oEPA
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Using DWSRF Funds to Comply with
the New Arsenic Rule
The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) program was established by the 1996 Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA)
Amendments and authorizes grants to states to capitalize revolving loan funds. The states provide low-interest loans to eligible
systems for infrastructure improvements needed to ensure compliance with the SDWA and protect public health. The
DWSRF program can play a significant role in helping systems, especially small systems, to meet the challenges of complying
with new drinking water standards.
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published revisions to the Arsenic Rule in 2001 which further reduce exposure
to arsenic in drinking water by adopting a new arsenic maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 10 ppb. The new MCL will
impose a financial burden on some water systems. The DWSRF can provide assistance to systems to help ease this burden,
increase compliance, and protect public health.
WHY DID EPA CREATE THIS RULE?
EPA established the previous MCL of 50 ppb for arsenic in 1975 based on a Public Health Service standard originally
established in 1942. The 1996 SDWA Amendments required EPA to finalize a new arsenic rule by January 2001. A 1999
report by the National Academy of Sciences concluded that the 50 ppb standard did not adequately protect human health.
EPA set the new MCL of 10 ppb to protect the public against the effects of long-term, chronic exposure to arsenic in drinking
water. The new MCL will decrease non-fatal and fatal bladder and lung cancers and will reduce the frequency of other health
effects such as diabetes, developmental problems, gastrointestinal illness, and heart disease.
TO WHOM DOES THIS RULE APPLY?
The new 10 ppb arsenic MCL becomes enforceable
on January 23, 2006 for community water systems
(CWSs) and nontransient noncommunity water
systems (NTNCWSs). Of all affected systems, 97%
are small systems that serve fewer than 10,000
people. Higher levels of arsenic tend to be found in
ground water rather than surface water sources (i.e.,
lakes and rivers). Compared to the rest of the
United States, the occurrence of arsenic in ground
water tends to be higher in western states and states in the Great Lakes region.
Source Type
Surface Water i/
Ground Water /
GWUDI /
System Type
CWSs /
NTNCWSs /
TNCWSs
Population Type
< 10,000 /
10,001 - 100,000 /
£ 100,001 /
CRITICAL RULE DEADLINES & REQUIREMENTS
EPA meets and works with states to explain new rules and requirements and to initiate adoption and
implementation activities.
July 1, 2002 Systems that detect arsenic concentrations between 10 ppb and 50 ppb must include health effects language in
all Consumer Confidence Reports beginning on this date through July 1,2006. Systems that detect arsenic
concentrations between 5 ppb and 10 ppb must include an educational statement in all Consumer Confidence
Reports beginning on this date.
State primacy revision applications due, if no extension is requested.
January 22,2004 All new systems/sources must collect initial monitoring samples for all inorganic contaminants (lOCs), synthetic
organic contaminants (SOCs), and volatile organic contaminants (VOCs) within a period and frequency determined
by the state.
State primacy revision applications due from states that received 2-year extensions.
January 23,2006 The new arsenic MCL of 10 ppb becomes enforceable. All systems must begin monitoring or submit data that
meets grandfathering requirements (if allowed by the state).
December 31, 2006
Surface water systems must complete initial monitoring or have a state approved waiver.
December 31, 2007 Ground water systems must complete initial monitoring or have a state approved waiver.
* Deadlines for specific systems may be affected by variances or exemptions granted by the state.
-------
HOW WILL THIS RULE IMPACT SYSTEMS?
The costs systems will face to meet the new arsenic
standards are significant. Total capital costs for invest-
ments in treatment technology and infrastructure are
estimated to be almost $900 million (see Figure 1). In
addition, annual operation and maintenance (O & M)
costs for systems and monitoring and administrative
costs for states implementing the rule will top $120
million. Most of the capital costs will fall on the shoul-
ders of a relatively small number of ground water systems
(see Figure 2).
Figure I: TOTAL ARSENIC PRICE TAG
(in millions of 1999 $)
Capital Costs
CWSs
NTNCs
CWSs Capital Costs by
System Size
Capital C
,
CAPITAL COST GRAND TOTAL $878
Annual O & M Costs $ 118
Annual Monitoring & Admin Costs $2.7
< 100
101-500
SO I-1.000
1,001-3,300
3,301-10,000
10,001-100,000
> 100,000
$27
$57
$34
$110
$118
$316
$180
Figure 2: Percentage of All Affected
Systems Exceeding New Arsenic MCL
Of the 74,000 systems subject to this new MCL, EPA
estimates that 3,000 CWSs and 1,100 NTNCWSs will need to install treatment for compliance. To be in compliance by
January 2006, capital investments will need to be made over the next four
years. A majority of the systems that will have to modify treatment serve less
than 500 people (see Figure 3).
Figure 4 shows how much it will cost systems (on average) to meet the new
MCL. In order to comply with the rule, most systems will have to add new
technologies, upgrade existing technologies, consolidate their systems into
larger systems, or develop new water sources.
The average increase in costs per household to meet the new arsenic standard
depends on the size of the water system and how many people are served by
that system. The estimated compliance cost per system is considerably lower
for small systems than for large systems because less water must be treated.
However, the burden on small system households is significantly higher
because the costs must be paid from a much smaller revenue base. EPA
estimates that the average annual household water bill for systems out of
compliance may increase by $32 per year, but that the cost will be substantially higher (ranging from $58-$327) for systems
serving less than 3,300 people.
Ground Water Surface Water
Figure 3: Number of CWSs That Will Need to Install
Treatment to Comply with New Arsenic MCL
100.000
Figure 4: Average Annual Cost per CWS Exceeding New
Arsenic MCL (in thousands of 1999 $)
$0
$1,341
36
$12 $22 $53
$112
-------
WHAT TYPE OF TREATMENT WILL SYSTEMS HAVE TO PUT IN PLACE?
Arsenic is present in two forms: arsenate (As5+) and arsenite (As3+). Surface water typically contains much more arsenate, while
ground water typically contains higher levels of arsenite (which is harder to remove). Arsenite is easily oxidized to arsenate
using conventional oxidation methods (e.g., chlorination). As a result, up to 50% of ground water systems that install treat-
ment for arsenic may need to install pre-oxidation. In order to determine if pre-oxidation will be needed, systems should first
perform a test to determine what form of arsenic they have.
The characteristics of a system's
source water (especially the pH
level and presence of other con-
taminants), the skill level of its
operators, and other compliance
considerations will greatly impact
which treatment train is most
appropriate and the ultimate cost
of compliance. Systems with
treatment trains in place that can
remove arsenic will face lower
compliance costs than those
without sufficient treatment. For
instance, most surface water
systems already have treatment in
place that is capable of removing
arsenic, though very few utilize
reverse osmosis, ion exchange, or
activated alumina. Among ground
Exhibit 1: Arsenic Treatment Technologies
Type Removal Other Contaminants
Efficiency Removed
1 Modified Lime Softening
2 Modified Coagulation/Filtration
3 Anion Exchange
4 Oxidation Filtration (Greensand)
5 Activated Alumina
6 POU Reverse Osmosis
7 POU Activated Alumina
8 Coagulation Assisted Microfiltration
BAT, SSCT
BAT, SSCT
BAT, SSCT
BAT, SSCT
BAT, SSCT
SSCT
SSCT
SSCT
90%
95%
95%
50%
95%
90%
90%
90%
Metals, lOCs
Physically large
contaminants
Anions
Metals
Anions
lOCs and large organics
Anions
Physically large
contaminants
water systems, larger systems are more likely to have arsenic treatment technology in place.
EPA has identified a number of Best Available Technologies (BATs) and Small System Compliance Technologies (SSCTs) for
arsenic (see Exhibit 1). For all BATs, most of which are developed with large systems in mind, removal is much more efficient
for arsenate. When considering SSCTs, EPA looks at the affordability of the technology (since per household costs for central
treatment tend to be higher for smaller system customers) and technical complexity (since many small systems do not have
access to well-trained water system operators). The SSCTs represent technologies that are affordable and achieve compliance
with the arsenic MCL across the small system size categories (25-500; 501-3,300; and 3,301-10,000 people). Reverse osmosis
and activated alumina point-of-use (POU) devices are viable options for small systems, especially those serving fewer than 200
persons. EPA assumes that the most common treatment technology for small systems will utilize an adsorptive media.
Figure 5: Representative Costs for Ground Water Systems
Serving Populations of 101-500
I 23456
Treatment Technologies
Note: All costs are based on average flows (design flow of 123,670 gpd
and average flow of 33,200 gpd) for the median population. Capital and
waste costs are total (not annualized). O & M costs are annual. Costs do
not reflect the need for pre-oxidation or corrosion control.
Systems may have other treatment alternatives to the
treatment technologies listed in Exhibit 1, such as granu-
lar ferric hydroxide (GFH). GFH is a technology that
may combine very long run length without the need to
adjust pH. Ongoing studies should provide more infor-
mation about whether GFH will be affordable and viable.
To ensure cost-effective compliance with the arsenic
MCL, systems will need to evaluate their treatment
technology options as a first step. All other factors being
equal, systems will most likely choose the cheapest
treatment option that ensures compliance with the new
MCL. The costs in Figure 5 are best-case estimates for an
average ground water system with an arsenic influent level
of 50 ppb and a target treatment concentration of 8 ppb.
Several of these central treatment technologies have
associated waste disposal costs, which are also depicted in
the graph.
-------
HOW CAN THE DWSRF ASSIST SYSTEMS?
States use DWSRF capitalization grant monies to provide low-interest
loans to publicly- and privately-owned public water systems for infra-
structure improvements needed to continue to ensure safe drinking
water. States may offer principal forgiveness, reduced interest rates, or
extended loan terms to systems identified by the state as serving disad-
vantaged communities. States also have the ability to reserve a portion of
their grants (i.e., set-asides) to finance activities that encourage enhanced
water system management and help to prevent contamination problems
through source water protection measures. Based on the fiscal year 2002
appropriation of $850 million, capitalization grants ranged from $8.0
million to $82.4 million per state. Where funding is not adequate for all
systems that require treatment, states may choose to offer extended
compliance schedules through exemptions, where appropriate, to some
systems.
Most capital projects — including adding new technologies and upgrad-
ing existing technologies — needed to comply with the new arsenic
standards are eligible for funding under the DWSRF (see Exhibit 2).
Consolidation and restructuring of systems can be a cost-effective option
for small systems that are affected by the arsenic rule. The DWSRF can
fund consolidation, including situations where a supply has become
contaminated or a system is unable to maintain compliance for technical,
financial, or managerial reasons. POU devices will be an attractive
option to small systems because of cost. The DWSRF can fund these
devices as long as the units are owned and maintained by the water
system.
States can use set-aside funds from the DWSRF to assist systems directly
as well as to enhance their own program management activities (see
Exhibit 2). A state may use set-asides to make administrative improve-
ments to the entire drinking water program, which faces increased costs
in implementing the new arsenic rule. States can provide training to
small systems on
Exhibit 2: Projects/Activities Eligible for DWSRF
Funding To Comply With Arsenic Rule
Type of
Project/Activity
Eligible Under Eligible Under
Infrastructure Fund Set-Asides
Treatment
Precipitative Processes Yes
No
Adsorption Processes Yes
No
Ion Exchange Processes Yes
No
Membrane Filtration
Yes
No
POU Devices Yes*
No
Planning & Design Activities Yes
Yes*
System Consolidation
Yes
No
System Restructuring
Yes
Yes
System Administrative Improvements
Hire Staff
No
No
Staff Training No
Yes
Public Outreach
No
Yes
Monitoring No
No
Rate Increase Process
No
Yes
State Administrative Improvements
Hire Staff
No
Yes
Staff Training No
Yes
Public Outreach
No
Yes
Compliance Oversight No
Yes
Enforcement
No
Yes
Pilot Studies
No
Yes
Camp Verde, Arizona
In 1998, a $1.3 million low-interest loan was given
to the Camp Verde water system to address a long-
standing problem of high arsenic levels in the
drinking water source. The system had been
working to get financing for many years, but could
not afford improvements until the DWSRF
program was implemented in the state. The loan
provided the funding to install a pipeline from a
new source to provide safe drinking water to 2,000
*Must be owned and maintained by system.
"For small systems only.
meeting the require-
ments of the arsenic
rule as well as technical assistance in identifying appropriate technologies.
In addition, states can provide assistance to small systems to cover the
costs of project planning and design for infrastructure improvements.
Since the DWSRF program is managed by states, project and set-aside
funding varies according to the priorities, policies, and laws within each
state. Given that each state administers its own program differently, the
first step in seeking assistance is to contact the state DWSRF representa-
tive which can be found on the EPA DWSRF website.
General Information
FOR MORE INFORMATION...
DWSRF and Arsenic Rule
DWSRF Website:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/dwsrf.html
Arsenic Implementation Website: Water Website:
http://www.epa.gov/safewater/ars/implement.html http://www.epa.gov/
SDWA Hotline
1-800-426-4791
Office of Ground Water and
Drinking Water (4606M)
EPA816-F-02-004
March 2002
Printed on Recycled Paper
------- |