizing more decisions
to state and local governments. This raises the question of how much of
the drinking water regulatory program can be decentralized and still
assure safe drinking water to the American public. There is a wide
range of options to meet varying needs to consider. All options for
providing safe drinking water should be made available as appropriate
in a menu of options available for public choice in satisfying
regulatory compliance.
__________
Prepared Statement of Erik D. Olson, Senior Attorney, Natural Resources
Defense Council
summary
Drinking water treatment improvements begun at the turn of the 20th
Century have advanced public health protection enormously, but much of
the nation's drinking water infrastructure now is aging and outdated.
We must modernize our water systems and safeguard the nation's water
supplies from new and emerging contaminants. The 1996 SDWA Amendments
should help to encourage better health protection, and EPA should be
commended for its generally open public process used to date in
implementing most of this law. There are several areas of concern,
however, in the implementation of the new Act:
Health Effects Research funding must be assured and
increased, particularly in light of a court decision effectively
eliminating the SRF set-aside for such research. EPA must immediately
fund certain high-priority joint research with CDC and ATSDR on
disinfection byproducts' reproductive effects, though existing data on
these effects are sufficient to warrant expeditious public health
prevention measures. EPA also needs additional resources to address
emerging contaminants on the contaminant candidate list. EPA should be
open in developing these research plans, as in the case of the
Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts Council--rather than using a
largely closed-door approach as in the case of arsenic. The required
vulnerable subpopulations research has lagged; EPA must open up the
process for planning this work and make it a high priority.
Public Right-to-Know about tap water contamination will
help to build public understanding of tap water challenges, and of the
need for investment in drinking water protection and infrastructure
improvement. The EPA right-to-know report rules issued in 1998 are a
major step forward, commendably developed with much public
participation. The public's understanding should be enhanced with
improvements in the reports recommended in this testimony.
Additionally, a major campaign to educate to the public to expect and
understand the reports.
Source Water Assessment and Protection provisions in the
law pose major opportunities to improve drinking water protection in a
cost-effective and environmentally beneficial manner. To date, the
program has had some success with many states submitting SWAP plans to
EPA in February 1999. However, progress in the future is not clear
because many states have made no commitment to having an open public
process for implementing the source water assessments, and most states
have said they plan to do no significant new source water monitoring--
meaning little new information will be gathered to inform decision
makers or the public on pollution sources. Additionally, there is a
clear need for regulatory teeth to address major source water
polluters.
State Revolving Fund (SRF) funding will be inadequate to
address the more than $138 billion in needs for drinking water source
protection, treatment upgrades, and distribution system improvements.
This shortfall makes meaningful public participation in the state
priority-setting for spending SRF money extremely important, but most
states have done little to truly involve the public. Thus, we recommend
that states be required to set aside a percentage of their SRF
allotment to fund real public participation. In addition, we are
concerned that some states are likely to fund growth through the SRF
rather than funding the backlog of infrastructure improvement needs.
New Standards for Microbes, Disinfection Byproducts,
Arsenic, Groundwater, Filter Backwash, and Radon must be issued over
the next few years, yet EPA resources for these efforts are inadequate.
These rules will be determinative as to whether the ``Third
Revolution'' in drinking water protection--involving true multiple
barriers to contamination in the form of source water protection,
advanced ``leap frog'' treatment technologies, and modern distribution
system management--will occur in the early 21st Century, or whether the
nation's aging and often outdated water supplies will continue to
inadequately address these emerging problems and to deteriorate.
Drinking Water Compliance and Small Systems Problems
Continue to Plague the Program, as documented in the attached USA Today
series and in EPA's own 1998 Annual Compliance Report, which showed
widespread violations of the Act and inadequate state and EPA
enforcement against even the most recalcitrant violators. The program
also needs to improve its data collection and management program,
including routine audits of federally-funded state programs. The new
SDWA small system viability provisions could begin to reduce these
problems, but substantial additional resources are needed to assure
that these programs bear fruit. Additionally, small system technical
assistance should be granted on a competitive basis to the applicant
who demonstrates that they can deliver accurate technical assistance to
small systems in a cost-efficient manner.
______
Good morning, I am Erik D. Olson, a Senior Attorney at the Natural
Resources Defense Council (NRDC), a national non-profit public interest
organization dedicated to protecting public health and the environment.
We have over 400,000 members nationwide. I also serve as a national
coordinator of the Campaign for Safe and Affordable Drinking Water, an
alliance of over 300 public health, medical, consumer, environmental,
HIV/AIDS, and other groups committed to improving the quality of the
nation's drinking water. I speak today, however, only on behalf of
NRDC.
background on drinking water protection in the united states
As a nation, the United States has made significant progress in
protecting our drinking water over the past century. In the mid- and
late-19th Centuries, widespread deaths and serious illness swept across
the nation due to cholera and typhoid, in large measure spawning the
public health movement. Indeed, in the late 1800's here in Washington,
DC, hundreds of deaths per year were attributed to these waterborne
diseases. Between the last turn of the century and World War I, many of
the nation's larger water supplies installed water treatment using
coagulation and sedimentation, filtration, and chlorine disinfection.
There is no doubt that these treatments yielded enormous public health
benefits, and over time the scourge of cholera and typhoid was largely
eliminated from the United States.
new public health challenges
However, we now face many new, and other long-standing (but in some
cases newly-recognized) drinking water quality problems. The vast
majority of the nation's big water utilities continue to rely upon the
same World War I-era technologies that served us well for the past many
decades, but that are not up to meeting many current water quality
challenges.\1\ For example, these technologies (coagulation &
sedimentation, filtration, and chlorination) as currently configured in
many water systems apparently are inadequate to fully remove
Cryptosporidium, the chlorine-resistant protozoan that sickened over
400,000 people in Milwaukee and killed about 100 in 1993,\2\ and has
caused at least 35 other waterborne disease outbreaks in the U.S.,
United Kingdom, and elsewhere.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ B. Cohen and E. Olson, Victorian Water Treatment Enters the
21st Century (NRDC, 1994).
\2\ E. Olson, You Are What You Drink . . . (NRDC, 1995).
\3\ G. Craun, et al., Waterborne Outbreaks of Cryptosporidiosis J.
American Water Works Association v. 90, no. 9, at 81-91 (Sept. 1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indeed, according to informal 1987 estimates by scientists from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), about 940,000
Americans got sick and 900 died a year from waterborne microbial
illness caused by contaminated tap water.\4\ More recent 1999 informal
CDC estimates are that from 200,000 to 1,300,000 Americans are sickened
by microbes in drinking water per year, with 50 to 1,200 losing their
lives as a result.\5\ Other published estimates of U.S. waterborne
disease range from 400,000 waterborne illnesses per year to 27 million
per year, with a central estimate of over 7 million per year published
by waterborne disease experts from Tufts University Medical School and
EPA (though this is not an official EPA figure).\6\ The SDWA now
requires EPA and CDC with developing new estimates of the total number
of waterborne diseases in the U.S. by August 2001.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Bennett, J.V., et al, Infectious and Parasitic Diseases, in
Closing the Gap: The Burden of Unnecessary Illness, R. Amler & H.B.
Dull, eds. (Oxford U. Press, 1987) (this is not an official CDC
estimate, though it was informally developed by CDC scientists).
\5\ Presentation of Dr. Dennis Juranek, CDC, at EPA Microbial and
Disinfection Byproducts Health Effects Stakeholder Meeting, February
12, 1999.
\6\ Morris, R. and R. Levin, Estimating the Incidence of Waterborne
Infectious Disease Related to Drinking Water in the United States, in
E. Richard, ed., Assessing and Managing the Health Risks from Drinking
Water Contamination (International Association of Hydrological
Sciences, Great Britain, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Moreover, many of the byproducts of our modern chemical age, such
as many synthetic organic industrial chemicals and pesticides,
generally are not removed by current treatment technologies, often
slipping right through the treatment plant and reaching our taps.
Additionally, most public water supplies have little or no formal
system in place to protect their source water from contamination, so
they must rely upon existing and sometimes inadequate government
pollution controls. Finally, the underground pipes that take our
drinking water from the treatment plant to our homes--the so-called
distribution system--is in many cities and small towns across America
crumbling. Many of these old pipes are filling with sediment, and are
sometimes harboring, or allowing infiltration (through ``cross-
connections'' with sewer lines or other contaminated water), of
bacteria which may carry disease. These pipes also often contain
significant amounts of lead, which can leach into the water and harm
children and infants.
The good news is that we now know far more about these contaminants
and how to remove them from our drinking water than ever before. We are
on the cusp of a ``Third Revolution'' in drinking water delivery: the
First Revolution began many centuries ago with the provision of piped
water using aqueducts and bringing water to homes. At the turn of the
20th Century, the Second Revolution brought us coagulation &
sedimentation, filtration, and chlorination, and their enormous
benefits. The Third Revolution, now just beginning, will involve
``multiple barriers'' to tap water contamination, including meaningful
protection of source waters, installation of modern water treatment
technologies (such as membranes, granular activated carbon, potentially
ultraviolet radiation and other more advanced disinfectants and other
treatments), and improved distribution systems. EPA has estimated,
based on state figures, that the beginnings of this revolution will
cost over $138 billion. This figure is widely viewed as a substantial
underestimate.
the role of the safe drinking water act
Many of the recent improvements in drinking water have been spurred
by the Safe Drinking Water Act. First signed into law by President Ford
in 1974, this Act took the significant step of effectively making
enforceable about two dozen previously voluntary U.S. Public Health
Service drinking water standards, most of which dated back to 1962 or
even to 1942. In 1986, unhappy with the pace of EPA standard setting,
Congress amended the Act to require the agency to issue or revise
standards for 83 named contaminants by 1989, and then to add standards
for 25 new contaminants every 3 years thereafter--a provision that
never was implemented.
the 1996 sdwa amendments
The most recent amendments, the SDWA Amendments of 1996, took a
somewhat new tack, emphasizing the need for greater focus and research
on the highest risk contaminants--including those most risky to
children and other vulnerable people. The new law also focused on the
public's right to know about their tap water, the need for public
involvement in decisions about their drinking water, the necessity of
federal financial assistance to water systems, and the desire for
greater state flexibility. The new law also required new steps to
assess source water contamination, and to address small system
problems.
Additionally, the 1996 Amendments modified the standard setting
provisions to require certain cost and benefit assessments, and to
allow consideration of certain costs and benefits in specified
contexts--provisions which have not yet been used (The December 1998
Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct rules, and the February 1999 radon
risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses, were completed under other
contaminant-specific risk/benefit provisions of the new SDWA, rather
than the new general SDWA cost-benefit analysis provisions).
Congressional efforts to heap even more economic and cost-benefit
analytical requirements on top of these requirements through some form
of omnibus regulatory reform legislation or similar law would disrupt
the delicately-crafted and negotiated provisions in the SDWA, wreak an
administrative nightmare and gridlock, and undercut the public health
goals of the SDWA.
implementation of the 1996 sdwa amendments
We agree with the January 1999 General Accounting Office study's
conclusion that it is too early to judge whether the new law has been a
success.\7\ However, implementation to date has lead to some important
successes as well as well as some difficulties.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ GAO, Safe Drinking Water Act: Progress and Future Challenges in
Implementing the 1996 Amendments, GAO/RCED-99-31 (January 1999).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Revolving Fund (SRF). Clearly, the SDWA 1996 Amendments have
led to the pumping of major new and urgently-needed resources to states
and public water systems. For example, several billion dollars in
capitalization grants for State Revolving Funds have been appropriated
or authorized. These SRF resources are expected to yield significant
improvements.
It is clear, however, as the GAO has noted, that the current
funding for the SRF will be far from adequate to address the needs for
drinking water infrastructure upgrades. While it is manifest that the
federal government will not be able to fund all these needed
improvements, there is an urgent need to help water systems and states
to pay for the more than $138 billion in needed improvements in source
water protection, water treatment, and upgrades of aging distribution
systems.
In some states the public has been invited to assist the state in
setting funding priorities--including whether major investments will be
made in prevention-oriented source water assessment and protection.
However, we have been troubled by the lack of meaningful public
involvement in other states in decision-making over how those funds
will be used and how many other state decisions are made. We believe
that states should be required to set aside a portion of their federal
SRF and Public Water System Supervision grants (which have increased
from about $50 million/year to over $90 million/year over the past five
years) for real public involvement activities. We also are concerned
that some states may use their SRF funds to pay for water system
growth, despite the clear ban in the Act on such use of the funds.
Health Effects Research. On the research front, Congress has
increased EPA's drinking water research budget, a move that we and the
public interest community, the water industry, and states strongly
support. Still, however, as noted by GAO's recent report, there is a
need for an additional $10 to $20 million per year in EPA resources for
drinking water research, particularly in the health effects research
area.
As EPA undertakes its ongoing efforts to conduct research on
contaminants such as disinfection byproducts, microbes, arsenic, and
others, the agency has had few resources to put into research into
emerging contaminants. For example, EPA has virtually no resources
available to conduct research on the health effects of contaminants on
the Contaminant Candidate List, such as important unregulated microbes
(some of which were discussed in Monday's front page Washington Post
article on the emerging evidence on the possible role of microbial
organisms in causing chronic diseases such as cardiovascular disease,
arthritis, ulcers and kidney stones). Neither has EPA sufficient
resources to update its more than 80 currently regulated drinking water
contaminants.
In some cases, EPA's decision making on research priorities has
been open and has effectively involved the public--as in the case of
the Microbial and Disinfection Byproduct (M/DBP) research, where the
agency and the American Water Works Association Research Foundation
formed a research council with members of the water industry, public
interest community, EPA, states, and others for a truly inclusive
process.
Our single critique of the agency's efforts on M/DBP issues has
been the lack of emphasis, until relatively recently, on conducting
sufficient research on the potential birth defects and spontaneous
abortions that may be caused by disinfection byproducts. It is
important for EPA, CDC, and ATSDR fund ``piggy back'' and other similar
expedited epidemiological research on these effects to maximize the
data available for making decisions during upcoming ``Stage 2''
disinfection byproduct rules, due in 2002. We and many others believe
strongly that enough is known now about the adverse effects of DBPs on
health to warrant expeditious public health prevention action to put
into place modern source protection actions and treatment technologies
that will reduce exposure to these chemicals while also improving
microbial protection. But additional research clearly would be helpful
to narrow the uncertainties.
In other cases, EPA has been far less open and inclusive in its
research planning. In the case of arsenic, the agency formed a joint
committee with the water industry to map out its research priorities,
effectively impeding meaningful public involvement and creating ill
will. Subsequent public notice and comment on the agency's arsenic
research plan following substantial complaints from the public about
this closed-door process failed to redress the perception of undue
industry influence on EPA's arsenic research planning.
Similarly, the Agency's research on the effects of drinking water
contamination on vulnerable subpopulations--required to be provided to
Congress by August 2000 under the SDWA Sec. 1458(a)--has not included
any meaningful public planning or discussion; it is unclear from the
outside whether any significant new research in this area is planned or
underway. Overall, however, we believe that EPA has improved its
research planning and quality in the drinking water arena, though it
should be more open and less exclusive in establishing its future
overall drinking water research agenda, perhaps using a successful
model like the M/DBP Research Council.
Upcoming Microbial/Disinfection Byproducts, Arsenic, Groundwater,
Filter Backwash, and Radon Rules. There are many challenges facing EPA
in the drinking water standard setting arena. The agency must tackle
some of the thorniest, most long-standing drinking water problems in
the next few years. Arsenic, a known human carcinogen that is found in
the tap water of over 50 million Americans at significant levels, is
still governed by a woefully antiquated tap water standard set in 1942
based on bad science and not amended since.\8\ EPA must update that
standard by 2001 under the SDWA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ E. Olson, J. Watts, D. Rosenberg, and P. Schwartz, Trouble on
Tap: Arsenic, Radioactive Radon, and Trihalomethanes in Our Drinking
Water (NRDC, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Similarly, EPA must deal more comprehensively with Cryptosporidium,
which is found in raw or finished water by water suppliers serving over
45 million Americans,\9\ and must also begin to consider seriously how
to control other emerging microbial disease-carrying organisms.
Disinfection byproducts (DBPs), linked in numerous human
epidemiological studies and animal tests to cancer and more recently to
reproductive harms such as birth defects and spontaneous abortions, are
found at substantial levels in over 100 million Americans' tap
water.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ E. Olson, You Are What You Drink (NRDC, 1995).
\10\ E. Olson, J. Watts, D. Rosenberg, and P. Schwartz, Trouble on
Tap: Arsenic, Radioactive Radon, and Trihalomethanes in Our Drinking
Water (NRDC, 1995).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These microbial and disinfection byproduct contaminants will be
addressed in rules expected to be issued in 2002. These new rules will
likely necessitate significant upgrades in the nation's drinking water
source protection and treatment and distribution system infrastructure.
EPA's interim approach in issuing the December 1998 Stage 1 DBP and
Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule was essentially to
require water systems to ``do as well as you can with what equipment
you've got.'' The new rules will have to go beyond simply tuning up our
existing, often out-of-date treatment.
Additionally, the filter backwash rule will be critical to ensuring
that water filtration plants are not simply using their filters to
concentrate the microorganisms they are filtering out, and then
reintroducing those microbes into the water.
Groundwater contamination with microbes also remains a problem. EPA
is developing a groundwater rule, but this will have to be fully
integrated with other EPA rules and state activities.
Radon, is another known human carcinogen in tap water EPA must soon
regulate. The National Academy of Sciences has just verified that radon
from tap water likely causes about 180 fatal cancers per year (and many
more cancers are caused by indoor radon seepage into buildings from
soil).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ National Academy of Sciences, National Research Council, Risk
Assessment of Radon in Drinking Water (1998).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As these rules are issued, attention must be paid to how these
contaminant-specific rules, and the pollution prevention provisions of
the SDWA and Clean Water Act will be better integrated into an
effective program to protect public health and the environment. We
believe that ultimately it may be fruitful for the nation to consider
an approach to drinking water protection that encourages broad source
water protection combined with new ``leap frog'' treatment technologies
and distribution system management techniques that can prevent or
remove contamination by a broad spectrum of chemicals and
microorganisms. This could lead to greater public health protection,
while relieving cities, towns, and water utilities from the treadmill
of ever-changing contaminant-by-contaminant regulation and monitoring,
which is fraught with uncertainty that makes long-term planning
difficult, and which is often reactive to new contaminant research,
monitoring, scientific discoveries, and public concerns.
Consumer Right-to-Know About Tap Water Contamination. To redress
these and other tap water problems, public involvement will be crucial.
The 1996 SDWA required water suppliers to issue annual right-to-know
reports (or ``Consumer Confidence Reports''), which will tell the
public about which contaminants are in their drinking water.
This will be the real test of whether EPA, States, and the nation's
water systems are able to work in partnership with us and others to
educate and involve the public in the fight for better drinking water
protection. If effectively implemented and combined with a meaningful
public education campaign, the right to know rules will help to empower
the public to address the challenges ahead as major infrastructure
investments are needed. However, to achieve this goal, EPA must
dedicate substantial additional resources to work to educate specific
groups such as health care providers, the immunocompromised, pregnant
women, the frail elderly, children's' organizations, other vulnerable
populations, and the general public, to help them anticipate and
understand these reports.
EPA's rules for these reports, issued in August 1998, will begin to
make this goal a reality. However, aggressive state and water utility
steps to go beyond the minimum requirements of the rules will be
necessary to assure that the public is fully informed.
We were especially pleased with EPA's excellent public outreach and
participation in developing these rules. Still, there is room for
improvement in the rules. For example, we believe that water systems
should be required to mail their reports to all consumers who drink the
water (including all postal patrons in served areas--not just those who
pay water bills), and should have to reveal levels of all contaminants
they find in their tap water at levels of potential health concern--
even if they are not required to monitor for them under the SDWA.
Additionally, the health effects of all contaminants found should be
required to be noted in the reports, as should the names of the
specific sources of the pollution found in drinking water, and actions
consumers can take to protect themselves. A clearer requirement for
translation of the reports for substantial non-English-speaking
populations also would be helpful, as would a requirement that
consumers be more expeditiously notified of newly-found contaminants of
potential health concern, or contaminants with substantially increased
levels compared to previous public reports.
Drinking Water Compliance Problems--Including Ongoing Problems With
Small Systems--and the Need to Improve Databases. There continue to be
problems with the current drinking water compliance program, as is
discussed in detail in the attached USA Today series published in
October 1998. We are hopeful that the new SDWA small system viability
provisions will help to reduce some of these problems, but additional
state and federal resources will be needed to make a major dent in the
small system compliance problem. We strongly believe that all EPA-
funded (whether state or EPA-administered) small system technical
assistance should be granted only after competitive bidding, as
suggested in a 1998 EPA Inspector General's report.
Improved state data collection and reporting on compliance and
enforcement to EPA is needed, with EPA audits of state records and
reports. Moreover, compliance remains a problem for many EPA health
standards, and state and EPA enforcement of the SDWA remains
unacceptably weak. The vast majority of health standard and major
monitoring violations--and even the majority of EPA-defined
``significant non-compliers''--are not subjected to formal enforcement
action, even after extended or serious health-threatening
violations.\12\ Small system noncompliance remains a substantial
problem, and many large systems also violate EPA health standards,
according to state and EPA records.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ E. Olson, You Are What You Drink . . . (NRDC, 1995); E. Olson,
Think Before You Drink (NRDC, 1993). NRDC also has reviewed more recent
EPA data and verified that these trends have continued in recent years,
as illustrated by the data presented in EPA's Providing Safe Drinking
Water In America (September 1998) and other EPA data reviewed by NRDC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source Water Assessment and Protection. Finally, strong state and
EPA efforts are needed to make the source water assessment and
protection efforts work. The public must be meaningfully involved in
all states, and funding decisions at the state level must emphasize the
need for these prevention-oriented activities (not just building new
treatment plants), and for public involvement in making these
decisions. In addition, we have found that in most states, there is no
plan for new monitoring of contamination when source water assessments
are being completed--in essence, most states plan to use existing
monitoring data. We are deeply troubled by this approach, because it is
clear that in many cases, additional monitoring will be needed to
identify current and potential sources of pollution for our drinking
water supplies. Clean Water Act and SDWA programs also must be better
integrated, and more teeth are needed to prevent polluted runoff,
animal feeding operations, and other major unregulated or under-
regulated pollution sources.
conclusions
In sum, while there remain some significant implementation issues,
it is too early to render a verdict on the 1996 SDWA Amendments. We
believe that there are hopeful signs that the public's right to know
will be ensured, that public health protection--particularly for the
most vulnerable among us such as children--will be improved, and that
some progress will be made towards addressing source water
contamination problems. The true tests of EPA, states, and water
systems will come over the next few years. What happens in these years
could determine whether the Third Revolution in safe drinking water
delivery occurs smoothly and deliberately, or is hampered by delays,
fits and starts. We remain cautiously optimistic that the future will
bring safer tap water for all Americans in the 21st Century.
______
Responses of Erik D. Olson to Additional Questions from Senator Crapo
Question 1. How would you characterize public participation in the
establishment of regulations and standards to date? If poor, would you
lay blame with EPA, state agencies, or stakeholder groups?
Response. Generally, EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking
Water is to be commended for the open process it has used in developing
new regulations and standards under the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act
Amendments. The agency generally has made a genuine, good-faith effort
to involve the public in its standard-setting processes under the new
law. The two areas of concern we have, however, regarding public
participation under the SDWA are:
(1) EPA sometimes has adopted a one-sided process in developing
certain guidance documents or in drafting research plans. For example,
in developing the ``operator certification'' requirements, EPA
established a special committee which included only state and EPA
officials to develop these requirements. EPA then provided what seemed
to some participants to be a pro forma review of the products of the
state-EPA work group by a broader set of stakeholders, in which it was
apparent that EPA had essentially granted states veto power over any
different or additional operator certification requirements. Similarly,
EPA dissolved a broad stakeholder committee on the drinking water SRF,
replacing it with a committee that included only state and EPA
representatives, without public interest or other groups'
participation, creating a vacuum in public participation. Moreover,
when EPA was developing the arsenic in drinking water research agenda,
the agency consulted only with the water industry (through the American
Water Works Association Research Foundation), without public notice or
participation. After we learned of the industry-EPA group and strongly
objected, EPA did allow public comments on the arsenic research plan,
but EPA then jointly reviewed research proposals in a closed-door
process with AWWARF. EPA followed a far better approach in negotiating
the microbial and disinfection byproducts rules and research agenda, in
which the agency was inclusive, and engendered much good will and,
ultimately, a better and more widely-accepted product.
(2) Some states have failed to involve the general public or public
interest community meaningfully in their implementation of the SDWA.
For example, several states told representatives of the environmental
community and other public interest groups that there would be no
opportunity to review or participate in the development of state
``intended use plans'' (IUPs). These IUPs are crucial documents, as
they dictate how federal SRF funds will be spent in the state. These
states offered only a pro forma, after-the-fact review of the IUP,
after a notice in the state register. Similarly, while public
participation in the development of source water assessments was highly
successful in some states, in other states members of the environmental
community were denied meaningful participation in development of these
assessments, with only a last-minute general request for comments as an
apparent afterthought.
Question 2. How do you interpret EPA's authority to revise
standards?
Response. The Safe Drinking Water Act provides that EPA must review
and revise each national primary drinking water regulation no less
often than every 6 years, and that ``any revision . . . shall be
promulgated in accordance with this section except that each revision
shall maintain, or provide for greater, protection of the health of
persons.'' SDWA Sec. 1412(b)(9). This provision is self-explanatory in
that it was intended to avoid ``backsliding'' of tap water health
standards. It was adopted in light of a major controversy leading into
the 1996 Amendments as to whether EPA should be allowed to weaken
existing health standards based on the new provisions in the law. The
Senate Environment Committee and all of Congress came down squarely in
favor of maintaining or strengthening health protections. The law
allows health standards to be revised only downwards--with EPA
authorized to adopt only stricter or equally protective public health
protections, not weaker standards.
__________
Prepared Statement of Gurnie Gunter, Director, Kansas City Water
Services Department, on behalf of the Association of Metropolitan Water
Agencies (AMWA)
Good morning, I'm Gurnie Gunter, Director of the Kansas City (Mo.)
Water Services Department, and I serve on the Board of Directors of the
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA). Thank you for
inviting me to testify before the subcommittee.
I am here today to represent AMWA--an Association comprised of the
nation's largest publicly-owned water suppliers altogether serving over
100 million people with clean, safe drinking water.
introduction
Largely through the efforts of the Senate Environment and Public
Works Committee and its counterpart in the House, the Safe Drinking
Water Act was reauthorized in 1996. The statute's reform was
accomplished through a strong bipartisan effort at a time when there
was serious disagreement over the question of reforming EPA's
regulatory process. Much to this committee's credit, the 1996 drinking
water amendments are held up as an example, by many in Congress, the
Administration and many others, as the way regulatory reform ought to
happen.
Making sure the reforms instituted by the 1996 statute are
implemented is one of the many important jobs of this subcommittee. The
success, or failure, of the 1996 amendments will impact whether the
reforms used in this statute are ones to be emulated in other important
environmental and public health laws.
implementation
It has been two and one half years since passage of the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 and the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), assisted by the States, water supply community,
environmentalists and others, has managed to implement numerous key
provisions. Much of EPA's work was accomplished through a stakeholder
process developed with the help of the National Drinking Water Advisory
Council. Through this process, the agency considered each stakeholder's
views. The agency's efforts to meet the deadlines of the 1996
Amendments serves as a model of how the rulemaking process ought to
work.
So that implementation of the statute stays on schedule, EPA is
hard at work developing a new database to house information on
contaminant occurrence in raw water sources; the agency has already
developed a list of 60 contaminants they are considering for future
study; agency staff are developing new ways to measure costs and
benefits of future regulations; States are evaluating the
susceptibility of water supplies to pollution; the first ever drinking
water loan fund is making awards to assist with compliance; and water
suppliers are gearing up to mail out their first Consumer Confidence
Reports.
Two major rules, the Disinfectant/Disinfection Byproducts Rule and
the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, have also been
promulgated since enactment of the 1996 amendments. However, because a
negotiated rulemaking process was used to develop these two rules,
Congress took great care not to alter the results of those
negotiations. Therefore, the real impact of the 1996 amendments will
become clearer this year with a new round of rules governing
disinfection byproducts, and pathogens, arsenic, radon and ground water
on the table for development.
new regulatory development framework
These and other contaminants will be regulated under a new
regulatory framework mandated under the 1996 amendments. EPA will focus
on contaminants that actually occur in drinking water and, moreover, at
levels of public health concern. Rather than setting standards for a
prescribed list of contaminants as previously required by the 1986
amendments, EPA is now required to develop a list of contaminants for
possible regulation, study them and every 5 years make a decision on
not fewer than 5 whether they should be regulated. In order for EPA to
make a decision to regulate, or not, research is essential.
The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water has made considerable
effort to satisfy this new framework: construction of the occurrence
data base is underway and a list of 60 contaminants has been developed
for further consideration. Remaining, however, is the actual research
to support the new framework.
priority contaminants (contaminant candidate list--ccl)
While funds to support current rule development exists, research on
candidates for future regulation are getting little or no funding. Both
the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the National Drinking Water
Advisory Council (NDWAC) have raised the issue of research funding to
support future rules that need to be based on sound science. As
regulatory development under the 1996 amendments begins on new
contaminants, research needs escalate quickly. NDWAC and GAO estimate a
shortfall of between $10 and $20 million annually to address the
regulation of future contaminants. Without a substantial amount of
research, the 1996 Amendments could be undermined, and Congress' intent
to change the way regulations are developed would not be accomplished.
Funding the necessary research to support development of future
regulations is a priority for AMWA in fiscal year 2000 and the near
future. In order for the scientific data to be available in time to
make sound scientific decisions, research must begin now. As we have in
the past, the drinking water community is prepared to work in
partnership with Congress and the Administration to ensure that
sufficient data is available to make informed decisions.
In addition to future regulatory development, EPA, according to the
Amendments, must review all drinking water regulations periodically and
revise them as appropriate. This represents a further demand for
research that cannot be met by the agency's current research budget.
microbial and disinfection byproducts: the second stage
The next major rulemaking that could potentially impact all surface
water systems and many ground water systems is the second stage of the
microbial and disinfection byproducts rulemaking. So the Stage 2 rules
would be based on more science than was available for Stage 1, EPA and
the water supply community committed to providing millions of dollars
to conduct health effects research and occurrence studies. To date, the
nation's largest water systems have invested well over $100 million in
this data collection effort.
The uncertainties we face without this information cannot be over
emphasized. Because of the inherent risk trade-offs between microbial
pathogen control and disinfection byproduct reduction, coupled with the
lack of data on the health effects of alternative disinfectants
compared to the chlorine based disinfectants typically used, the very
real possibility exists that billions of dollars may be spent on
changing the way we treat water without lessening public health risks,
or, even worse, actually increasing those risks.
Unfortunately, there have been significant delays in collecting
contaminant occurrence and treatment data, and in executing the
necessary health effects research program. The optimistic timeframe set
by negotiators, and adopted into law, in large part was driven by the
statutory deadlines of the old law. In retrospect, a more realistic
view of the timeframes involved would have given more time considering
the unprecedented magnitude of the research effort.
As a result, negotiations on the second stage of the M/DBP Rules,
scheduled to start this spring to meet a promulgation date for final
rules of May 2002, may do so without the benefit of studies that are
ongoing but not yet completed.
A few weeks ago, EPA held a workshop to assist all interested
parties in understanding the state of the science on DBPs and microbial
contaminants. Next week they will hold another workshop on the state of
treatment technologies. The question that will need to be answered
after both science and technology are reviewed, is what do we know, or
not know, and where does that lead us. AMWA is committed to looking at
the science that is completed and treatment that is available. We are
also committed to looking at the research that is underway but won't be
available in the timeframe laid out in the law, and asking the question
what more will we know a year or two from now and should we ask
Congress for more time so the science can be completed. The expenditure
of billions of dollars in public funds requires all of us to ask these
questions so that when the money is spent the public is sure that the
money has been spent wisely.
AMWA requests that the subcommittee remain open to the option of
altering the compliance date for Stage 11 of the M/DBP should reason
dictate.
good science
For the first time, EPA proposed, as part of the Stage I D/DBP
rule, a non-zero Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for chloroform
based on the scientific evidence that its dose response curve is
nonlinear at low doses. EPA and experts in the field have long sought
specific information on the mode of action of contaminants. By knowing
the mode of action of a contaminant that causes cancer in animals, it
is possible to make a determination of whether or not the same mode of
action would apply at lower doses or even be applicable to humans at
all.
A first time change such as this from a conservative default
assumption based on scientific data will always be controversial and
should be carefully explored and justified as it appears EPA and
outside expert workgroups have done. And, although EPA chose not to
finalize the MCLG for chloroform in the final Stage I D/DBP rule at a
level other than zero, if the review to be conducted by the Science
Advisory Board (SAB) provides support for the non-zero level, we
believe that the agency's commitment to the use of good science
dictates that an MCLG other than zero be finalized in Stage II.
The non-zero MCLG for chloroform is important for another reason.
Chloroform is the most commonly formed disinfection byproduct. Efforts
to control byproducts as required by regulation have focused on
chloroform reduction in the past since it is also the easiest to
control. To the extent that chloroform isn't part of the risk equation,
such efforts might have the unintended consequence of increasing risks
from other byproducts. It should be no surprise that following the best
science will work out to be the best in the long run.
public information and cost-benefit analysis
The 1996 Amendments throughout stress the use of good science as a
vital underpinning of regulatory efforts. In addition to science, the
statute adds two significant right-to-know and public information
provisions. The first as mentioned earlier are the so-called consumer
confidence reports that water suppliers are required to provide their
customers annually beginning this year. The other requires EPA to
present information on public health effects and to conduct and publish
an analysis of quantifiable and nonquantifiable benefits and costs.
This provision does not require the Administrator to demonstrate that
the dollar value of the benefits are greater (or lessor) than the
dollar value of the cost, but it does require her to make a
determination with respect to the relative costs and benefits of each
national primary drinking water regulation when it is proposed. AMWA
urges this subcommittee to ensure that the letter and intent of the law
are followed and that this analysis is conducted for all future
rulemakings.
drinking water state revolving loan program
For the first time in the history of drinking water, there is a
Federal loan program designed to assist water suppliers meet the
demands of the drinking water law. With $138 billion in unmet
infrastructure needs, including $34 billion for immediate needs, there
is a great demand for the program. It is important, then, for EPA to
provide for a fully funded loan program in its future budget requests
and for Congress to appropriate those funds.
conclusion
EPA, States, and public water systems face the challenge of making
the 1996 Amendments work as Congress intended. The burdens are
considerable, but the result will be a stronger drinking water program
and continued protection of the nation's drinking water. But if EPA and
the States are to meet those challenges and burdens, adequate resources
must be made available. The onus is on EPA to request appropriate funds
from Congress and on Congress to satisfy EPA's requests. In addition,
we encourage the agency to continue its current approach to
implementation of the Act and to embrace the regulatory tools Congress
provided it in 1996. AMWA will continue to support the agency, and we
look forward to a close working relationship with you as well.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. If we can be of any
future assistance, please contact us.
__________
Prepared Statement of Steve Levy, Executive Director, Atlantic States
Rural Water and Wastewater Association
introduction
Chairman Crapo, Chairman Chafee, members of the committee, my name
is Steven Levy. I am Executive Director of the Atlantic States Rural
Water and Wastewater Association, serving Connecticut and Rhode Island
and the Maine Rural Water Association. I am here today on behalf of the
National Rural Water Association, a federation of 47 state rural water
associations representing over 17,000 water and wastewater systems. For
the past 16 years, like my colleagues across the country, I have been
in the field helping small water systems provide safe drinking water.
While you are familiar with the number and type of water systems in
your state, I would like to identify some national facts regarding
small community water systems.
facts on small community water systems
53,335 of the 56,747 community water systems in the
country (94 percent) serve populations of less than 10,000 persons.
According to EPA the average size community water system serves less
than 150 homes.
In Maine, 420 of the 436 community water systems serve
less than 10,000 persons and one system larger than 100,000 persons. In
Montana, 688 of the 694 community water systems serve less than 10,000
persons and there is not one system larger than 100,000 persons. In
Rhode Island, 82 percent of systems serve less than 10,000. In Idaho,
789 of the 800 community water systems serve populations less than
10,000.
The small water systems make no profits, are locally
governed by rural citizens whose families drink the water, and were
built to improve public health by eliminating the use of contaminated
wells, shallow wells, streams, bogs, or cisterns as their drinking
water source. Prior to the development of water systems, families
hauled water from dozens of miles away to cisterns and collected runoff
from roofs.
Currently more than 1.1 million rural Americans live in
homes without piped water. The primary reason these 405,855 families
don't have water is they cannot afford it.
Due to economies of scale, families on rural water systems
often pay over $50.00 a month for service.
Each state rural water association membership is comprised of small
non-profit water systems and small towns. All members have water supply
operation as their primary daily activity. Membership averages about
400-500 communities per state, with systems from all geographic areas
of each state. These are active members--who continuously participate
in the training and technical assistance program in an effort to
improve their drinking water. This program actively assists all small
water systems whether they are members of the state association or not.
With a significant turnover in water operators and board members--and
the ever increasing regulatory burden--the need for training and
technical assistance remains constant.
section 1.0 drinking water quality is a local issue
The problem with the Safe Drinking Water Act is that improving
drinking water in small communities is more of a RESOURCE problem than
a REGULATORY problem. Every community wants to provide safe water and
meet all drinking water standards. After all, local water systems are
operated by people whose families drink the water every day, who are
locally elected by their community, and who know, first-hand, how much
their community can afford. Without the support of local people,
regulations alone won't protect drinking water.
It was not a regulation that caused the individuals to act locally
to start systems which provided the most dramatic public improvement
ever in their community. Many interest groups petition this committee
to authorize more and more, ever stringent federal unfunded mandates on
small communities with the intention of improving public health on the
communities' behalf. Unfortunately this does not work and things aren't
that simple. The key to long-term improvement is local support, local
education and available resources. We continually ask for the list of
the small communities that need to improve their drinking water and are
not willing to take the steps to do it. Such a list does not exist.
Organizations that advocate increasing unfunded mandates on small
communities should take their case directly to the local community. If
they can get the community's support then we would back any new
standard or policy. The problem has been that small communities don't
support most of these policies at the local level because they waste
limited resources on non-priority projects.
Mr. Chairman, my experiences starting water systems is very similar
to thousands of others in every state. Small water systems were started
to improve the public health. No one forced us to start these systems,
which always required hundreds of hours of our time and often a lot of
our money. In most cases small water systems made dramatic improvements
in public health providing an alternative for families from gathering
their drinking water from untreated streams, shallow and contaminated
wells, and collecting their water off the roofs and cisterns. Millions
of rural families still have water delivered to their homes. According
to the USDA at least 2.2 million rural Americans live with critical
quality and accessibility problems with their drinking water, including
an estimated 730,000 people who have no running water in their homes.
About five million more rural residents are affected by less critical,
but still significant, water problems, as defined by the federal Safe
Drinking Water Act. These problems include undersized or poorly
protected water sources, a lack of adequate storage facilities, and
antiquated distribution systems.
section 1.1 epa's significant non-compliance study
Recently, EPA conducted a study on systems with a ``history of
significant non-compliance'' as mandated under the 1996 Amendments.
This list showed:
No widespread contamination of the country's drinking
water.
All local government systems are taking immediate steps
(often in advance of EPA notice) to quickly remedy any and all non-
compliance.
Most all noncompliance (including SNC non-compliance) is
procedural.
Many systems don't know they are a SNC.
Most all of this non-compliance can be quickly remedied by
providing these system was immediate, simple, technical assistance. For
example, Idaho Rural Water conducted a program in cooperation with the
state to bring SNCs into compliance. Idaho Rural Water found that most
SNCs studied can be returned to compliance through on-site assistance.
Of the 30 systems identified by the state for the study; 29 were able
to return to compliance through technical assistance by Idaho Rural
Association. Most of the technical assistance consisted of an initial
phone call and a one hour on-site contact.
In addition to Idaho, EPA studies have confirmed our conclusions. A
January 1998 report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Compliance (OECA) found dramatic improvement in small
community compliance with EPA drinking water rules after receiving ON-
SITE technical assistance.
The EPA's pilot project looked at small and very small public water
system compliance with the federal Safe Drinking Water Act in three
states, Colorado, Iowa, and Alaska. In these states, EPA utilized NON-
REGULATORY assistance and training programs operated by small
communities themselves as an alternative to regulatory enforcement
(like fines and penalties) to solve noncompliance. The results are
impressive. According to the EPA report's findings, after assistance
was provided: of the 153 small water systems in Colorado with chronic
noncompliance, 62 percent of the noncompliant community systems came
into compliance and 59 percent of the non-community systems achieved
compliance. Of the 280 systems in Iowa in noncompliance which received
technical assistance 89 percent of the systems did not receive failure
to monitor notices in the subsequent monitoring period.
This study is very significant because it quantified environmental
results and progress by documenting actual success rates for specific
programs. It is difficult to say what is working until you can measure
it--this is a common problem with environmental programs. This type of
``hard'' results analysis should be used as a model for most federal
environmental programs.
section 2.0 long-term success is dependent on local responsibility
The challenge of balancing local flexibility in a federal
regulatory structure was a key goal of the 1996 Amendments--especially
with regard to small communities. The Act has initiated a new approach
of greater emphasis on technical assistance and a new commitment to
local initiative which has greatly improved small community compliance
with the law and promoted local responsibility for protection of
drinking water resources. This approach has already resulted in
enhanced environmental improvement. For example, over 2,900 communities
have adopted source water protection programs, and 2,300 are in the
process of adopting programs, utilizing the Act's expanded wellhead/
groundwater protection programs.
The only way to achieve long-term success in ground water
protection is to have the people who benefit from a cleaner environment
actually take responsibility for protecting it. Once committed, local
elected officials have brought together diverse groups such as farmers
and manufactures. Local leaders (who speak the same language) are more
effective than federal regulators at finding agreement among the
diverse groups. According to most local Mayors and Councils
participating in the program--``this is the best federal environmental
program our Town has ever participated in''--a progressive,
environmentally friendly, land-use program supported in small
communities. Local folks taking care of themselves--and taking
responsibility for protecting their own drinking water is the only way
to sustain long-term protection of drinking water. Increasing the
number and the stringency EPA regulations will not help folks without
water get water. And more regulations won't help poor communities who
can't afford them (see Attachment One). Providing resources to the
folks at the grassroots level and recognizing local initiative has
resulted in more environmental improvement than the regulatory
alternative of increased enforcement. We encourage you to continue this
effort. The dramatic increase in regulations over the next five years
(due to the Amendments of 1996) will require expanded assistance to
rural and system systems. (Table One list the schedule for new
regulation under the 1996 Act)
section 2.1 montana case study in local responsibility for protection
local resources
Under the local grassroots approach in Montana, 115 systems have
been covered over the past five years for less than $350,000. Of which,
54 have been completed and ten have been granted testing waivers. On
the other hand, under the EPA approach $500,000 was spent over eight
years to complete five public groundwater protection programs. National
programs that don't have the backing of local government will likely
result in similar lags and high cost experienced in the groundwater
programs. Table Two documents the over 4,900 local communities that
have adopted enforceable groundwater protection programs. Many local
plans have evolved into county wide plans and some are expanding to
cover watersheds. This bottom-up approach is far outpacing EPA's
efforts for a fraction of the cost. In fact, many local officials have
commented that EPA's source water program (authorized in the SDWA) will
not be nearly are comprehensive, enforceable, nor environmental
progressive as the rural water ground water protection. These official
are concerned that EPA's program will confuse local systems and may act
as a disincentive for locals to adapt a more protective program.
section 3.0 review of sdwa implementation
In key provisions of the 96 Amendments, EPA staff have included
federal authority in their regulations not provided in the Act. In
other provisions, the agency has limited state and local government
authority where the Act provided the agency with discretion including
Capacity Development, Consumer Confidence Reports, Ground Water
Disinfection Rule and others we been commented on and written to you in
the past. We hope that in the future EPA will implement regulations in
a manner consistent with the spirit and the intent of the law.
Three MAJOR EPA proposals, Radon, Arsenic, Disinfection Byproducts
Stages II, Ground Water Rules represent a significant threat to ability
of small communities to supply safe and affordable drinking water.
These rules may have a negative impact on public health in rural
communities because the process EPA is using to determine rules do not
adequately assess the public health challenges in small communities and
will force communities to spend limited resources on low risk public
health threats. We feel EPA is moving in a direction, under these
Rules, contrary to the intent of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act
(SDWA). We urge you to provide common-sense in implementing these rules
or clarify the scope of the EPA's regulatory authority. The following
summarizes our concerns with these four critical rules.
Ground Water Rule
Small communities feel that the rule should clearly
demonstrate ground water contamination before requiring systems to
disinfect or take any other steps. The law provides EPA shall develop a
rule that requires disinfection ``as necessary'' for ground water
system. As necessary should mean: when contaminated. Not water that
``may potentially'' become contaminated. EPA is proposing developing a
rule that regulates what a community must do to prevent contamination--
a major change in the federal regulatory model. All EPA instruction on
how to run a community (water system) to prevent contamination should
be NON-regulatory (i.e., information, grants, training, education etc.
to encourage towns to adopt the latest practices). The Rule should
clearly demonstrate ground water contamination (physical, chemical,
biological, or radiological substance or matter in the water) before
requiring systems to disinfect or take any other steps. This common
sense, ``innocent until proven guilty'' idea is the direction that the
small communities feel EPA should adopt.
Radon Rule
EPA is likely to propose a radon maximum contaminant level
in the range of 200-500 pCi/l. This level is lower than radon levels in
outdoor air. The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) recently released a
report on radon which determined a general background level of radon in
outdoor air of 0.4 pCi/l (water to air transfer ratio in homes is
10,000 to 1). The straightforward multiplication of these values yields
0.4 pCi/l is equivalent to 4000 pCi/l in water. In essence, a standard
of 200-500 pCi/l, will force communities to spend millions to ensure
their water is less of a health risk than naturally occurring outdoor
air. Under the SDWA of 96, a community can comply with the outdoor air
equivalent if it initiates a multimedia mitigation program. However,
EPA appears to be requiring overly prescriptive mitigation program
rather than an education/technical assistance approach. For example,
EPA is proposing that ``results'' will be required under multimedia
program. However, the NAS feels that because of background activities
that it was not possible to measure the effectiveness of any particular
program element. We strongly feel that small communities have better
more important things to do with their funds and resources than to
reduce the risk of drinking water lower than outdoor air. And we urge
you to limit EPA's authority to a radon standard that is no more
stringent than the risk equivalent of naturally occurring air.
Disinfection Byproducts
EPA is in the process of developing a rule to regulate
disinfection byproducts (DPBs Stage II). EPA has already promulgated a
Stage I rule for DPBs. EPA acknowledges there was not adequate
information on health effects science to justify Stage I levels. The
maximum contaminant levels set under Stage I were overly stringent and
will likely result in more harm than good in small systems. However our
immediate concern over this rule is EPA's indication that they will be
including small systems under Stage II. EPA's move is contrary to what
was agreed too under Stage I which was the basis reauthorization and
was partially codified in the 1996 Act. The Stage I ``agreement in
principal'' provided a ``backstop'' that would limit Stage II MCLs to
``surface water systems serving at least 10,000 people.'' This was
endorsed in the 1996 Act's Conference Committee Statement, ``all
further negotiations for the Stage II regulations for the control of
DBPs should follow and be consistent with the considerations that led
to an agreement regarding the proposed rule for Stage I.'' We feel that
EPA's proposal to extend Stage II levels to small systems is: (1) not
supported by the health effects' science, (2) provides a final rule
deadline years before the necessary public health data will be
available, (3) would result in an overall decrease in public health
protection in rural and small communities, and (4) is contrary to the
Stage I agreement (backstop) which was the basis for reauthorization.
section 3.1 review of specific committee questions
(1) Ground Water Rule Schedule for Promulgation: We are not nearly
as concerned with EPA's expedited schedule in promulgating this rule,
as we are with the actual content of this rule as described above.
(2) Variances: We are not aware of any variances being granted in
any state. The variance provision has proved unworkable because it is
unclear how it works. To make it workable we would recommend the
following changes: make the income threshold consistent with the CDBG
(HUD) and USDA thresholds for affordability, allow variances be
provided for all contaminants solely at the state's discretion (EPA
review bureaucratizes the process), and provide for an immediate
exemption if EPA has not identified an affordable alternative
treatment. We would be happy to work with the committee further on
improving the variance systems.
(3) The Recent GAO Report: We do not agree with GAO . . . that it
is too early to gauge EPA's success in implementing the SDWA. We feel
that GAO should have concentrated more on the content of the rules and
the specifics of their statutory authorization. GAO focuses on EPA's
success in meeting rule deadlines. EPA's timeliness of promulgation is
insignificant when compared to the content of regulations. This was the
heart of the Congressional debate on reauthorization, the specific
words in statute make all the difference. For example, GAO analyzes the
EPA's ``implementation . . . [of] the provisions to ensure the
viability of the thousands of smaller water systems . . .'' GAO
adoption of the term ``ensure'' (which is not in the statute) to gauge
EPA's success in implementation reflects a lack of understanding of
statue and ability to gauge implementation. Senator Kempthorne
specifically made a case that EPA is to ``assist'' systems with
viability. This one word changes the entire authority in that
provision. This is significant, and GAO should focus on this critical
implementation issue.
Rural Water continues to press EPA to stick to the specific
provisions and intent in the SDWA of 1996. In closing, I would like to
again thank the committee for this hearing, ask for your continued
support for additional technical resources to the grassroots level,
your assistance to clarify the intent and meaning of key provision in
the 96 Amendments, and your resistance to calls from interest groups
for more and more, ever stringent federal unfunded mandates on
communities. Unfortunately things aren't that simple. The key to long-
term improvement is local support, local education and available
resources. Mr. Chairman, my name is Steven Levy. I am Executive
Director of the Atlantic States Rural Water and Wastewater Association
and the Maine Rural Water Association, serving the States of Rhode
Island, Connecticut, and Maine. I am here today on behalf of the
National Rural Water Association.
I testified before this committee in May of 1990 on financing
environmental facilities. I discussed the plight of the Long Pond Water
Company, a tiny 160 customer, private, unfiltered, surface water supply
in Sorrento, Maine. They faced the daunting prospect of COMPLIANCE with
the Safe Drinking Water Act which required them to install a filter
plant. Their story demonstrates the impact of the SDWA on small
communities.
The company and the Town wanted to comply but did not know how to
pay for the $1 million mandate. That mandate did not come with any
funding and most small towns don't know what to do when hit by such
costs. They did what thousands of other communities do in every state .
. . they called their rural water association. Each year rural water
associations will assist the Long Ponds of America handle the onslaught
of EPA regulations.
With Rural Water's help, the town stepped up and accepted the
challenge of bringing that water system into compliance. Our technical
assistance program helped create a nonprofit water district and rural
water helped them secure a U.S. Department of Agriculture funding for
$1.5 million to pay for the new treatment plant and a new stand pipe.
Average water rates climbed from $81 per year to over $500 per year.
The point of this story is that small towns will take the necessary
measures to protect their water. However they need common-sense
assistance, provided in a simple form that small towns can understand
and it takes someone going to that town, sitting down with them evening
after evening, and working with then through the ENTIRE process and
getting them an answer they can understand. Giving them a copy of the
federal register and phone number to call would help them. No one else
does this except rural water technical assistance. We also help show
them how and where to find funding such as the USDA and the SRFs--which
can require complicated paperwork.
Each time we help out a community they know how to do it on their
own next time. THIS IS KEY--ENCOURAGING LOCAL responsibility. If the
community does not accept and support measures to protect their water,
no amount of regulation will protect it.
Long Pond's troubles are not over, the water system is now in need
of $1 million funding package from the State Revolving Loan Fund to
replace their antiquated transmission line. This is the case with small
systems in every state. The flood of new regulations is increasing over
the next five years. Consumer confidence report, radon, ground water
rule, operator certification, source water protection, disinfection
byproducts, and others. We urge the committee to expand the technical
assistance under the act and tell your systems to utilize it. We also
urge you to expand the capital resources available to small system,
especially the USDA water and sewer grant and loan program.
Enormous progress has been made in drinking water protection since
the passage of the 1986 and 1996 amendments. Most of the progress has
been made by local people taking local action and being educated
through technical assistance.
For example:
In Rhode Island and Connecticut, rural water has assisted
44 communities and 13 non-community systems develop source water
protection plans and SOC waiver forms, saving thousands of dollars per
system in testing costs.
EPA Rulemaking has been especially challenging to our
smaller public water systems, who often lack full-time trained help and
can't take full advantage of the waivers in the Act. This is where we
come in . . . in Maine our staff helped 175 community and non-transient
systems complete wellhead assessments and SOC waiver forms. Total
savings were about $186,000.
Nationwide, the Act has initiated a new approach of
greater emphasis on technical assistance and a new commitment to local
initiative which has greatly improved small community compliance with
the law and promoted local responsibility for protection of drinking
water resources. This approach has already resulted in enhanced
environmental improvement. For example, over 2,900 communities have
adopted source water protection programs, and 2,300 are in the process
of adopting programs, utilizing the Act's expanded wellhead/groundwater
protection programs. The list is included with my written testimony.
The only way to achieve long-term success in ground water
protection is to have the people who benefit from a cleaner environment
to actually take responsibility for protecting it. Local folks taking
care of themselves--and taking responsibility for protecting their own
drinking water is the only way to sustain long-term protection of
drinking water. And more regulations won't help poor communities who
can't afford them. Providing resources to the folks at the grassroots
level and recognizing local initiative has resulted in more
environmental improvement than the regulatory alternative of increased
enforcement. We encourage you to continue this effort.
__________
Prepared Statement of Andrew M. Chapman, Elizabethtown Water Company,
on behalf of the National Association of Water Companies
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Andrew M. Chapman. I am the
President and CEO of Elizabethtown Water Company, an investor-owned
community water system serving a population of one million in central
New Jersey. I am also a Vice President and member of the Executive
Committee of the National Association of Water Companies (NAWC), a non-
profit trade association that exclusively represents the nation's
private and investor-owned drinking water utility industry. Its
membership--over 320 companies in 42 states--provides safe, reliable
drinking water to nearly 21 million Americans every day.
Mr. Chairman, NAWC is pleased that you and your subcommittee have
scheduled this oversight hearing on the implementation of the 1996
Amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). With its emphasis on
public participation and right-to-know, the requirements for sound
science and cost-benefit analysis in the regulatory process, and the
creation of a state revolving loan fund (SRF) for infrastructure
improvements, the 1996 Act represents a new paradigm for environmental
legislation and an achievement that this committee and Congress should
be justly proud of.
NAWC supported the 1996 Act and we are happy to report that, based
on our experience over the past two years, its overall implementation
to date has been successful. Officials at the Environmental Protection
Agency should be commended, in particular, for meeting the Act's
deadlines while involving interested stakeholders in the process of
developing regulations and guidelines in a fashion that is truly
unprecedented. Although we have concerns which I will discuss and we
can see problems developing that should be addressed, overall we
believe that to date EPA, the state primacy agencies, and the various
stakeholder groups have worked in a positive and cooperative manner
towards implementation of the letter and spirit of the legislation.
consumer confidence reports
One conspicuous example of this success was the announcement by the
President on August 11, 1998, of the Consumer Confidence Reports (CCR)
final rule. Pursuant to this rule all community water systems will be
required to disclose to their customers each year the state of their
drinking water supply--something that many NAWC companies have been
doing for many years. Generally the reports will include information on
the sources of drinking water, potential sources of contamination, the
health effects of any violations, and precautionary advisories for
people with special medical problems. We strongly believe in the
public's right to have relevant information about their drinking water,
and we believe that the final rule strikes a proper balance by
requiring the disclosure of important information at a level of detail
that is meaningful and understandable.
state revolving loan funds
The plain language of the SDWA Amendments of 1996, as well as the
legislative history, makes it clear that Congress intended DW-SRF funds
to benefit all customers of public water systems, regardless of the
ownership of the systems. This policy was a deliberate departure from
that of the Clean Water Act SRF which provides funds to publicly owned
wastewater systems only. Because of this change, the Senate Committee
Report made eligibility of private systems explicit: ``Drinking water
systems eligible for [DW-SRF] assistance are those public water systems
(as defined by the Act) that are community water systems (whether
publicly or privately owned) . . .''
EPA has supported this policy, and EPA officials should be
commended for their efforts to implement the SRF equitably. In
particular, we appreciate EPA's recent announcement that
``reimbursement'' is permitted for costs incurred after state approval
of a project but before execution of a loan agreement. Such
reimbursement for privately-owned companies might not have been
permitted under a strict interpretation of the Act which does not allow
``refinancing'' for privately-owned companies. This common-sense
interpretation by EPA was critical in some states, including New
Jersey, where approval of a project typically takes place many months
prior to the execution of a loan agreement.
In spite of the best efforts of EPA, however, implementation of the
SRF has been uneven in the states. According to a recent survey by
NAWC, only 11 SRF applications have been approved for NAWC companies
since the 1996 Amendments became effective, for a total of $40 million
spread across 8 states (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Iowa, Maine,
New Hampshire, New Jersey and Pennsylvania).
Most significantly, 19 states, through their constitutions,
statutes or official policies, have declared privately-owned systems to
be ineligible for SRF assistance. Presently EPA is considering a policy
that would base a state's SRF allocation only on those infrastructure
needs that the state has determined to be eligible. This makes perfect
sense. Why award an allocation to a state for infrastructure needs
which the state has no intention of assisting? NAWC believes that such
a revised policy would be fair and proper for all water systems and
their customers, as well as the states. We urge EPA to formally
announce such a policy soon. If EPA concludes that it lacks legal
authority, we urge Congress to make such authority explicit.
epa regulatory standard setting process
Mr. Chairman, one of the most important objectives of the 1996 SDWA
Amendments, and one which NAWC heartily endorses, is to make EPA
regulations as rational as possible, based on the best science
available. To accomplish this, we believe that it is critical for EPA
to develop a process that will enable decision-makers to focus on
important issues in a timely fashion. For example, we believe that EPA
should emphasize early, statistically valid, contaminant occurrence
monitoring before investing heavily in health studies and other
contaminant analyses.
Consequently, we have provided EPA with a detailed paper presenting
our concerns and specific recommendations. I would like to emphasize
that these concerns are industry wide. Our paper has been specifically
endorsed by the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies (AMWA) and the Association
of State Drinking Water Administrators (ASDWA). In summary, the
objectives of this paper are to facilitate the development of a
regulatory development process that:
Complies with the explicit requirements of the SDWA;
Focuses only on the most important and critical issues
needed to produce credible and effective National Primary Drinking
Water Regulations (NPDWRs);
Provides a framework that increases the consistency of
decisions among the various NPDWRs; and
Provides a high level of public health protection for the
resources expended, both by the agency in the development of the
regulation, and by the drinking water utilities in their compliance.
With respect to the requirement that regulatory decisions be based
on the best science available, we are compelled to record our
disappointment in EPA's recent decision to promulgate an MCLG for
chloroform of zero despite acknowledging in the preamble to the
Disinfectants/Disinfection Byproduct Rule that, ``The Agency recognizes
the strength of the science in support of a non-linear approach for
estimating carcinogenicity of chloroform.'' We urge EPA to keep an open
mind and to reconsider this determination after completing its
deliberations with the Science Advisory Board.
adequate funding for epa research
Mr. Chairman, NAWC is seriously concerned that without increased
research funding over the next several years, EPA will either fail to
meet statutory deadlines for regulating contaminants, or will fail to
meet the requirements of the Act for standards based on sound science.
The January 1999, GAO Report on the Safe Drinking Water Act cites EPA
estimates of annual funding shortfalls for research and data collection
in the range of $10 million to $20 million per year for fiscal years
1999 through 2005.
These concerns are shared by other experts. The National Drinking
Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) has concluded that:
[S]hortfalls in the [drinking water] program's funding and
research to support basic SDWA public health objectives . . .
will substantially hinder attainment of the SDWA quality and
sound science requirements or will result in missing statutory
deadlines for priority rulemakings.
A comprehensive, targeted and fully funded research program
on drinking water health effects, exposure, treatment and
analytical methods is essential to the success of the new
statutory framework and to achieving the full potential of the
SDWA reforms.
We endorse NDWAC's recommendation that, ``The Administrator should
request full funding for drinking water activities to address
shortfalls which threaten the scientific and programmatic integrity of
the program.'' Mr. Chairman, we recognize that this committee is not
responsible for EPA appropriations, but we urge you, during the budget
and appropriations process, to be supportive of requests to meet the
funding levels necessary to fulfill the Act's mandates and to protect
the public health.
water contamination tort litigation
Mr. Chairman, NAWC wishes to express its grave concern about a new
kind of lawsuit which we believe seriously threatens America's drinking
water industry and the water quality regulatory system under which it
has successfully operated for many years. In California, the
plaintiff's bar has organized and commenced, as of now, eleven mass
tort lawsuits against several community water systems (both public
agencies and private companies) for allegedly delivering contaminated
water, even though the companies claim to have been in full compliance
with state and federal standards. As you know, these standards have
been developed by regulatory agencies over many years based on the
health effects of contaminants, measurement capabilities, and technical
feasibility. They are the product of extensive Congressional debate
over both the need to protect public health and the cost of treatment.
If twelve jurors, after hearing ``scientific'' testimony from
plaintiffs' ``expert witnesses'', conclude that the national standards
are inadequate to protect the public health, water systems across the
country will need to consider whether to comply with uniform national
standards or the new standards set by the litigation. Furthermore, the
costs of defending these lawsuits will place upward pressure on water
prices. Ultimately, the substantial judgments that could result from
these lawsuits could threaten the financial stability of water systems
across the country.
On March 12, 1998, the California Public Utilities Commission
instituted its own investigation into the adequacy of existing drinking
water standards. This investigation has resulted in a temporary stay of
the judicial proceedings. The California PUC has set May 1999, as its
goal for a final determination of its investigation. Depending on that
determination and its impact on the underlying tort lawsuits, Congress
may wish to examine more closely the potential impact of these lawsuits
on the national drinking water standards program, as well as possible
legislative remedies. Given the widely-acknowledged success of the SDWA
since its enactment 25 years ago, we believe that it would be most
unfortunate, if not potentially disastrous, if the heart of the Act--
uniformly enforced national drinking water standards--were to be eroded
or destroyed by civil litigation.
reliability of the sdwis compliance database.
Last summer NAWC and its member companies, along with other
associations, expressed serious concern about the inaccuracy and
unreliability of much of the SDWIS compliance information displayed to
the public on the Internet through EPA's Envirofacts Warehouse. We were
pleased when EPA officials responded positively and immediately and
began the development and implementation of a system for correcting
existing errors and ensuring future reliability. In addition,
disclaimers have been placed on the website for some states, and just
last week EPA agreed to place ``flags'' next to specific information
that has been challenged as incorrect, and not yet corrected.
Since the system relies on information provided by state agencies,
the problems are complex and vary from state to state. Much remains to
be done. However, we want to emphasize our appreciation for EPA's
prompt response to a problem with serious potential for eroding public
confidence in drinking water quality.
conclusion
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the National Association of Water
Companies wants to express its gratitude to the subcommittee for the
opportunity to share its views on the implementation of the SDWA
Amendments of 1996. As we approach the 25th anniversary of the original
Act, we can all be grateful for, and proud of, the substantial
improvements that have been made in the delivery of safe and reliable
drinking water to the American public. You have also listened to our
concerns about current and potential problems and our recommendations
for dealing with them.
Essentially, NAWC views the 1996 Act as the expression of a
partnership between Congress, EPA, the states and tribes, public water
systems and the consuming public to commit ourselves to maintaining the
best public drinking water delivery system in the world. We believe
that the partnership is effective and we look forward to working with
Congress and this committee in continued pursuit of this goal.
______
Responses of Andrew Chapman to Additional Questions from Senator Crapo
Question 1. Currently, the state SRF allocations are based on
infrastructure needs for both private and public systems. Should the
EPA prepare future allotment formulas based on the needs of systems
eligible to receive funds from that state?
Response. Yes. Current SRF allocations are based on the
infrastructure needs of all systems in a state, even for those states
that deny SRF eligibility to privately-owned systems. Such denial of
eligibility is contrary to the intent of Congress that SRF proceeds be
available to meet the needs of all drinking water systems, regardless
of ownership. It is also unfair to the customers of the private systems
that are denied assistance and to the majority of the states who have
complied with Congressional intent. We believe that EPA can and should
address this non-compliance by notifying all states that in the future
their SRF allocations will based only on the needs of eligible systems.
This proposal is not punitive. Nor is it federal intrusion. It would
merely enforce the allocation of federal tax dollars in the manner that
Congress has mandated.
Question 2. How much does it cost your company in time and
resources to participate in the needs assessment survey?
Response. Because my company, Elizabethtown Water Company, is
extremely proactive and constantly planning ahead, the information
sought by the EPA infrastructure needs survey is readily available, and
it probably costs our company no more than than $5,000 to comply. For
smaller systems who may not have the resources for adequately planning
the costs may be proportionately higher. Ironically, these small
companies may be the systems most in need of SRF assistance.
Question 3. You have indicated that participating in state needs
surveys is burdensome and your companies are ineligible for funding in
many states. It is my understanding that your companies consider
participation in the survey an unreasonable expectation in states in
which they do not also qualify for State Revolving Fund assistance.
Would it be NAWC's preference to not participate or simply to receive
access to the find?
Response. Our very strong preference would be for all systems and
their customers to have access to the fund.
It is certainly true that private companies in states where they
are not eligible may have mixed feelings about participating in a
voluntary needs survey which can only result in more funding going to
their competition. Nonetheless, we are not aware of any NAWC company
that has refused to participate. Our advice is that they should
participate, for two reasons. First, quite apart from the SRF, the
needs assessment provides valuable information about the state of the
nation's water infrastructure, and it should be as accurate and
complete as possible. Second, it is our aim to persuade each of the
nineteen non-complying states to change their policy and include all
systems. We believe this can best be accomplished by taking a
constructive, cooperative approach, rather than one of confrontation.
-