|
For Additional Information:
John Grasser (202) 463-2651
Karen Batra (202) 463-2651
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
March 8, 2001
NMA CHALLENGES 'MIDNIGHT' WATER REGULATION
Washington--The National Mining Association petitioned a federal
court here to overturn stringent new arsenic drinking water regulations
issued in the final days of the Clinton administration.
The new rules, published in the federal register on January 22,
the day after President Clinton left office, were in spite of congressional
efforts to have the Environmental Protection Agency develop better
scientific evidence on the risks of arsenic in water.
EPA's rule is intended to provide public health risk reduction
benefits for Americans who are served by public water systems that
rely on groundwater or surface water that have elevated levels of
arsenic.
NMA's comments said that while the mining industry supports the
goals of the Safe Drinking Water Act and agrees it is essential
to ensure the safety of our water supply, it is also critical that
there be a basis of sound science and consideration of the benefits
and costs that Americans will experience.
Until recently, the acceptable level of arsenic in drinking water
was 50 parts per billion (ppb). EPA's new standard would reduce
the acceptable level by 80 percent, well below levels that often
occur naturally in water supplies.
According to NMA, EPA's effort to revise the current arsenic standard
has been complicated by the lack of solid scientific evidence showing
that arsenic presents a health risk at levels below 50 ppb combined
with the enormous costs that are associated with lowering the standard.
"The final rule was a political decision and is not supported
by science," NMA said. "EPA itself admitted it was 'unable
to specify a safe threshold level' and EPA's own Science Advisory
Board criticized the proposed rule as unjustified by the evidence
and prohibitively expensive."
NMA stressed that "EPA had seriously underestimated the costs
of compliance, particularly for small systems and individual households
and disregards entirely implications on the business community,
including mining and utilities, as the standard is applied in the
context of other environmental programs."
Recognizing the uncertainty of the science, Congress had extended
the EPA's deadline for the final rule until June 22, 2001, yet it
was rushed out in the "midnight hours" hours of the Clinton
administration.
|