Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2005-0538-0055
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2006-07-06T04:00Z

8.
Benefits
Analysis
This
section
presents
benefits
of
the
CUE
allocation
phaseout
as
compared
to
the
original
methyl
bromide
Phaseout
RIA.

8.1
Basic
Methodology
Framework
The
benefits
of
the
regulation
were
calculated
using
the
Atmospheric
and
Health
Effects
Framework
(
AHEF)
model.
The
AHEF,
which
consists
of
a
series
of
FORTRAN
modules,

produces
estimates
of
the
likely
increases
in
skin
cancer
mortality
and
incidence
and
cataract
incidence
resulting
from
past
and
future
ODS
emission
scenarios,
and
compares
the
changes
in
health
effects
incidence
and/
or
mortality
to
those
that
would
otherwise
exist
under
a
the
1979­

1980
baseline
scenario
of
no­
further­
ozone­
depletion
scenario
(
i.
e.,
no
depletion
beyond
that
which
existed
in
the
1979­
1980
time
period).
The
AHEF
compares
these
differences
across
policy
and
control
scenarios
to
estimate
the
additional
benefits
of
each
scenario
based
on
the
degree
of
ODS
control
stringency
(
ICF
2000a).

8.2
Input
Data
The
primary
input
for
the
AHEF
is
methyl
bromide
emissions
data
(
see
Appendix
B).
The
emissions
model
is
based
upon
the
assumption
that
50
percent
of
methyl
bromide
consumed
for
treatment
of
agricultural
soils
is
ultimately
emitted
to
the
atmosphere.
1
This
analysis
of
benefits
is
for
pre­
plant
and
post­
harvest
methyl
bromide
uses
for
both
the
original
and
CUE
phaseout
scenarios.
Consumption
data
are
derived
from
figures
reported
to
National
Ozone
Units
and
the
Montreal
Protocol
Secretariat.
In
the
baseline
scenario,
growth
in
future
emissions
was
constrained
to
account
for
actual
methyl
bromide
consumption,
as
well
as
the
freeze
required
by
the
Montreal
Protocol
for
both
developed
and
developing
countries.
For
purposes
of
this
analysis,

it
is
assumed
that
a
CUE
level
equal
to
39%
of
the
1991
baseline
for
2005,
37%
of
the
baseline
for
2006,
and
further
reduction
as
outlined
in
Chapter
4
(
see
Section
4.1)
will
be
implemented.
2
Other
important
inputs
to
the
benefits
assessment
are
unit
values
used
to
monetize
reductions
in
health
effects
due
to
the
phaseout.
In
addition
to
value
of
a
saved
life
(
VSL)

estimates,
other
values
include
costs
for
hospitalization
or
treatment
of
skin
cancer
(
e.
g.,
surgery
or
therapy
for
melanoma
and
non­
melanoma
lesions),
and
medical
treatment
for
cataracts.
To
monetize
the
avoided
health
effects
the
following
input
data
were
used:

1
Emissions
rates
have
been
reported
to
range
from
32
to
87
percent
as
presented
by
UNEP
(
1998).

2
As
paraphrased
by
UNEP
(
1998),
"
For
non­
Article
5(
1)
Parties
operating
under
the
Protocol
(
developed
countries)
.
.
.
A
freeze
on
MB
production
and
consumption
[
is]
based
on
1991
levels
.
.
.
For
Parties
operating
under
Article
5(
1)
of
the
Protocol
(
developing
countries)
a
freeze
on
MB
production
and
consumption
[
is]
based
on
1995­
98
levels
from
1
January
2002
.
.
."
 
Value
of
a
life
saved
is
based
on
EPA
(
1999b).
The
value
used
for
this
analysis
is
$
5.8
million.
 
Value
of
avoided
non­
fatal
melanoma
skin
cancer
is
based
on
ICF
(
1999a).
The
value
used
for
this
analysis
is
$
12,500.
 
Value
of
avoided
non­
melanoma
skin
cancer
is
based
on
ICF
(
1999b).
The
value
used
for
this
analysis
is
$
1,250.
 
Value
of
avoided
cataract
is
based
on
ICF
(
1999c).
The
value
used
for
this
analysis
is
$
2,500.

These
values
were
used
in
the
Phaseout
RIA
and
are
used
here
to
maintain
consistency
between
the
monetized
estimates
of
benefits
presented
in
that
analysis
and
the
estimates
presented
here.

8.3
Results
of
the
Benefits
Analysis
for
the
CUE
Scenario
Exhibit
8.3.1
presents
preliminary
estimates
of
the
increases
in
human
health
effects
expected
from
the
CUE
scenario,
compared
to
the
methyl
bromide
phaseout,
as
estimated
by
the
AHEF.
As
stated
previously,
benefits
were
monetized
by
multiplying
the
reduced
morbidity
and
mortality
estimates
by
their
respective
unit
value.
Note
that
the
monetized
values
are
based
on
the
central
incremental
case
value
in
Exhibit
8.3.1.
Monetized
values
are
not
provided
for
the
uncertainty
range
of
incremental
cases.
As
shown,
the
benefits
of
the
proposed
CUE
allocations
in
the
United
States
are
estimated
to
have
decreased
by
$
783.8
million
(
undiscounted
relative
to
the
original
2005
phaseout).
Benefits
were
also
assessed
at
discount
rates
of
7,
3,
and
1
percent.
As
shown
by
Exhibit
8.3.2,
discounted
benefits
decreased
$
60
million
and
$
209
million
at
7
and
3
percent,
respectively.
On
an
annualized
basis,
the
decrease
in
benefits
range
from
$
4.4
million
to
$
8.0
million
at
7
and
3
percent
discount
rates,
respectively.
Exhibit
8.3.1.
Decreased
Human
Health
Benefits
from
CUE
allocations
compared
to
the
Methyl
Bromide
Phaseout
in
the
United
States
in
2005
(
1999­
2150)

Cutaneous
Malignant
Melanoma
Non­
melanoma
Skin
Cancer
Cataract
Incidence
Mortality
Basal
Cell
Incidence
Squamous
Cell
Incidence
Mortality
Incidence
Incremental
Cases
a
(
Uncertainty
Range)
660
(
264
 
1,056)
83
(
33
 
133)
15,809
(
6,324
­
25,294)
7,752
(
3,101
 
12,403)
42
(
17
 
67)
8,105
(
3,242
 
12,968)
Unit
Value
(
1999$)
$
12,500
$
5.8
million
$
1,250
$
1,250
$
5.8
million
$
2,500
Monetized
Benefit
(
undiscounted)
­$
8.3
million
­$
481.5
million
­$
19.8
million
­$
9.7
million
­$
244.2
million
­$
20.3
million
a
Values
in
parentheses
represent
an
uncertainty
range
of
approximately
60%
(
0.6),
based
on
health
effects
uncertainties
for
the
following
factors:
0.50
for
action
spectrum
values,
0.05
for
the
UV
radiative
transfer
modeling
step,
0.30
for
the
biological
amplification
factor
(
BAF),
and
0.10
for
the
choice
of
dose
metric
used
in
the
AHEF.
The
value
of
0.6
is
the
square
root
of
the
sum
of
the
squared
uncertainty
terms.

Exhibit
8.3.2.
Decreased
Human
Health
Benefits
from
CUE
allocations
compared
to
the
Methyl
Bromide
Phaseout
in
the
United
States
in
2005
(
1999­
2150)

Scenario
Benefits
(
1997$)

Undiscounted
NPV
($
783.8
million)

Annualized
$
15.1
million)

Discount
Rate:
7
percent
NPV
($
60.4
million)

Annualized
($
4.4
million)

Discount
Rate:
3
percent
NPV
($
208.6
million)

Annualized
($
8.0
million)

Discount
Rate:
1
percent
NPV
($
479.8
million)

Annualized
($
11.9
million)

8.4
Unquantified
Benefits
Changes
in
the
incidence
and
mortality
for
the
numbers
of
skin
cancers
and
incidence
for
cataracts
are
not
the
only
indicators
of
the
damage
to
human
health
and
the
environment
that
result
from
increases
in
UV
radiation
due
to
ozone
depletion.
Increased
UV
radiation
can
cause
a
wide
variety
of
additional
human
health
problems,
including
actinic
keratosis
(
a
skin
disease)
and
immune
system
disorders.
Increased
UV
levels
also
lead
to
higher
concentrations
of
tropospheric
ozone
(
smog)
that
can
adversely
impact
human
respiratory
and
pulmonary
systems.

Furthermore,
the
impact
of
ozone
depletion
is
not
limited
to
humans;
plants
and
animals
can
also
suffer
serious
consequences
from
UV
radiation.
Overall,
in
addition
to
fewer
skin
cancers
and
cataracts,
the
following
endpoints
are
expected
to
change
due
to
the
phaseout
modifications.

Increase
in:

 
mortality
from
acute
exposure;
3
 
immune
system
suppression;
 
aquatic
and
terrestrial
ecosystem
disruption,
including
reproductive/
developmental
effects,
immune
system
suppression;
 
impacts
on
agriculture
such
as
decreased
plant
productivity,
slowed
metabolism,
hastened
plant
disease;
 
impacts
on
materials
(
i.
e.,
accelerated
breakdown
of
plastics
and
other
synthetics);
and
 
lost
productivity
and
evacuations.

Therefore,
negative
unquantified
impacts
will
follow
in
each
of
these
areas
as
a
result
of
the
CUE.

3
Incremental
human
health
effects
due
to
acute
exposure
expected
from
the
CUE
scenario
were
examined
for
this
analysis.
Between
2005
and
2018,
5.4
fatalities
are
expected
due
to
acute
methyl
bromide
exposure
and
106.3
cases
of
acute
methyl
bromide
exposure
are
expected
in
California.
Benefits
(
or
lost
benefits)
associated
with
acute
exposure
to
methyl
bromide
are
not
examined
further
in
this
document,
as
analysis
of
these
exposures
fall
under
the
purview
of
the
Office
of
Pesticide
Programs
(
OPP)
and
any
re­
registration
requirements
under
FIFRA.
(
CADPR
2000,
EPA
1999b,
ICF
1999).