this amendment authorizes the Administrator to set maximum contaminant levels under the Safe Drinking Water Act as levels less stringent than the law currently requires, if the alternative level would not result in a significant increase in risks and if it costs substantially less. But there are limits on the amount of flexibility provided. In the case of cancer-causing substances, the less stringent standard must not result in a significant increase in individual lifetime cancer risk. I would ask the Senator from Montana about the use of the term significant in this context.
Editor's note · Context
Discussing an amendment related to the Safe Drinking Water Act.
Share
More from Mark Hatfield
For the record, I want to make a slight comparison between the State of New Jersey, which he represents so ably, and the State of Oregon. But I do not want to do it State by State--that is, State in comparison to State. I want to compare…
I believe we have come up with a bill that will result in a high level of health protection for our citizens because it will help local systems devote attention and resources to the most threatening drinking water problems. I began my…
In Oregon, our plan was developed by the State legislature. Other States have gone through similar processes sometimes pursuant to a court order. In some States, State boards of education working through powers delegated by legislators…
I am pleased to offer an amendment today on behalf of myself and my colleagues, Senators Durenberger, Pell, Jeffords, and Graham of Florida, which builds on the education flexibility provisions already included in Goals 2000. We are…





