Chances are, the water from your kitchen tap is perfectly safe to drink. But these days, safety's always a concern.
The Environmental Protection Agency's commitment to policies based on sound science may be flagging over one of the most basic health concerns -maintaining a safe drinking-water supply.
A 1996 drinking-water law was supposed to make sound science the top priority of regulators. Still, the way such high-profile contaminants as choloroform and arsenic are being treated suggests the EPA may be giving science short shrift.
Instead of the latest science, critics say the EPA is placing the demands of environmentalists first. If the EPA maintains this approach, it could fuel unfounded worries and unneeded spending to clean up problems that could have been avoided. At the same time, research on legitimate drinking- water problems could be delayed.
Thankfully, the U.S. enjoys one of the safest drinking-water supplies in the world ee chart).
But recently, there have been some frightful episodes.
A cryptosporidium outbreak in Milwaukee six years ago sickened hundreds of thousands and contributed to several deaths.
Contaminated water in Washington, D.C., four years ago led officials to urge residents to boil drinking water.
Foul water was blamed for a flare-up of e. coli in Wyoming last summer.
In late March, the Natural Resources Defense Council released a study finding that one-third of the 103 brands of bottled water it tested contained at least one sample that had more bacteria than government standards allow.
Since most people think bottled water is cleaner than tap water, the broadcast networks flooded the airwaves with stories about the study. Even so, the NRDC labeled most bottled water safe and of high quality.
Outside the media spotlight, in March 1998 the EPA said it would set goals for chloroform levels in tap water. At the urging of scientists, the agency set the safe level at 300 parts per billion.
Soon after the announcement, though, news leaked that the EPA might back off that level before it made a final decision at the end of last year. Environmental groups led by the NRDC wanted the goal to be zero, despite the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act's call to base regulations on the best science.
"Basically, all we did is say, 'Look, a lot of scientists disagree with you,' " said Erik Olson, the NRDC's water quality expert. "I don't think that's a political strategy."
Scientists set chloroform limits at an exposure level that's 1,000 times lower than the amount that's known to cause human health problems.
The scary-sounding compound makes up about 80% of the family of byproducts that are left in drinking water after it's chlorinated.
Still, the benefits of disinfecting water greatly outweigh the costs of not doing so. Earlier this decade, a cholera outbreak in Peru that killed thousands underscored the folly of not treating drinking water.
As it seemed possible the EPA would retreat from a scientific standard for chloroform, the Society of Toxicology weighed in.
In an August 1998 letter, the society's then-president, Steven Cohen, gently reminded EPA chief Carol Browner: "Integration of sound scientific principles into the risk assessment process is in the best health and economic interests of our nation. We believe that it would be unfortunate for (the) EPA to back away from this scientific approach."
But back away is precisely what the agency did. In December, the agency ignored the latest scientific evidence and agreed with the NRDC and other green groups, setting the chloroform goal at zero.
Few in the scientific community fault scientists at the EPA. Agency regulators, though, haven't gotten a pass.
"My feeling is that this (rule) is really rather a piece of sophistry," said Jay Goodman, who's now the Society of Toxicology's president.
In fact, several close to the controversy say the EPA conceded the validity of the science. Yet it chose to side with green activists.
The agency never consulted its Science Advisory Board in devising the rule, though it appeared to have the time to do so. After issuing the rule, though, agency regulators said they intended to meet with the board.
"We think the agency followed political science rather than real science," said Keith Christman, director of disinfection and government affairs with the Chlorine Chemistry Council, an industry group. An industry lawsuit against the EPA is expected to be heard later this year.
Attempts to get comment from EPA officials were unsuccessful.
While chloroform in drinking water remains today's challenge, tomorrow's controversy swirls around arsenic. This naturally occurring element appears in minuscule amounts in drinking water throughout the U.S. It does appear in higher - but still barely detectable -amounts in Western states.
In late March, the prestigious National Research Council raised new alarms about arsenic in drinking water. It reported links to higher incidences of bladder and other cancers and concluded that more research needed to be done to uncover arsenic's health effects at low concentrations.
While there are a lot of data on the health effects of ingesting chloroform, there aren't as many on arsenic. The EPA must propose an arsenic rule by Jan. 1, 2000, and finalize it a year later.
Fred Hicks of the American Water Works Association Research Foundation says the industry has generated $6 million in arsenic research funding. "Our problem is we're not sure how much of its own internal funds (the) EPA is committing to the program," he said.
Congress asked the EPA to do more research in 1996, setting aside $4.8 million in the 1997 budget. (The White House requested nothing that year.) But the EPA didn't produce a plan for researching arsenic until February 1998.
Congress has repeatedly given the agency more money than the White House has desired. For 1998, the administration sought $3.2 million. Congress approved $3.7 million.
For 1999, Clinton requested a mere $2.7 million, while the GOP-controlled Congress funneled $4.3 million to the task.
A House Commerce Committee source says that committee chairman Rep. Tom Bliley, R-Va., had to call attention to the issue in the first place.
The EPA was a year late in submitting its research plan, and then it asked to have its research budget cut.
"A lot of the deadlines were based on what (the) EPA felt like (it) could do," said Alan Roberson, director of regulatory affairs with the American Water Works Association. "In reality what they've done is negotiate regulatory deadlines that don't necessarily allow enough time to do the research."
The inevitable result is delay. Meanwhile, combating arsenic and other waterborne contaminants could lag as activists, the courts, lawmakers and the EPA scuffle over science and policy.
That's not a good sign for those wanting safer drinking water, says Rory Conolly, senior scientist at the Chemical Industry Institute of Toxicology. He said there's evidence "that some (byproducts from chlorination) potentially produce a carcinogenic effect (at very low levels of exposure)."
Others point to potential threats from microbes like e. coli.
Last year, the EPA put out a list of contaminants due for more scrutiny by regulators beginning in 2001. The list contains 50 chemicals and 10 microbes.
Still, the AWWA's Roberson says appropriate ways to do research on microbes in drinking water haven't yet been developed.
"There's really not a plan to break this cycle of the research lagging behind the regulatory deadlines," he said.
Comments on this posting?
Click here to post a public comment on the Trash Talk Bulletin Board.
Click here to send a private comment to the Junkman.