Estimated Benefits of theProposed Toxics RuleB i fi f th I t GBriefingfortheInteragencyGroupMarch 1, 2011PM2 5CO-BENEFITSInteragency Toxics Rule benefits briefingPM2.5COBENEFITSESTIMATESDeliberative: do not cite or quote.Overview of Co-Benefits Analysis►PM2.5-related co-benefits of proposed rule modeled usingbenefit per ton (BPT) estimates►BPT estimates calculated based on CMAQ-modeled scenario►Broad-scale SO2reductions produced substantial PM2.5-related co-benefits►Benefits chapter summarizes the PM2.5co-benefits of theproposed rule►Appendix to RIA contains PM2.5health co-benefits andrecreational visibility benefits estimates in eastern Class I areasfor CMAQ-modeled scenario►RIA also summarizes substantial set of benefits thatcannot be monetized►Approach is generally consistent with proposedTransport Rule analysisDeliberative: do not cite or quote.2016 Toxics Rule EstimatedPM2.5Co-BenefitsSummary of health impactsavoidedMonetized health and welfarebenefitsAHealth endpoint ValuePM2.5-related deathbenefitsAEndpoint Value(billions of 2006$)Human healthBACS-based estimate(Pope et al. 2002)6,800(1,900—12,000)H6C-based estimate(Laden et al. 2006)17,000(8,000—27,000)ACS-based estimate$57($4.6—$180)H6C-based estimate$140($12—$410)Chronic bronchitis4,500(150—8,700)Non-fatal heart attacks11,000(2,700—19,000)()Respiratory hospitalizations1,700(660—2,600)Emergency department visits3,600(2 5004 200)3(2,500—4,200)AAll values rounded to two significant figures. Excludes CO2and Hg-related benefits.BDiscounted at 3%Deliberative:donotciteorquote.MERCURY BENEFITSInteragency Toxics Rule benefits briefingESTIMATESDeliberative: do not cite or quote.4RIA Mercury Benefits Assessment►Benefits of avoided IQ loss due to reduced mercury emissions and,ultimately, lower mercury concentrations in self-caught freshwaterfi hsh►Quantitative national-scale assessment of mercury-relatedbenefits among recreational freshwater anglers►Assessment of disproportionate impacts on IQ among selectedhigh-risk subpopulations►We can say that X% of children in a given subpopulationhave a risk of at least 1 IQ pointloss, but will not know howmany individuals that percentage represents►Mercury-related cardiovascular impacts will be addressedqualitatively, and not included aspart of the primary benefitsestimate►We provide qualitative discussion of ecological benefits of mercuryreductions and benefits of non-mercury HAP reductionsDraft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite or QuoteRIA Mercury Benefits Assessment,continued►National Scale Analysis►Fish Tissue Dataset►National Listing of Fish and Wildlife Advisories►USGS compilations►EPA National Study of River and Stream Fish Tissue►MMAPS model–change in fish tissue concentrations►National Survey on Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated Recreation►Estimate of total national population of anglers►Modified Population Centroid Model►Mean recreational fisher ingestion rate►Central estimate for fish concentration►Data on fishing trip frequency and travel distance from National Survey on Recreationand the Environment►IQ Dose-Response►Axelrad (2009) – meta-analysis►IQ Valuation►Based on approach in 2008 Lead RuleDraft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite or QuoteRIA Mercury Benefits Assessment,continued►Sub-Population Distributional Analysis►Models distribution of population risk, but does not providefocused coverage for high-end risk►By contrast – A&N analysis focused on characterizing reasonablehigh-end risk for these same populations►Populations covered:►Low-income African American and Whiterecreational/subsistence fishers– Southeast U.S.►Low-income female recreational/subsistence fishers►Laotian subsistence fishers►Hispanic subsistence fishers►Great Lakes Chippewa/OjibweGreatLakesChippewa/RIA Mercury Benefits AssessmentResults►National ScaleEmission ReductionScenarioDecrease inAverage IQLoss perPrenatallyExposed Child(dIQ)Decrease inTotal IQLosses fromOne Year ofExposurePresent Value of Decrease in Total IQ Losses (millions 2006 dollars)3% Discount Rate 7% Discount Rate( Q)p2005 EGU zero-out(relative to 2005 basecase )0.00829 1983.3 $16 – $23 $1.7 – $3.42016 base case(relative to 2005 base)0.00684 1125.5 $9.0 – $1.2 $0.1 – $2.0case2016 EGU zero-out(relative to 2016 basecase)0.00285 697.2 $5.6 – $8.0 $0.6 – $1.22016 Toxics Rule(relative to 2005 base 0.00893 1636.3 $1.3 – $1.9 $1.4 – $2,.5case)2016 Toxics Rule(relative to 2016base case)0.00209 510.8 $4.1 – $5.8 $0.4 – $0.9RIA Mercury Benefits AssessmentResults, Cont’dResults,Cont d►Sub-Populations►Low-income African-American subsistence–level fishers in theincomeAfricanAmericansubsistencelevelfishersinthesoutheast median avoided loss is 0.032 IQ points; 95thpercentile loss is0.274 IQ Points►Low-income white subsistence –level fishers in the southeast medianavoided loss is 0.002 IQ points; 95thpercentile loss is 0.0.045 IQ Points►Low-income female subsistence-level fishers median avoided loss is0.001 IQ points; 95thpercentile loss is 0.0.053 IQ Points►Hispanic subsistence-level fishers median avoided loss is 0.001 IQpoints; 95thpercentile loss is 0.030 IQ Points►Laotian subsistence-level fishers median avoided loss is 0.001 IQpoints; 95thpercentile loss is 0 047 IQ Pointspoints;95percentilelossis0.047IQPoints►Chippewa tribal members in the Great Lakes median avoided loss is0.005 IQ points; 95thpercentile loss is 0.041 IQ PointsAPPENDIXInteragency Toxics Rule benefits briefingDeliberative:donotciteorquote.Pollutant and Endpoint Incidence estimate(95% fid i t l)(95%confidenceinterval)PM2.5Premature mortalityPopeet al (2002)6 800et al.(2002),(1,900—12,000)Laden et al. (2006) 17,000(8,000—27,000)Non-fatal heart attacks 11,000(2,700—19,000)Respiratory hospital admissions 1,700(660—2,600)Cardiovascular hospital admissions 3,600(2,500—4,200)Respiratory emergency room visits 6,900(3,600—10,000)Acute bronchitis 11,000(2 40023 000)-,—23,000)Lower and upper respiratory symptoms 230,000(70,000—470,000)Minor restricted activity days 5,100,000(4100000—6,000000), ,,)Lost work days 850,000(720,000—980,000)Asthma exacerbation 120,000(4,100—390,000)11