Premium
Benefits and costs of the IESWTR
Author(s) -
Regli Stig,
Odom Rosemarie,
Cromwell John,
Lustic Mike,
Blank Valerie
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.tb08621.x
Subject(s) - rulemaking , interim , agency (philosophy) , negotiation , business , risk assessment , uncertainty , risk analysis (engineering) , environmental health , political science , medicine , law , computer science , computer security , philosophy , statistics , mathematics , epistemology
This new rule's costs are likely to be outweighed by its benefits, including reduced endemic risk from exposure to Cryptosporidium and improved public health. Like the Stage 1 Disinfectants/Disinfection By‐products Rule, the Interim Enhanced Surface Water Treatment Rule (IESWTR) grew out of the negotiated rulemaking the US Environmental Protection Agency convened in 1992–93 under the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA). The rulemaking sought to develop a consensus approach to simultaneously addressing potential health risks posed by disinfection by‐products (DBPs) and waterborne pathogens. Even though the process was complicated by (1) the possibility of making inadvertent risk–risk tradeoffs between protection from DBPs and protection from pathogens and (2) uncertainties affecting the assessment of both risks, the regulatory‐negotiations committee was able to devise a well‐balanced, staged approach to regulation. A second FACA committee finalized the approach in 1996–97. This article summarizes the microbial side of the benefit–cost analysis and the explicit uncertainty analysis that was used to inform the stakeholders and the negotiators.