[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 5]
[House]
[Pages 7337-7338]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



                  ARSENIC STANDARDS IN DRINKING WATER

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the Speaker's announced policy of 
January 3, 2001, the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne) is 
recognized during morning hour debates for 5 minutes.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I have been concerned about attacks made on 
the Bush administration for their decision to not immediately implement 
the Environmental Protection Agency's decision to reduce the standard 
on arsenic in drinking water from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per 
billion until further research and data is provided. Since nearly 
everyone has heard of individuals being poisoned with arsenic, it is 
assumed that any amount of arsenic is detrimental and that not 
immediately implementing a lower standard of 10 parts per billion is 
anti-environment and insensitive to human health concerns. The 50 parts 
per billion standard has been in effect since 1942, and there is no 
sound evidence that having a standard of 50 parts per billion has led 
to increased health problems in the United States.

[[Page 7338]]

  Most people are not aware of the fact that arsenic is a naturally-
occurring substance and is present in the groundwater in most western 
States and parts of the Midwest and even some parts of New England. It 
is not put there by pesticides, fertilizers or human beings. Ninety-
seven percent of the communities exceeding the 10 parts per billion of 
arsenic in their water supplies are small towns with populations of 
less than 10,000 people. There are 69 such communities in the State of 
Nebraska that exceed 10 parts per billion of arsenic. Nearly all of 
these are small rural communities, and most of them have only 11 to 15 
parts per billion of arsenic in their groundwater. In order to meet the 
10 parts per billion standard, nearly all of these communities would 
have to be assessed several hundred dollars per family and several 
million dollars per community.
  Much of the EPA reasoning for dropping the arsenic standards to 10 
parts per billion has been extrapolated from studies done in Taiwan 
where water contains an average arsenic level of 250 parts per billion. 
Some health problems have been detected as a result of the high levels 
of arsenic in Taiwan. Now, if there is a linear relationship in regard 
to the level of arsenic and health concerns, reducing the standard 
level of arsenic from 50 parts per billion to 10 parts per billion 
would theoretically, and this is theoretically only, prevent three 
cases of bladder cancer and could possibly prevent a handful of deaths 
from all causes that might possibly be related to arsenic in the United 
States annually. If a linear relationship exists, even 1 part per 
billion poses at least some slight health risk.
  At the present time, however, there is no clear evidence that there 
is a linear relationship between arsenic level and health. It is very 
possible there may be some point that a certain amount of arsenic in 
the water poses absolutely no health risk. Arsenic is necessary for 
human life and is present in every person's body. Therefore, 50 parts 
per billion, 40 parts per billion, 30, or 20 parts per billion could 
prove to be perfectly safe. We just do not know what that level is.
  The cost of lowering this standard from 50 parts per billion to 10 
parts per billion has been estimated by the EPA to cost $181 million 
annually. However, the American Waterworks Association has stated that 
the cost would actually be $600 million annually with an additional $5 
billion in capital outlays to pay for the treatment plants. There is a 
huge discrepancy, obviously, in these figures.
  The EPA told the State of Nebraska's Department of Health to dump 
extracted arsenic on open fields, as arsenic is nontoxic. However, a 
short time later the EPA reversed its opinion and said that arsenic 
extracted from water must be shipped to toxic waste dumps. It does not 
appear that the EPA has factored the cost of shipping arsenic to toxic 
waste sites into their cost estimates. It would seem that the Bush 
administration's decision to delay implementation of standards until 
further study has been done is warranted. In short, it seems that all 
of the evidence that we currently have would indicate that an arbitrary 
level of 10 parts per billion may be excessively low and it is quite 
likely not based on any sound evidence. Further data from independent 
sources is clearly warranted.

                          ____________________