Premium
Benefit–cost analysis of the Stage 1 D/DBP Rule
Author(s) -
Odom Rosemarie,
Regli Stig,
Messner Mike,
Cromwell John,
Javdan Maggie
Publication year - 1999
Publication title -
journal ‐ american water works association
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.466
H-Index - 74
eISSN - 1551-8833
pISSN - 0003-150X
DOI - 10.1002/j.1551-8833.1999.tb08620.x
Subject(s) - rulemaking , negotiation , agency (philosophy) , regulatory agency , business , uncertainty , process (computing) , advisory committee , risk assessment , risk analysis (engineering) , environmental planning , environmental science , computer science , political science , public administration , law , computer security , philosophy , epistemology , operating system , statistics , mathematics
Protecting the public from exposure to DBPs and the subsequent risk of certain cancers must be balanced with controlling water treatment costs. In 1992–93, the US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) convened a negotiated rulemaking process under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) to develop a consensus approach to simultaneously addressing potential health risks posed by disinfection by‐products (DBPs) and waterborne pathogens. The fact that inadvertent risk–risk tradeoffs might be made between protection from DBPs and protection from microbial pathogens complicates the process. It is further complicated by uncertainties that affect the assessment of both risks. The regulatory‐negotiations committee devised a staged approach to regulation that a second FACA committee finalized in 1996–97. This article summarizes the DBPs side of the benefit–cost analysis that was developed during these processes and later refined by USEPA to more fully address uncertainties regarding the rule's benefits.