The final Arsenic Rule published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, lowering the maximum contaminant level for arsenic to 10 ppb from the current standard of 50 ppb, will cost at least $181 million to implement and directly impact community water systems serving 13 million people, according to figures from EPA. The American Water Works Association placed the cost much higher, predicting the new standard would cost $600 million annually and require $6 billion in capital outlays.
The rule is expected to impact about 10 percent of the nation's community drinking water providers, and the expensive new treatment processes it requires makes the arsenic rule one of the most costly drinking water regulations ever, AWWA said.
EPA estimated the rule's annual cost to households would average about $32 per year but could range up to $60 per household. AWWA again had a much higher projection, predicting that compliance with the new standard could cost individual ratepayers in the desert Southwest, Midwest and New England as much as $2000 a year.
"The rule strengthens public health protection, but at a significant cost," said AWWA Executive Director Jack Hoffbuhr.
To ease this burden, AWWA will initiate efforts in the new Congress to procure adequate federal assistance for those communities hit hardest by the requirements of the new rule, he said. AWWA and its members will also carefully consider EPA's response to the numerous scientific and cost-benefit issues raised during the rulemaking process.
"AWWA has long supported a stronger arsenic standard," Hoffbuhr said. "Water utilities, ratepayers and Congress must now work to ensure that the tougher standard can be implemented in every community impacted by it.
"With some help from Congress, communities will be able to find the financial balance necessary to promote the health of their residents."
A Jan. 20 order by the Bush administration to hold for review certain late-hour rulemakings by the outgoing Clinton administration has clouded the fate of several SDWA rules, but should not impact the arsenic rule, which was published in the Jan. 22 Federal Register, AWWA said.
The Bush order directed heads of all government agencies to send no proposed or final regulation for Federal Register publication until approved by a Bush administration official, withdraw any new rules that had been sent but were not yet published, and "temporarily postpone" the effective date for 60 days of any regulations that had been published but had not taken effect. The order allowed for some exclusions, including those dealing with "critical" or "urgent" health and safety issues.
"Based on the advice of our counsel, we think it is highly unlikely that the arsenic rule will be overturned, withdrawn or affected in any way by the directive," said Tom Curtis, AWWA Deputy Executive Director for Government Affairs.
Sen. Pete Domenici, R-N.M., has introduced a bill to block the revised arsenic standard, asserting that the new standard lacks a foundation of sound science and is "potentially financially devastating to New Mexico." Domenici said his bill (S.223) will "render void" the new regulation.
"I believe it is essential to protect and ensure the safety of our nation's water supply and to uphold the principles and goals set forth in the Safe Drinking Water Act," he said, "but these standards were not based on sound science and there is no proof that they will increase health benefits. They were put into effect because it was the politically expedient thing to do."
The bill stands little chance of being signed into law, according to industry sources.
EPA predicts the rule will have a "quantifiable benefit" ranging from $140 to $198 million per year. Reducing arsenic to 10 µg/L from the current 50 will prevent approximately 19-31 cases of bladder cancer and 5-8 deaths due to bladder cancer per year. EPA estimates the reduction also will prevent approximately 19-25 cases of lung cancer and 16-22 deaths due to lung cancer per year.
High levels of arsenic tend to be found more often in ground water than in surface water. Compared to the rest of the United States, the Western states have more systems with arsenic levels greater than 10 µg/L. Parts of the Midwest and New England have some systems whose arsenic levels are greater than 10 µg/L, but more systems in that region see arsenic levels ranging from 2-10 µg/L.
According to EPA figures, about 3,000 (or 5.5 percent) of the nation's 54,000 community water systems and 1,100 (or 5.5 percent) of the 20,000 non-transient, not-community water systems will need to take measures to lower arsenic in their drinking water. Of the affected systems, 97 percent serve less than 10,000 people.
All CWSs and all NTNCWSs that exceed the MCL of 10 µg/L will have five years to come into compliance with the rule. Beginning with reports that are due by July 1, 2002, all CWSs will begin providing health information and arsenic concentrations in their annual consumer confidence report (CCR) for water that exceeds half the new MCL.
In the 1996 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), Congress directed EPA to propose a new arsenic regulation by January 1, 2000, and to issue the final rule by January 1, 2001 (Congress subsequently extended the final rule date to June 22, 2001). EPA published the proposed rule for arsenic on June 22, 2000. The rule proposed an MCL of 5 µg/L for arsenic and EPA took comment on regulatory options of 3 µg/L (the feasible level), 10 µg/L and 20 µg/L.
After reviewing more than 4,000 comments, EPA elevated the standard to 10 ppb, aligning it with the existing standards of the World Health Organization (WHO) and the European Union.
In October of 1999, AWWA urged EPA not to propose a standard lower than 10 ppb and explained to consumers and regulators throughout 2000 that a standard of 5 ppb would cost 2.5 times as much as a 10 ppb standard, without producing a similar increase in certifiable health protections. In its comments to EPA on the rule, AWWA emphasized that the agency had failed to make a compelling case for the 5 ppb standard and that a higher standard was more justifiable. This position was echoed by the EPA's own Science Advisory Board, Small Communities Advisory Subcommittee and academics who had reviewed the rule.
The 1996 amendments to SDWA added discretionary authority for the EPA Administrator to adjust the maximum contaminant level (MCL) if the benefits would not justify the costs. The new rule is important because it is the second drinking water regulation in which EPA used that discretionary authority. After careful consideration of the benefits and the costs, EPA decided to set the drinking water standard for arsenic higher than the technically feasible level of 3 µg/L because it believed that the costs would not justify the benefits. EPA believes that the final MCL of 10 µg/L maximizes health risk reduction at a cost justified by the benefits.
