National primary drinking water regulation for arsenic: A retrospective assessment of costs
-
Cynthia Morgan
and
Nathalie B. Simon
Abstract
This paper compares EPA’s ex ante cost analysis of the 2001 maximum contaminant limit (MCL) for Arsenic in Drinking Water to an ex post assessment of the costs. Because comprehensive cost information for installed treatment technologies or other mitigation strategies pursued by water systems to meet the new standard is not available, this case study relies upon ex post cost data from EPA Demonstration Projects, capturing a total of 50 systems across the US. Information shared by several states and independent associations on the types (but not costs) of treatment technologies used by systems is also summarized. Comparisons of predicted costs to realized costs using our limited data yield mixed results. Plotting the capital cost data from the Demonstration Projects against the cost curves for the compliance technologies recommended for smaller systems, we find that the EPA methodology overestimated capital costs in most cases, especially as the size of the system increases (as measured by the design flow rate).
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Eric Burneson, Rhajiv Khera and two anony mous reviewers for comments on an earlier version of this paper.
References
Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA). (2011). Correspondence with Abby Schneider.Search in Google Scholar
Bitner, K., Thomson, B., & Chwirka, J. (2001). The cost of compliance with a new drinking water standard for arsenic in New Mexico. New Mexico Geology,23, 10–12.Search in Google Scholar
Chen, A. S. C., Wang, L., Oxenham, J. L., & Condit, W. E. (2004). “Capital Costs of Arsenic Removal Technologies, U.S. EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program Round 1.” EPA/600/R-04/201.Search in Google Scholar
Frey, M. M., Chwirka, J., Narasimhan, R., Kommineni, S., & Chowdhury, Z. (2000). “Cost Implications of a Lower Arsenic MCL.” AWWA Research Foundation and American Water Works Association, Denver, CO.Search in Google Scholar
Frost, F. J., Muller, T., Petersen, H. V., Thomson, B., & Tollestrup, K. (2003). Identifying US populations for the study of health effects related to drinking water arsenic. Journal of Exposure Analysis and Environmental Epidemiology,13, 231–239.10.1038/sj.jea.7500275Search in Google Scholar
Gurian, P. L., Bucciarelli-Tieger, R., Chew, M., Martinez, A., & Woocay, A. (2006). “Validating pre-regulatory cost estimates for the revised arsenic MCL.” Proceedings of the AWWA Annual Conference and Exposition in San Antonio, TX.Search in Google Scholar
Hilkert Colby, E. J., Young, T. M., Green, P. G., & Darby, J. L. (2010). Costs of arsenic treatment for potable water in California and comparison to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency affordability metrics. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 46(6), 1238–1254.Search in Google Scholar
Kopits, Elizabeth, McGartland, Al, Morgan, Cynthia, Pasurka, Carl, Shadbegian, Ron, Simon, Nathalie, Simpson, David, & Wolverton, Ann. (2014). Retrospective cost analyses of EPA regulations: a case study approach. Journal of Benefit Cost Analysis. 5(2), 173–193.10.1515/jbca-2014-0024Search in Google Scholar
National Drinking Water Advisory Council (NDWAC). (2001). “Report of the Arsenic Cost Working Group to the National Drinking Water Advisory Council.” Available at: http://water.epa.gov/drink/info/arsenic/upload/2005_11_10_arsenic_ndwac-arsenic-report.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2000a). “Arsenic in Drinking Water Rule Economic Analysis.” EPA 815-R-00-026. Prepared by Abt Associates, Inc. for EPA OGWDW, December.Search in Google Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2000b). “Arsenic Occurrence in Public Drinking Water Supplies.” EPA 815R00023. Prepared by ISSI Consulting Group under contract 68C70005, The Cadmus Group under contract 68C99206 and ICF Consulting for EPA OGWDW.Search in Google Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2000c). “Technologies and Costs for Removal of Arsenic from Drinking Water.” EPA 815R00028. Prepared by Malcolm Pirnie, Inc. under contract 68C60039 for EPA ORD.Search in Google Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2005). “Treatment Technologies for Arsenic Removal.” EPA 600/S-05/006. EPA’s National Risk Management Research Laboratory, November.Search in Google Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2011a). “Costs of Arsenic Removal Technologies for Small Water Systems: US EPA Arsenic Removal Technology Demonstration Program.” EPA 600R11090. Prepared by Lili Wang and A.S.C. Chen, under contract EPC05057 for EPA ORD.Search in Google Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2011b). “National Characteristics of Drinking Water Systems Serving 10,000 or Fewer People.” EPA 816R10022. EPA’s Office of Water, July.Search in Google Scholar
US Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA). (2014). “Retrospective Study of the Costs of EPA Regulations: A Report of Four Case Studies.” Available at: http://yosemite.epa.gov/ee/epa/eerm.nsf/vwAN/EE-0575.pdf/$file/EE-0575.pdf.Search in Google Scholar
Article note
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
©2014 by De Gruyter
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Retrospective cost analyses of EPA regulations: a case study approach
- Ex ante and ex post cost estimates of the Cluster Rule and MACT II Rule
- Retrospective evaluation of costs associated with methyl bromide critical use exemptions for open field strawberries in California
- National primary drinking water regulation for arsenic: A retrospective assessment of costs
- A retrospective assessment of the costs of EPA’s 1998 Locomotive Emission Standards
- Do regulators overestimate the costs of regulation?
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Retrospective cost analyses of EPA regulations: a case study approach
- Ex ante and ex post cost estimates of the Cluster Rule and MACT II Rule
- Retrospective evaluation of costs associated with methyl bromide critical use exemptions for open field strawberries in California
- National primary drinking water regulation for arsenic: A retrospective assessment of costs
- A retrospective assessment of the costs of EPA’s 1998 Locomotive Emission Standards
- Do regulators overestimate the costs of regulation?
