Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2008-0253-0075
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2008-07-01T04:00Z

"King, Heidi R." <Heidi_R._King@omb.eop.gov> 

05/05/2008 04:51 PM

	

To

Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

cc

Kathy Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Neal
Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Onyemaechi Nweke/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Tricia
Crabtree/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA

Subject

RE: Updated lead benefits chapter

You're right - I was ambiguous in my early morning fervor -- I meant to

continue the sentence ".. continued populations declines in mean BLL"

All sounds good !!

Thank you Ron,

heidi

-----Original Message-----

From: Evans.Ron@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Evans.Ron@epamail.epa.gov] 

Sent: Monday, May 05, 2008 4:50 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Kaufman.Kathy@epamail.epa.gov; Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov;

Fann.Neal@epamail.epa.gov; Nweke.Onyemaechi@epamail.epa.gov;

Crabtree.Tricia@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: RE: Updated lead benefits chapter

Heidi, Neal is out of town until Wednesday so some of the details will

need to wait until then.   Generally, your changes in the introduction

about the 2002 baseline are something we can work with.  However, once

Neal is back we need to work on details.   For example, I am committed

to trying to update the baseline to reflect the LRR rule in time for the

final RIA, but at this time I am not sure if or how we can do it.

Likewise, I am not sure what you mean about continued population

declines.   Are you referring to the population exposed to Pb or a

broader population?   Anyway, I just wanted to let you know that I am

conceptually OK with your approach but we will have some questions once

Neal returns.

From Heidi's addition for reference

This draft RIA seeks to estimate both costs and benefits for the year

2020; however this draft represents initial estimates using a 2002

baseline blood lead level, resulting in a possible overestimate of

benefits in the year 2020.  Prior to completion of the final draft,

assumptions will be revisited and the baseline updated to reflect

expected effects on blood lead levels from other lead rules and

potentially from continued population declines.

                                                                        

             "King, Heidi R."                                           

             <Heidi_R._King@o                                           

             mb.eop.gov>                                             To 

                                      Neal Fann/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA        

             05/05/2008 11:35                                        cc 

             AM                       Lydia Wegman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,    

                                      Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Kathy 

                                      Kaufman/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA,         

                                      Onyemaechi Nweke/DC/USEPA/US@EPA  

                                                                Subject 

                                      RE: Updated lead benefits chapter 

                                                                        

                                                                        

                                                                        

                                                                        

                                                                        

                                                                        

Hi Neal and Ron,

-  I marked up just the first page of Chap 5 to give a sense of the

caveats commenters sought on this initial RIA, as well as the direction

for the final.  Don't hesitate to call if you want to talk through the

comments.

-  Also, one commenter asked for deletion of Neonatal Mortality.  I

believe this might be both uncertain and also at much higher lead levels

than are typically seen under current conditions.  Let me know if we

should discuss.

-  Lastly, Hilts estimates a 1:6 ratio.  The 1:7 was, I believe,

calculated by EPA using a pre- point that was a spike in the time-series

decline.  If the RIA includes the 1:7, should we reference that this is

an EPA calculation, and not from Hilts?  There are several places in the

chapter where the 1:7 is attributed to Hilts.

With new reading glasses on,

heidi

From: Fann.Neal@epamail.epa.gov [mailto:Fann.Neal@epamail.epa.gov]

Sent: Thursday, May 01, 2008 7:25 PM

To: King, Heidi R.

Cc: Wegman.Lydia@epamail.epa.gov; Evans.Ron@epamail.epa.gov;

Kaufman.Kathy@epamail.epa.gov; Nweke.Onyemaechi@epamail.epa.gov

Subject: Updated lead benefits chapter

Heidi,

I'm passing back a new version of the lead benefits chapter. Ron

indicated that I should send this along to you directly as a means of

expediting the review process.

Compared to the last version we sent you, the three primary changes are:

--conforming edits to the RIA to reflect discussion of both air:blood

uncertainty and the summary table of IQ functions found in the NPRM.

--in response to a request from OPEI, additional elaboration evaluating

the adult endpoint literature. Specifically, I added language from the

criteria document summarizing the limitations of the more recently

published lead-cardiovascular mortality studies.

--added discussion of the effect of reductions in background blood-lead

levels on our estimates of total benefits. Added footnotes to relevant

results tables.

I apologize in advance if I've overlooked any of your comments. I'm

hopeful that with these changes we can soon finalize this chapter.

Thanks,

Neal

_________________________________

Neal Fann

USEPA

Office of Air Quality Planning & Standards

Air Benefit and Cost Group

C439-02

RTP, NC 27711

voice: (919) 541-0209

fax:     (919) 541-0839[attachment "Ch 5 Benefits Analysis Approach and

Results 5-1-08_20080505.doc" deleted by Ron Evans/RTP/USEPA/US]