House Bill 261 lowers the acceptable level of arsenic in our drinking water to 5 ppb. Much like the PFOA/PFAS scaremongering, there is no large body of sound science (I can find) on how this change will do more than benefit State agencies while wasting millions of dollars.
NHDES in coordination with Dartmouth College believes it’s worth the added compliance cost, even though it will be substantial.
While the costs of compliance with drinking water and groundwater standards of 5 ppb for arsenic would be substantial, the tangible and intangible benefits to public health warrant the recommended reduction.
How much? It’s got a hefty price tag.
The fiscal note for HB 261 is based on a cost/benefit analysis done by the New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services in the Review of the Drinking Water MCL and AGQS for Arsenic report issued December 31, 2018. The department estimates the cost of compliance with the 5 ppb standard for public water systems, sewage lagoons, landfills, and other facilities with groundwater discharge permits to be approximately $3.76 million in capital costs and $4.6 million in additional annual costs.
I’m not going to debate Dartmouth College’s motivations, but NHDES is always suspect. I’m also having a difficult time finding third party research that substantiates a significant health benefit to dropping from 10 ppb to 5 ppb. Well, except for this.
The Dartmouth study is unquestionably of value in that it indicates the specific action of low levels of arsenic on individual cells — it acts as an endocrine disruptor in those cells. It does not immediately follow, however, without further study on human cells in vitro, as well as epidemiological evidence of in vivo human effects, that the new standard for arsenic in drinking water of 10ppb should immediately be reconsidered and lowered to 2-3ppb as Joshua Hamilton, professor of toxicology and pharmacology at Dartmouth and head of the study, seems to hope it will. And let us not forget the controversy that already surrounds the EPA decision to lower the maximum contaminant level (MCL) from 50 ppb to 10 ppb. Several studies have indicated that there isn’t ample epidemiological evidence to show 50 ppb causes adverse health effects in humans, much less 10 ppb.(3)
That was in response to an earlier study. Things have come a good way since then but not our understanding of the points at which contamination is a serious health issue. Dartmouth reports potential effects at 10ppb and it looks like NHDES guesses from there. The word estimated occurs 64 times in their 2018 report.
Arsenic is nasty stuff. But like anything else, the issue is working out what exposure over time creates a meaningful threat to health. Most of the attention over the years has been the result of media junk science from quacks like Dr. Oz ranting about Apple Juice, Baby food, Rice, and then the Celebrity outrage, none of which is definitive.
Not that there’s much to be done about it Granite Staters.
Governor Sununu signed HB261 into law. The compliance costs will be crammed down the throats of local taxpayers through their municipalities and local taxes. The state budget will need to balloon to provide funding to offset those costs. Lawsuits, anyone?
And given the recent scaremongering over PFOA and PFAS, I think we a right to be suspicious of this. But in fairness to the idea that this is truly necessary, I will keep looking. If there is a tangible benefit, then so be it and kudos to all involved for your actions. If not, it’s not the first time the government robbed us for no good reason. Or failed to consider other less intrusive options.
