CA Cancer J Clin 2002; 52:2
doi: 10.3322/canjclin.52.1.2
© 2002 American Cancer Society
EPA RE-ESTABLISHES LOWER ARSENIC LIMIT FOR DRINKING WATER; NEW STANDARD FULLY IN EFFECT BY 2006
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) signaled on October 31, 2001 that it will be reducing the amount of arsenic allowed in US drinking water from a maximum of 50 parts per billion (50 ppb) back to the tighter 10 ppb standard adopted in the final days of the Clinton administration.
"A standard of 10 ppb protects public health based on the best available science and ensures that the cost of the standard is achievable," wrote EPA Administrator, Christine Whitman, in a letter to House Appropriations Committee Chairman Rep. Bill Young (R-FL). The new standard will not be fully in effect until 2006.
 |
Allowable Arsenic Levels Controversial for Several Years
|
|---|
| |
EPA lowers amount of arsenic allowed in US drinking water.
|
|
Arsenic is a mineral that occurs both naturally and as a result of mining and other industrial processes. It has been linked to cancers of the lung, bladder, and skin in humans. Because the EPA lists it as a known human carcinogen, the agency regulates the amount allowed in drinking water.
The recent announcement comes after a long debate begun in 1996 when the EPA asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) whether the then-current standard of 50 ppb—first established in 1942—was still reasonable in light of new information that had become available since that time. The NAS, established to advise Congress on science issues, reported back in 1999 that the 50 ppb standard was unsafe and "should be lowered as promptly as possible." The EPA tightened the standard to 10 ppb in January 2001. But following Whitman's appointment to head the EPA, she suspended the tighter 10 ppb standard in March, leaving the 50 ppb standard in place while asking a panel of NAS experts to review the 1999 report findings.
The most recent review, completed this fall (www.nap.edu/books/0309076293/html), reinforced the original findings with more evidence. The panel concluded that 50 ppb was too lenient a standard. In fact, the report said that even the 80% reduction to 10 ppb would result in more cancer risk than the EPA had estimated when it first proposed a reduction to the 10 ppb level. At that time, Whitman opened the issue to public comment for a period of time that ended October 31, when she sent the letter to Young signaling the EPA's intention to use the 10 ppb standard going forward.
|
ACS Applauds NAS Study and Re-tightened Standard
|
|---|
"This is a very thorough and thoughtful analysis by a distinguished group of scientists that upholds the scientific basis for a major reduction in the allowable limit of arsenic in drinking water," says Michael Thun, MD, MS, Vice President of Epidemiology and Surveillance Research for the American Cancer Society. "It's good news that the EPA has moved ahead in reducing exposures to arsenic." The next challenge, Thun says, will be to help communities find the resources needed to meet the 10 ppb standard, because the technology called for is expensive.
|
Information on Local Arsenic Levels Available
|
|---|
"With the exception of Albuquerque, NM, most of the arsenic in drinking water in the United States affects small communities with high levels of arsenic in the soil (co.water. usgs.gov/trace/pubs/arsenic_fig1.html)," says Thun. He suggests that people concerned with how much arsenic is in their water can check the consumer confidence report mailed to them each year by their local water supplier. "If the report shows an unacceptably high level of arsenic in the water," says Thun, "those served by that supplier may want to consider getting their water from another source, since household filters don’t effectively remove arsenic. Because some people may be unaware of this issue, physicians and local public health organizations can look up the levels in their community and help inform and advise their patients and constituents."
For more information on arsenic as a carcinogen, see Environmental Carcinogens in the July/August 2001 issue of CA (Frumkin H, Thun MJ. Arsenic. CA Cancer J Clin 2001;51: 254-262).
TOP
Allowable Arsenic Levels...
ACS Applauds NAS Study...
