Groups Voice Opposition to Arsenic Rule

The arsenic rule proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency is seriously flawed, excessive, and could cost more to implement then all the money dedicated to fighting AIDS, cancer and diabetes, according to industry associations opposed to the rule.

Drinking water groups from around the country have voiced opposition to the proposed rule, which would lower the standard for arsenic in drinking water to 5 parts per billion. EPA also sought comment on 3, 10 and 20 ppb as well. The comment period for the proposed rule ended in September. Under the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996, EPA is required to promulgate a final rule by January 1, 2001.

The American Water Works Association urged EPA to reconsider the proposal, citing scientific concerns and unjustifiable consumer costs.

AWWA Executive Director Jack Hoffbuhr said, "Everyone agrees that arsenic levels in drinking water can be and should be reduced. AWWA challenges EPA to do that in a way that optimizes public health protection without bankrupting small towns or their residents."

Although lethal in high doses, trace amounts of arsenic are found in apples, fish, rocks, and even the human body, without posing any known risk to human health. Low levels of arsenic also are in some fresh water supplies around the U.S.

AWWA said the 5 ppb standard is anticipated to cost $1.5 billion per year and require $14 billion in capital investments, which translates into water bill increases of as much as $1,900 per customer yearly.

The Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA) also cited serious flaws in the proposed rule.

"The need to reduce levels of arsenic in drinking water is a given— ACWA says as much in our comments being submitted to EPA," said ACWA's Executive Director Steve Hall. "But EPA has gone beyond what is scientifically justified, feasible or even necessary."

"EPA is proposing to reduce arsenic to 5 ppb, a level lower than commonly found in everyday food like apples," said Hall. "This is flawed public and fiscal policy. An effective rule will balance health protection with costs, but to date the EPA hasn't done that."

In comments submitted to the EPA, ACWA urged the agency to reconsider the proposed standard and implement an interim rule until better scientific data becomes available. An interim standard would target the highest sources of arsenic in drinking water for treatment first, assuring public safety until health effects research is completed. Critical research on the effects of arsenic at low levels— funded by ACWA, the American Water Works Association's Research Foundation and EPA itself— is not expected until 2001.

"We concern ourselves first and foremost with public health protection," Hall said. "But with the rule adopted as proposed, we stand to squander billions of public dollars for unproven public health benefits."

AWWA said that given the available information EPA has provided, a standard below 20 ppb cannot be justified.

EPA's Science Advisory Board has expressed concern over the proposal because of unclear health benefits and high costs. The agency was to have based its rule on a recent National Academy of Science report, but the report made no numerical recommendation and suggested more research be conducted before a new rule was proposed.

"EPA should heed the advice of health experts, water professionals and its own analysts. We all agree that the arsenic standard can be strengthened more affordably and public health can be protected more practically than EPA's plan suggests," Hoffbuhr said.

The Western Coalition of Arid States (WESTCAS), representing seven western states, also called upon EPA to conduct better scientific studies before implementing a final rule for arsenic. The group called for an interim standard of no less than 20 ppb for arsenic that would be evaluated upon completion of health studies in six years.

WESTCAS contends that compliance also should be eight years rather than the proposed three. Based on treatment research and piloting completed in Albuquerque, no available technologies exist for water providers to implement within three years, the group said. Implementation would require research, pilot studies, full-scale demonstration facilities, financing and construction.

The current standard of 50 ppb was set by EPA in 1975, based on a Public Health Service standard originally established in 1942. A March 1999, report by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the current standard does not adequately protect public health and should be lowered as soon as possible.

The new standard will apply to 54,000 community water systems, serving approximately 254 million people. A community water system is a system that serves 15 locations or 25 residents year-round (e.g. most cities and towns, apartments, and mobile home parks with their own water supplies). EPA estimates, however, that only 12 percent, or 6,600, of these water systems, serving 22.5 million people, will have to take corrective action to lower the current levels of arsenic in their drinking water. Of the affected systems, 94 percent serve fewer than 10,000 people.