EPA Watch standard, according to Erik Olson, the environmental group's senior attorney. Until the new standard emerges from the OMB review, all EPA will reBy the end of this month, EPA veal is that its proposal is "significantly should be ready to reveal its overdue lower" than the existing standard of standard for arsenic in drinking wa50 parts per billion (ppb). On the bater. Whatever the agency proposes is sis of a number of studies, experts excertain to be controversial. pect the proposed standard to be beIn January, the agency missed a tween 5 and 20 ppb (ES&r2000, 34 third deadline to update its 48-year(3), 75A). Many people contacted for old drinking water standard for arthis article said the proposal under senic, which is known to cause bladconsideration by OMB was 5 ppb, but der, lung, and skin cancer at high EPA would not confirm this number. levels of exposure. In February, the Even a standard of 5 ppb is too Natural Resources Defense Council high, according to NRDC. Nearly 57 (NRDC) announced its intention to million Americans have more than a sue the agency for failing to meet 1 in 10,000 cancer risk from conthe latest deadline. Additionally, suming drinking water containing NRDC took the unusual step of more than 1 ppb of arsenic (see naming the Office of Management map,, according a report called and Budget (OMB) as a defendant Arsenic and Old Laws released in because the budget agency "may tandem with the NRDC lawsuit. want to hold up the rule" due to the The environmental group used precosts involved in meeting a new viously unpublished EPA data Arsenic in America obtained via the Freedom of InUsing EPA data, the Natural Resources Defense Council calculated formation Act that nearly 57 million Americans consume drinking water containing to make the more than 1 ppb of arsenic. calculations The formula used to make NRDC's risk computation—which was also a major component of the data that EPA relied on to determine how to set its standard— came from a National Research Council report published last March [ES&T 1999, 33 (9), 188A). Because that report's conclusions about arsenic risk in the United States were extrapolated from
Pressure to set controversial arsenic standard increases
2 0 8 A • MAY 1, 2000 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS
observations of a Taiwanese population with much higher exposure levels, they remain contentious. The science does not support a standard any lower than 10 ppb, said Jeanne Bailey, regulatory engineer specialist at the American Water Works Association, noting that the World Health Organization and the European Union have agreed on 10-ppb standards. Meeting a standard of 10 ppb would require a capital investment of $5.9 billion, and a 5-ppb standard would require $17.4 billion, she said. Some of these costs could be defrayed by EPA's Drinking Water State Revolving Funds, which annually provide several billion dollars in federal aid, she acknowledged. NRDC claims that 90% of the 3000 water systems it estimates would be affected by a 5-ppb standard would need to charge customers less than the price of a candy bar each day to clean up the metal, Olson said. Bailey did not dispute this figure, but noted that it did not appear to account for the cost of coping with the wastes from arsenic removal treatment, which her organization estimates could account for up to 60% of the total costs. After the proposed standard is announced, EPA will entertain public comment, according to Irene Dooley, EPA's arsenic regulation manager. The agency is under a mandate to make its proposal official by the end of the year.
White House vows to remove MTBE from gasoline supplies EPA has begun a rulemaking to ban methyl fert-butyl ether (MTBE) by labeling it a toxic contaminant, one part of a three-prong plan the White House unveiled in March to control MTBE. The announcement came as an increasing number of states report having shut down drinking water wells due to MTBE contamination, and as Congress drags its feet on legislation addressing the problem. © 2000 American Chemical Society
In March, EPA Administrator Carol Browner, who was speaking for the Clinton administration, called the regulation of MTBE under die Toxic Substances and Control Act (TSCA) "an insurance policy" that ensures drinking water supplies are protected in case Congress declines to move on legislation. Indeed, the Clinton administration prefers that Congress act, Browner said. While announcing the TSCA rulemaking, Browner provided Congress with a legislative framework that would remove the 2% oxygenate requirement and replace it with a renewable fuels requirement EPA is also bejjinninj? a. rulemaking that would allow oil refiners to increase the r^moiint of ethanol mixed into reformulated gasoline said EPA Assistant Administrator for Air and Radiation Rnhfrt Perciaspnp Using TSCA authority to ban MTBE is not a new idea; in 1997, Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA) asked EPA to do so, according to a congressional staffer. But many familiar with TSCA said the rulemaking would require additional evaluation of MTBE's health effects and occurrence in the environment. This would leave the oxygenate in use for several years, plus the time it would take to resolve potential lawsuits against the rule filed by die gasoline industry. Browner said EPA plans to propose a TSCA rule in early summer even a s she admitted that the TSCA process could take years to complete MTBE, now used in 30% of the nation's fuel supply, was approved by EPA in 1994 as one oxygenate additive that gas producers could sell to large cities polluted witii high ozone levels in die summer months, to meet the Clean Air Act (CAA) requirement that the reformulated gasoline contain 2% oxygen by weight. If Congress did act to remove the CAA's 2% oxygenate requirement, it would provide gasoline producers with the flexibility they seek to produce fuel using any recipe that meets the air standards. Last December, TOSCO Corp. announced that its refineries can produce fuels that meet both the federal and tighter California state standards without using the oxygenates MTBE or ethanol. The White House also asked Congress to take steps to
ensure that air quality is not diminished by any CAA changes. As ES&Twent to press, as many as 15 MTBE bills were pending in Congress. But no votes were in sight as representatives from oil industry states, who are pushing to lift the CAA oxygenate requirement, were running up against those from cornproducing states, who want to ban MTBE but maintain the oxygenate requirement, opening the market for ethanol (see accompanying story on page 205A). At the same time, several in Congress were suspicious of the administration's legislative framework particularly since Browner singled out ethanol as a good replacement for MTBE Still the agencv remains eager to work with Coneress "One of the ironies is that Coneress has been asking us for this " Perciasepe said But "one bill does not vet exist that puts all of these pieres tnaether" he said
Guidance aimed at updating tests for waterborne diseases After waiting 14 years, EPA released draft guidance in February urging states to adopt water quality criteria for disease-causing bacteria issued in 1986. Environmentalists see the guidance as an improvement over existing practices, but many states are wary of adopting a new testing regime due to its high costs. Since 1986, EPA has recommended that states test recreational waters for the indicator bacteria Escherichia coli (E. coli) and enterococci, which provide a better correlation to swimming illnesses, caused mainly by viruses, than older tests for total and fecal coliform bacteria, said Elizabeth Southerland, director of EPA's Standards and Applied Science Division. Public health concerns over the past two years related to increasing numbers of beach closures and a mandate from the Clinton administration's Beach Action Plan prompted EPA to issue the draft guidance 14 years after the criteria were promulgated she said E. coli and enterococci are more predictive of disease and more similar to viruses in terms of survival in die environment than total and fecal coliforms, which are not very pathogenic, added Steve Schaub, senior
microbiologist in EPA's Office of Science and Technology. The tests for E. coli and enterococci are much more specific than the tests for coliform bacteria. Because total and fecal coliforms occur naturally in tropical waters, they are useless as indicators of contamination by human waste, Schaub added. Despite die deficiencies of die fecal coliform indicators, only 16 states have adopted die criteria for E. coli and enterococci, Soudierland said. In addition, states that rely on the old fecal coliform test have set insufficient diresholds and are not monitoring their beaches frequently enough. "The new tests are more expensive and time-consuming than the tests for coliform bacteria," said Diane Reid, environmental chemist for the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. States also worry that shifting to die new test will prevent them from tracking trends, because die new and old data sets will not be comparable, Reid added. The guidance includes a summary of new studies on the performance of the E. coli and enterococci indicators, which reaffirms die scientific validity of EPA's 1986 water quality criteria. It also describes how states may make the transition from fecal coliforms to E. coli and enterococci. However, under the draft guidance, if the states do not implement the 1986 testing standards by 2003, EPA will step in and promulgate federal criteria. "Counties and states employ a patchwork of different monitoring practices and standards that put beachgoers at increased risk of getting sick," said Sara Chassis, a senior attorney witii Natural Resources Defense Council (NRDC). Even if states applied EPA's 1986 criteria, 19 out of 1000 ocean swimmers are predicted to get ill when exposed, she said. Viruses and bacteria flushed into beach water by stormwater and sewage spills can make swimmers ill witii stomach upsets diarrhea hepatitis, or respiratory illness NRDC found. Chassis praised the draft guidance for promoting consistent standards and monitoring of recreational water across the states. The guidance is part of EPA's Beach Action Plan announced last year (ES&T 1999, 33 (13), 275A).
MAY 1, 2000 / ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY / NEWS • 2 0 9 A
