Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-11T04:41:51.021Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Treatment of Uncertainty in EPA’s Analysis of Air Pollution Rules: A Status Report

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 January 2015

Arthur G. Fraas
Arthur G. Fraas*
Affiliation:
Resources for the Future
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

An understanding of the uncertainty in benefit and cost estimates is a critical part of a benefit–cost analysis. Without a quantitative treatment of uncertainty, it is difficult to know how much confidence to place in the benefit–cost estimates associated with regulatory analysis. In 2002, an NRC report recommended that EPA move toward conducting probabilistic, multiple-source uncertainty analyses in its RIAs with the specification of probability distributions for major sources of uncertainty in the benefit estimates. In 2006, reports by GAO and RFF found that EPA had begun to address the NRC recommendations, but that much remained to be done to meet the NRC concerns. This paper provides a further review of EPA’s progress in developing a quantitative assessment of the uncertainties in its health benefits analyses for the RIAs for four recent rulemakings setting National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). In conclusion, EPA’s basic approach to presenting the uncertainty in its health benefits estimates remains largely unchanged. Recent RIAs present the results of uncertainty analysis in piecemeal fashion rather than providing an overall, comprehensive statement of the uncertainty in the estimates. In addition, the uncertainty analysis in recent RIAs continues to focus on the concentration-response relationship and largely fails to address the uncertainty associated with the other key elements of the benefits analysis.

Keywords

EPAbenefit-cost analysisuncertainty analysisair pollution rules
Type
Article
Information
Journal of Benefit-Cost Analysis , Volume 2 , Issue 2 , 25 April 2011 , pp. 1 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Society for Benefit-Cost Analysis 2011

References

Cooke, R.M., Wilson, A.M., Tuomisto, J.T., Morales, O., Tainio, M., and Evans, J.S.. 2007. A Probabilistic Characterization of the Relationship between Fine Particulate Matter and Mortality: Elicitation of European Experts. Environmental Science and Technology 41(18): 6598–6605.Google Scholar
Fann, Neal, Fulcher, Charles M., and Hubbell, Bryan J.. 2009. The influence of location, source, and emissions type in estimates of the human health benefits of reducing a ton of air pollution. Air Quality, Atmosphere & Health 2(3):169–176. http://www.springerlink.com/content/1381522137744641/ Google Scholar
Farrow, Scott, Wong, Eva, Ponce, Rafael, Faustman, Elaine, and Zerbe, Richard. 2001. “Facilitating Regulatory Design and Stakeholder Participation: The FERET Template with an Application to the Clean Air Act.” In Improving Regulation: Cases in Environment, Health, and Safety, edited by Fischbeck, Paul. S. and Farrow, Scott. Washington, DC: RFF Press, 429-442.Google Scholar
GAO (U.S. Government Accountability Office). 2006. Particulate Matter: EPA Has Started to Address the National Academies’ Recommendations on Estimating Health Benefits, but More Progress is Needed. GAO-06-780. Washington, DC: U.S. GAO. www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-780 Google Scholar
Industrial Economics, Inc. 2006. Expanded Expert Judgment Assessment of the Concentration-Response Relationship Between PM2.5 Exposure and Mortality. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, September. www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/Uncertainty/pm_ee_report.pdf Google Scholar
Keohane, Nathaniel O. 2009. The Technocratic and Democratic Functions of the CAIR Regulatory Analysis. In Reforming Regulatory Impact Analysis, edited by Harrington, W., Heinzerling, L., and Morgenstern, R.. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Krupnick, Alan, Morgenstern, Richard, Batz, Michael, Nelson, Peter, Burtraw, Dallas, Shih, Jhih-Shyang, and McWilliams, Michael. 2006. Not a Sure Thing: Making Regulatory Choices under Uncertainty. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.Google Scholar
Laden, F., Schwartz, J., Speizer, F.E., and Dockery, D.W.. 2006. Reduction in Fine Particulate Air Pollution and Mortality. American Journal of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine 173: 667–672.Google Scholar
Morgan, M. Grange and Henrion, Max, Uncertainty: A Guide to Dealing with Uncertainty in Qualitative Risk and Policy Analysis, Cambridge University Press, 1990.Google Scholar
Muller, N.Z. and Mendelsohn, R. 2009. Efficient Pollution Regulation: Getting the Prices Right. American Economic Review 99(5): 1714–1739. http://www.aeaweb.org/articles.php?doi=10.1257/aer.99.5 Google Scholar
NRC (National Research Council). 2002. Estimating the Public Health Benefits of Proposed Air Pollution Regulations. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
NRC (National Research Council). 2007a. Estimating Mortality Risk Reduction and Economic Benefits from Controlling Ozone Air Pollution. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
NRC (National Research Council). 2007b. Models in Environmental Regulatory Decision Making. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
NRC (National Research Council). 2009a. Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
NRC (National Research Council). 2009b. Hidden Costs of Energy: Unpriced Consequences of Energy Production and Use. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
OMB (U.S. Office of Management and Budget). 2003. Circular A-4. Washington, DC: OMB.Google Scholar
Pope, C.A., Burnett, R.T., Thun, M.J., Calle, E.E., Krewski, D., Ito, K., and Thurston, G.D.. 2002. Lung Cancer, Cardiopulmonary Mortality, and Long-term Exposure to Fine Particulate Air Pollution. Journal of the American Medical Association 287: 1132–1141.Google Scholar
Roman, Henry A., Walker, Katherine D., Walsh, Tyra L., Conner, Lisa, Richmond, Harvey M., Hubbell, Bryan J., and Kinney, Patrick L.. 2008. Expert Judgment Assessment of the Mortality Impact of Changes in Ambient Fine Particulate Matter in the U.S. Environmental Science and Technology 42(7): 2268–2274.Google Scholar
Tuomisto, J.T., Wilson, A., Evans, J.S., and Tainio, M.. 2008. Uncertainty in Mortality Response to Airborne Fine Particulate Matter: Combining European Air Pollution Experts. Reliability Engineering and System Safety 93(5): 732–744.Google Scholar
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2006. Regulatory Impact Analysis, 2006. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter, Chapter 5. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, October. www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/Chapter%205--Benefits.pdf.Google Scholar
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008a. Regulatory Impact Analysis, March 2008. National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Ground-level Ozone, Chapter 6. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/6-ozoneriachapter6.pdf.Google Scholar
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2008b. Regulatory Impact Analysis of the Proposed Revisions to the Air Quality Standards for Lead, October. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/finalpbria.pdf.Google Scholar
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009a. Proposed NO2 NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/proposedno2ria.pdf Google Scholar
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009b. Proposed SO2 NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), November 2009. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/pso2full11-16-09.pdf Google Scholar
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2010a. Summary of the Updated Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for the Reconsideration of the 2008 Ozone National Air Quality Standard (NAAQS). January 2010. http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/regdata/RIAs/s1-supplemental_analysis_full.pdf.Google Scholar
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009b. Final NO2 NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA). Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. January 2010. www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html Google Scholar
U.S. EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2009c. Final SO2 NAAQS Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA), June 2010. Research Triangle Park, NC: Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. www.epa.gov/ttn/ecas/ria.html Google Scholar
U.S. EPA – SAB (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency – Science Advisory Board). 2008. Characterizing Uncertainty in Particulate Matter Benefits Using Expert Elicitation. EPA-COUNCIL-08-002. Washington, DC: U.S. EPA.Google Scholar