On the recordJuly 11, 1995
That is exactly what is in the statute. It does not talk about lives and it does not talk about breathing. What the statute says in my hypothetical is you must get to at least 10 parts per trillion of a toxic substance. Beyond that, the agency is allowed to use some discretion using cost-benefit analysis and risk analysis. Under my hypothetical, you get to six in a very cost-effective way, but under the Senator's bill, because it says you must use the least-cost method to get to an alternative, which is in the statute, since 10 is an alternative permitted by statute, your least cost drives you to 10, whereas cost-benefit drives you to six. There is a conflict between the cost-benefit and the least cost and I think--by the way, Senator Roth is someone who is on the floor who knows a great deal about this subject and I think has some similar concerns with this.
Source
govinfo.gov




