|
Let them drink arsenic!
That, complain environmentalists, was the message sent by the Bush administration
in March, when U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Administrator
Christine Whitman announced withdrawal of a new regulation for arsenic
in drinking water, pending a review of scientific and cost issues.
According to EPA, studies link arsenic in drinking water to cancers of
the bladder, skin, kidney, nasal passages, liver and prostrate. Arsenic
consumption also has cardiovascular, pulmonary, immunological, neurological
and endocrine effects. As many as 60 million people in the United States
are drinking dangerous levels of arsenic in their tap water, according
to the Natural Resources Defense Council, which released “Arsenic
and Old Laws” in March 2000.
While much arsenic comes from geologic formations found in the earth’s
crust, both historical and current uses of arsenic-containing pesticides
and waste from the mining industry contribute to drinking water contamination.
Of increasing concern is chromated copper arsenate (CCA), the predominant
chemical used in pressure-treated wood for outdoor playgrounds, decks
and picnic tables.
At issue in the current arsenic controversy is how strict an EPA revision
of a 50-year-old standard will be. There is wide agreement that the 50
parts per billion (ppb) regulation, set in 1942, is woefully out of date.
A 1999 National Academy of Sciences report urged EPA to “set a new
standard to ensure that amounts of arsenic in U.S. drinking water supplies
are set to levels that minimize potential health risks.”
After several missed statutory deadlines and years of debate, the EPA
issued a proposed regulation of 5 ppb in January 2000. Under intense pressure
from some water utilities and trade associations, as well as the mining
and wood preservative industries, the Clinton administration EPA set the
final regulation at 10 ppb in January 2001.
In March, calling the prior administration's work on the issue “sound-bite
science,” Administrator Whitman challenged the new regulation, asking
NAS to conduct another scientific review and extending the timetable for
a final ruling until February 2002.
According to public health, environmental and consumer organizations
who advocate a regulation of 3 ppb or less, the Clinton administration’s
regulation already represents a compromise; they claim that the assumptions
underlying the new rule — far from being too strict or onerous ––
underestimate the benefits in preventing serious health effects while
overestimating the costs to water utilities and drinking water customers.
“Current and proposed federal assistance, along with emerging new
treatment technologies, will make it possible for all public water systems
to implement this regulation and protect their customers,” says Diana
Neidle of the Consumer Federation of America.
While water utilities’ opinions run the gamut from support to ambivalence
to opposition to the Clinton proposal, some industries have been fierce
in their opposition.
Leading the charge are the mining and wood preservative industries, which
fear current and future liability at toxic waste sites –– where
clean-up standards are determined by federal drinking water regulations.
By early March, the National Mining Association and the American Wood
Preservers Institute had both filed suit to block the Clinton administration’s
standard. The two were joined by the Western Coalition of Arid States
(WESTCAS), representing water and wastewater agencies in seven western
states.
“When WESTCAS members considered the high cost to water customers,
EPA’s improper estimates of the cost-to-benefit ratios and the uncertainty
of actual benefits, we felt compelled to challenge the rule,” Doug
Karafa, WESTCAS president, explains.
Industry spokespeople point out that the rule hasn’t been pulled,
only delayed until a complete scientific review can occur.
“There isn’t enough evidence yet that clearly states what the
standards should be,” Karen Batra of the National Mining Association
says. Before the Bush administration withdrew the arsenic rule for a review
process, NMA joined the other trade associations in petitioning a federal
court to overturn the standards, stressing that EPA “seriously underestimated
the costs of compliance.”
“The EPA is going to find that the overwhelming scientific evidence
about arsenic’s health effects more than justifies a strict regulation.
Special interests should not be exercising such influence over the quality
of the water coming out of our taps,” says Paul Schwartz, national
policy coordinator for Clean Water Action.
Lynn Thorp is national campaigns coordinator for
Clean Water Action.
|
