Full Description

Prior to 1996, drinking water standards were required to be as close to absolutely protective ofhuman health as technically and economically feasible. The 1996 Amendments to the SafeDrinking 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 tomaximize net benefits, as is typical in an economic benefit-cost assessment. Instead, USEPA isinstructed 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 onmaximizing net benefits. In contrast, USEPA has explicitly rejected simple maximization of netbenefits by citing the priority given to health risk reduction in its legislative mandate. This studyconsiders the impacts of different interpretations of the benefit-cost provisions of the 1996Amendments. It concludes that the use of a higher monetary value for risk reduction than thatcurrently 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 havepositive net benefits over outcomes for which there is substantial uncertainty as to whether thenet benefits will be positive. This approach will favor less dramatic regulatory actions in theshort term, while allowing for more stringent regulations as uncertainties are reduced over time. Includes 6 references, figure.

Product Details

Edition: Vol. - No. Published: 06/17/2004 Number of Pages: 7File Size: 1 file , 300 KB