GOVERNMENT
EPA Issues More Tap Water Rules The Environmental Protection Agen cy has just issued final drinking wa ter standards for 38 contaminants, bringing the total number of federal ly enforced standards to 60. The agency, whose record on issuing such regulations has been poor— these standards, for example, were initially scheduled to be issued a year ago—expects to regulate 85 contami nants by July 1992. The 1992 deadline is mandated by the 1986 amendments to the Safe Drinking Water Act. These amend ments were prompted by Congress' unhappiness with EPA's slow im plementation of the original 1974 Safe Drinking Water Act. Among contaminants cov- Β Η Β ered by these final standards are 17 pesticides, 10 volatile organic chemicals, polychlorinated biphenyls, eight inor ganic chemicals, and two chemicals used to treat drink ing water. Thirteen of the 38 contaminants to be regulated are classified as probable car cinogens. Five of the 38 standards are reproposed for an additional five years, the remaining are entirely new standards. Twenty-seven con taminants are being regulated by the agency for the first time. Of the remaining 11 substances, EPA is strengthening standards for five, re laxing them for four, and maintain ing them for two. The standards, or so-called maxi mum contaminant levels, are feder ally enforceable, but are adminis tered by the states. According to Michael B. Cook, director of EPA's office of drinking water, the newly issued rules "will further protect the public's health by requiring drink ing water systems to monitor for all 38 contaminants and to treat their water when any contaminant ex ceeds its standard." Some 80,000 drinking water sys tems nationwide will have to meet these standards and will be required to monitor (beginning in 1993) for
the substances to ensure that they are in continuous compliance. EPA claims that these 38 contaminants will only rarely be found in public water supplies, and that only about 3000 systems will have to treat their water to comply with one or more of the standards. EPA estimates that compliance with these final standards will cost drinking water systems a combined $88 million a year, with the bulk of the costs—$64 million—going for treatment, and the remainder for monitoring. According to agency calculations, monitoring and treat ment of the 17 pesticides will ac-
Among contaminants covered are 17 pesticides, 10 volatile organic chemicals, eight inorganic chemicals, and poly chlorinated biphenyls count for most of the total costs, but will also provide most of the health benefits. Consumers will end up paying an additional $10 to $800 per year for their water. The amount will depend on the system size, the contaminants present, and treatment costs. "We think the costs reflected by EPA are very, very low," says John H. Sullivan, spokesman for the American Water Works Association. Compliance with the standards "will cost a lot of money, and small communities especially will have difficulty meeting them," he adds. Sullivan notes that in the long run the drinking water rules for the 17 pesticides "will force consider ation of pesticide control in land use." By this he means that land ap plication of pesticides will, in the fu ture, have to be better controlled to ensure that these substances don't run off into waters that ultimately
are treated to make them potable. This, he believes, will be a positive outcome of the new rules. While most of the drinking water community will be able to comply readily with most of the new rules, Sullivan points out that some stan dards pose difficulties. Asbestos, for example. Sullivan claims "there are only three or four labs in the coun try" that can analyze for asbestos in drinking water. The agency is not regulating this mineral in water as a carcinogen, claiming it only poses such a prob lem when inhaled, not when ingest ed. Others disagree, contending the issue has not been scientifical• • • ly resolved. If it is determined that asbestos poses a carcino genic risk when ingested, then EPA would have to set a strict er standard. Jacqueline War ren, senior staff attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council, says EPA has set the final asbestos maximum con taminant level too high. She says EPA "is not taking a pre ventative approach. Where there is scientific uncertainty, EPA errs on the side of uncertainty, not on the side of safety." Warren also bemoans EPA's slow pace. She thinks the year's delay in issuing these 38 standards was due to EPA's conundrum over revising its 50-ppb lead drinking water stan dard. A revised lead standard is not part of the recent package. Instead, says EPA spokesman Sean McElheny, a "lead-copper standard of around 10 ppb to 20 ppb will be is sued in final form in the spring." The final standard will require utili ties to alter the pH of the water to lower its corrosiveness, thereby low ering the concentration of lead in water traveling through the utilities' service connections. The regulations governing the 38 contaminants will be published in the Jan. 25 issue of the Federal Register. Lois Ember January 21, 1991 C&EN 15
