Costs of Arsenic Treatment for Potable Water in California and Comparison to U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Affordability Metrics1

Abstract

Hilkert Colby, Elizabeth J., Thomas M. Young, Peter G. Green, and Jeannie L. Darby, 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 (JAWRA) 46(6):1238–1254. DOI: 10.1111/j.1752‐1688.2010.00488.xAbstract: The United States (U.S.) federal standard for arsenic in potable water systems is only the second water quality standard in which the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) administrator used “discretionary authority to establish a less stringent standard” based on the results of cost‐benefit analyses. Based on the findings that a “standard of 3 μg/l would be feasible but not justified,” the revised maximum contaminant level (MCL) lowered the allowable arsenic concentration from 50 to 10 μg/l in 2002. In 2009, approximately 145 systems in California were out of compliance. The objectives were to gather performance and cost data from arsenic treatment systems in California to compare with data from the USEPA demonstration sites as well as with the USEPA affordability metrics for drinking water. The median cost of compliance with the revised arsenic MCL for the 36 surveyed systems was $1.95/1,000 gallons (2008 dollars), which is 69% of the average cost of delivered tap water in the U.S. in 2008 ($2.81/1,000 gallons). Additionally, 22% of the surveyed systems in California paid more than the maximum predicted cost of compliance with the revised arsenic MCL ($5.05/1,000 gallons). The largest variation in cost was seen in the systems that treated <500 gpm. For the systems utilizing adsorption, systems obtained between 20 and 80% of the expected bed volumes prior to breakthrough, indicating the need for better prediction of performance.