I am here today to represent AMWA -- an Association comprised of the nation's largest publicly owned water suppliers altogether serving over 100 million people with clean, safe drinking water.
Introduction
Largely through the efforts of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee and its counterpart in the House, the Safe Drinking Water Act was reauthorized in 1996. The statute's reform was accomplished through a strong bipartisan effort at a time when there was serious disagreement over the question of reforming EPA's regulatory process. Much to this Committee's credit, the 1996 drinking water amendments are held up as an example, by many in Congress, the Administration and many others, as the way regulatory reform ought to happen.
Making sure the reforms instituted by the 1996 statute are implemented is one of the many important jobs of this subcommittee. The success, or failure, of the 1996 amendments will impact whether the reforms used in this statute are ones to be emulated in other important environmental and public health laws.
Implementation
It has been two and one half years since passage of the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), assisted by the States, water supply community, environmentalists and others, has managed to implement numerous key provisions. Much of EPA's work was accomplished through a stakeholder process developed with the help of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council. Through this process, the agency considered each stakeholder's views. The agency's efforts to meet the deadlines of the 1996 Amendments serves as a model of how the rulemaking process ought to work.
So that implementation of the statute stays on schedule, EPA is hard at work developing a new database to house information on contaminant occurrence in raw water sources; the agency has already developed a list of 60 contaminants they are considering for future study; agency staff are developing new ways to measure costs and benefits of future regulations; States are evaluating the susceptibility of water supplies to pollution; the first ever drinking water loan fund is making awards to assist with compliance; and water suppliers are gearing up to mail out their first Consumer Confidence Reports.
Two major rules, the Disinfectant/Disinfection Byproducts Rule and the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule, have also been promulgated since enactment of the 1996 amendments. However, because a negotiated rulemaking process was used to develop these two rules, Congress took great care not to alter the results of those negotiations. Therefore, the real impact of the 1996 amendments will become clearer this year with a new round of rules governing disinfection byproducts, and pathogens, arsenic, radon and ground water on the table for development.
New Regulatory Development Framework
These and other contaminants will be regulated under a new regulatory framework mandated under the 1996 amendments. EPA will focus on contaminants that actually occur in drinking water and, moreover, at levels of public health concern. Rather than setting standards for a prescribed list of contaminants as previously required by the 1986 amendments, EPA is now required to develop a list of contaminants for possible regulation, study them and every 5 years make a decision on not fewer than 5 whether they should be regulated. In order for EPA to make a decision to regulate, or not, research is essential.
The Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water has made considerable effort to satisfy this new framework: construction of the occurrence data base is underway and a list of 60 contaminants has been developed for further consideration. Remaining, however, is the actual research to support the new framework.
Priority Contaminants (Contaminant Candidate List--CCL)
While funds to support current rule development exists, research on candidates for future regulation are getting little or no funding. Both the General Accounting Office (GAO) and the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) have raised the issue of research funding to support future rules that need to be based on sound science. As regulatory development under the 1996 amendments begins on new contaminants, research needs escalate quickly. NDWAC and GAO estimate a shortfall of between $10 and $20 million annually to address the regulation of future contaminants. Without a substantial amount of research, the 1996 Amendments could be undermined, and Congress' intent to change the way regulations are developed would not be accomplished.
Funding the necessary research to support development of future regulations is a priority for AMWA in fiscal year 2000 and the near future. In order for the scientific data to be available in time to make sound scientific decisions, research must begin now. As we have in the past, the drinking water community is prepared to work in partnership with Congress and the Administration to ensure that sufficient data is available to make informed decisions.
In addition to future regulatory development, EPA, according to the Amendments, must review all drinking water regulations periodically and revise them as appropriate. This represents a further demand for research that cannot be met by the agency's current research budget.
Microbial and Disinfection Byproducts: The Second Stage
The next major rulemaking that could potentially impact all surface water systems and many ground water systems is the second stage of the microbial and disinfection byproducts rulemaking. So the Stage 2 rules would be based on more science than was available for Stage 1, EPA and the water supply community committed to providing millions of dollars to conduct health effects research and occurrence studies. To date, the nation's largest water systems have invested well over $100 million in this data collection effort.
The uncertainties we face without this information cannot be over emphasized. Because of the inherent risk trade-offs between microbial pathogen control and disinfection byproduct reduction, coupled with the lack of data on the health effects of alternative disinfectants compared to the chlorine based disinfectants typically used, the very real possibility exists that billions of dollars may be spent on changing the way we treat water without lessening public health risks, or, even worse, actually increasing those risks.
Unfortunately, there have been significant delays in collecting contaminant occurrence and treatment data, and in executing the necessary health effects research program. The optimistic timeframe set by negotiators, and adopted into law, in large part was driven by the statutory deadlines of the old law. In retrospect, a more realistic view of the timeframes involved would have given more time considering the unprecedented magnitude of the research effort.
As a result, negotiations on the second stage of the M/DBP Rules, scheduled to start this spring to meet a promulgation date for final rules of May 2002, may do so without the benefit of studies that are ongoing but not yet completed.
A few weeks ago, EPA held a workshop to assist all interested parties in understanding the state of the science on DBPs and microbial contaminants. Next week they will hold another workshop on the state of treatment technologies. The question that will need to be answered after both science and technology are reviewed, is what do we know, or not know, and where does that lead us. AMWA is committed to looking at the science that is completed and treatment that is available. We are also committed to looking at the research that is underway but won't be available in the timeframe laid out in the law, and asking the question what more will we know a year or two from now and should we ask Congress for more time so the science can be completed. The expenditure of billions of dollars in public funds requires all of us to ask these questions so that when the money is spent the public is sure that the money has been spent wisely.
AMWA requests that the subcommittee remain open to the option of altering the compliance date for Stage 11 of the M/DBP should reason dictate.
Good Science
For the first time, EPA proposed, as part of the Stage I D/DBP rule, a non-zero Maximum Contaminant Level Goal (MCLG) for chloroform based on the scientific evidence that its dose response curve is nonlinear at low doses. EPA and experts in the field have long sought specific information on the mode of action of contaminants. By knowing the mode of action of a contaminant that causes cancer in animals, it is possible to make a determination of whether or not the same mode of action would apply at lower doses or even be applicable to humans at all.
A first time change such as this from a conservative default assumption based on scientific data will always be controversial and should be carefully explored and justified as it appears EPA and outside expert workgroups have done. And, although EPA chose not to finalize the MCLG for chloroform in the final Stage I D/DBP rule at a level other than zero, if the review to be conducted by the Science Advisory Board (SAB) provides support for the non-zero level, we believe that the agency's commitment to the use of good science dictates that an MCLG other than zero be finalized in Stage II.
The non-zero MCLG for chloroform is important for another reason. Chloroform is the most commonly formed disinfection byproduct. Efforts to control byproducts as required by regulation have focused on chloroform reduction in the past since it is also the easiest to control. To the extent that chloroform isn't part of the risk equation, such efforts might have the unintended consequence of increasing risks from other byproducts. It should be no surprise that following the best science will work out to be the best in the long run.
Public Information and Cost-Benefit Analysis
The 1996 Amendments throughout stress the use of good science as a vital underpinning of regulatory efforts. In addition to science, the statute adds two significant right-to-know and public information provisions. The first as mentioned earlier are the so-called consumer confidence reports that water suppliers are required to provide their customers annually beginning this year. The other requires EPA to present information on public health effects and to conduct and publish an analysis of quantifiable and nonquantifiable benefits and costs. This provision does not require the Administrator to demonstrate that the dollar value of the benefits are greater (or lessor) than the dollar value of the cost, but it does require her to make a determination with respect to the relative costs and benefits of each national primary drinking water regulation when it is proposed. AMWA urges this subcommittee to ensure that the letter and intent of the law are followed and that this analysis is conducted for all future rulemakings.
Drinking Water State Revolving Loan Program
For the first time in the history of drinking water, there is a Federal loan program designed to assist water suppliers meet the demands of the drinking water law. With $138 billion in unmet infrastructure needs, including $34 billion for immediate needs, there is a great demand for the program. It is important, then, for EPA to provide for a fully funded loan program in its future budget requests and for Congress to appropriate those funds.
Conclusion
EPA, States, and public water systems face the challenge of making the 1996 Amendments work as Congress intended. The burdens are considerable, but the result will be a stronger drinking water program and continued protection of the nation's drinking water. But if EPA and the States are to meet those challenges and burdens, adequate resources must be made available. The onus is on EPA to request appropriate funds from Congress and on Congress to satisfy EPA's requests. In addition, we encourage the agency to continue its current approach to implementation of the Act and to embrace the regulatory tools Congress provided it in 1996. AMWA will continue to support the agency, and we look forward to a close working relationship with you as well.
Thank you for this opportunity to testify. If we can be of any future assistance, please contact us.