Articles
RSSArsenic in politics may be hazardous to health
April 23, 2001
"Politics is almost as exciting as war and quite as dangerous. In war you can only be killed once, but in politics many times." - Sir Winston ChurchillBy Frederick W. Pontius, P.E., Pontius Water Consultants, Inc.
Contents
Science is only part of the MCL decision
Good science is more than just studies that agree with a foregone conclusion
Headlines tell the story:
"E.P.A. to Abandon New Arsenic Limits for Water Supply" i
"Lieberman calls for environmental probe" ii
"Science Can Wait" iii
"Whitman ignores POU" iv
"Cancer victims pay for our arsenic-laden water" v
"Bush Vows To Reduce Arsenic in H2O" vi
"Activists Unveil National Media Attack Against Bush Environmental Decisions" vii
"Bush Is Right on Arsenic. Darn!" viii
"EPA Administrator Whitman Establishes Process to Evaluate Arsenic in Drinking Water Standard" ix
Reaction to the announcement that the Clinton-era arsenic rule would be reviewed was predictable. Arsenic is one of the most polarizing issues, even for water suppliers. Swift and fierce street fighting. Stand'em up…knock'em down. All the makings of the most exciting political squabble over a drinking water issue we've seen in a long time, perhaps ever. Even those of us who have not taken a position on what the MCL should be cannot escape the issue any longer. And let's be honest, this is the action people inside the beltway live for…
During a recent trip to Washington, D.C., a drinking water consultant from the southwest waxed eloquently to me his belief—with which many agree—that the final arsenic MCL should have been higher. He was disturbed that ‘only politics' drove the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to set the MCL at 10 µg/L. Problem is other stakeholders out there believe—just as strongly as he—that the final arsenic MCL should have been lower. And hey—we're talking about Washington, D.C.! What's not influenced by politics?—regardless of who's in the White House. Or at EPA.
Many in public water supply, who've been wrestling with arsenic health and treatment issues for well over a decade, realized years ago that when the smoke eventually clears on arsenic politics there will be no true winners. Unless winning is defined as Winston Churchill so accurately observed, the one who ‘dies' the fewest number of times. The polarization is so far—warfare has been declared, and feelings are so high—that one action (even if nonpolitical) is simply generating a more powerful reaction, spin for spin. No compromise; no prisoners!
Science is only part of the MCL decision
Now there's nothing wrong with a new administration taking time to look at what a prior administration has done. Especially if the February 2006 compliance date is met and the review ensures the scientific underpinnings of an MCL. But science is only part of the MCL decision. The very first Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) deadline missed by EPA regarding regulation of arsenic was June 19, 1989. Since then, extended delays of a final arsenic rule have been repeated, for one reason or another, to the point that recurring delays are expected, almost like a national holidayx. After all, some folks like beating each other up over schedules... (Return to top)
Good science is more than just studies that agree with a foregone conclusion
The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) issued recommendations on arsenic in 1999, as Congress requested. Yet, picking and choosing from the NAS report to support a particular policy view is not helpful. Good science is more than just the studies that agree with a foregone conclusion. While EPA has once again been accused of ‘always underestimating costs,' the water industry has once again been accused of overestimating costs. Can we resolve this once and for all? Like it or not Congress—in the SDWA—requires consideration of factors that can't be specifically counted (nonquantifiable) as well as those that can be (quantifiable), including costs, benefits, health risks, treatment feasibility, and other factors. Congress gave EPA flexibility under the SDWA so that the benefits of an MCL can justify the costs. Where does this leave us?
EPA has asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to perform an expedited review of a range of 3 to 20 µg/L for the establishment of a new drinking water standard. The NAS is being asked to look at new studies regarding health effects that were received after the previous comment period closed and to review the agency's risk analysis of arsenic. The prior NAS report stated that the present standard of 50 µg/L is too high, but it did not specify what a protective level should be. The agency also will prepare a rule proposal seeking additional public comment on this range. Additionally, as part of the independent review, the agency will convene a subgroup of the National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC) to review the economic issues associated with a standard.
Politicizing of arsenic by members of Congress, spinning by interest groups, and damage control via the press won't help this process much. In fact, it's detrimental. Those involved directly or indirectly in the NAS and NDWAC reviews will not all be in agreement. But for these reviews to be credible, participants must be selected carefully and work in good faith towards a specifically defined end without external manipulation—and the focus must be on good science, not force of personality or temper tantrums or the pulling of strings. By the end of these reviews closure must be reached so that we can move on to focus on achieving compliance otherwise public health protection will be frustrated and the number of Washington, D.C. casualties from arsenic in politics will surely climb. (Return to top)
References
i Douglas Jehl. The New York Times, March 21, 2001.
ii United Press International, March 29, 2001.
iii Kenneth D. Smith. The Washington Times, March 29, 2001.
iv WaterTechOnline, April 4, 2001.
v Diane Carman, The Denver Post, April 8, 2001.
vi John Heilprin, Associated Press, March 29, 2001.
vii InsideEPA.com, April 18, 2001.
viii Michael Kinsley, Washington Post, April 13, 2001.
ix USEPA Press Release. April 18, 2001.
x The Arsenic Regulation Road Must End. Risk Policy Report, Oct. 31, 2000.
About the Author: Frederick W. Pontius, P.E., is president of Pontius Water Consultants, Inc., Lakewood, CO, specializing in drinking water regulatory affairs, compliance, water quality and treatment. Fred has 20+ years in the water and wastewater industries. He is a frequent conference and seminar speaker, was a former staffer with the American Water Works Association from 1982 to 1999, and is a contributing editor to the Journal of the American Water Works Association (since 1991). He may be reached at fredp@pontiuswater.com. (Back)
See what other topics Fred Pontius has addressed in his column, Getting the Inside Edge.
Read other articles about arsenic issues in the Water Online Archive.
Subscribe to our free e-mail newsletter.
