3 ms·

So what? So those places don't have to do anything. Having the standard doesn't cost them anything.

• Scramblejams 6y ago
  That's unlikely to be true. Standards commonly beget all kinds of bureaucracy and effort downstream. Sensible-sounding regulations (e.g. "we should certify that our city's water systems comply with all relevant EPA standards!") conspire with "no-cost-you're-already-meeting-this" standards to increase the burden of documentation, verification, certification and so on. And maybe that's fine! But the supposition that the EPA setting a standard relevant to tens of thousands of municipal water districts will generate zero costs for those municipalities glosses over how the bureaucratic wheels turn.
• rayiner 6y ago
  There is already a recommendation in place, it’s 15 micrograms per milliliter. This regulatory proceeding was about establishing a NPDWR, which triggers a whole host of new requirements. Once a NPDWR is created for a chemical, it flips the burden of proof. The EPA must set the MCLG at a “at which no known or anticipated adverse effect on the health of persons would occur.” Note that the EPA has to prove a negative—and has to do so under a regulatory process where any decision will be subject to years of litigation. The EPA must then set an MCL that gets as close to the MCLG using “the best available control technology.” Even if this process doesn’t result in an MCL that’s unrealistically low, it triggers a whole nationwide testing regime.