whether that would really be the outcome. Under the proposed scheme, a company would be held liable for incidents occurring only after the legislation comes into force, but Hunter pointed out that leaching could also be covered. Thus, even though a company would not be liable for abandoning 3. number of barrels containing hazardous materials some 15 years ago, for instance, if the contaminants moved into the groundwater or soil, the company could still be held liable. "So in reality fthe legislation] would catch a lot of old contamination and it will put the burden of proof onto operators and landowners to show that the contamination predated the law " Hunter said Both business groups and environmental organizations have criticized the proposals—industry, because the paper is too vague
and open-ended, environmentalists, because it does not go far enough. Erik Berggren, an adviser to the Union of Industrial and Employers' Confederations of Europe (UNICE), raised concerns that such a liability regime could create major legal uncertainty and reduce the competitive edge of European companies as a result of the rising costs of doing business. Berggren also noted that it is difficult for companies to assess the proposal's exact impact, because the Natura 2000 Network is still not in place, and it is not clear which sites or species will be protected UNICE, among other things, calls for the EC to define what constitutes "significant" biodiversity damage, the minimum threshold for triggering the liability regime; provide transparency on criteria to be used for quanti-
fying damage; refrain from giving interest groups the right to bring direct claims against companies; and place a ceiling cap on liability claims. Devries acknowledged that a lot of work needs to be carried out before a legislative proposal, the next step following the white paper, can be presented to the European parliament. The EC has launched a number of studies to clarify various points, she added. The EC adopted the white paper in February, and comments were due this month. Margot Wallstrom, commissioner for the environment directorate, said she intends to produce a proposal for a framework directive before the end of 2001. The liability white paper can be accessed on the Web at http://europa.eu.int/ comm/ environment/liability/ in(jex htm. KRIS CHRISTEN
World's most stringent arsenic standard proposed A U.S. EPA proposed rule would significantiy tighten the national standard for arsenic in drinking water from 50 ppb to 5 ppb, which is lower than a 1993 provisional World Health Organization (WHO) guideline set at 10 ppb. European Union member states adhere to the WHO guideline, whereas Canada's standard stands at 25 ppb. However, Health Canada has put arsenic on a priority list for revision as a result of EPAs move The tighter EPA standard follows a report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences that concluded the old standard should be lowered "as promptly as possible" (Environ. Sci. Technol. .999, 33 (9), 188A). The report found that long-term exposure to concentrations of arsenic at the 50 ppb level in drinking water can lead to skin, bladder, lung, and prostate cancer. Noncancer effects of ingesting arsenic at this level include cardiovascular diseases diabetes and anemia as well as reproductive and developmental immunological and neurological effects Although ft c u t e
short-term exposures to high doses of arsenic also can cause adverse health effects, EPA noted that such exposures do not occur from U.S. public water supplies. WHO states on its Web site that its 10-ppb guideline is provisional because of the lack of suitable testing methods, but, "based on health concerns alone, [the guideline] would be lower still." Environmentalists had pushed for a standard of 0-3 ppb, asserting a cancer risk exists in the neighborhood of 1 in 1000 people at 5 ppb (Environ. Sci. Technol.. 2000, 34 (9), 208A). Nevertheless, "5 ppb is still a pretty significant improvement that would result in substantial public health gains," said Erik Olson, a senior attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. EPA typically sets drinking water standards within a target risk range of one in 10,000 to one in a million. The agency's calculations show that cancer risks from exposure to arsenic in drinking water fall within this range at 5 ppb. But Andrew Schulman of EPA's Office
of Ground Water and Drinking Water pointed out that a lot of uncertainty surrounds these risk estimates because of the lack of exposure and health effects data associated with the comparatively low levels of arsenic found in U.S. drinking water supplies. "The largest data set that's been exhaustively analyzed is from Taiwan, and the levels of arsenic there were closer to 400 ppb. What we did was estimate the risk there and extrapolated all the wav down to 5 ppb," Schulman said In addition to the proposed 5-ppb standard, EPA is also seeking comment on a 3-ppb level— the level it considers "technically feasible," as well as 10 ppb, and 20 ppb. For the first time, EPA chose to go with a standard higher than the technically feasible level because "we felt that the benefits better justify the cost at 5 ppb and that 5 ppb is still protective of public health," said Jim Taft of EPA's Office of Ground Water and Drinking Water. The American Water Works Association (AWWA), on the other
JULY 1, 2000 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 2 9 1 A
Environmental News hand, supports a rule "no lower than 10 ppb [corresponding to the WHO guideline] because of the high costs associated with treating the water down to such low levels," said Alan Roberson, AWWA's director of regulatory affairs. EPA estimates that the proposed 5-ppb standard would affect 12% of community water systems, with 94% of these affected systems serving fewer than 10,000 people. And EPA estimates total compliance costs to range from $379 million to $445 million annually, due to additional treatment equipment, chemicals, and monitoring. AWWA strongly disputes these figures, however, and estimates instead a cost four times EPA's amount Moreover Roberson noted although the senic level EPA is proposing will only affect 12% of water systems "for those 12% the rule will have severe economic impacts " Indeed EPA specified that the regulation will cost an additional $28 per person per vear in affected communities sprvpd hv larep svstems and
Arsenic-tainted groundwater Arsenic concentrations were calculated from roughly 18,850 samples of potable groundwater, although not necessarily current sources of drinking water, drawn from 595 counties nationwide.
Source: U.S. Geological Survey.
t 8 5 n e r nprsnn npr vear in areas sprvpH hv small svstpms
Water systems affected by the rule are situated primarily in western states, parts of the Midwest, and New England where arsenic concentrations in groundwater tend to be higher (see map). Arsenic occurs naturally and can contaminate drinking water through the erosion of
rocks and minerals or dirough human activities such as fossil fuel burning, paper production, cement manufacturing, and mining. Some 90% of industrial arsenic in the United States is used as a wood preservative, but arsenic is also used in paints, dyes,
metals, drugs, soaps, and semiconductors, according to EPA. The rule was expected to appear in the Federal Register in June. EPA is required under the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments to promulgate a final rule by Jan. 1. —KRIS CHRISTEN
The wrong place to perch For all of the pollution-abating promise of wind as a renewable energy technology, wind turbines have a mixed reputation in the environmental community because of their tendency to "Cuisinart"—as one researcher put it— birds that fly too close to their spinning blades. U.S. Scientists are intensively studying this issue in hopes of perfecting a method to avert casualties. As wind power grows in popularity (see feature on page 306A), any damage caused by the technology is likely to fall under increased scrutiny. Extensive stud-
ies of the issue pinpoint only one U.S. site where statistically significant numbers of birds had fatal encounters with turbines: California's Altamont Pass wind farm, according to Karin Sinclair, avian projects manager for the U.S. Department of Energy's National Wind Technology Center. But the issue has commanded attention because those birds were golden eagles. The issue has also been studied in Europe, and the only other area in the world where birds appear to be impacted by wind turbines is in Tarifa, Spain, Sinclair said
2 9 2 A • J U L Y 1 , 2000 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
The National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) has spent more than $5 million since 1993 to support studies on why birds collide with wind turbines and how such collisions can be avoided. The research being conducted by William Hodos, an avian vision specialist at the University of Maryland-College Park is considered particularly promising. Hodos is working with kestrels, a small bird of prey related to the golden eagle. Although no researcher in the field has actually seen a bird like an eagle be struck down, biologists hypothesize that
