Copyright 1999 Federal Document Clearing House, Inc.
Federal Document Clearing House Congressional Testimony
October 20, 1999
SECTION: CAPITOL HILL HEARING TESTIMONY
LENGTH: 3760 words
HEADLINE:
TESTIMONY October 20, 1999 JOHN H. SULLIVAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR AMERICAN WATER
WORKS ASSOCIATION HOUSE COMMERCE IMPLEMENTATION OF DRINKING
WATER LEGISLATION
BODY:
Implementation of the Safe
Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 Subcommittee on Health & Environment
October 20, 1999 Prepared Statement of Mr. John H. Sullivan Deputy Executive
Director American Water Works Association INTRODUCTION Good morning Mr.
Chairman. I am John H. Sullivan, Deputy Executive Director for Government
Affairs of the American Water Works Association. I am here today on behalf of
the American Water Works Association (AWWA), the Association of Metropolitan
Water Agencies (AMWA) and the National Association of Water Companies (NAWC). We
appreciate the opportunity to present our views on the implementation of the
Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) Amendments of 1996. Moreover, we sincerely
appreciate the Chairman's leadership on this very important issue. Your
involvement, Mr. Chairman has been essential to making drinking water research a
high priority. AWWA is the world's largest and oldest scientific and educational
association representing drinking water supply professionals. The association's
56,000 members are comprised of administrators, utility operators, professional
engineers, contractors, manufacturers, scientists, professors and health
professionals. The association's membership includes over 4,000 utilities which
provides over 80 percent of the nation's drinking water. Since our founding in
1881, AWWA and its members have been dedicated to providing safe drinking water.
AMWA is a non-profit organization composed of the nation's largest, publicly
owned and municipal drinking water suppliers. Member agencies are represented by
the directors and managers and supply clean, safe drinking water to nearly 120
million Americans. NAWC is the nonprofit trade association that exclusively
represents the nation's private and investor-owned drinking water utility
industry. Its membership of over 300 companies in 42 states provides drinking
water to nearly 21 million Americans every day. The NAWC serves as the
ambassador for the $3 billion industry that employs 15,000 people. AWWA, AMWA
and NAWC utility members are regulated under the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
and other statutes. We believe few environmental activities are more important
to the health of this country than assuring the protection of water supply
sources, and the treatment and distribution of a safe and healthful supply of
drinking water. AWWA, AMWA and NAWC strongly believe that the successful
implementation of the reforms in the SDWA Amendments of 1996 is essential to
providing safe and affordable drinking water. Your continued leadership on SDWA
issues is a major factor in the implementation of the SDWA Amendments of 1996.
EPA DRINKING WATER PROGRAM The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) drinking
water program took on greatly increased responsibilities in the 1996 SDWA
amendments. These responsibilities included developing a regulatory process
requiring additional science and risk analysis for regulations, creating a
contaminant occurrence data base and methodology to select contaminants for
regulation, promulgating microbial and
disinfectant/disinfection by-products regulations, and
identifying new treatment technologies for small systems. In addition to these
research related responsibilities, EPA took on responsibilities for
administering the newly created drinking water state revolving fund and
developing regulations and guidelines for consumer confidence reports, operator
certification programs, source water assessment and monitoring relief. In
satisfying these requirements, EPA has involved the public in the regulatory
process to an extent not equalled by any other federal agency and stands as a
model for federal rule making. EPA has involved private citizens, scientists,
drinking water professionals, medical professionals, public health officials,
economists, and environmental and consumer advocacy representatives, as well as
other experts, to provide recommendations on how to carry out these new
regulatory responsibilities. AWWA, AMWA and NAWC believe that the EPA Office of
Groundwater and Drinking Water has made a good faith effort to implement the
spirit and intent of the 1996 SDWA Amendments. The EPA Office of Groundwater and
Drinking Water is to be commended for taking this exemplary approach for public
involvement which should result in better regulations that protect public
health. Many of the new regulations are either in their infancy or not yet
promulgated, so there is not yet much experience to determine whether a specific
regulation will work as intended in accordance with the 1996 SDWA reforms.
However, we have a major concern that there may not be enough research conducted
in a timely manner to support new contaminant regulations. We believe EPA's
efforts to fulfill the science and research mandate of the SDWA Amendments of
1996 are inadequate. In this statement, we will focus on the drinking water
research needs and highlight some regulations of concern. DRINKING WATER
RESEARCH The use of best-available, peer-reviewed good science as the foundation
of the new drinking water standard-setting process under the SDWA amendments of
1996 will require extensive drinking water research - particularly health
effects research. Funding for drinking water research is becoming more of a
critical issue. The 1996 SDWA Amendments require EPA to develop comprehensive
research plans for Microbial/Disinfection
By-Products (M/DBP) and arsenic. In addition, the SDWA
amendments require EPA to utilize health effects data to identify contaminants
for future regulation and for setting drinking water goals and standards. And
for the first time, the law gives EPA the discretion to consider risk trade-offs
and to set standards based on such data. However, we are seriously concerned
that without increased drinking water research funding over the next several
years and a comprehensive drinking water research plan, statutory deadlines for
regulating contaminants will force EPA to promulgate regulations that are not
based good science. For instance, there is great concern that research to
support standards for arsenic and M/DBP regulations will not be completed in
time to be fully taken into account by the rulemaking process. With regard to
arsenic research in particular, responses to questions put to the EPA by the
Commerce Committee Chairman, have left us frustrated. These general concerns are
also shared by others. The National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) has
concluded that: " S hortfalls in the drinking water program's funding and
research to support basic SDWA public health objectives...will substantially
hinder attainment of the SDWA quality and sound science requirements or will
result in missing statutory deadlines for priority rulemakings. "A
comprehensive, targeted and fully funded research program on drinking water
health effects, exposure, treatment and analytic methods is essential to the
success of the new statutory framework and to achieving the full potential of
the SDWA reform." The vast majority of EPA's ongoing drinking water research is
related to the M/DBP cluster of regulations and arsenic. EPA has established
innovative research partnerships with the AWWA Research Foundation (AWWARF) and
the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) on these two issues. Much of
the increases for drinking water research in recent years has been to fund new
research for the M/DBP cluster of regulations and arsenic. However, the research
may be too little too late to be of use prior to the statutory deadlines for
these regulations. Furthermore, there is concern that research to support other
priority regulations such as radon, other radionuclides, filter backwash and
future contaminants will not be done in time. Developing a comprehensive
drinking water research plan (besides the M/DBP and arsenic plans) that is
linked to key regulatory decision-making information needs and the
Congressionally imposed deadlines is essential. In February 1998, EPA finalized
the first Contaminant Candidate List (CCL) which contained 61 contaminants that
could be considered for future regulations. Of those 61 contaminants, only 20
have adequate information to move forward in the standard setting process. The
balance of the contaminants (including such important contaminant as MTBE and
acetochlor) need additional health effects, treatment, analytical methods, and
occurrence research. A comprehensive research plan for this large number of
contaminants needs to be completed, peer- reviewed, adequately resourced and
then implemented. In general, accurate estimates of funding needs for drinking
water research have been unavailable. Recognizing this, the drinking water
community, through the AWWA Research Foundation and EPA recently cosponsored the
Drinking Water Research Needs Expert Workshop to identify drinking water
research needs and establish priorities to scientifically address research gaps.
The major focus of the workshop was on contaminants on the current CCL. The
specific goals of the workshop were (1) to identify and prioritize drinking
water research needs related to unregulated drinking water contaminants; (2)
describe the proper sequencing for the studies; and (3) develop budget estimates
for the studies to the extent possible. The results of the workshop are being
compiled and we look forward to sharing them with you as soon as possible. The
results, when they are available, should provide better insight into the
drinking water research funding shortfall. However, this funding shortfall does
not begin to address the research needs to develop the next CCL and to get ahead
of the curve on emerging contaminants. This workshop process needs to be
formalized and extended to identifying research needs for the next CCL as
quickly as possible. Increased funding for drinking water research will be
needed to implement a comprehensive research plan. An estimated total of $150
million is needed just for full execution of the M/DBP and arsenic research
plans. The total funding need for a comprehensive research plan has not been
fully developed at this time. The accuracy of EPA estimates that we used in
testimony before this subcommittee in October 1998 to identify a drinking water
research funding shortfall have been questioned. Regardless, there are
indications that a funding shortfall for drinking water research to support all
future projected regulations will certainly begin in FY 2001 unless EPA
recognizes the increased need for additional research funds in its budget
request and increased funding is appropriated. If EPA's budget requests for FY
2001 and beyond are similar to recent requests, EPA will not have the needed
resources to implement a comprehensive research plan and fulfill Congress's 1996
mandate for science-based decision-making. We note that Congress has
appropriated $2 million above the EPA request for drinking water research in the
FY 2000 appropriations. Congress and EPA need to break the cycle of the
necessary research being behind the regulatory development process. An
integrated, comprehensive drinking water research program is needed. Research
schedules that meet regulatory needs must be developed. A realistic research
tracking system needs to be developed so that accountability can be built into
the process. Sufficient resources must be provided to assure adequate research
or statutory deadlines must be adjusted accordingly. Sufficient appropriations,
Congressional oversight and realistic statutory deadlines will better enable
EPA, the drinking water community and consumers to work together to ensure that
sound science yields the most appropriate regulations and practices possible for
the provisions of safe drinking water for all the people in America. With regard
to the recent US General Accounting Office (GAO) report on Drinking Water
Research (GAO/RCED-99-273), we thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling on GAO to
conduct an impartial study of drinking water research. We have only briefly
reviewed the report but it appears to parallel the concerns that we have raised
in this statement and with EPA for several years. We will review the report more
closely and would be happy to comment on it. AWWA, AMWA and NAWC commend the
subcommittee for holding this oversight hearing on the important issue of
drinking water research. Let me conclude by reaffirming our support for
Congress's good science mandate and our commitment to help EPA determine its
research needs. But once these needs are identified, it will be up to EPA to
request from Congress the necessary increase in funding. We ask Congress to
continue to satisfy the EPA request for drinking water research funds. We
believe that continued Congressional oversight and appropriations and
implementing the recommendations in the GAO report will lead to improvements in
the drinking water research program to better meet the requirements of the 1996
SDWA amendments and benefit the American people. SUMMARY In conclusion, I want
to highlight the main points of the testimony: - AWWA, AMWA and NAWC believe
that the EPA Office of Groundwater and Drinking Water has made a good faith
effort to implement the spirit and intent of the 1996 SDWA Amendments. - AWWA,
AMWA and NAWC have a major concern that the EPA drinking water research program
is not funded at a level adequate to provide the good science necessary to
support new contaminant regulations. - AWWA, AMWA and NAWC recommend that (1)
EPA develop an integrated, comprehensive drinking water research plan; (2)
include funding for the plan in its annual budget request; and (3) that Congress
fund the plan through appropriations. ____________________________________ This
concludes our statement on drinking water research to support the implementation
of the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments. I would be pleased to answer any
questions or provide additional material for the committee.
LOAD-DATE: October 21, 1999 
