Cost of Arsenic Compliance

The headline in the January 22nd (2007) issue of the Columbus Dispatch (p. B7) speaks volumes: " 3 Ohio cities paying high price to cut arsenic levels in water".   New federal limits on how much arsenic can exist in public water supplies have sent treatment costs soaring in some communities.  It has been estimated that 4,100 public water systems across the country were in violation of the standard that was recently lowered from 50 parts per billion to 10 ppb.

Middlefield, a community of 2,400 not far from Cleveland, is spending $7.4 million to drop the arsenic level from 12 ppb to meet the new standard. The Geauga Count Health Commissioner, Bob Weisdack, was quoted as saying "Is the juice worth the squeeze, or are we regulating just to regulate." The consensus seems to be that the EPA may have underestimated compliance costs, anticipating that the national cost of compliance would be $3.62 billion over 20 years. Contrast this with the figures from the American Water Works Association Research Foundation, which pegged the actual cost closer to their initial estimate of $4.6 billion to $21.5 billion over 20 years. 

For the responsible chemist, there are two primary issues:

1) Given the degree of analytical uncertainty and the extreme levels of data measurement, how much difference really exists between 12 ppb and 10 ppb ?  And how much is Public Health affected by this difference ?

2) Does gaining a few ppb in the arsenic level justify millions of dollars of expense, or are there better ways to spend money to protect the public ?

Similar questions have been raised about the action in some states to put limits on perchlorate exposure at one ppb, especially when, like arsenic, perchlorate has been shown to occur naturally in various environments.  It is incumbent upon all scientists to be engaged in issues like this in order to ensure that regulatory policy is responsibly built upon good science.

Biotech Sanity in California

We are pleased when we are able to post the insights of Dr. Henry Miller, physician, molecular biologist, and fellow at the Hoover Institution and author of "The Frankenfood Myth." Dr. Miller headed the FDA's office of biotechnology from 1989 to 1993.   In this post, Dr. Miller describes recent proposed legislative action in California that would give genetically enhanced plant products and technologies a level playing field upon which to articulate their virtues. 

Dr. Miller's complete editorial follows.

Anatole France famously said, "If 50 million people say a foolish thing, it is still a foolish thing." That aphorism applies to politicians and voters who have, over the last few years, introduced and passed local ordinances in four California counties to ban the cultivation of plants improved with state-of-the-art genetic techniques. These actions in Trinity, Mendocino, Marin, and Santa Cruz counties represent democracy at its worst.

To begin with, the measures are unscientific and logically inconsistent, in that their restrictions are inversely related to risk:  They permit the use of microorganisms and plants that are crafted with less precise and predictable techniques but ban those made with more precise and predictable ones.

Further, vast numbers of gene-spliced and other bacteria are released routinely from ordinary, low-contaminant microbiology laboratories, such as those at UC Santa Cruz, without any harmful effects. A study by the Environmental Protection Agency found that for each technician in such labs, 50 million to one billion bacteria on average escape daily on lab coats, in hair, or just blowing out the door.

But there is a far more fundamental issue at stake:  The freedom of individuals and companies to pursue lawful activities unencumbered. All citizens should be concerned about the implications of subjecting safe, legitimate commercial products, in this case plants crafted with a proven, superior technology to surveillance, confiscation and destruction by local officials.

Fortunately, California legislators have introduced a bill, SB 1056, that would preempt local regulation of seeds and nursery stocks. It would ensure consistency of regulation throughout the state and obviate the need for farmers to navigate a county-by-county patchwork of restrictions and requirements. The bill has the support of virtually all major agricultural organizations, including the California Farm Bureau, Western United Dairymen, Western Growers Assn., the Wine Institute and more.

Outlawing the cultivation of insect-resistant crops developed with the assistance of modern biotechnology ensures the increased use of chemical persticides, the persistence of these chemicals in ground and surface water, and it will result in increased occupational exposures.

Most important, the county prohibitions block sophisticated genetic approaches to the eradication of blights that threaten a variety of crops and ornamental plants in California. Biotechnology's potential is not just theoretical. By inserting a single gene into squash and other crops, scientists have made them virus-resistant. Gene-spliced papaya varieties have resurrected Hawaii's $64 million-a-year industry, which was moribund a decade ago because of the predations of ringspot virus. And because gene splicing has enhanced the resistance of plants to pests and disease, we have been spared the use of millions of pounds of chemical pesticides.

The future holds out even greater hope. The technology makes it possible to remove dangerous allergens from wheat, peanuts, milk, and other commonly allergenic foods. Gene splicing will allow crop varieties to thrive in conditions of drought or near-drought.

For years, activists have relentlessly promoted the Big Lie about gene splicing; namely, that it is unproven, unwanted, untested, and unregulated. After more than 20 years, none of the hypothetical concerns about safety has been substantiated. Crops using gene-splicing techniques are grown by 8.5 million farmers in 21 countries annually. California farmers plant almost a million acres of gene-spliced crops annually. Americans have consumed more than a trillion servings of foods that contain gene-spliced ingredients.

There is not a single documented case of injury to a person or disruption of an ecosystem. There is a broad consensus among scientists that gene-splicing techniques are essentially an extension, or refinement, of earlier ones, and that gene transfer or modification by molecular techniques does not, per se, confer risk.

Letting ideology and misguided activism trample science and common sense is antithetical to sound public policy. That's why we need SB 1056.

Perchlorate Book from Legal Group

A new book on Perchlorate issues is available from the Lawyers and Judges Publishing Co. (Tucson, AZ,  520-323-1500;  [email protected]) -  Perchlorate: A Scientific, Legal, and Economical Assessment, by Earl L. Hagstrom. The book is designed to educate and inform environmental, business, legal, and academic readers about the history and development issues surrounding perchlorate.  It should afford much needed practical advice and guidance to anyone involved with litigation and remediation issues.  Part of the impact of this book  comes from the fact that the process of establishing a federal drinking water standard for perchlorate has been fraught with complications, not the least of which is the fact that perchlorate is a naturally occurring species.  This book is also intended as a primer on how to address common issues  with any pollutant, ranging from estimating damages to remediation to insurance coverage.   [ISBN 1-930056-84-2]  480 pages, $99.   More review comments follow.

Chapter headings include the following   [with review comments and/or citations ] :

Sources of Perchlorate Releases to the Environment

Current Issues in Perchlorate Analysis   [An interesting sub-section (2.5.E) has the title: "Stretching the limits of perchlorate measurement." It differentiates between a "reporting limit"  - generally considered to be 5-10 times the instrument background noise - and "detection limit" - a statistically determined value typically 2-3 times the background noise. The section continues: "According to the EPA, values that are above the detection limit and below the reporting limit are supposed to be flagged 'estimated.' Unlike detection limits, which have a rigid statistical basis, laboratories have some latitude in defining reporting limits. In practice, there is often pressure to report values that are on the "ragged edge" of the analytical method's true reporting limit. This has been particularly true in recent history for perchlorate (emphasis added), where the reporting limits available with current analytical technology have sometimes lagged behind (or in some cases, established) action levels. This not only compromises the accuracy of the reported result, but in the case of method 314.0, also increases the likelihood of reporting a false positive."  The text provides an actual chromatogram from a Superfund site, showing a very small peak reported to represent 4.9 parts per billion perchlorate. Visual examination of the plot allows the conclusion that the accuracy of the result was suspect; however, the analytical laboratory did not flag the datum as 'estimated.' Since the perchlorate action level at this site was 4 ppb, the reported value would result in an action level exceedance. Later, refinements in both the analytical protocol and the cleanup of the sample matrix for the site showed that perchlorate was not present at levels above 4 ppb.]

The Toxicology of Potential Human Health Effects Associated with Perchlorate in Drinking Water

Historical Overview of Perchlorate Regulation

Common Law Torts in Environmental Contamination Cases  [The 'nub' of the matter is described as follows: "Can a plaintiff establish the damages aspect of his or her nuisance claim if the presence of the contaminant in the water is lower than the government mandated MCL (maximum contamination level) and there are no other obvious problems with the water ? Does the mere addition of a chemical that wasn't there before suffice for injury ? ...... Using perchlorate as an example makes clear the difficulties in assessing what damages may have been incurred in a case where there is no taste, color, or odor impact, and where the toxicological data indicate negligible health risks."]

Environmental Class Actions

Some Practical Observations on the Selection and Management of Experts After Daubert

Fate, Transport, and Modeling of Perchlorate in Groundwater

State of the Art of Perchlorate Remediation

Estimating Toxic Tort and Environmental Damages

Insurance:  An Overview

Perchlorate Remediation Update

The Volume 49 No. 31 (July 2005) issue of Mainstream, published by the American Water Works Association (AWWA), provides an update on the efforts in perchlorate remediation in the San Bernardino Valley (CA) water systems. Various multimillion dollar projects involving private, public, and government funds are being used to address the presence of perchlorate at levels as low as four parts per billion. Some wells having perchlorate levels at ten ppb or less have been taken off-line. It was noted that California has not set a maximum contaminant level but does have a guideline of six ppb. References to both treatment costs and "costly legal fees" are prominent in the article. Both modified granular activated carbon filtration and ion exchange technology were mentioned. One factor not mentioned was the National Academy of Sciences NRC report of January 2005 which recommended a level of 20 parts per billion perchlorate as safe for consumption in the U.S.

This AWWA report is expected to be available at the following link: 

www.awwa.org/communications/mainstream.