Prior to 1996, drinking water standards were required to be as close to absolutely protective of
human health as technically and economically feasible. The 1996 Amendments to the Safe
Drinking Water Act gave the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) the option to set standards that are less protective than feasible,
based on benefit-cost criteria. However, the 1996 Amendments do not simply instruct USEPA to
maximize net benefits, as is typical in an economic benefit-cost assessment. Instead, USEPA is
instructed to "maximize health risk reduction benefits at a cost that is justified by the benefits".
Exactly what this means is unclear. Many commentators on USEPA rules base their evaluations on
maximizing net benefits. In contrast, USEPA has explicitly rejected simple maximization of net
benefits by citing the priority given to health risk reduction in its legislative mandate. This study
considers the impacts of different interpretations of the benefit-cost provisions of the 1996
Amendments. It concludes that the use of a higher monetary value for risk reduction than that
currently used by USEPA would more closely reflect the statutory preference for health benefits.
However, the author does not advocate this as the preferred decision-making criterion. Instead,
an alternative procedure is described in which preference is given for outcomes likely to have
positive net benefits over outcomes for which there is substantial uncertainty as to whether the
net benefits will be positive. This approach will favor less dramatic regulatory actions in the
short term, while allowing for more stringent regulations as uncertainties are reduced over time. Includes 6 references, figure.
| Edition : | Vol. - No. |
| File Size : | 1
file
, 300 KB |
| Note : | This product is unavailable in Ukraine, Russia, Belarus |
| Number of Pages : | 7 |
| Published : | 06/17/2004 |
