Success in Advancing Public Health Protection

United States

Environmental Protection

Agency

Office of Water

(4601)

EPA 810-F-97-002

September 1997

The Safe Drinking Water Act

Success in Advancing Public Health Protection

- ONE YEAR LATER -

EPA

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.

O

“

Today we helped to ensure that

every family in America

will have safe, clean drinking water

to drink every time they turn on a faucet

or stop at a public water fountain.

From now on our water will be safer

and our country will be healthier for it.”

President Bill Clintons remarks

at the signing of the

Safe Drinking Water Act Amendment of 1996.
The Safe Drinking Water ActOne Year Later

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.

2

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 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

Act increased requirements 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 drink1996SDWA

THE

T

ing 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 improvements 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

MAJORTHEMES of the 1996 Amendments

T

“

We have a bill based on Clinton Administration

recommendations that strengthens health standards

for drinking water, protects the rivers, lakes and streams

that are the sources of drinking water, and provides the public

with a right to know about contaminants in tap water.”

EPA Administrator Carol Browner

Amendments
Success in Advancing Public Health Protection

has spent much of

this first year institutionalizing 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 implementation 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.

3

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 implementation of SDWA, protection of our

drinking water depends on a range of

stakeholders, 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

EPA

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 cooperative

“

Our bill improved public health, gave states and local governments

the flexibility that they need to target their scarce resources

on high priority health risks, and laid the foundation for a safe and

affordable drinking water supply into the 21st century.”

Senator Dirk Kempthorne

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 stakewith Stakeholders & the Public

Consultation & Partnership

Institutionalizing

IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS:

holders 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.
The Safe Drinking Water ActOne Year Later

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

stakeholder meetings

■

Between April and June, EPA regional offices hosted 22 meetings

4

Effective Stakeholder Consultation:

The Small Systems NDWAC Working Group

Some small water systems lack the basic technical, managerial, or financial capacity to meet SDWA public health standards. These systems may be

faced with a number of serious challenges such as a deteriorated system, customers on limited or fixed incomes, or too few households to share the costs of

needed improvements. The SDWA amendments address this issue by requiring EPA to draft capacity development guidance that will ensure that any new

public water system will be able to meet SDWA’s public health requirements.

EPA formed the small systems working group to provide recommendations on

the guidance and other information needed. The diversity of the membership

takes advantage of the expertise that already exists in this field among states,

water suppliers, local governments, and environmental organizations. Although

individuals on the working group had clear differences of opinion, they all

recognized the need to ensure water system capacity. Due to the commitment

of each of the stakeholders to work together on these provisions, the working

group was able to reach near consensus. At its final meeting in July, the working group recommended the development of three guidance documents and

five information documents, and provided recommended language for each to

the full NDWAC, which will make recommendations to EPA.

Working Groups of the

National Drinking Water

Advisory Council

Consumer Confidence Reports

Source Water Protection

Drinking Water

State Revolving Fund

Small Drinking Water Systems

Water System

Operator Certification

Contaminant Selection

“These [regional source water]

meetings really show that EPA has

taken a change in direction. Their

willingness to listen to our concerns,

the concerns of small towns,

 and others gives us confidence that

we are all working on solutions.”

Rubin Miller, Former Mayor,

Fair field, Idaho
Success in Advancing Public Health Protection

The City of Tampa Water Utility, Cleveland

Division of Water, and Southern California Water

Company received certificates from EPA for their

efforts in the Partnership for Safe Water.

5

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:

Institutionalizing a Strong Science Base

IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS:

■

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

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

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

governments, 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 nonprofit 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 voluntarily activities to

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

pursue water quality goals more strict

than those required by regulation.

Working closely together, the water

supply 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.
6 The Safe Drinking Water ActOne Year Later

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 arsenicinduced health risks. EPA met its

statutory deadline of February 2, 1997,

by developing a comprehensive plan

for instituting these studies. When

completed, the arsenic studies, along

with existing research, will provide the

foundation for setting a new arsenic

standard.

Arsenic Research Partnership

In March 1997, EPA issued a joint research proposal solicitation for

additional research to better assess the health risks of exposure to low levels

of arsenic. Pursuant to Congress’ directive, this was done in cooperation

with public water utility associations. The American Water Works

Association Research Foundation and the Association of California Water

Agencies provided funds and agreed to a common, independent review of

proposals. The organizations blended their research grant methods, using

scientific experts of each group to develop appropriate arsenic topics for

funding. Although each group made independent funding decisions, the

cooperation avoids redundancy and maximizes the effectiveness of scarce

public and private research dollars. Through these collaborative efforts

EPA and the drinking water utilities are funding several high-priority

projects worth almost $3 million.

Cancer

Studies,

Reproductive

Studies

with the National

Institute of

Environmental

Health

Science

M/DBP

Research

with American

Water Works Assoc.

Research

Foundation M/DBP

Research

Council

Waterborne

Disease Studies

and Sensitive

Subpopulation

Research

with Centers

for Disease

Control

Arsenic

Research

with American

Water Works Assoc.

Research

Foundation

and Assoc. of

California Water

Agencies

Radon Research

with the National

Academy of

Sciences

EPA

RESEARCH

PARTNERSHIPS
Success in Advancing Public Health Protection

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:

7

IMPLEMENTATION SUCCESS:

Developing Implementation Tools

■

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.

■

Released the

Drinking Water State Revolving

Fund (DWSRF) guidelines

■

The DWSRF provides states and

water suppliers with funding to improve

their drinking water infrastructure, and

with options to fund source water protection and enhanced water system

management. 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 capitalization 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.

2/97 Statutory

Deadlines Met

Released Needs Survey

Developed

Arsenic Study Plan

Developed

M-DBP Study Plan

Published Review of

State Capacity

Development Efforts

Initiated Operator

Certification Partnership

The DWSRF will fund improvements to

drinking water treatment facilities
8 The Safe Drinking Water ActOne Year Later

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 development 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

8/97 Statutory Deadlines Met

Released Source Water Assessment Guidance

Released Source Water Petition Program Guidance

Released Alternative Monitoring Guidelines

Released List of Alternative Technologies for Small Systems

Released Guidance for State Ground Water

Protection Grants

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.
Success in Advancing Public Health Protection

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 devel9

The 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.

A New Role

for the Public

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 unThe first loan under the DWSRF

program was awarded to the

Williamsburg (PA) Municipal Authority, a small water supplier serving 855

customers. The system had old and

deteriorated distribution lines and was

having frequent and severe water

outages, but did not have the funds

needed to make infrastructure improvements. This threatened public

health because deteriorated pipes

make disinfectants less effective in

controlling microbiological growth.

Through the DWSRF program, the

system received a 20-year loan at 1%

interest to fix the problem. Approximately 62% of Pennsylvania’s loans

from its first grant will be provided

to systems serving communities with

fewer than 10,000 people.

opment 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

T

Implementation for the Future

State Implementation Activities

source water assessment guidance,

drawing on the initial draft Agency

guidance, to advance the assessment

process in the state.
10 The Safe Drinking Water ActOne Year Later

precedented 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.

Preventing Drinking

Water Problems

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.

Improved and

Cost-Effective Drinking

Water Contaminant

Standard Setting

The new risk-based contaminant

selection process and increased research

will lead to more effective regulations

Areas for Public

Participation and Information

in the 1996 SDWA Amendments

Consumer Confidence Reports

DWSRF Intended Use Plans

Source Water Assessments

State Capacity Development Strategy

National Occurrence Data Base

Variances

State Annual Compliance Reports
Success in Advancing Public Health Protection 11

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

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 riskmanagement 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.

Greater

Protection for

Customers of Small

Water Systems

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.

Improved

Protection for Our

Children

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

Microbials such as Cryptosporidium

are a focus of EPA’s research effort

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
The Safe Drinking Water ActOne Year Later

United States

EPA

Environmental Protection Agency

(4601)

Washington, DC 20460

Official Business

Penalty for Private Use

$300

BULK RATE

Postage & Fees Paid

EPA

G-35

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

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