xid-9158392_2 - In the past few weeks, we have discussed...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–2. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
In the past few weeks, we have discussed various standards for environmental regulation, the use of cost/benefit analysis, and the efficiency standard of regulation. Here's an example of a cost benefit analysis performed by the Environmental Protection Agency in 1999. The Safe Water Drinking Act, a federal regulation, required the EPA to set a standard (expressed in micrograms per liter, or μg/l) for lead in drinking water, specifically from old lead drinking water pipes (as far as I know, it is no longer legal to use lead in newly installed water pipes, but these old pipes were installed before the harmful effects of lead were well known). The rule being evaluated by the EPA would require drinking water systems (Tallahassee City Utilities, as an example) to install devices to inhibit corrosion, and public education programs to reduce the risk of exposure to lead. The rule also considered 2 general classes of drinking water systems: large ones (serving more than 50,000 people) and small (serving less than 50,000 people). Three options were evaluated by EPA: Three options - A, B, C
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Image of page 2
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/05/2012 for the course ECP 3302 taught by Professor Staff during the Fall '11 term at Florida State College.

Page1 / 2

xid-9158392_2 - In the past few weeks, we have discussed...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 2. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online