Inconsistencies in Risk Analyses for Ambient Air Pollutant Regulations

This article describes inconsistencies between health risk analyses that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) uses to support its decisions on primary National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), and in the associated Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) that accompany each NAAQS rulemaking. Quantitative risk estimates are prepared during the NAAQS‐setting deliberations using inputs derived from statistical associations between measured pollutant concentrations and health effects. The resulting risk estimates are not directly used to set a NAAQS, but incorporated into a broader evidence‐based rationale for the standard that is intended to demonstrate conformity with the statutory requirement that primary NAAQS protect the public health with a margin of safety. In a separate process, EPA staff rely on the same risk calculations to prepare estimates of the benefits of the rule that are reported in its RIA for the standard. Although NAAQS rules and their RIAs are released simultaneously, the rationales used to set the NAAQS have become inconsistent with their RIAs’ estimates of benefits, with very large fractions of RIAs’ risk‐reduction estimates being attributed to populations living in areas that will already be attaining the respective NAAQS. This article explains the source of this inconsistency and provides a quantitative example based on the 2012 revision of the fine particulate matter (PM2.5) primary NAAQS. This article also demonstrates how this inconsistency is amplified when criteria pollutant co‐benefits are calculated in RIAs for non‐NAAQS rules, using quantitative examples from the 2011 Mercury and Air Toxics Standards and the currently proposed Clean Power Plan.