How People Evaluate Hazards Figure 2. Framework for Risk Management Summary Concerns about the economic effects of EPA's regulatory process have led Congress to consider requiring analysis of risks, costs, and benefits of regulations. Proponents of such analysis want analytic results used to design more efficient management strategies and to prioritize environmental problems for federal attention. Opponents argue that mandated analysis would delay new regulations and ultimately force EPA to conform decisions to analytic results, regardless of the quality of data. EPA functions under a number of environmental statutes, which differ greatly in the discretion they grant to consider risks and costs, and general mandates issued by Presidents and Congress to federal agencies to increase their use of risk and cost-benefit analysis.
Answers depend in part on the quality of available data, which vanes.
Notably, many environmentalists and others oppose any efforts to increase the role of economic analysis in making environmental policy. H.R. 1704, as reported, and S. 1675, as introduced, would establish a Congressional Office of Regulatory Analysis to conduct regulatory impact assessment on major rules. An appendix defines environmental risk analysis as the process of summarizing available scientific information about hazardous activities, chemicals, or technologies and their potential effects on exposed animals or people under various conditions. Introduction Many Governors, Mayors, Members of Congress, and others are concerned about the high cost of compliance with environmental regulations. Some stress that federal regulations often require large investments by the regulated community for the sake of producing small improvements in environmental quality and human health protection.