Exam 16: Protecting Safe Drinking Water

An established reference dose (RfD) is defined as the amount of a contaminant to which people can be exposed over a 24-hour period without harm.

The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF) was established under the original Safe Drinking Water Act of 1974.

Secondary maximum contaminant levels (SMCLs) are enforceable drinking water standards that are set to protect public welfare.

A drinking water standard based on benefit-cost analysis would be set at the point where the TSB is maximized.

Under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, $2 billion was earmarked for the Drinking Water State Revolving Fund.

According to international data,

The EPA formulated the Drinking Water Strategy (DWS)

According to the textbook application, bottled water sold in the United States is controlled by FDA regulations.

Standard setting under the Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996 ignores benefit-cost analysis.

In June 1991, the EPA announced a maximum contaminant level goal (MCLG) of zero for lead and a more stringent maximum contaminant level (MCL) of 0.015 mg/l. This new primary standard lowered the allowable lead level in drinking water from its former limit of 50 parts per billion (ppb) to 15 ppb. Because these regulations were expected to have a substantial financial impact on the regulated community — in excess of $100 million per year, they were subject to Executive Order 12291 and had to be accompanied by a Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). A summary of the estimated benefits and costs (stated as annualized values) from this RIA, is given below. $\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\text { BENEFITS}$ Health (based on avoided medical costs) From corrosion control and source water treatment: \ 2.8-\ 4.3 billion per year From replacement of lead service lines \ 70-\ 240 million per year Material Accruing to households and water systems \ 500 million per year Incremental Benefits \ 3.4-\ 5.0 billion per year $\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\text { COSTS }$ Treatment, implementation, education costs Treatment costs: \ 390-\ 680 million Monitoring costs: \ 40 million Education costs: \ 30 million State implementation costs: \ 40 million Incremental Costs \ 500-\ 790 million per year $\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\quad$$\text { NET BENEFITS }$ Net Benefits: \ 2.9-\ 4.2 billion per year -Find the PVB and PVC in real terms over a 3-year period, assuming a discount rate of 7 percent and an inflation rate of 3 percent. Use the midpoint benefit value, or $4.2 billion, and the midpoint cost value, or $645 million, for each year. Round to two decimal values for each year. 2.Based on your findings, show that the new lead standard passed the feasibility test for this three-year period.

U.S. primary drinking water regulations are performance-based standards.

The EPA under the Obama administration devised a Drinking Water Strategy with goals that include addressing contaminants as groups instead of one at a time.

The Safe Drinking Water Act Amendments of 1996

The Drinking Water State Revolving Fund (DWSRF)

A flat fee pricing scheme for water usage is a pricing structure that is independent of water use.

The National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs)

The water pricing scheme that offers an economic incentive to conserve water usage is the declining block pricing structure.

According to the textbook application

Under U.S. law, National Primary Drinking Water Regulations (NPDWRs) have been announced for hundreds of chemicals, microorganisms, and radionuclides.