water in indoor air or is receiving State grant assistance for such a program under the Toxic Substances Control Act; or

The system implements an alternative compliance program to reduce the radon in indoor air.

Subsection (c) describes the alternative compliance program that a drinking water system may develop for the service area of the system. The program must include:

Distribution of radon educational material to all customers; Testing of radon in indoor air for not less than 50 percent of residential dwellings within five years of program approval;

and

A commitment to require that new homes connected to the water system comply with new construction radon prevention standards beginning two years after program approval.

Subsection (d) requires the Administrator to submit a report to Congress evaluating radon programs not later than 7 years after the date of enactment.

Discussion

Radon, a naturally occurring gas, is colorless, odorless, tasteless and radioactive. Radon is second only to cigarette smoking as a leading cause of lung cancer in the United States. The EPA estimates that radon causes about 13,000 lung cancer deaths each year.

People are exposed to radon in their homes from radon gas seeping up from the soil. People can also be exposed by drinking tap water or by inhaling radon relapsed into indoor air from tap water used for showering, washing, or other domestic uses.

Development of drinking water regulations for radon has caused considerable controversy. Radon in drinking water poses significant health threats compared to other drinking water contaminants for which standards have been developed. Yet, unlike most other regulated contaminants, radon is naturally-occurring.

In addition, the primary health risk of radon in water is from inhalation of radon vaporized from water. Most radon in the air indoors comes from soil gas, not from vaporization from water. Removal of radon in water to levels that are feasible as required by the Safe Drinking Water Act, requires reducing risks from radon in water to levels far below the risk from radon in the ambient, outdoor air.

EPA issued proposed regulations for the control of radon in drinking water in July of 1991. The regulations proposed that the standard for radon in drinking water be 300 picocuries per liter of water at an annual cost of $180 million per year. Water systems and others opposed this regulation on the grounds that the standard was too strict and the costs were greatly underestimated. Many groups suggested that the standards should allow health risks comparable to the health risks associated with exposure to radon in the air outdoors.

In response to this concern, Congress enacted an amendment to the 1993 appropriations bill addressing radon in drinking water and other drinking water issues. The amendment directed EPA to submit to Congress a major review and assessment of radon in

drinking water issues by July of 1993. Promulgation of the final drinking water regulation was extended to October 1, 1993.

The development of the report to Congress was delayed and EPA's fiscal year 1994 appropriations bill prohibited the agency from using funds to publish a radon in drinking water regulation. This provision effectively extended promulgation of a radon in drinking water regulation until late 1994. This provision was intended to allow the Environment and Public Works Committee time to address radon in legislation to reauthorize the Safe Drinking Water Act during the 103rd Congress.

The radon report was submitted to Congress in April of 1994. The report reviews and describes the scientific information about the health effects of radon and provides revised estimates of the cost of compliance. The report confirms that of the estimated 192 fatal cancer cases each year attributable to waterborne radon, 84 cases could be avoided by regulating to 300 pCi/1. The report also revises the estimate of the cost of compliance with the proposed regulation to $272 million per year, for an average of $3.2 million per cancer avoided.

By comparison, EPA estimates that of the 13,600 cancers caused by radon in indoor air, 2,200 could be avoided by 100 percent_voluntary mitigation at EPA's target level of 4 pČi/1 (of air). Such mitigation would cost $1.5 billion for an average cost per cancer avoided of $0.9 million.

Section 8 of the bill recognizes that radon should be addressed in a special way. The bill provides for a new, multimedia effort to address the health risks of radon from both air and water. It allows communities to remove less radon from drinking water if the water system or the State were implementing a program to reduce radon in indoor air.

The key element of the new radon program is the direction to the EPA to develop radon in drinking water standards based on the current standard setting authority and an additional alternative standard set at a level that poses a health risk that is equivalent to the health risk associated with the national average radon level in outdoor air. This would result in an alternative standard of approximately 3,000 pCi/l, considering only exposure through inhalation, or less, depending on the extent of exposure through ingestion or episodic uses of drinking water.

Water systems located in States which are implementing programs to reduce radon in indoor air may comply with the alternative standard in lieu of the maximum contaminant level. In addition, a water system located in a State which does not have a radon in indoor air program is eligible to comply with the alternative standard if it implements measures to reduce radon in the air in homes in the service area.

Summary

SECTION 9. SOURCE WATER PROTECTION PROGRAMS

As new standards for drinking water take effect, many drinking water systems are discovering the high costs of effective treatment to assure that water is safe. In some cases, contamination of a water supply, and subsequent requirement to provide for treat

ment, might have been avoided by low cost measures to prevent pollution of the water source.

The Safe Drinking Water Act has included programs to protect the quality of sole source aquifers and wellhead areas and these programs have been effective in some cases. Section 9 of the bill provides a new initiative to encourage States and water systems to implement programs to protect the quality of existing sources of drinking water and prevent contamination before it occurs. Water systems are not required to develop source water protection plans, but incentives are provided to encourage development of plans. If a source water protection plan is approved, a community is eligible for grant and loan funds under the Clean Water Act to implement the plan. The community also may propose reduced monitoring requirements based on elements of the approved plan. In addition, Federal agency actions are required to be consistent with the plan to the maximum extent practicable.

Discussion

Section 9 of the bill establishes a new section 1429 of the Act providing for protection of ground and surface water sources of drinking water through source water protection plans that may be developed by local or regional entities within a State. States are required to have a process to review and approve any plans.

Subsection (a) of new section 1429 provides that within two years of the date of enactment, each State is to submit to the Administrator a source water protection program establishing a process for review and approval of local source water protection plans.

Subsection (b) describes requirements of source water protection plans. Plans are to include several key elements including a goal for protection of drinking water, delineation of source water areas, assessment of source water quality and identification of pollution sources, contingency planning, public education, and specific measures to be implemented to protect drinking water quality. The plan is to describe the schedule for implementation of pollution prevention and control measures and the legal authorities and financial resources to implement the measures.

Subsection (c) directs the Administrator to publish guidance for source water protection programs within one year of the date of enactment.

Subsection (d) provides that the Administrator is to review source water protection programs developed by States and approved programs that are consistent with this section. Beginning in Fiscal year 1998, the Administrator shall withhold 50 percent of a State's capitalization grant if the State does not have an approved source water protection program.

Subsection (e) provides several incentives to encourage the development of source water protection plans. Projects identified in an approved source water protection plan are eligible for financial assistance in the form of grants under the new authorities for controlling nonpoint pollution under section 319 of the Clean Water Act and through the Clean Water Act loan funds. Reduced drinking water monitoring is allowed where the reduced monitoring is associated with specific source water protection measures. Federal ac

tivities and projects are to be consistent with approved source water protection plans.

Subsection (f) amends the existing sole source aquifer protection program and the wellhead protection program to extend application periods, extend authorization periods, and make other conforming changes.

Summary

SECTION 10. EMERGENCY POWERS

This section amends the emergency powers provision of the Safe Drinking Water Act, primarily to eliminate procedural barriers that might prevent the Administrator from acting swiftly in the face of a public health emergency.

Discussion

Section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act authorizes the Administrator to take administrative action or seek judicial action when necessary because a contaminant "may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health." However, before doing so, the Administrator must first, as a threshold matter, make two determinations. The first is whether State and local authorities have taken sufficient action to protect public health. The second is whether it is practicable to consult with those authorities regarding, among other things, whatever further action they play to take. These threshold determinations may inhibit the Administrator's authority to act swiftly in the face of a public health emergency posed by drinking water contaminants. Accordingly, section 10 of the bill amends section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act two ways. First, it replaces requirement that the Administrator determine whether State and local authorities have taken sufficient action in emergencies with a procedurally streamlined requirement that the Administrator notify State and local officials of impending action. Second, it deletes the requirement that the Administrator determine whether it is practicable to consult with State and local authorities.

In addition, section 10 of the bill makes clear that, when exercising the emergency powers authority, the Administrator may issue orders necessary not only to protect public health but also "to restore or protect the public water system."

Finally, section 10 of the bill makes a technical change, by deleting section 1431(b) of the Safe Drinking Water Act. Section 6(a) of the bill revises section 1414(e) of the Safe Drinking Water Act to authorize the Administrator to bring a civil action to enforce an order issued under section 1431. As a result, the separate section 1431(b) authority to bring a civil action is no longer necessary.

SECTION 11. DRINKING WATER RESEARCH, EDUCATION, AND
CERTIFICATION

Summary

This section clarifies the general research authorities of the Act and authorizes $25 million for drinking water research for each fiscal year through 2000.

Existing authority for making grants to assist in emergency situations relating to water systems is retained and the authorization of $8 million per year is extended through the year 2000.

A report to Congress on the long-term availability of drinking water supply, submitted in 1988, is to be revised two years after the date of enactment of this bill and every five years thereafter. Various authorities relating to education and training are consolidated and a new authorization of $10 million per year is added for this purpose.

A new requirement for certification of operators of public water systems is added. Each system is to have a certified operator 4 years after the date of enactment. The Administrator is to publish regulations setting minimum standards for certification within one year of enactment. Certification of operators is made a condition of State primacy.

The existing authority for providing technical assistance to small public water systems is expanded to include multi-State regional technical assistance and the authorization is extended through the year 2000 at the existing level of $10 million.

A new subsection is added to the Act directing the Administrator to conduct studies to determine the levels and national distribution of contaminants in drinking water, develop reliable cost-effective monitoring, evaluate relative risks, costs and benefits, and develop an integrated risk characterization strategy for drinking water quality.

Discussion

Most States have a drinking water system operator certification program, but a few States have no certification requirements at all. Experience prerequisites, testing, certification and continuing education may or may not be required in a State program and the size of the systems covered by certification requirements vary.

In a 1991 report "A Study of State Operator Certification Programs”, EPA found that 11 States require all public water system operators be certified, and 5 States require all public water systems that use treatment to employ certified operators. Nine States require all community water systems to have certified operators and 2 States require all community water systems that use treatment to have certified operators. However, there are 15 States with operator certification programs which explicitly exclude systems serving fewer than 500 people. These exemptions are significant because over 60 percent of all community water systems nationwide serve 500 people or fewer.

The lack of adequate operator certification and training, especially for small systems, can create compliance problems. Complex technologies require proper installation and maintenance and technical expertise to perform up to standards.

In addition, monitoring and sampling done by a trained drinking water system operator are more likely to produce accurate results. Some States rely on water system operators to collect and analyze water samples and to report the results to State drinking water authorities. Sampling is best done by a person trained to take samples and interpret the results. Untrained operators are more likely to make errors which can produce invalid results.