|
 |
|
Benefits Working
Group - Teleconference, October 27, 1998
Executive Summary
1. Attendance: absent -- Walter Bishop, Diana Gale,
Valerie Lemmie, Bill Allan, Jack DeMarco, Willy Fontenot, Jerome Paulson,
John Pickle, all other Working Group Members in attendance
2. Background and Issues Discussed:
The Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA) amendments of 1996 require that EPA
fully consider both quantifiable and non-quantifiable benefits that accrue
to drinking water regulations; these benefits must be compared with the
projected costs of the regulations. EPA will be developing a number of
regulations over the next few years which will need to consider costs
and benefits in accordance with the new requirements. Development of cost
information, while challenging, is fairly well understood. Benefits assessment,
by contrast, is less well understood.
The charge to the working group was: to review those quantifiable and
non-quantifiable benefits that could be considered when developing drinking
water regulations and provide recommendations to the Agency on which benefits
should be evaluated in developing its regulations. In addressing the charge,
the following questions were considered: 1. What categories of benefits
(both qualitative and non-qualitative) should EPA routinely consider in
the process of developing its drinking water regulations? 2. How (specifically)
should EPA consider qualitative (non-monetizable) benefits in its rulemaking
process? 3. How should EPA ultimately compare the results of its benefits
evaluations with its cost analysis when developing drinking water regulations?
This was the second teleconference of the working group, each following
a face-to-face meeting. In this teleconference, the group discussed additional
recommendations that were developed based on discussions of the September
25th meeting. In that meeting, the group had addressed the remaining two
questions associated with the charge. The group also developed a new recommendation
during the teleconference.
3. Issues Resolved: The Working Group agreed on the
following recommendations (three recommendations have already been approved
by the group).
Recommendation #4: Addressing Non-Quantified Benefits
The Benefits Working Group discussed several issues related to addressing
non-quantified benefits, and agreed on the following recommendation:
- EPA should consider both quantified and non-quantified benefits in
regulatory decision-making. The information about quantified and non-quantified
(qualitative) benefits should be presented together in a format, such
as a table, to ensure that decision-makers consider both kinds of information.
Recommendation #5: The Presentation of Information on Benefits
and Costs
The Benefits Working Group discussed a number of issues related to the
presentation of information on benefits and costs, and agreed on the following
recommendation:
- EPA should consider incremental benefits and costs, total benefits
and costs, the distribution of benefits and costs, and cost-effectiveness
in regulatory decision-making. This information should be presented
together in a format, such as a table, to ensure its consideration by
decision-makers.
Recommendation #6: Source Water Protection Options
The Benefits Working Group discussed several issues related to addressing
increasing source water protection, and agreed on the following recommendation:
- Whenever EPA considers regulation of a drinking water contaminant,
it should evaluate and consider, along with water treatment requirements
to remove a contaminant, source water protection options to prevent
such a contaminant from occurring. The full range of benefits of those
options should be considered.
4. Next steps:
A revised draft of a working group report to NDWAC, including the recommendations
cited, will be prepared for submittal to NDWAC at its November 17, 1998
meeting.
|
