Safe Drinking Water Act Overview

1
Safe Drinking Water Act Overview

• Environmental Law 2
• Spring 2005

2
Mapping the Act

• Major program areas--drinking water
  standard-setting

• Regulatory instruments--command-and-control with
  disclosure

3
Key Distinctions 1

• Large vs. small systems
• Cost-benefit vs. other ways of dealing with cost
• MCLGs vs MCLs

4
Underlying cost problems

• Cost increases supralinear, benefits gains
  sublinear
• Economies of scale (e.g., GAC)
• Time spread--costs are now, benefits are (much)
  later
• Cost increases are lumpy (e.g., GAC filtration)
• SDWA drives Superfund cleanups (MCLGs)

5
Standard-Setting

• Risk Assessment--MCLGs
• NOAEL adequate margin of safety
• What would it be if we didnt have to worry
  about cost?

• Risk Management--MCLs
• Feasibility Analysis--Best available technology
  taking cost into consideration
• Originally gave variances and exceptions for
  small systems

6
The Escalation of CBATrihalomethanes (late 70s)

• Student publication EPA should mandate high-cost
  treatment
• White House CWPS CBA indicates small system
  deregulation
• EPA CBA marginal benefit analysis justifies
  the rule w/ small system exceptions

7
EPA Policy Zero MCLG for Known or Probable
Carcinogens

• Group A--Known Human Carcinogen
• Group B1--Probable human carcinogen, limited
  human epi data
• Group B2--Probable human carcinogen inadequate
  human, adequate animal data
• Group C--Possible carcinogen--no human and
  limited animal data
• Group D--Unclassifiable
• Group E--No evidence of carcinogenicity, tests
  are adequate

8
Is cancer really a no-threshold toxin?Bruce
Ames says Maybe not
International Fabricare Institute, 972 F.2d 384
(1992)
9
EPA Policy GAC Filtration Is a Feasible
Technology for Synthetic Organic Chemicals

• Pentachlorphenol example
• In a system serving 62,000 people, save 1 life in
  1,650 years at a cost of 860m
• In a system serving 250 people, save one life in
  500,000 years, at a cost of 5.4 billion

10
Political imperatives

• Environmental community opposes CBA, exemptions
  for small systems
• Small systems could not afford GAC filtration,
  even if the federal government gave them the
  plants
• Proliferating MCLs make testing and reporting
  costly, difficult
• Unfunded mandates and small business impacts make
  regulation difficult
• Health scares focus public attention on drinking
  water

11
A Great Lakes problem if we limit diversions, we
may increase health risks
12
A general problemHow do you do a cost-benefit
analysis for something that isnt dose-dependent
(the hormone mimics)
13
Another general problemHow do you deal with
especially sensitive populations?

• EPA must consider The effects of the
  contaminant on the general population and on
  groups within the general populations such as
  infants, children, pregnant women, the elderly,
  individuals with a history of serious illness, or
  other subpopulations that are identified as
  likely to be at greater risk of adverse health
  effects due to exposure to contaminants in
  drinking water than the general population.