[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page 16208]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  COMMON SENSE NEEDED ON ARSENIC ISSUE

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. DOUG BEREUTER

                              of nebraska

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, August 2, 2001

  Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Speaker, this Member commends to his colleagues the 
following editorial from the August 2, 2001, Lincoln Journal Star. The 
editorial highlights the need to move beyond the rhetoric and examine 
the arsenic issue in a rational manner.
  Clearly, it is important to get the full story and listen to those 
who would be most affected by the proposed changes. Many State and 
local officials as well as water system administrators have expressed 
concern about the problems which could be caused by the proposed 
changes. Everyone recognizes the importance of providing safe drinking 
water for all of our Nation's citizens. Also, some changes in the 
arsenic standard may well be justified. However, it makes sense to base 
these changes on sound science rather than emotion.

             [From the Lincoln Journal Star, Aug. 2, 2001]

                    Of Arsenic, and Art of Governing

       President George Bush is getting a bum rap on the arsenic 
     issue.
       New EPA chief Christine Whitman was neither wacko nor 
     callous when she withdrew new standards for arsenic in 
     drinking water proposed by the Clinton administration that 
     slashed the previous limit by 80 percent.
       Neither was Nebraska's entire House delegation oblivious to 
     health concerns when it voted shoulder-to-shoulder--
     unsuccessfully--against a proposal to force the 
     administration to restore the new standards.
       The real reason Bush is undergoing such a bludgeoning on 
     arsenic is because it's so easy for his political enemies to 
     portray him as a heartless boob. Arsenic is nasty. Who could 
     possibly be against removing this poison from our drinking 
     water?
       Real life, however, is often complicated, involving 
     tradeoffs in which the costs and payoffs are matters of 
     speculation. As a New York Times story put it, ``. . . the 
     setting of environmental risks is as much art as science, one 
     that entails innumerable assumptions about risks, costs and 
     benefits.''
       The Clinton administration proposed to cut the allowed 
     level for arsenic from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per 
     billion.
       Earlier the administration had toyed with the idea of 
     setting the limit at 5 parts per billion, but decided that 
     would be too expensive. So it upped the new limit to 10 parts 
     per billion. That's still too low for many of Nebraska's 
     communities. The city of York will have to ante up $12 
     million to meet the new regulation. The city of Alliance will 
     have to spend $6.5 million, or $650 per person. In all, the 
     new water regulations would cost 51 Nebraska communities $97 
     million.
       One may notice that folks in those communities have not 
     been perishing in huge numbers of arsenic-related diseases 
     during the past 50 years. The health benefits of change in 
     arsenic standards involve relatively small numbers in 
     comparison with the nation's 281 million residents.
       The reduction in the arsenic level is estimated to prevent 
     37 to 56 cases of bladder and lung cancer and 21 to 30 deaths 
     annually throughout the nation, according to The New York 
     Times. If the standard were set at 20 parts per billion, the 
     benefit would diminish to preventing an estimated 19 to 20 
     cases of bladder and lung cancer, and 10 to 11 deaths per 
     year nationally.
       Most European countries have set arsenic levels at 20 parts 
     per billions. The World Health Organization recommends 10 
     parts per billion.
       Often unnoticed in the rhetoric over arsenic is that fact 
     that the new regulation was not scheduled to take effect 
     until 2006. Whitman's withdrawal of the new regulation 
     allowed for nine months more study on the ``art'' of setting 
     environmental standards. Her action hardly deserves the 
     contempt it unleashed.

     

                          ____________________