Dr. Anne Mellinger-Birdsong, medical education advisor to Mothers and Others For Clean Air, submitted comments to the EPA about the new proposal affecting cost-benefit analysis for environmental assessments.
The summary of our reason to oppose this rule is:
1) it is not needed,
2) it does not address any health issues,
3) it is so vaguely written it is hard to determine what it will do, and
4) it appears to limit use of studies about health.
“EPA is charged first and foremost with protecting our health, and this rule appears like it could harm our health and not protect. And again we ask: why is the EPA using its legal processes and mechanisms to propose a rule that doesn’t address the protection of health?”
If you would like to read more about EPA’s proposal, click here and you will see the main information page with links to the EPA proposal, the comments from the public hearings, and other written comments that have already been submitted.
The complete comments we submitted are below:
“This proposal is so vaguely worded it is hard to figure out what health concern it is addressing and how it will affect future EPA actions.
This proposal also does not address any health issues, which are one of EPA’s main considerations when issuing regulations and taking actions. Much of this rule is about processes and procedures. There is no need for this to be an official rule, as there are already guidelines and an executive order that address cost-benefit analyses. Making this an official rule could trigger a great deal of litigation. Concerns like those mentioned in this proposal are better handled through the guidelines. Cost-benefit analyses can be very technical and very complex, and it is difficult for a rule or any commenters who are commenting now to anticipate issues or concerns that could arise in the future. Guidelines are better for addressing variations that could arise for unique situations, and guidelines can be clarified much more easily. In addition, EPA does not provide documentation of any problem that this rule is supposed to solve.
This proposal appears to preclude use of co-benefits. In the section on Quantifying Health Endpoints, it states: “the pollutant analyzed in the study matches the pollutant of interest in the regulation.” This seems to indicate that studies will only be used if the study analyzes the pollutant of interest in the regulation, which excludes co-benefits. However, reducing one pollutant often reduces multiple pollutants. Air pollution is a complex mixture of multiple pollutants. In the real world, pollution sources emit multiple pollutants which cause complex health effects to human bodies. Additionally, any one pollutant can have complex health effects for multiple organ systems in the body. A complex mixture of multiple pollutants each affecting multiple organ systems can be expected to have complex health effects and be difficult to disentangle. Reducing all the pollutants improves health, and they should all be considered in the benefits. Having fewer people die, have heart attacks or strokes or develop cancer is a health benefit, and all health benefits should be considered. In addition, some studies don’t analyze individual pollutants but mixes, such as proximity to roads or traffic.
This proposal also appears to preclude the use of multi-city studies, because of the sentence that says “(b) the study location must be appropriately matched to the analysis; and (c) the study population characteristics must be sufficiently similar to those of the analysis.” Clause (b) seems to say that any cost benefit analysis could only use studies of a location that matches those in the analysis. This would appear to eliminate studies down in other countries, or perhaps even different parts of the United States. But it is so vaguely worded it is impossible to tell. Clause (c) says study populations must be “sufficiently similar” but doesn’t specify what “sufficiently similar” is. Could it be demographics – race, gender, ethnicity, age? Could it be other things? This clause is also too vague to determine what it really means.
This proposal is very difficult to determine exactly what it means, and what it will do. It is partly vaguely worded, partly very convoluted and obtuse, and partly just a scientific sounding word mixture. I have a medical degree and a degree in epidemiology, I have written scientific papers and information for the general public, I have sat on review boards for grant proposals, but I am having difficulty understanding and interpreting much of this proposal.
To summarize, Mothers and Others For Clean Air opposes this proposed rule for these reasons: 1) it is not needed, 2) it does not address any health issues, 3) it is so vaguely written it is hard to determine what it will do, and 4) it appears to limit use of studies about health. EPA is charged first and foremost with protecting our health, and this rule appears like it could harm our health and not protect. And again we ask: why is the EPA using its legal processes and mechanisms to propose a rule that doesn’t address the protection of health?”
08/03/2020
