Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments: A Comparison of Selected Legislative Proposals in the 103rd Congress

94-192 ENR

Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments:

A Comparison of Selected Legislative

Proposals in the 103rd Congress

Mary Tiemann

Specialist in Environmental Policy

Environment and Natural Resources Policy Division

February 28, 1994

Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments: A Comparison of

Selected Legislative Proposals in the 103rd Congress

SUMMARY

In 1986, Congress amended and reauthorized the Safe Drinking Water Act

(SDWA) through FY1991.

The amendments (P.L. 99-339) reflected

congressional concern that EPA had been slow to regulate drinking water

contaminants and that compliance with the law was deficient. The amendments

imposed substantial new responsibilities on the Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA), State governments, and local private and public water suppliers.

A major mandate for EPA was to regulate 83 contaminants in 3 years and 25

contaminants every 3 years thereafter. These regulations are expected to better

ensure the safety of public water supplies; however, the cost of meeting the new

requirements is proving to be considerable for many States and public water

systems.

Several issues have emerged with the implementation of the Federal

drinking water program, and various proposals have been offered in the 103rd

Congress to address them. This report compares three such proposals, including

the Administration's recommendations, S. 1547 (introduced by Senator Baucus),

and H.R. 3392 (introduced by Representatives Slattery and Bliley).

All three proposals share a number of common elements, although the

details differ. For example, they revise the provision requiring EPA to regulate

25 contaminants every 3 years; increase compliance timeframes and flexibility;

and direct EPA to identify technologies appropriate for different size systems.

They also increase the statute's emphasis on pollution prevention.

The Administration proposal and S. 1547 both establish a State drinking

water revolving loan fund to help communities comply with the Act, and

authorize somewhat different fee programs to generate resources to administer

the drinking water program. H.R. 3392 proposes the most comprehensive

changes to the Act. Provisions unique to H.R. 3392 direct EPA to consider risk

reduction benefits when setting standards; require EPA, within 5 years, to revise

any regulation that is inconsistent with the standard-setting approach; and

require EPA, within 30 months, to eliminate requirements for contaminants

that are not occurring in drinking water at levels of concern. Neither the

Administration's proposal nor S. 1547 would modi$ the standard-setting

process. Among various other differences, H.R. 3392 deems watershed

protection and pollution prevention to be appropriate technology for compliance

purposes.

A variety of other proposals have also been introduced in the 103rd

Congress, and while it appears that many Members agree on what some of the

issues are, no consensus has yet emerged as to what specific changes may be

necessary or appropriate.

Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments: A Comparison of

Selected Legislative Proposals in the 103rd Congress

INTRODUCTION

In enacting the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1986

(P.L. 99-339), Congress made substantial revisions to the Act and imposed

significant new responsibilities on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA),

State governments, and local private and public water suppliers. The

amendments reflected congressional concern that EPA had been slow in

regulating contaminants and that State and EPA enforcement of Federal

drinking water requirements was deficient. A key change in the law was the

institution of a strict schedule for EPA to regulate drinking water contaminants.

Specifically, Congress directed the Agency to promulgate regulations for 83

contaminants by 1989 and for an additional 25 contaminants every 3 years

thereafter. The number of regulated contaminants will have increased from 23

in 1986 to 112 in 1995.

These regulations are expected to significantly improve the safety of the

Nation's public drinking water supplies. EPA estimates, for example, that full

implementation of the new lead rule will protect 600,000 children from unsafe

blood-lead levels and reduce lead exposures for another 156 million people.

Another provision in the 1986 amendments requires water utilities using surface

water sources to disinfect and filter drinking water or to meet stringent criteria

for remaining unfiltered. The Agency estimates that this rule will prevent a

minimum of 80,000 to 90,000 cases of gastro-intestinal illness annually.'

The public health gains expected to be realized from the Safe Drinking

Water Act are requiring increased expenditures by public water systems. EPA

estimates that compliance with the 84 contaminant regulations already

promulgated will cost systems $1.4 billion annually beginning in 1995.2 While

the cost increase for the average U.S. household is estimated to be just over $14

per year, the economic impact of the new mandates is expected to be substantial

in small communities that have contamination problems. In these communities,

household water utility bills could increase several hundred dollars per year.

EPA estimates that pending regulations (e.g., the radon and disinfection-byproducts rules) could further increase drinking water costs in many small

communities.

'Environmental Protection Agency. Technical and Economic Capacity of

States and Public Water Systems to Implement Drinking Water Regulations.

Report to Congress. September 1993. p. i.

%id. p. 42-43. EPA estimates that the Surface Water Treatment Rule and

the lead and copper rule together account for nearly three-fourths of the costs

to public water systems of implementing the first 83 regulations required by the

1986 amendments.

The State administrative burden is also growing with implementation of the

Act. States report difficulty in complying with new mandates and note a

growing gap between Federal requirements and funding. The law authorizes

EPA to pay up to 75 percent of SDWA State administration costs; however, in

recent years, the actual EPA contribution, while increasing, has averaged

roughly 35 percent of States' program costs. For FY1993, EPA estimated that

States needed $304 million to implement Federal drinking water mandates, but

that State and Federal resources totalled only $142 million. This leaves a

current annual State funding shortfall of approximately $162 million.'

The potential costs of implementing existing drinking water standards and

the pending costs of 25 additional regulations every three years may be the

reason States and communities often point to the Safe Drinking Water Act to

illustrate their frustration with what has come to be known as "unfunded

Federal mandates." Many Members of Congress and the Administration appear

to agree that some revisions to the Act may be in order to reduce the burden on

communities and States. The challenge is finding ways to achieve this goal

without diminishing the safety of the nation's public water supply.

PROPOSALS IN THE 103RD CONGRESS

Various bills have been introduced in the 103rd Congress to address one or

more of the issues that have emerged with the implementation of the Federal

drinking water program, particularly since the 1986 amendments. Most

proposals, including recommendations offered by the Administration, would

authorize EPA to tailor regulations to better meet the needs of small water

systems, provide States and public water systems more flexibility, and extend

regulation compliance schedules. H.R. 1701 and H.R. 1865, reported from the

Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Public Works and

Transportation, respectively, would establish drinking water State revolving

loan funds (DWSRFs) to finance projects that facilitate compliance with SDWA

regulations. Other proposals (e.g., H.R. 2344 and S. 767) would substantially

revise the statute to give States and systems much greater flexibility in meeting

Federal drinking water mandates and would reduce the number of those

mandates. Another approach, adopted in H.R. 3686, would treat SDWA

requirements for States and local governments as recommendations, unless the

Federal government fully funded the requirements.

In September 1993, the Administration proposed ten major SDWA

reauthorization recommendations to Congress. Key recommendations include

establishing a State revolving loan fund, and authorizing user fees, where

needed, to help States administer drinking water programs. The Administration

also recommends streamlining enforcement authorities, increasing the Act's

emphasis on pollution prevention, and replacing the current contaminant

regulation schedule (25 every three years) with a more flexible system for

contaminant selection.

S. 1547, introduced on October 14, 1993, by Senator Baucus, Chair of the

Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, incorporates many of the

Administration's proposals, including a DWSRF but, overall, proposes more

comprehensive changes to the Act. Additionally, S. 1547 differs from the

Administration's proposal in the details of various provisions. The DWSRF in

S. 1547, for example, authorizes more set-asides than recommended by the

Administration. The fee proposals also differ; EPA would have a State collect

a fee from systems, as needed, to administer the drinking water program, while

S. 1547 would authorize EPA to use fees to administer a program on behalf of

the State. A unique feature of S. 1547 is the requirement for States to develop

management plans for all systems serving fewer than 3,300 persons by 1997 and

every three years thereafter. States would develop small system compliance

assistance programs that require compliance with standards to the extent

practicable and that approve use of alternative small system technologies based

on EPA guidance. The Senate bill increases funding for State grants, technical

assistance, and drinking water research. Like the Administration's proposal, S.

1547 would strengthen and streamline the Act's enforcement provisions.

H.R. 3392, introduced on Oct. 27, 1993, by Representatives Slattery and

Bliley, proposes more substantial amendments than does S. 1547. This bill

directs EPA to set standards based on best technology taking risk reduction

benefits and cost into consideration (instead of cost of technology as currently

directed). Also, EPA regulations must designate best technology for three size

categories of systems, rather than just for large systems as currently done.

Within 5 years, EPA must revise existing regulations that are inconsistent with

the standard-setting approach established by this bill.

Neither the

Administration's proposal nor S. 1547 would modify the standard-setting

process. H.R. 3392 further differs from the two other proposals in that it deems

watershed protection and pollution prevention to be appropriate technology for

compliance purposes, and requires EPA, within 30 months, to eliminate

monitoring, compliance, and enforcement requirements for contaminants that

are not occurring in drinking water at levels of public health concern. The bill

adds a definition of 'risk reduction benefits and costs' and changes the definition

of public water system to encompass 'ownership,' rather than 'control.' This

legislation does not include a revolving loan fund, but as mentioned, two such

bills are on the Union Calendar in the House.

Both H.R. 3392 and S. 1547 would increase funding for State program

administration grants and drinking water research. They also would direct EPA

to consider the occurrence of a contaminant in drinking water as a condition of

regulation, and authorize alternate regulatory approaches for anomalous

contaminants such as sulfate and radon.

By comparison, the Administration proposal, H.R. 3392, and S. 1547 all

would: revise the requirement that EPA regulate 25 contaminants every three

years; increase compliance timeframes and flexibility; and, under certain

circumstances, permit small systems to use alternative technologies that may not

meet a general standard. (H.R. 3392 extends this possibility to systems of any

size.) All three proposals would also increase the statute's emphasize on

pollution prevention.

State and local governments and the drinking water industry generally

prefer H.R. 3392 to S. 1547, as the House bill is expected to offer more cost

savings and regulatory relief. Environmental and health groups oppose H.R.

3392 (especially changes to the standard-setting process) and give mixed support

to S. 1457. Environmental concerns involving both bills include the treatment

of anomalous contaminants (e.g., radon) and the amount of compliance flexibility

contemplated for small systems. EPA's testimony on S. 1547 indicated general

agreement on key issues, but suggested narrowing the scope and function of the

DWSRF, providing less relaxation of compliance requirements for small

community water systems, and adopting stronger pollution prevention

provision^.^ The Administration expressed interest in, but also some doubt as

to the feasibility of, an alternative radon control scheme proposed in S. 1547.

The Agency has not formally commented on H.R. 3392, and although the bill

addresses many of the issues covered in the Administration's proposal, the two

approaches often differ.

In Congress, it appears that while many Members agree on what some of

the issues are, no consensus has yet emerged as to what specific changes may

be necessary or appropriate.

The following table compares the Administration's SDWA reauthorization

recommendations with key provisions of H.R. 3392, and S. 1547 (as introduced),

both referred to as the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1993. (For

general information on SDWA issues and legislation in the 103rd Congress, see

CRS Issue Brief 91041, Safe Drinking Water Act: Implementing the 1986

Amendments.)

4Testimony of Robert Perciasepe, Assistant Administrator for Water, U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, before the Senate Committee on

Environment and Public Works. Oct. 27, 1993.

&WE DRINKING WATER ACT (SDWA) PROPOSALS

AdmMstratiop/EPA, S. 1547 (as introduced) and H.R. 3392

Comparison of Major Provisions

Prwision

Admln./EPA Position

9.1547

State

Revolving

Loan Fund

(SRF)

(no existing

SDWA

provision)

Authorizes the Administrator

to enter into a capitalization

grant agreement with a State

where a State establishes a

loan fund and 1) provides a

20% match, 2) State and loan

recipients use standard

~ v e r n m e naccounting

t

practices. State must

maintain primary SDWA

enforcement responsibility to

receive capitalization grant.

$3. Authorizes the Administrator to

enter into a capitalization grant

agreement with a State where a State

establishes a loan fund and 1) provides

a 20% match, 2) uses loans in

compliance with an intended use plan,

3) employs standard government

accounting practices and, 4) enacta

authority to prevent the establishment

of new nonviable public water systems.

Project

eligibility

Eligible uses of loans include

capital projects for SDWA

compliance, consolidating

systems, and source water

protection projects. Limited

to systems in existence on

date of enactment to

disc our^ establishment of

new non-viable systems.

Eligible uses of loans include projects

for SDWA compliance, consolidating

systems, providing alternative water

supplies, water conservation, mitigating

radon in indoor air, purchasing land

for treatment facilities, replacing

private wells when they pose aigmficant

health threat., and implementing

source water protection programs.

No funding for: systems that

No funding for: systerlle that can

consolidate or find alternate supply,

monitoring, or for operations and

maintenance.

can consolidate, or for

monitoring, operations and

maintenance, and land

acquisition.

Interest rate

Interest rates on SRF loans

may range from 0% to market

rate.

H.R. 3392

No similar provision.

0% to market rate loans.

-

Provision

SRF Set-asides

Admin./EPAPosition

S. 1547

4% for SRF administration

4% for SRF administration

1.5% for Indian Tribes

1% for Indian Tribes

1% for technical

assistance/planning

Greater of 10% or $500,000for

technidfmancial management

assistance for systems cxrving fewer

than 3,300individuals.

H.R 3392

No similar provision.

1% for emewncy response

Some % for public water system

supervision/user fee administration

Up to 20% of the balance of the fund in

a fiscal year may be used to forgive

loan principal for disadvantapl

communities. (Defines 'disadvantaged'

communities, States may forgive loam

to such communities to keep drinking

water rates below 1.5% of median

household income.)

Authorization

Authorizes $599 million for

FY1994,$1 billion annually

for FYI995 through FYI998

Authorizes $600 million for

FYI994 and $1 billion annually for

FYI995 through FY2000.

-

Provision

Contam3nant

Regulation

and Selection

(51412)

5.1547

Admh/EPA Position

H.R. 3392

Removes SDWA provision

requiring EPA to regulate 25

contaminants every 3 years,

and replaces it with a 2-track

system giving the

Administrator greater

flexibility to regulate

contaminants.

&t(a). Removes SDWA provision

requiring EPA to regulate 25

contaminants every 3 years and

gives the Administrator greater

flexibility to regulate contaminants.

$5. Removes SDWA provision

requiring EPA to regulate 25

contaminants every 3 years and

gives the Administrator greater

flexibility to regulate contaminants.

In cunsultation with the

Science Advisory Board,EPA

is to identlfy a certain

number of contaminants and

place them in 2 categories:

track 1: immediate regulation

from existing data; and

track 2: further study - EPA

must either regulate, issue a

health advisory, or drop the

contaminant.

EPA must evaluate for possible

regulation: at least 15 contaminants 3

years after enactment and at least 7

contaminants every 3 years thereafter.

EPA also must regulate a contaminant

if 7 or more Governors petition EPA to

do so, unless the Administrator

determine8 that the contaminant does

criteria.

not meet the sMed

EPA must assess occurrence and

health data and determine whether

regulation is needed or whether

additional health effecta information

is needed. For contaminants not

requiring regulation, EPA is to

determine whether monitoring under

51445 is to be continued.

No change proposed in the

criteria for selecting

contaminants (i.e., EPA must

regulate any contaminant

that may cause an adverse

health effect and that does or

may occur in PWSs).

EPA may promulgate standards for any

contaminant that "the Administrator

determines may have any adverse

effect on human health and that is

known or anticipated to occur in public

water system in a concentration or

frequency that indicates a public health

concern." ( C u m t law stkzta 'shall'

pmulgate )

Within 3 years after enactment and

every 5 years thereafter, EPA is to

promulgate maximum contaminant

levels (MCLs) for contaminants that

occur in drinking water (based on

national occurrence data base created

under 31445) and that are of public

health concern.

&t(a). EPA must establish a data base

on the occurrence of unregulated

contaminants in PWSs, to include such

monitoring information as EPA

requires.

$13. EPA must establish within 2

years a national data base on the

occurrence of regulated and

unregulated contaminants in PWSs.

&t@). EPA must review rules every 6

years. (3 years in c u m t law)

Each regulation must include a

schedule for periodic review.

...

-

Provision

Small System

Best Available

Technology

(41412 & 01416)

(see also

variance

discussion

below)

Admin./EPA Position

S. 1517

H.R 3392

EPA is to designate small

system BAT, and may include

technologies that do not

consistently meet the general

standard (MCL) but are less

costly than conventional BAT;

additional requirements such

as source water protection

may be applied as part of

small BAT, the State would

review/approve a Bystem's

notice of intent to use small

system BAT and any renewal

requests.

$5@). When issuing regulations, EPA

must also publish guidance for

technologies appropriate for systems

serving fewer than 3,300 individuals.

EPA must include lowcost

technologies, and may include

technologies that might not attain a n

MCL provided they do not pose

unreaeonable health risks.

$5. When issuing regulations, EPA is

to designate BAT for systems serving

fewer than 1,000 persons, serving

between 1,000 and 10,000, and

serving more than 10,000.

Small systems are eligible for

small system BAT only if they

cannot achieve compliance

through restructuring or

consolidation; apply to State

for the waiver.

Existing

regulations

No p i t i o n taken.

Within 2 years, EPA must issue small

Bystem technology guidance for Phase

II and Phase V rules, and Surface

Water Treatment Rule (SWTR). For

small systems not in compliance with

these rules, compliance is stayed for up

to 3 years after a State s m d system

plan is submitted, or until the date

established in a compliance program.

(See small aystem discuseion below.)

Within 5 years, existing regulations

must be revised, as necessary, to be

made consistent with new factors.

-

Provision

Variance8 and

Exemptions

(51415 & 51416)

AdminJEPA Position

State may grant to a small

system a renewable

exemption from any BAT if

the system cannot meet the

MCL, cannot restructure and

cannot afford small system

BAT. (See small system

technology discussion above).

In granting exemptions, the

State would consider: 1)

intended improvements in

health risks, 2) the resources

of the affected community;

and 3) whether an alternative

would pose an unreasonable

level of health risk.

system cannot restructure

nor afford any BAT and the

exemption would not pose an

unreasonable health risk.

As a condition of primacy,

States must implement

programs to prevent new

non-viable systems and assess

existing system viability.

H.R 3392

S. 1547

$5. Generally replaces variancea and

exemptions with a small system

compliance program:

Small system management plans:

States must submit to EPA for

approval, by Oct. 1997 and every 3

years thereafter, a drinking water

supply plan for managing PWSs serving

fewer than 3,300 persons. The plan

must: identify and describe each eystem

including treatment provided,

exemptions granted, population

projections; identify nonviable systems;

identlfy opportunities for consolidation

of systems, and for developing

alternative water supplies; establish

criteria for assessing the financial

capabilities and needs of systems; and

identify opportunities for more costeffective monitoring.

The State is to assign each system that

is not in compliance to 1of 2 groups:

(1)systems the State w i l l work with to

develop a compliance program; or (2)

systems that have the capacity to

comply with an MCL considering

funding from State loan funds and the

Rural Development Administration.

States must develop one-third of

compliance programs within 5 years

after submitting plan, and all programs

within 10 years.

Systems must comply with an MCL

within 3 years of plan approval. States

may grant a 2-year extension to

complete implementation.

$7. Authorizes States to issue one or

more variance8 to any size system

that: (1) cannot afford best available

technology (BAT) or other technology

approved for the system size category

and, (2) cannot feasibly connect with

another water source. Such systems

must comply with a best available

affordable technology (BAAT) that

may include public education and

not5cation, and alternative

technologies that may fail to meet an

MCL but do not pose an unreasonable

risk to health.

States must review varianw every 3

Yeats.

EPA, in consultation with States,

shall develop affordability guidance

within 18 months of enactment.

@. Repeals SDWA 51416 re:

exemptions.

Provleion

Compliance

Periods

(§1412(b)(10))

Extensions

(§1416(b)(2))

Admin./EPA Position

S. 1547

H.R 3392

Authorizes EPA to speafy up

to 60 months for compliance

with regulations if

construction is needed.

&?(b). Compliance period for new

regulations is extended from 18 months

(in current law) to not later than 3

yeam after promulgation.

$5. Each regulation is to include a

compliance schedule, taking into

account the time needed to plan,

design, finance and construct

treatment facilities; monitoring

requirements are not in effect for at

least 24 months.

Permits compliance extensions for up

to 2 years if a eystem cannot make

needed capital improvements within

the normal compliance period and the

system has 1)obtained or identified a

source of fmancial assistance in an

intended use plan; or 2) entered into

an enforceable agreement to

consolidate.

For small eystems not in compliance

with Phase IT and Phase V rules, and

the Surface Water Treatment Rule

(SWTR), compliance is stayed for up to

3 years after a State small eystem plan

is submitted, or until the date

established in a compliance program.

(See small system discussion below.)

If a State determines, based on EPA

criteria, that a public water eystem

must filter its water, the State shall

establish a schedule for the system to

comply, taking into account the time

needed to plan, design, fmance, and

construct filtration facilities and

adjust operating practices.

-

Provision

Monitoring

Requirements

(51412(b))

S. 1547

H.R. 3392

@(c).

Authorizes EPA to m w a

regulation to remove monitoring

requirements for systems that have not

detected the regulated contaminant for

2 monitoring rounds, and (i) the

contaminant has been detected in

fewer than 5% of all PWSs and exceeds

the MCL in fewer than 0.5% of PWSs;

or (ii) the contaminant has not been

detected at more than 75% of the MCL

in any PWS.

$5. EPA is to eliminate monitoring,

compliance and enforcement

requirements for those contaminants

which, based on the national

occurrence data base, are not

occurring in drinking water at levels

of public health concern.

For systems serving fewer than 10,000

persons, EPA or the State may waive

additional quarterly monitoring

requirements if a cancer causing

contaminant is not found in a previous

teat.

$13. The Administrator may take into

consideration system size and the

contaminants likely to be found in a

system's drinking water. Compliance

monitoring regulations shall permit

States to tailor monitoring

requirements for any individual

system or claas of systems based on

occurrence data and other

information.

Admin./EPA Position

No position taken.

-

Provision

Enforcement

(g1414)

Admh/EPA Position

8.1547

H.R. 3392

Strengthens and streamlines

enforcement provisions.

Administrative, civil and

criminal enforcement

strengthened to reflect

consistency with other

environmental laws (increase

penalty caps, etc.).

$6(a). Creates a new SDWA Part G:

Enforcement. Generally shifts Act's

emphasis from compliance to

enforcement. Provides consistent

administrative, civil, and criminal

enforcement authority, which is

strengthened and made consistent with

Clean Water Act (CWA); authorizes

compliance orders and administrative

penalties up to $10,00O/day, and civil

penalties up to $25,OoO/day.

&5. EPA is to eliminate monitoring,

compliance and enforcement

requirements for those contaminants

which, based on the national

occurrence data base, are not

occurring in drinking water a t levels

of public health concern.

Strengthens lead plumbing

materials enforcement.

Enhances inspection

authorities.

Public

notification

(§1414(~))

States are to provide annual reports on

compliance to EPA; EPA is to provide a

summary of State reports to Congress.

Eliminates pre-enforcement

review of administrative

orders.

2 year moratorium on enforcement for

State approved consolidation.

Waives sovereign immunity.

$16. Waivea sovereign immunity.

No position taken.

#6@). EPA is to prescribe in regulation

the form, manner, and frequency for

giving notice of violations. Rules must

spec~fynotscation procedures for

violations with potential serious health

effects. Notice of serious violations

must be given within 24 hours; less

serious violations must be reported

annually.

$6. Within 15 months, EPA is to

amend public notification regulations

to reflect the seriousness of violations.

Notice of serious violations must be

given as soon as possible but within

14 days; less serious violations a t

least annually. EPA must provide

guidance re: form, manner and

content of notice. States, working

with systems, determine the form,

manner and content of notices.

EPA may also require a system to

notify consumers of unregulated

contaminant levels.

Violations of notification

requirements are subject to a civil

penalty of $25,000.

-

Provision

Lead Control

(31417)

Admin./EPA Position

S. 1547

Strengthens lead plumbing

materials enforcement.

$7. Within 2 years, EPA is to issue

regulations establishing health-based

performance standards for maximum

leaching levels of lead from new p i p

and fmturea. Amounts of lead in

plumbing fittings and fmtures in

commerce are to be reduced to 7% in 4

yearsto4%in7years.

H.R 3392

No d a r provision.

Violation of the ban on use of lead

solder (P.L. 99-339) is made an

enforceable violation of the Act.

Anomalous

Contaminants

(no existing

provision)

No position taken.

@. Radon: EPA is to promulgate a

radon MCL and an alternative MCL

with a risk level equal to that of radon

in outdoor air. Systems may comply

with the alternative level if the State

or the gatem has an indoor air radon

program. The program must include

education, testing, and radon

mitigation measures for new home

construction. State must approve

alternative compliance programs.

Radon test required for all homes in

high radon risk areas to receive

Federal financing assistance.

$5. EPA rules for radionuclides,

disinfection bvr,raducts, sulfate, and

corrosion byproducts shall consider:

1)health benefits relative to control

in other media; 2) costs; and 3)

availability of technology that is

effective in the field for a range of

water qualities, and does not have

adverse effects on other elements of

water quality, on other media re:

treatment residuals, or on the efficacy

of other water treatment processes.

EPA is to promulgate disinfection

regulations within 48 months.

§4(e). Sulfate: EPA may regulate a

contaminant in lieu of sulfate if greater

health protection is gained.

Point of Use

Devices

(new 31419)

No position taken.

$9. EPA is to establish a program to

determine the effectiveness of point of

use drinking water treatment devices.

EPA is to require manufacturers to: 1)

submit data on the effectiveness of

devices; and 2) provide information to

consumers.

No d a r provision.

-

Provision

Admin./EPA Position

8.1547

H.R. 3392

Tm~erin€!

($1432)

No position taken.

$12. Expands defintion of, and

penalty for, tampering. Crossconnections are defmed as tampering.

$10. Prohibits crossconnections into

systems.

march,

Education,

and

Certification

($1442)

No position taken.

$13. Authorizes $20 million annually

for drinking water research; clarSes

general research authorities.

$11. Authorizes $20 d o n annually

for drinking water research.

Requires EPA to approve State

operator certification programs and

requires all systems to have a certified

operator within 4 years after

enactment. Within 1 year of

enactment, EPA is to publish

guidelines setting minimum

certification standards.

Requires EPA to develop and

disseminate minimum guidance for

certification of laboratories and

operators.

Requires several reports to Congress on

the long term availability of drinking

water supply.

Consolidates various authorities for

education and training and authorizes

$10 million annually for these

purposes.

Continues authority for assistance to

small systems and extends

authorization of $10 million annually

through FY2000.

State W S S

Grants

($1443)

Not in EPA

recommendations.

$14. For State PWS Supervision

$14. $100 million for FY1994;$124

(PWSS) grants: $100 million annually

FY1994-FY2000;increases State match

from 25% to 50%.

million for FY1995;$150 d o n for

FY1996-FY1998.Retains 25% State

match.

A

Provision

Admin./EPA Position

5.1547

Fees

(No existing

SDWA

provision)

Proposes an adjustable SDWA

fee which States may use to

supplement existing State

resources. Fees would be

deposited in Stateestablished

drinking water funds.

014. EPA is authorized to collect fees

to support the costs to EPA for

administeringthe P W S program in

non-primacy States. Fees are to be

collected from systems serving more

than 3,300 individuals in such a State.

Fee may be used for source

water protection, other

SDWA services and functions,

etc.

Federal fees are to be deposited into a

Public Drinking Water System

Supervision Fund established in the

Treasury to be used by EPA to

..

admmster programs in non-primacy

States. If sufficient funds for Federal

program implementation are not

appropriated from the fund, EPA may

use up to 5%of drinking water SRF

funds to implement programs.

Fee available to EPA if EPA

withdraws primacy.

H.R 3392

No similar provision.

Beginning in FY1997, EPA is to assume

implementation of a drinking water

program in any State where the

program is not effectively implemented

or adequately funded.

Citizen Suits

(31449)

Allows citizen/F'WS suits

against pollution sources in

protected areas, where there

is evidence that a release of

regulated contaminants may

cause or contribute to a

si@icant threat.

$17. Permits citizen suits to seek

penalties. Re+

prohibition against

suits for past violations where there is

evidence that the violation has been

repeated.

015. Prohibits citizen suits against

systems that are in compliance with

the terms of an administrative

compliance order, administrative

consent agreement, or judicial

consent decree.

-

Admh/EPA Position

No c h a n e proposed.

$3. Adds new term 'nonviable public

$3. Definition of 'primary drinking

water system' defined to mean a PWS

that a Governor determines is unlikely

to attain compliance on a sustained

basis but excludes systems that will

substantially improve existing

conditions that pose a public health

threat.

water regulation' is amended to

conform to the standard setting

process in H.R. 3392.

$18. 'Public water system' is revised to

exclude noncommunity systems that

provide bottled water and post 'no

consumption' signs.

'Contaminant' is amended to include

only substancea which are of concern

to public health or welfare.

'Public water system' is amended to

target 'ownership,' rather than

'control. '

Adds new term 'risk reduction

benefits and costs' defined to mean

"the public health benefit achieved by

changing the level of a contaminant

from one level to another, taking cost

into consideration."