|
 |
|
Safe Drinking
Water Act One Year Later
|
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency |
Office of Water
(4601) |
EPA 810-F-97-002
September 1997 |
 |
|
 n August 6, 1996,
President Clinton signed amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act,
the primary statute for protection of our nation's public drinking
water supply. Implementing this wide-ranging Act is challenging,
but one year after enactment EPA and our partners in the drinking
water community have laid the foundation for public health protection
into the 21st century. |
|
 he Federal Safe Drinking
Water Act (SDWA) was first enacted in 1974. The 1996 Amendments
to SDWA were the first amendments in 10 years. The amendments strengthened
the Act’s public health protection by broadening its scope
of action and level of public involvement. They also provided new
tools to address changing demands and increased scientific and programmatic
complexities. They embody the concept that flexibility (within a
baseline of national public health protection) is appropriate, if
triggered by sound information on relevant local conditions and
based on good science. |
| he
SDWA amendments emphasize comprehensive public health protection
through regulatory improvements, increased funding, prevention programs,
and public participation. The amendments improve the existing regulatory
framework in two important ways. First, a new focus on risk-based
priority-setting means that EPA will decide which contami- nants
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 Act increased require- ments for research and
sensitive population analysis to give EPA more sound data and
science on which to base those decisions. Public health protection
remains the basis for |
decisions on what level to
set drinking water standards. Second, states now have greater flexibility
to implement the Act responsibly to meet their specific needs.
The new law seeks to prevent drinking water problems by increasing
states’ and public water systems’ capacity to provide
safe water. 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 improve- ments for water systems. In addition,
new state prevention initiatives were created and funded.
First, a source water assessment program will give states and
water
|
suppliers information they
need to prevent contamination of a community’s drinking water
source through the amendments’ source water protection authorities,
thereby adding an extra layer of defense to the current treatment
options. Second, the amendments require national minimum guidelines
for states to certify operators of drinking water systems, that
will reduce drinking water problems and boost consumers’confidence
in the competent handling of their drinking water. Third, a water
system capacity development program can expand states’ tools
to ensure that water systems have the managerial, technical, and
financial ability to effectively protect drinking water supplies.
Finally, the amendments recognize that effective drinking water
protection must be founded on a base of government accountability
and public
|
| understanding and support.
The amendments embody the principle of greater public involvement
in drinking water protection, and ensure that the choices made during
implementation respond to the public’s needs and concerns.
Right-to-know provisions, such as the consumer confidence reports,
will give consumers the information they need to make their own
health decisions. These provisions will also promote accountability
in decision-making.
Providing safe water is a
|
comprehensive and integrated endeavor, involving EPA, states, Tribes,
water suppliers, local governments, and the public in new roles
and coopera- tive partnerships. The new Act recognizes that
everyone has a stake in drinking water protection. EPA’s challenge
is to realize the principles of the Act, to create an environment
where all stakeholders can best utilize the tools provided to better
protect drinking water and public health. One year into implementation,
EPA and its partners have begun to create that environment. |
has spent much of this first year institution- alizing the new Act’s
ethic of consultation, involvement, and partnership. This ethic
is consistent with the Administration’s overall emphasis on
public information and involvement. EPA is committed to close and
regular consultation with stakeholders, and openness in decision-making,
as a way of doing business. As we begin the second year of the new
SDWA, local imple- mentation issues will be emphasized along with
national discussions. EPA will be working with states and water
suppliers to ensure that they also incorporate public information
and involvement into their implementation activities as the law
directs. |
First-year successes that we will build on include:
Institutionalizing early and frequent consultation
with stakeholders
While EPA is most directly accountable to Congress for implementa-
tion of SDWA, protection of our drinking water depends on a range
of stake- holders, from our state and Tribal regulatory partners,
to the suppliers of drinking water, to the general public who
consume the water. These non-Federal participants will ultimately
determine the success of SDWA implementation. The Agency is committed
to frequent consultation with them.
|
An important vehicle for EPA’s consultation process is
the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC). NDWAC is
a Federal advisory group chartered under SDWA. Its function is
to support EPA’s drinking water program by providing advice
and recommendations to EPA on drinking water issues. NDWAC represents
the drinking water community, including the public. EPA has expanded
NDWAC’s role and established six working groups under the
NDWAC framework to provide focused advice to EPA as it implements
SDWA. Each of these groups is composed of a wide range of stakeholder
interests. Although the tight deadlines and diversity of opinion
have proven a challenge for all participants, the results
|
| justify the increased
consultation. The Agency has received valuable and timely
data and input, which has elevated the quality and accelerated
finalization of EPA products. Stakeholders better understand
EPA activities, and have increased early influence on products
and decision- making.
In addition to the formal NDWAC working groups, EPA
has held a number of public meetings with stakeholders
on subjects ranging from the development
|
of a drinking water
standard for radon to creation of the national occurrence
data base. EPA has also held hundreds of one-on-one meetings
with individual interest groups.
Establishing the microbial
and disinfectants/
disinfection byproducts
advisory committee
In its 1996 drinking water redirection effort, EPA identified
microbial contaminants, such as Cryptosporidium
and Giardia, and byproducts of disinfection as
the highest potential drinking water risk to human health.
The 1996 amendments ratified this priority, and require
EPA to issue several rules to control microbial contaminants
and disinfectants/ disinfection byproducts (DBP) in drinking
water. EPA is required to issue the first of these rules
– an Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule
and a Stage 1 DBP Rule – by November 1998.
|
|
In March 1997, EPA established a committee under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to assist the Agency in evaluating
new data and information that has become available since the rules
were proposed in 1994, and to recommend regulatory approaches.
Committee members represented a broad range of interests, including
water suppliers, regulators, local government, manufacturers,
and environmental, consumer, and public health groups. In July,
following four months of intensive discussions and analysis of
new data on several challenging issues, the committee successfully
produced consensus recommendations that address the eight highest
priority elements of the two rules. The agreements would broadly
strengthen public health protection through new limits for disinfection
byproducts in drinking water, removal requirements for Cryptosporidium,
and tighter standards for the cloudiness in suppliers’ incoming
water that can indicate both microbial contamination and the potential
to generate DBPs.
Holding regional
source water protection
takeholder meetings
Between April and June, EPA regional offices hosted 22 meetings
|
around the country to get
input on source water protection. EPA’s Regional offices sent
thousands of invitations with the goal of bringing together a broad
representation of stakeholders including state ground water, drinking
water, and Clean Water Act personnel, water systems, watershed managers,
environmental and public health advocates, agricultural interests,
local govern- ments, and others. As a result, nearly 2000 people
around the country took the opportunity to participate directly
in development of EPA guidance and policy.
Creating implementation partnerships
Partnerships are essential for implementation. EPA has established
partnerships with other Federal agencies (e.g., Centers for Disease
|
Control for waterborne disease occurrence studies), drinking water
utilities (e.g., Partnership for Safe Water), and non-profit organizations
such as the National Sanitation Foundation (for protocols for small
system treatment technologies).
One example of a successful partnership is the Partnership for
Safe Water. The Partnership for Safe Water is a voluntary joint
venture formed in early 1995 among EPA, states, and several national
organizations representing drinking water systems. A phased program
was developed to accelerate enhanced public health protection
from Cryptosporidium and other microbial contaminants by
improving filtration plant performance. Water utilities that complete
phases of the program receive recognition from their peers and
EPA for these voluntary activities to pursue water quality goals
more strict than those required by regulation. Working closely
together, the water suppy industry and EPA have developed tools
for systems to evaluate water filtration operations and identify
needed quality improvements. Over 200 utilities that provide water
to approximately 85 million persons are members of the Partnership.
|
SDWA emphasizes
the need for solid scientific foundations for EPA’s rulemakings.
The research being conducted on arsenic and microbial contaminants
and disinfectants/disinfection
byproducts are examples of efforts to strengthen the scientific
basis for decisions.
EPA successes in this area: |
Initiated studies to support development
of the microbial and disinfectants/disinfection byproducts (M/DBP)
rules
In this first year of implementation, EPA has bolstered the
scientific underpinnings for its statutorily required rulemaking.
EPA met its February 2, 1997,
|
deadline to develop a comprehensive
study plan outlining the research needed to support the development
of the M/DBP rules, and has begun the more than 200 studies identified
in the plan. The studies will provide information on disinfection
byproducts and microbial pathogens in several critical areas: health
effects |
of contaminants, exposure data, the
effectiveness of treatment technologies, and assessments of risk
– including studies on the threats to sensitive populations
such as children and the elderly. In addition, EPA has begun working
with other organizations such as the National Institutes of Health
(NIH) and |
the American Water Works
Association Research Foundation to develop joint research efforts
that will support the M/DBP rules. For example, the NIH has agreed
to conduct almost $25 million of research on characterizing the
health effects from selected DBPs over the next 5 years. EPA also
developed a research tracking system that will ensure strong management
of the multi-million dollar M/DBP research effort. Finally, EPA
has directed to critical projects the $10 million specified in the
1996 amendments to strengthen the health effects research program
at EPA. As an example, EPA has allocated over $1 million to begin
work, in collaboration with the Centers for Disease Control, on
characterizing the national occurrence of water-borne disease from
microbial pathogens.
Initiated studies to
support development of the
arsenic rule
In the 1996 SDWA amendments Congress recognized the need for
additional research to better assess the health risks of exposure
to low levels of arsenic. The amendments specified that EPA develop
a plan of study to support arsenic rulemaking that would decrease
the uncertainty of arsenic- induced health risks. EPA met its
statutory deadline of February 2, 1997, by developing a comprehen-
sive plan for instituting these studies. When completed, the arsenic
studies, along with existing research, will provide the founda-
tion for setting a new arsenic standard.
|
|
The new Act gave EPA many short deadlines to produce tools
to help states, water suppliers,
and the public protect drinking water. We have met all of our
statutory deadlines to date,
and have laid the groundwork for future successes. EPA’s
achievements in this area:
|
Released the Drinking Water State Revolving
Fund (DWSRF) guidelines
The DWSRF provides states and water suppliers with funding to
improve their drinking water infra- structure, and with options
to fund source water protection and enhanced water system manage-
ment. Congress authorized $9.6 billion through 2003. This funding
will be a key to state implementation success. While Congress
did not provide a deadline for developing guidelines, EPA recognized
that these funds are central to states’ and water systems’
capabilities to meet the demanding requirements of the amended
SDWA, and quickly moved to develop and release interim guidelines
in October 1996. This was only two months after passage of the
Act. EPA released final DWSRF guidelines February 28, 1997. The
first state capitaliza- tion grant was awarded to Georgia in March
1997, and the first loan was given to a local water system (Williamsburg,
PA) in May 1997. EPA’s recent Needs Survey shows that the
costs to make drinking water infrastructure improvements to protect
public health fall most heavily on customers of small public drinking
water systems. These systems’ problems result from a lack
of economies of scale, remoteness, poor source water quality,
and decades of neglect. For this reason, the DWSRF emphasizes
assistance to small systems.
|
Released Drinking Water Infrastructure
Needs Survey
EPA’s Needs Survey provided local, state, and national
policy-makers with comprehensive information on the infrastructure
needs of the nation’s community drinking water systems.
The statute also directed EPA to develop its state allotment
formula for DWSRF funds for FY’98 and beyond based
on the Needs Survey. After considering public comment
and consultation with the states, EPA released its allotment
formula March 12, 1997.
|
|
|
The 1996 amendments required
that EPA submit a report to Congress on the Needs Survey. The Administrator
submitted this report January 29, meeting the February 1997 statutory
deadline.
Published survey of state capacity development
efforts
As required by the 1996 amendments, EPA published by February
2, 1997, a survey of existing state water system capacity develop-
ment efforts. This survey will provide a baseline for EPA as it
drafts program guidelines and information to help states ensure
that all new water systems have the technical, financial, and
managerial ability to provide safe drinking water to their customers.
Initiated partnership for water system operator
certification
The amendments required EPA by February 1997, to initiate a
partnership with states, water suppliers, and the public to develop
information for states on recommended water system operator certification
standards. This partnership is currently working to develop this
information.
Released state source water
assessment and protection
program guidance
|
Source water assessments are the centerpiece of the new SDWA’s
prevention focus. They give states and
communities the tools they need to prevent contamination in the
source of the drinking water supply, and thus comprise one of the
multiple barriers to drinking water contamination, along with treatment.
Source water assessments identify the source(s) of a community’s
drinking water and the potential threats to which a source is susceptible.
The assessments also provide a "good science" basis for
regulatory flexibility. EPA released to the states its assessment
guidance and its source water petition program guidance by the SDWA
deadline of August 6, 1997. The petition program defines how states
can assist in the development of local incentive-based partnerships,
and is one option among a wide range of approaches the SDWA amendments
authorize for funding to protect a community’s source water.
Released alternative
monitoring guidance
SDWA gives states and localities flexibility to reduce monitoring
costs in areas that good science identifies as being of low vulnerability.
States with an approved source water assessment program may adopt
alternative monitoring requirements for many contaminants if they
follow guidance that ensures that the alternative monitoring will
|
still protect public health.
Because states may want to design their source water assessment
programs in part to provide the scientific information base to support
alternative monitoring, EPA was required to (and did) release this
guidance on August 6, 1997, as well.
Published list of technologies
that small drinking water
systems can use to meet the
requirements of the Surface
Water Treatment Rule
In some cases small systems have difficulty affording the treatment
technologies required to comply with national drinking water regulations.
Because the Surface Water Treatment Rule is so fundamental to
public health protection, the SDWA amendments required that, by
August 6, 1997, EPA was to identify a list of high quality, cost-effective
treatment technologies that will allow small systems to meet the
requirements of this rule. EPA published such a list, and is conducting
a pilot program on verification testing of packaged treatment
systems with the National Sanitation Foundation to enable states
to approve additional technologies.
Released guidance
establishing procedures for
state application for ground water
protection grants
|
 |
EPA was required to develop
a guidance for ground water protection grants by August 6, 1997.
The guidance identifies the key elements of state ground water protection
programs and establishes grant application procedures should funds
become available in the future. It clearly emphasizes EPA’s
continuing encouragement to states for the development and implementation
of Comprehensive State Ground Water Protection Programs. |
| he
states are EPA’s regulatory partners. 49 states have primacy,
or primary responsibility for running the public drinking water
protection program. The Act assigns states the challenging job of
establishing several important and complex new programs. But it
also provides them much flexibility and substantial Federal funding
to do so, and a public participation framework to win support for
their efforts. Below is a brief sampling of some initial state implementation
activities.
In March, Georgia became the first state to receive its capitalization
grant for the new Drinking Water State Revolving Fund, and has
awarded its first infrastructure development loan. 44 states have
established the necessary legislative authorities for their DWSRF.
For its capacity development program, Texas has passed the necessary
authorizing legislation, and is working with an Environmental
Finance Center to formulate its
|
capacity development strategy.
Two stakeholder meetings have been held to gather input on the capacity
problems of small water systems and on how those problems may be
addressed.
In anticipation of the extensive source water assessment work
required by SDWA, Massachusetts undertook a preliminary assessment
project for surface water suppliers. This included updating Geographic
Information System maps that cover 213 surface water sources,
and contain surface water supply protection zone delineations,
land use information, open space parcels, and some information
on land uses regulated by the state that may threaten source waters.
Massachusetts made over 200 corrections to these maps through
this project, which will make them more useful for assessments.
In addition, the state gained valuable information on the most
effective ways to display this data for use by local officials
in their protection efforts. The state of
|
California has developed
a draft source water assessment guidance, drawing on the initial
draft Agency guidance, to advance the assessment process in the
state.
|
| he
amendments contain vital linkages among the different parts of the
law, together creating a tapestry of interwoven provisions. Activities
within SDWA’s new prevention programs, and the public involvement
to help direct them, are integrated with and essential to the success
of the law’s new regulatory flexibilities, particularly for
small systems, its risk prioritization in setting standards, and
its addressing special risks to children and other sensitive groups.
Thus, the first year activities do more than simply meet statutory
|
requirements of individual
provisions in the SDWA amendments. They begin to weave together
the strong threads of this tapestry, ensuring that the law will
function effectively to protect public health in the future, and
that all Americans will have drinking water that is clean and safe.
In the 1996 amendments, President Clinton and Congress adopted
extensive provisions for consumer information
|
and involvement that herald
a new era of public participation in drinking water protection.
These provisions are founded on the principle that accountability
to the public and the understanding and support of the public will
be vital to address and prevent the growing threats to drinking
water quality in the years ahead. EPA has tried to facilitate public
involvement both in our processes to develop implementation tools,
and in the operation of those tools in states and water systems.
The 1996 amendments provide
|
| unprecedented opportunities
for the public to participate in drinking water protection activities.
If the public uses them, these opportunities can ensure that the
choices made during implementation – particularly by EPA and
the states, but also by water suppliers – respond to the public’s
needs and concerns. A number of provisions specifically discuss
the need for public involvement. These include the consumer confidence
reports that will be provided by public water suppliers. In addition,
there are requirements for states to form citizen advisory committees
to develop their source water assessment program, and for states
to involve the public in the development of their capacity development
strategy and the Intended Use Plans for the DWSRF. The statute also
requires that the public have access to the completed source water
assessments, the national contaminant occurrence data base, and
early information on state variance decisions (including the right
to object). All of this information will give consumers a picture
of the condition of their drinking water supply.
With this information consumers can make decisions for themselves
and their families. Consumer confidence reports are the centerpiece
for public information about their drinking water. Beginning in
1999, water systems will have to prepare and distribute annual
reports to their customers. These reports will contain information
on the source of the
|
drinking water, information
on the quality of that source, information on any detected contaminants
in the drinking water, and a plain-language explanation of the health
effects of these contaminants.
Revisions to the public notification rule, which requires water
systems to notify consumers when violations occur, are also underway.
The 1996 amendments’ most innovative departures from past
practice are in the new prevention provisions – in capacity
development, to increase public water systems’ capacity to
provide safe drinking water, and in source water protection, to
prevent contamination of the ground water and the rivers, lakes,
and streams from which we draw our drinking water.
Source water assessment and capacity development strategies
are core prevention requirements, on which states have substantial
discretion in their formulation and implementation. To help them
achieve success, states may "set aside" substantial
amounts, up to 10% or
|
more, from their annual Drinking
Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) allocation to pay for each of
these activities.That is why EPA was so concerned to lay the foundation
through the timely guidances released within the first year for
these several tasks, and will provide additional guidance and continuing
support to ensure states have the analyses and resources they need
to complete them.
Prevention activities are not only vital in themselves, they
are essential to the implementation success of the new regulatory
flexibilities in the amendments. For instance, states can provide
monitoring flexibility to water systems, but the flexibility must
be based on (among other things) data from the source water assessments
of each system’s susceptibility to contamination. Similarly,
the capacity development strategy will be necessary for most states
to generate the information and analysis needed to equip them
to decide on restructuring and water supply alternatives, which
are prerequisites to offering variance or exemption flexibility
to small systems. And systems themselves can more readily achieve
capacity if source water protection can help provide cleaner source
water that requires little or no costly treatment, and less frequent
monitoring. As in the source water guidance, EPA will continue
to make an extra effort to describe and analyze these linkages
in order to maximize public health protection under SDWA, make
the most efficient use of taxpayers’ investments in other,
related environmental programs, and assist states to identify
the program coordination options that work best for them.
The new risk-based contaminant selection process and increased
research will lead to more effective regulations
|
| focused on the contaminants
that pose the greatest threat to human health. EPA will select contaminants
to regulate based on answers to questions such as: Where does a
contaminant occur? In what concentration, and from what types of
sources? What is the potential risk reduction? Who is likely to
be exposed to this contaminant in their drinking water? What are
the potential health effects of exposure to the contaminant, and
who is most vulnerable?
The Act gives us the tools to develop these answers. For example,
the National Contaminant Occurrence Database, required to be
operational by August 1999, will store data on contaminants
occurring in finished, raw, and source waters. Research is being
conducted, in conjunction with the National Academy of Science,
the Centers for Disease Control, and other organizations, as
well as our partners in the drinking water industry, to determine
health effects of various contaminants, and ascertain who is
most at risk. The 1996 amendments authorize expanded consideration
of costs in regulatory
|
decision-making. The Agency
is collecting the data and developing new tools, models, and protocols
to appropriately exercise this new flexibility. Peer review ensures
that our science is strong and our data is sound. Providing the
tools to make better risk-management decisions in contaminant selection
and control is one of SDWA’s primary means to achieving the
Act’s fundamental goal – protecting our nation’s
public health by assuring clean, safe drinking water.
Implementation of the 1996 SDWA Amendments will lead to improved
health protection for Americans who receive their drinking water
from small water systems. Small water systems are sometimes unable
to meet safe drinking water standards for a variety of reasons,
including limited technical, financial, and managerial ability;
a lack of well-trained system operators; or a lack of funding.
The 1996 amendments address these issues by giving states a menu
of provisions and resources to apply in a comprehensive small
systems program. The provisions include the DWSRF, a capacity
development program, an operator certification program, alternative
small systems technology, source water assessment and protection,
and variances and exemptions.
The state capacity development strategy can be the mechanism
for a state to equip, coordinate, and focus all of its small systems
efforts. The strategy allows states to target use of the range
of resources and authorities provided in the Act. It can also
be the catalyst for broad stakeholder collaboration to address
small systems issues. State
|
capacity development strategies
will assist systems in acquiring and maintaining technical, financial,
and managerial capacity. States will also ensure that proposed new
systems demonstrate adequate capacity before they begin to provide
drinking water to customers.
Many small systems do not have the resources to repair or upgrade
their water distribution lines, treatment facilities, and other
infrastructure. A state can use the financial resources of the
DWSRF to assist small systems. 15% of a state’s DWSRF grant
must be used to provide infrastructure loans to small systems.
2% of the state’s grant may be used to provide technical
assistance to small systems. For small systems that are disadvantaged,
up to 30% of a state’s DWSRF may be used for increased loan
subsidies.
Small systems that cannot afford to comply with drinking water
requirements will have options. Exemptions may provide systems
with extra time to come into compliance. Affordability based variances
will be available in certain cases to allow systems to use less
costly technology and other means to protect public health. SDWA
allows states to use these alternatives only after fully evaluating
all possible compliance options for a system, including a new
source and restructuring. Conditions for these alternatives will
be based in part on the source water assessments that will be
completed by the state for its public water systems.
New tools found in the 1996 SDWA Amendments will enable us to
better protect our children from contaminants in the drinking
water. Children’s health is a high priority of
|
| the Administration. On April
21, 1997, President Clinton issued an executive order directing
agencies to reduce environmental health and safety risks to children.
Also, a priority for the United States at the recent environmental
summit held in conjunction with the G-8 economic summit was to ensure
microbiologically safe drinking water for our children.
The executive order complements the 1996 SDWA amendments, and
both will aid EPA to protect children. Under the amendments, EPA
identifies subpopulations at greater risk than the general public
of experiencing adverse health effects from exposure to drinking
water contaminants. These sensitive subpopulations include infants,
children, pregnant women, the elderly, and immunocompromised persons.
Drinking water standard setting and contaminant selection processes
consider sensitive subpopulations,
|
including children, in two
ways. First, through its ongoing health risk assessment, EPA sets
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) for drinking water with the goal
of protecting those most sensitive to contaminant exposure. This
assures that children’s health will be protected by the regulation.
Second, the Act calls for better regulatory science, including
an analysis of the health effects to sensitive subpopulations.
EPA is conducting several studies to determine the health effects
of drinking water contaminants on children. These include: 1)
compiling data that identifies subpopulations, including children,
at greater risk of adverse health effects from contaminant exposure,
especially Cryptosporidium, Giardia and enteric
viruses, 2) analyzing Centers for Disease Control data to determine
the effects of age and sex
|
on morbidity and mortality
from waterborne diseases, and 3) estimating consumption of tap and
bottled water in terms of population demographics, including age,
gender, race, socioeconomic status, and geographical region. This
work will allow EPA to better document the susceptibility of children
to microbial diseases and respond appropriately.
For more information on EPA’s SDWA implementation activities,
please call EPA’s Safe Drinking Water Hotline at 1-800-426-4791.
EPA’s Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water also maintains
an Internet home page, which has information on public meetings
and SDWA implementation events, and text of key documents. The
Internet address is www.epa.gov/OGWDW
|
Back to Top
|
