By TANIA SOUSSAN
ALBUQUERQUE, NM, Sept. 3, 2000 (Albuquerque Journal) — Creative thinking hasn't produced a practical way for New Mexico to avoid spending an estimated $400 million on arsenic treatment — at least not yet.
Water managers haven't given up hope that new ideas will offer some relief.
The federal Environmental Protection Agency has proposed lowering the standard for drinking water in arsenic by 90 percent, from 50 parts per billion to 5 parts per billion.
Arsenic occurs naturally in much of the water in New Mexico. The average concentration in Albuquerque is about 13 parts per billion, and officials say it would cost the city about $250 million to meet the new standard. The rest of the state could spend another $150 million to deal with arsenic levels that vary but exceed 50 parts per billion in places.
Experts across the West have criticized the EPA proposal, saying it isn't backed up by sound science. The standard is based on studies of health effects from very high concentrations of arsenic, and there are no studies that show New Mexicans have suffered ill effects from drinking the water here.
Water customers have suggested to city of Albuquerque officials and in letters to newspapers what might appear to be simple solutions to the treatment dilemma. But those ideas have problems of their own, experts said.
For example, some people proposed filtering water at the tap in homes and businesses rather than at centralized treatment plants.
"That's not something we could do even if we wanted to," said John Stomp, manager of water resources for the city of Albuquerque.
Reverse osmosis filters would work, but they also would create a host of problems, added Stephen Wust of the New Mexico Environment Department. The biggest challenge is maintenance.
If the filters aren't changed often enough, they can become a source of contamination in the water. To be sure all the filters are working properly, the water utility would have to send someone to check each unit.
"That requires that somebody has to come into your home and do it for you or you have to do it yourself," Stomp said.
Reverse osmosis also wastes about 25 percent of the water it filters and isn't cost efficient beyond a system of 70 or 80 homes, Stomp and Wust said. Albuquerque has 150,000 customers.
San Ysidro, where arsenic levels are very high, has used reverse osmosis units at individual homes.
"There's a real issue on those," Wust said. "The problem is only about half of those units are actually operating properly."
Stomp is studying the costs of another idea - providing customers with treated, bottled water to use for drinking and cooking. Water that hasn't been filtered to remove arsenic still could be used to flush toilets, water lawns and do laundry.
If the city decided to try the bottled water option, it would contract with a company to bottle and deliver water treated by the city, Stomp said.
But Wust said people still could be exposed to water - while brushing their teeth or showering, for example - that doesn't meet the arsenic standard.
Stomp said he hopes a new treatment technology will be found in the three to five years Albuquerque will have to meet a new standard.
Researchers at Sandia National Laboratories are working on a technique that could offer some relief. Geochemist Pat Brady and his partners are working on a process to use a chemical substance to draw arsenic out of ground water in Bangladesh.
Their method could offer a cheap and easy way to get arsenic out of water in New Mexico. The researchers are trying to identify low-cost absorbents and applying for patents.
"There are lots of minerals that will absorb arsenic," he said.
Brady hopes the technology will be ready for commercial testing in about three years.
Meanwhile, water experts across the country are preparing written comments on the EPA proposal.
Wust traveled to Arizona recently to meet with university researchers preparing a paper to address the problems of the Southwest.
"We argue in a place like New Mexico you get almost none of the benefit with a very high cost," Wust said. "You could put money into something that would probably benefit people a lot more."
Wendell Ela, an engineering professor at the University of Arizona who works with students to develop new technologies for arsenic removal, is writing the comments.
He thinks the EPA made a proposal based on "very poor data."
"We're probably going to recommend a staged response for EPA of initially setting the standard at 25 parts per billion and revisiting that in a six- to 10-year time span as new data becomes available," he said.
Ela said EPA's economic analysis found there would be $1 of benefit for every $2 or $3 of cost, but his research showed the ratio could be as high as 60-1.
But Jeanne Bassett, executive director of the New Mexico Public Interest Research Group, said a standard of 5 parts per billion is appropriate.
"The most important thing to keep in mind for arsenic is that it is a carcinogen," she said. "It's preferable not to be exposed at all. ... We shouldn't be setting the standard based on the fear of the costs."
Bassett said she thinks families probably would be willing to pay an extra $5 to $10 a month to pay for arsenic treatment. Early estimates show the cost would be much higher in Albuquerque, but Bassett suggested the city could cut from other capital programs to make up the difference.
© 1997 - 2000 Albuquerque Journal
