EPA Study Undercuts Arsenic Step

A new study by an EPA advisory panel appears to undermine one of the Bush administration’s primary reasons for revoking a tough new standard for arsenic levels in drinking water.

The panel, in a report released Thursday, concluded that the Clinton administration did a “credible job” of computing the costs to water systems when it ordered that arsenic in drinking water be reduced 80%.

EPA Administrator Christie Whitman prevented the standard from taking effect, citing concerns that the previous administration did not adequately consider the costs and benefits of the new standard or the latest scientific evidence on the effect of small amounts of arsenic, a carcinogen, on human health.

“When the federal government imposes costs on communities, especially small communities, we should be sure the facts support imposing the federal standard,” Whitman said in March when she rescinded the standard and launched a review.

That decision has cost the administration dearly, raising doubts about the president’s commitment to public health.

The panel’s findings could increase political discomfort for the Bush administration as it continues to justify revoking the Clinton administration standard and prepares to announce its own proposal this fall on what the standard should be.

The panel did, however, offer suggestions to the EPA on how to better estimate costs as the agency decides where to set the standard. It also strongly urged the EPA to alter the way it considers affordability for small water systems and recommended that a fund be developed to help them meet the new standard.

“It’s obvious that this rule and other rules are not affordable to small systems,” said David Spath, a member of the panel and chief administrator of public water systems for California.

EPA officials said the report confirmed the wisdom of Whitman’s review and will strengthen confidence in the final standard.

“Her decision was made in response to a significant number of stakeholders raising questions and concerns and exhibiting a lack of confidence in EPA’s analysis,” said Ephraim King, an agency official working on the standard. “One of EPA’s jobs is to ensure the public has confidence in the analysis we do.”

The Clinton administration standard had been challenged in court by several Western states, a group of Western utilities and the mining industry.

King said the EPA will consider this report and two others ordered by Whitman as it develops a standard for arsenic.

“Public health and the public decision-making process has benefited as a result of this,” he said.

Whitman has said the standard will be lowered from the current limit of 50 parts per billion in tap water and could be as tough or tougher than the Clinton administration’s standard of 10 parts per billion.

The Safe Drinking Water Act requires the EPA to consider costs and benefits when setting maximum levels for toxins in tap water. Whitman ordered separate reviews of the cost and benefit analyses the agency had made in determining the 10-parts-per-billion standard. She also asked the National Academy of Sciences to update its assessment of the appropriate arsenic level in drinking water. A previous study by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the current standard “could easily” result in one person out of every 100 developing cancer.

It will take some time for the EPA staff and outside specialists to evaluate the suggestions in the three reports ordered by Whitman.

The cost analysis report is the only one available in final form. A draft of the benefit analysis makes some adjustment in how it calculates the total health benefits. It was not yet clear if the net effect of the recommendations would support a tougher or weaker standard.

“It’s a little early to tell,” said Jeanne Bailey of the American Water Works Assn., which represents water systems.

There is little doubt that the EPA review has cost the Bush administration politically. Earlier this summer, the House and Senate voted to direct the EPA to enact a tough standard immediately, and the House went as far as to direct the agency to adopt the Clinton administration standard.

Even President Bush has acknowledged that the issue has damaged his image. He cited the arsenic decision when asked in a television interview earlier this month what decisions he would like to make over.

Environmentalists said the new reports do nothing to justify the delay caused by Whitman’s rejection of the Clinton administration standard.

“The idea that in an eight-month period you’re going to revisit and solve all these issues that have been studied intensively over a decade and come up with new science and cost information does not ring true to me,” said Ed Hopkins of the Sierra Club. “There is really no more reason for this charade to go forward. They just ought to drop this issue and put the 10-ppb standard in place.”

But Spath, the panel member and California official, said that while he is ready to implement the 10-parts-per-billion standard, he believes the review will have positive outcomes.

“I think there was a lot of good that came out of the work group,” said Spath, the chairman of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council. “Future cost estimates will be better as a result of it.”

In particular, Spath said, he hopes the review will raise awareness in the EPA and Congress of the affordability problems faced by small water systems.

In California, 500 water systems would have to reduce their arsenic levels if the 10-parts-per-billion standard were adopted. Most of them are small systems, he said.