[Dioxin-l] EPA/SAB to re-value cancer deaths

[Tony Tweedale]

the factors thaey will consider (below) sound somewhat promising--perhaps
some support can be shown? (or criticsm, as appropriate).
--

2--Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC)

    The Environmental Economics Advisory Committee (EEAC) of the
Science Advisory Board (SAB) will meet on Friday, February 25, 2000, at
the Madison Hotel, 15th and M Streets, NW, Washington, DC 20005;
telephone number (202) 862-1600. The meeting will be held in the
Arlington-Monticello Room and it will begin at 9:00 am and end no later
than 4:00 pm.

Purpose of the Meeting

    The EEAC is meeting to consider and to provide advice and comment
to EPA on its white paper entitled, Valuing Fatal Cancer Risk
Reductions.

Background Information

    The draft EPA Guidelines for Preparing Economic Analyses
(Guidelines) provide information and guidance on the valuation of
reduced mortality risks. They note that one practical means to value
changes in mortality risks is to use the Value of a Statistical Life
(VSL) approach. The Guidelines describe a number of important factors
to consider in applying benefit transfer approaches using VSL estimates
from the empirical literature on wage-risk tradeoffs. The Agency
Guidelines, recognizing the importance of this benefit category, noted
EPA's commitment to ``continue to conduct annual reviews of the risk
valuation literature'' and ``reconsider and revise the recommendations
in these guidelines accordingly.'' Further, EPA committed to ``seek
advice from the Science Advisory Board as guidance recommendations are
revised.'' The Agency is now returning to the SAB-EEAC to obtain
additional counsel on this subject.
    The importance of these issues was articulated in a recently
proposed regulation to reduce human health risks from radon in drinking
water. The proposed rule estimated the number of reduced fatal cancers
resulting from different regulatory options. The Agency presented
information on the economic values for the reductions in fatal cancer
risks, along with other quantified benefits. A brief discussion of some
of the benefit transfer issues involved in this estimation was
published in the preamble to the proposed rule for setting standards
for exposure to radon from drinking water sources (Federal Register,
November 2, 1999 volume 64, Number 211, pages 59245-59378).
    In the process of responding to reviews prepared during
deliberations on the proposed radon rule, the Agency found that the
Guidelines lack sufficient detail on how to fully evaluate and
characterize the different risk attributes that are central to a
complete understanding of the benefit-cost implications of this rule.
For example, time can pass between the point of initial exposure to a
carcinogen, the biological manifestation or onset of cancer in the
body, the medical diagnosis of cancer, and death caused by the cancer.
During development of policies affecting cancer risks, suggestions have
been made to discount the VSL estimate to account for latencies, or the
delay in time between reduced exposure and when the cancer death would
have occurred absent the exposure reduction (even though latency
periods may not be known or well-understood).
    Others argued that a suitable approach for valuing benefits from
reduced cancer risks must consider simultaneously all of the benefit
transfer factors related to valuing cancer risks to ensure a careful
and full treatment of benefits. There is evidence in the economics
literature regarding many such factors (e.g., potential premiums
ascribed to cancer risk reductions due to a higher willingness to pay
to avoid the dread, pain and suffering, morbidity effects, and other
features of cancer endpoints) that may suggest introducing upward
adjustment factors which offset any potential downward adjustments
caused by accounting for cancer latency. In addition, proponents argue
that adjustments for the age of population at risk, income, altruism
and other risk characteristics (e.g., controllability, voluntariness)
can all have some potential influence on the value of a statistical
cancer fatality (VSCF) and

[[Page 5639]]

therefore need to be reflected in the quantitative benefit assessment.
    While developing the primary benefit estimates for reduced fatal
cancer risks in the proposed radon rule, questions arose regarding the
implementation of adjustments for some factors, but not others. For
example, would it ever be appropriate to adjust only for latency
periods, and not other factors, in the valuation of reduced cancer
deaths? The Agency is requesting the SAB's counsel to help answer this
and related questions regarding the valuation of cancer risks.

Charge to the Committee

    The Agency has requested a review by the SAB-EEAC of its ``white
paper'' on approaches to estimating the benefits of reduced fatal
cancer risks. The principal questions for the Science Advisory Board
are:
    (a) Does the white paper accurately describe the empirical economic
literature relevant to the benefit transfer issues that ensue when
using the VSL literature to estimate the VSCF in a benefit-cost
analysis?
    (b) Does the white paper present the important risk and demographic
factors that can affect benefit transfer approaches that use VSL
estimates for VSCF?
    (c) Does the white paper accurately describe attempts in the
economic literature to measure VSCF directly?
    (d) There are two numeric case studies of environmental cancer
risks developed for the white paper. Each presents risk assessment
information that forms the basis for quantifying the number of
statistical cancer fatalities that will be reduced as a consequence of
a hypothetical proposed environmental policy. The case studies are used
to illustrate the outcome of using direct measures of the VSCF and
benefit transfer adjustments to VSL estimates in order to calculate the
VSCF.
    (1) Which of the valuation approaches applied to the case study
designated as ALPHA are valid to use? Does this case study omit any
credible alternative protocols for valuing reductions in fatal cancer
risks for benefit-cost analyses of environmental programs?
    (2) Which of the valuation approaches applied to the case study
designated as OMEGA are valid to use? Does this case study omit any
credible alternative protocols for valuing reductions in fatal cancer
risks for benefit-cost analyses of environmental programs?
    (e) Which economic methods illustrated with the case studies, or
additional methods identified by the Committee under charge question
d), serve as credible protocols for the Agency to use in representing
quantitative data, qualitative information, and sensitivity analyses
for the economic value of reduced fatal cancer risks reported in
benefit-cost analyses?

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: Members of the public desiring additional
information about the meeting should contact Mr. Thomas Miller,
Designated Federal Officer, Environmental Economics Advisory Committee
(EEAC), USEPA Science Advisory Board (1400A), Room 6450, 1200
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; telephone/voice mail at
(202) 564-4558; fax at (202) 501-0582; or via e-mail at
miller.tom@epa.gov>. For a copy of the draft meeting agenda, please
contact Ms. Dorothy Clark, Management Assistant at (202) 564-4537 or by
FAX at (202) 501-0582 or via e-mail at clark.dorothy@epa.gov>. Single
copies of the background document, Valuing Fatal Cancer Risk Reductions
can be obtained by contacting Mr. Brett Snyder, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Office of Policy and Reinvention (Mail Drop 2172),
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW, Washington, DC, 20460, (202) 260-5610, FAX
(202) 260-2685, or via email at: snyder.brett@epa.gov>.

Providing Oral or Written Comments

    Members of the public who wish to make a brief oral presentation to
the Committee must contact Mr. Thomas Miller, Designated Federal
Officer for the Environmental Economics Advisory Committee, in writing
(by letter or fax) no later than 4:00 pm Eastern Time, Thursday,
February 17, 2000, at the address noted above in order to be included
on the agenda. The request should identify the name of the individual
who will make the presentation, the organization (if any) they will
represent, any audio-visual equipment (e.g., overhead projector, 35 mm
projector, chalkboard, etc.), and at least 35 copies of an outline of
the issues to be addressed or the presentation itself. To discuss
technical aspects of the meeting, please contact Mr. Miller by
telephone at (202) 564-4558. For a copy of the draft agenda please
contact Ms. Dorothy Clark, Management Assistant, at (202) 564-4537, or
by FAX at (202) 501-0582 or via e-mail at clark.dorothy@epa.gov>.

Providing Oral or Written Comments at SAB Meetings

    The Science Advisory Board expects that public statements presented
at its meetings will not be repetitive of previously submitted oral or
written statements. In general, each individual or group making an oral
presentation will be limited to a total time of ten minutes. Written
comments (at least 35 copies) received in the SAB Staff Office
sufficiently prior to a meeting date (usually one week before the
meeting), may be mailed to the relevant SAB committee or subcommittee;
comments received too close to the meeting date will normally be
provided to the committee at its meeting, or mailed soon after receipt
by the Agency. Written comments may be provided to the relevant
committee or subcommittee up until the time of the meeting.
    Additional information concerning the Science Advisory Board, its
structure, function, and composition, may be found on the SAB Website
(http://www.epa.gov/sab) and in the Annual Report of the Staff Director
which is available from the SAB Publications Staff at (202) 564-4533 or
via fax at (202) 501-0256.

Meeting Access

    Individuals requiring special accommodation at this meeting,
including wheelchair access, should contact the appropriate DFO at
least five business days prior to the meeting so that appropriate
arrangements can be made.

    Dated: January 28, 2000.
Donald G. Barnes,
Staff Director, Science Advisory Board.
[FR Doc. 00-2477 Filed 2-3-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P