Analvsis of the new SDWA U
increased, and procedural steps have been streamlined.
d! h
Richard M. Dowd
The enactment of amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) last lune has presented EPA with an extensive agenda of thorny issues, including new rules o n enforcement. disinfection, and underground injection. The immediate effect of many of the provisions will be felt primarily by those responsible for public water supply (PWS) systems. The selection of priority chemicals to he regulated and the subsequent development of standards, however. are certain to be of concern to those in industry and in the environmental community in general because of potential carry-over effects on other programs and regulations. Perhaps most important is the issue that dogs Superfund: How clean is clean? None of these issues is simple. Each poses difficult policy choices and extensive requirements for information. too little of which exists because of the historical lack of effective baseline monitoring programs.
Enforcement The amendments require EPA to adopt a far more aggressive enforcement stance on SDWA violations than it has in the past. For example, when state government officials know of a violation and do not act within 30 days, EPA must initiate enforcement action. In addition, the agency will now he allowed to use administrative orders (a first for this program) as well as the courts. Civil and criminal penalties are
Primary drinking-water r w l a t i o n s The amendments establish two lists of contaminants and corresponding schedules for EPA action on national primary drinking-water regulations (NPDWRs). From a list of 83 contamnants originally specified in an EPA advance notice of proposed rule making under the old statute, EPA must promulgate NPDWRs and publish maximum contaminant levels (MCLs) for nine substances by July 1987, for 40 by July 1988, and for the remaining 34 by July 1989. (MCLs are enforceable standards that are to be set at "feasible" levels us close as possihle to maximum contaminant level goals [MCLGs]. levels at wahich no adverse health effects are observable.) The second list, which EPA must publish by Jan. I , 1988, is to contain other contaminants that may adversely affect public health and that are known or anticipated to occur in public water systems. By January 1990. EPA must propose NPDWRs and MCLs for at least 25 contaminants from this list; by January 1991. the remainder must be similarly regulated. This second list must be updated at three-year intervals after IYRR. T h e process for promulgating MCLGs and MCLs will generally be similar to what has taken place in the past. The main difference is that there arc many more contaminants to be regulated-and in a much shorter timethan the agency has previously had to handle. Given the likelihood of little or no additional resources to deal with this increase, EPA is exploring the possibility of streamlining standard develop nient by establishing generic standards for technology that would apply simultaneously to a series of contaminants in PWS systems. Monitoring and disinfection The amendments' additional monitoring requirements are modest in the
0013-936x18610920-1101$01.5010 :'; 1986 American Chemical Society
sense that individual PWS systems need to monitor for unregulated contaminants only at five-year intcrvals. States, however. have the primary enforcement responsibility for ensuring compliance with tntal monitoring requirements. and they will find that the resources required to track a multitude of individual water systems are large indeed. For the first time, the amendments impose a federal requirement for disinfection. which traditionally has been a public health practice. However, the administrator may grant (or allow states to grant) variances where safety is demonstrated, for example. by adequate alternative treatment processes. EPA also is allowed to provide technical assistance to small public water systems. Where disinfection is used-either conventional (chlorination) or innovative (omnation)-EPA will replate harmful by-products. The amendments also ban the use of lead pipes and solder in new PWS construction, a provision the states are required to enforce. Each PWS system must notify users of any existing potential for lead contamination and must outline ways to mitigate it. Underground injection The amendments require EPA to establish. within I8 months, regulations for monitoring deep wells that inject wastes below drinking-water sources. EPA also must report to Congress, summarizing required state surveys on other underground injection wells. The deadlines facing EPA are tight, the intellcctual challenge is formidable, and resolution of many of these issues will affect other standard-setting and monitoring activities. particularly those required by the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act and by Superfund.
Richard M. Doiwl, Ph.D., is a Wachington. D. C . , cori.wlmnr to Envirunmental Research & Echnolo~?,lnc. Environ. Sci. Technol., Vol. 20.No. 11. 1986 1101
