Arsenic debate detours water delivery hearing
By Charles Choi
UPI Science News

WASHINGTON, March 28 (UPI) -- Democratic lawmakers blasted a top environment official Wednesday over the Bush administration's withdrawal of tighter restrictions on the levels of arsenic in drinking water -- detouring a hearing ostensibly devoted to the upgrading of water delivery systems.

Democratic members of the Congressional Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials attacked EPA Administrator Christie Whitman, accusing her and the White House of catering to big business.

"In the last election cycle, mining companies gave $5.6 million in political contributions to Republicans," said Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio). "The chemical industry gave almost $9 million."

Tuesday, Whitman announced that the EPA would not implement new rules, introduced during the final days of the Clinton administration, which would have reduced the legal limit for arsenic in drinking water from 50 to 10 parts per billion.

Whitman defended the move Wednesday, saying neither the White House nor industry had lobbied her on the matter. She also stressed the EPA planned on having a new arsenic standard by the date the withdrawn regulation was supposed to take effect in 2006.

GOP lawmakers said the new rules would have cost small communities.

"The estimated cost of this standard (in towns in my district) will be about $91 on everybody's water bill," Rep. Heather Wilson (R-N.M.) said. "These are towns where the average household income is less than $19,000. The people that I'm listening to are not folks from the timber industry. We don't even have trees to have a timber industry. ... If you look at the East Coast and the West Coast, less than 3 percent of their water systems are going to be affected. So what do you care? But a bunch of New Mexicans aregoing to have to pay for this."

Arsenic is a toxin that can naturally leach into groundwater from surrounding minerals. The EPA has found that long-term exposure to low concentrations of arsenic in drinking water can lead to skin, bladder, lung and prostate cancer, heart disease, diabetes and adverse effects on the brain and reproduction.

A recent National Academy of Sciences report found that the prior U.S. arsenic standard in drinking water of 50 parts per billion, instituted in 1942, was unsafe. However, Whitman pointed out that the report did not recommend a standard. She said she wants the EPA to reach a definitive conclusion on what a safe level might be.

"Who knows?" Whitman said. "We might go as low as 5 parts per billion, or 3."

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.) rebutted these claims, saying that researchers already worked for 10 years on the regulation while Whitman had only spent about two months on the job.

Rep. Frank Pallone (D-N.J.) added that the World Health Organization and the European Union have adopted a 10 parts-per-billion standard. Even nations such as Belgium and Mongolia had more stringent regulations, at 7 parts-per-billion.

In addition, Pallone pointed out that Whitman, who served as governor of New Jersey until she accepted the post of EPA Administrator, approved her state's 10 parts-per-billion arsenic standard while still in office in spring of 2000.

"I'm beginning to find with this administration that there's no decision that will make everyone happy," Whitman said.

The confrontational tone of the hearing was punctuated with moments of distinctly outrageous humor. Waxman presented Whitman with a "golden jackpot" stuffed with gold-foil-covered chocolate coins as an award "to recognize particularly indefensible and outrageous windfalls given to special interest groups."

"This weekend in my district in Hollywood, we had the Academy Awards," Waxman explained. "I wanted you to accept this award on behalf of the administration. Maybe you'll even enjoy eating some of these chocolates."

The back-handed gift was met with both consternation and amusement from Whitman. Rep. Paul Gillmor (R-Ohio), who chaired the meeting, quipped that the "jackpot" looked more like a spittoon, and chalked up the off-topic debate as "free speech."

Return to main menu.