Safe Drinking Water Act Safe Drinking Water Act OverviewOverview

Environmental Law 2Spring 2005

Mapping the ActMapping the Act

• Major program areas--drinking water standard-setting

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

Key Distinctions 1:Key Distinctions 1:

• Large vs. small systems• Cost-benefit vs. other ways of

dealing with cost• MCLGs vs MCLs

Underlying cost problemsUnderlying 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)

Standard-SettingStandard-Setting

• Risk Assessment--MCLGs

• NOAEL + adequate margin of safety

• “What would it be if we didn’t 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

The Escalation of CBAThe Escalation of CBATrihalomethanes (late Trihalomethanes (late

’70s)’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

EPA Policy: Zero MCLG for EPA Policy: Zero MCLG for Known or Probable Known or Probable

CarcinogensCarcinogens• 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

Is cancer really a no-Is cancer really a no-threshold toxin?threshold toxin?

Bruce Ames says “Maybe Bruce Ames says “Maybe not”not”

International Fabricare Institute, 972 F.2d 384 (1992)

EPA Policy: GAC Filtration EPA Policy: GAC Filtration Is a “Feasible” Technology Is a “Feasible” Technology

for Synthetic Organic for Synthetic Organic ChemicalsChemicals

• 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

Political imperativesPolitical 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

A Great Lakes problem: if A Great Lakes problem: if we limit diversions, we we limit diversions, we

may increase health risksmay increase health risks

A general problem:A general problem:How do you do a cost-How do you do a cost-

benefit analysis for benefit analysis for something that isn’t dose-something that isn’t dose-

dependent dependent (the hormone mimics)(the hormone mimics)

Another general problem:Another general problem:How do you deal with How do you deal with especially sensitive especially sensitive

populations?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.”