Estimated Benefits of the 

Proposed Toxics Rule

B i fi f th I t G B

riefing for th

e I

n

teragency Group

March 1, 2011
PM2 5 CO-BENEFITS 

Interagency Toxics Rule benefits briefingPM2.5 CO BENEFITS ESTIMATES

Deliberative: do not cite or quote.
Overview of Co-Benefits Analys

► PM2.5-related co-benefits of proposed rule modele

benefit per ton (BPT) estimates

► BPT estimates calculated based on CMAQ-modeled s

► Broad-scale SO

2 reductions produced substantial 

related co-benefits

► Benefits chapter summarizes the PM2.5 co-benefits of 

proposed rule

► Appendix to RIA contains PM2.5 health co-benefits an

recreational visibility benefits estimates in eastern Clafor CMAQ-modeled scenario

► RIA also summarizes substantial set of benefits t

cannot be monetized

► Approach is generally consistent with proposed Transport Rule analysis

Deliberative: do not cite or quote.
2016 Toxics Rule Estimated 

PM2.5 Co-Benefits

Summary of health impacts avoided

Monetized health anbenefits

A

Health endpoint Value

PM2.5-related death

benefits

A

Endpoint 

(bil

Human healthB

ACS-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 H6C-based estimate 

Chronic bronchitis 4,500 (150—8,700)

Non-fatal heart attacks 11,000 (2,700

—19,000)

Respiratory hospitalizations 1,700 (660—2,600)

Emergency department visits 3,600 (2 500 4 200)

(2,500

—

4,200)

A All values rounded to two significanand Hg-related benefits. B Discounted at 3%

Deliberative: do n
MERCURY BENEFITS 

Interagency Toxics Rule benefits briefingESTIMATES

Deliberative: do not cite or quote.
RIA Mercury Benefits Assessment

► Benefits of avoided IQ loss due to reduced mercury emiss

ultimately, lower mercury concentrations in self-caught fresfi hs

h

► Quantitative national-scale assessment of mercury-rela

benefits among recreational freshwater anglers

► Assessment of disproportionate impacts on IQ among 

high-risk subpopulations

► We can say that X% of children in a given subpopu

have a risk of at least 1 IQ point loss, but will not knmany individuals that percentage represents

► Mercury-related cardiovascular impacts will be addressed 

qualitatively, and not included as part of the primary benefestimate

► We provide qualitative discussion of ecological benefits of 

reductions and benefits of non-mercury HAP reductions

Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite or Quote
RIA 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 

– chan

ge in fish tissue concentrations

► National Survey on Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife-Associated 

► 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 o

and the Environment

► IQ Dose-Response

► Axelrad (2009) – meta-analysis 

► IQ Valuation

► Based on approach in 2008 Lead Rule

Draft – Deliberative – Do Not Cite or Quote
RIA Mercury Benefits Assessme

continued► Sub-Population Distributional Analysis

► Models distribution of population risk, but does no

focused coverage for high-end risk

► By contrast – A&N analysis focused on characterizing re

high-end risk for these same populations

► Populations covered: 

► Low-income African American and White 

recreational/subsistence fishers

– Southeast U.S.

► Low-income female recreational/subsistence fishe► Laotian subsistence fishers► Hispanic subsistence fishers► Great Lakes Chippewa/ Great Lakes Chippewa/Ojibwe
RIA Mercury Benefits Assessme

Results► National Scale

Emission Reduction Scenario

Decrease in 

Average IQ 

Loss per 

Prenatally 

Exposed Child 

(dIQ)

Decrease in 

Total IQ 

Losses from 

One Year of 

Ex

posure

Present Value of Decrease in Total IQ Losses (millions 20

( Q)

p 3% Discount Rate 7% Discount 

2005 EGU zero-out 

(relative to 2005 base case )

0.00829 1983.3 $16 – $23 $1.7 – $3

2016 base case 

(relative to 2005 base 

)

0.00684 1125.5 $9.0 – $1.2 $0.1 – $2

case

2016 EGU zero-out 

(relative to 2016 base case)

0.00285 697.2 $5.6 – $8.0 $0.6 – $1

2016 Toxics Rule 

(relative to 2005 base 0.00893 1636.3 $1.3 – $1.9 $1.4 – $2

case)

2016 Toxics Rule 

(relative to 2016 base case)

0.00209 510.8 $4.1 – $5.8 $0.4 – $0
RIA Mercury Benefits Assessme

Results, Cont Results, Cont d’

d

► Sub-Populations

► Low

-income African income African

-American subsistence American subsistence

–level fishers in t

level fishers in t

southeast median avoided loss is 0.032 IQ points; 95th perce

0.274 IQ Points

► Low-income white subsistence –level fishers in the southeas

avoided loss is 0.002 IQ points; 95th percentile loss is 0.0.04

► Low-income female subsistence-level fishers median avoide

0.001 IQ points; 95th percentile loss is 0.0.053 IQ Points

► Hispanic subsistence-level fishers median avoided loss is 0.

points; 95th percentile loss is 0.030 IQ Points

► Laotian subsistence-level fishers median avoided loss is 0.0

points; 95th points; 95 percentile loss is 0 047 IQ Points percentile loss is

0.047 IQ Points

► Chippewa tribal members in the Great Lakes median avoide

0.005 IQ points; 95th percentile loss is 0.041 IQ Points
APPENDIX

Interagency Toxics Rule benefits briefing

Deliberative: do not cite or quote.
Pollutant and Endpoint Incidence estimate 

(95% fid i t (95% confidence i

n

terv

PM2.5

Premature mortality

Pope et al (2002) et al. (2002) 6 800 ,

(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

(-2 400 , —23 000) 23,000)

Lower and upper respiratory symptoms 230,000

(70,000—470,000)

Minor restricted activity days 5,100,000

(, , 4 100 000—6,,) 000 000)

Lost work days 850,000

(720,000—980,000)

Asthma exacerbation 120,000

(4,100—390,000)