-------
III-7
CM
*
O
•
*— 4
4}
s
ITS
1—
•— 4
CO
O CM
§ £
§3
^3
1— 0
(/I O
O. Q.
(— C
o
C2 •*""
Z 4J
^C 'O
91
O 4)
£ cn
0.1— cn
Z <
UJ UJ — - •
3* X <«
*•"* JgJ C
SSz
0£ h--^
tjj *SC "^
Sd"
3 •— '
O£ U_
0
I—
|B*4
U.
L&J
z
u_
VO
*
CO
o
m
-•»
o
" •
r*»
CM
. CM
T
UJ
CO
•
^
CO
J*
VO
•
r-4
f*.
• r-t
O
CM
5
PO
uo
*
us
CO
(J
cn
CM
*s^
9>
*
O
t-H
OS
CM
VO
•^
CM
•
CM
UJ
CO
_^
1—
Jjg
UJ
uj
ee
<
O
m
^^
CO
•-4
z
CO
"E
fO
^2
*
4-*
$
«
^
4)
4**
^
I
in"
r^
CL
^
VO
VO
cn
CO
*^s
00
•
VO
p*lk
1— 1
CO
•
«I"J»
4*
. CO
CO
•
00
VO
^
1-4
CM
m
<— i
m
<— i
00
o
^— Ifc
1
o
cn
a.
to
I—
o
m
o"
m
**^
0
f
a.
^
^
VO
CM
^(^
cn
9
ro
^^
0p^
o
^•s
f*^
CVJ
00
rn
CO
CO
00
1— •
^
•
VO
vo
*
12
*^
i-4
10
cn
O
•->
CO
_4
co
o
f*4
O
J^™*
1
o"
cn
0.
{C
o
vn
CM
tO
10
^^ j^J
e
cn
OO 4)
. 4-> cn f—
C 1-4 U
g IM
Q-<»- 0.
-a co 4J
01 t- 0
*j 4) C
.^. > 4>
•a 4> cn
— • f> e
! co •>-
O CO 41 *-
^*
a.
cn js 4^
««•«
•— «
e
3
CO 4)
* iT3
O «/>
^^j>
41
1 «
C
o t-
o
(/< 10
10 ^^
^Q •
i^^
**
C
4J O
in
*^ flu
•*— in
t
C I—-
CD *B
*J C-
§fd
3
U C
1
wt O
4)
(- x
1°.
U ^-i
(^
o. o
e c
o o
4-> 4->
- C
•C C O
t \ 3 «^»
41 *O O
l_ t- -CJ
O O 4»
^« 4^ ^
^«^
CM
•g
>
X
Ck.
co
o
o
IM-4
a.
^
4)
_— ^
CO
-------
III-8
and TSP standards under consideration. The benefits are incremental
since they are calculated for incremental improvements in air quality from a
baseline scenario that factors in existing controls and new source regula-
tions. Table III. C.I lists the benefits associated with partial attainment,
or attainment based on technological feasibility, whereas the benefits
reported in Table 1 1 I.e. 2 are based on the assumption that all counties are
forced to comply with the standard under consideration. Obviously, the
incremental benefits in Table III.C.2 are higher than those reported in
Table II I. C.I. As expected, benefits increase as one reads from left to
right. The probable exclusion of benefits categories in aggregation
procedures A and B and the likely double counting of benefits in Procedures
E and F suggest that benefits are "best" represented by categories C and 0.
The tables indicate that the incremental benefits are lowest for the
(65,250) standard and highest for the TSP (75,150) standard. It should be
stated that the studies upon which the benefit estimates are based all use TSP
as the index of exposure. The PMio standards are examined in terms of the
, »
equivalent level of TSP. Consequently, the benefits of these standards repre-
sent the effects of TSP stringency, not the effects of particle size.
Tables III.C.3 and III.C.4 report the expected incremental reduction
in adverse health effects for the six standards considered.
-------
m-g
I
.
to
o
UJ
u.
UB
UJ
I—
•f
UJ
3;
CO
uj O
co ec
uj in o
CO «< -4 UJ *—
• _C CO
o z a z
• i— i z •— > uj
fc? o 00
A »
CM CM
_i H- a.
«C LU
H- CQ
UJ
Q£
^^
z
o
VO
C\4
*
JC
^ .,
0
uj a.
lm__ * A
^^
0
w *
O O
0 . 0
o in
co co
UJ
a.
X
0
LO
^•4
A
r-.
*••*•
a.
H-
O 0
0 0
CO CM
co *r
;
•—
CO W»
. -M •-- 00
UJ «/l _J t~t _J
0
M
VO
O
O
M
f*.
O
o
•
o
o
o
CM
«.
I-M^
^..j
o
o
o
CM
o
o
°-
CO
CM
I/I
^^
^3 *O
^ CZ)
U
3 >>
tJ *-
OJ •!-
oe >
CO •«•»
O v^
--« «c
o
o
o
A
rH
O
o
o
A
1— 1
o
in
r-.
o
o
o-
^__j
o
o
0^
__^
o
o
°A
f— 1
1
Q.
trt U1 d)
0) 0) V)
u a: «
C (U
Q> O V>
•a t- .f
•i- e o
u o
""* (j O
CO *J
,_ O «-
o
o
M
CO
o
o
t— 1
A
*
o
o
1—4
A
CM
o
o •
01
co
o
o
^r
o
o
OL
u ui CK w>
•a •»-
«-- 4> a
0 +J
C 3 >>
_!<_)<_
< O
fO -M
O •»- "O
--• O U
*
4
.*•*
0)
t.
3
"S
U
O
u
*•
c
o
*
.4)
fc.
O^
o>
c
o
•a
0)
^OT
CD
i.
-------
111-10
trt
UJ
LL.
LL.
UJ
z
h-
UJ
UJ
CO
ac
• LU
O Z O £
1-4 *"' «« *
« 02 t
M 00 H-
2 y '^
10 O Z _l
h- UJ UJ ^3
OS UJ U.
1 ^^
^J ^™
< UJ
H- CD
. LU
JS
LU
oc
o
1— •
J»^
UJ
u
UJ
CL
X
UJ
1
i
co
0
O
H-
LU
1—
ee.
UJ
JT
•••*
r> i
\J
* M
/) O
iO O^
ooc,
E t—
a.
^H«
m i
pH
0*0*
10 OS
«v«>^
oa.
a.
O
O
"I
c*>
o
o
as
CO
^— *
o
CM
VO
C
a.
§
00
*
<— 1
^•^
o
*
o
un
""^
c
^B
2
o
o
c-
co
o
VO
CM
*"^
^^
to
^^
0
o
ur>
^T
^^
^^
O
CO
*
>^^
o.
H-
o
o
^
CD
U t-
^ J
go o
0 2
•— i ir» o
4% • «•
CM
O O O
00 0
^o o o
^f (JO ^
CM
00 0
o o o •
£3 u9 • CT*
* M
CM CM
^^
,
o o o
00 0
CM O^ O^
«^- ^- •— <
CM
0 O 0
o o o
urT CM -<
CO
00 0
00 0
rl
a.
41
W)
•0 «* = * S
So a> o
u) u -o ••- i-
^ >» 3 >» "^50
o o a> -^ c *• >>
3 «» ^-2 *^oo
o o o w o "*• "
S _i "See Sot.
o
U »
— 0 «-
<: o
o «- *
S 0 C.
jj
„
t_
1
u
o
a.
c
o
*J
0>
V
t_
01
o>
<
o
•a
10
CO
-------
IV-1
IV. BENEFIT-COST ANALYSIS
The benefit-cost analysis evaluates the alternative standards in
terms of economic efficiency. Incremental costs are subtracted from
incremental benefits for each alternative standard. The standard producing
the highest positive incremental net benefits is preferred in terms of
economic efficiency. Negative incremental net benefits suggest that, on
the basis of efficiency, the baseline scenario is preferred to the standard
examined.
Tables IV.1 and IV.2 tabulate the incremental net benefits for partial and
full attainment, respectively. With the exception of the incremental net
benefits of aggregation procedures A and B, the results of both the partial
and full attainment scenarios indicate that the most stringent TSP standard
(75, 150) is preferred on the grounds of economic efficiency. Under aggre-
gation procedures A and B, the least stringent standard [PMjQ (65, 250)]
is generally preferred when the lower value of mortality is used. On the
other hand, the most stringent standard [TSP (75, 150)] is preferred under
the higher value of mortality.
With the exception of the lower bound estimates for aggregation proce-
dures B and C, the incremental net benefits are higher than those reported in
the 1984 Executive Summary and First Addendum. The reduction in the incremen-
tal net benefits for these two procedures is due to the reduction in the
incremental benefits calculated for Samet et al. and moving the Ostro study
from Procedure C to 0. The increase in incremental net benefits for the
remaining aggregation procedures can be attributed to two factors. First, a
different algorithm is used to calculate costs in the current analysis. The
algorithm predicts costs that are substantially lower than the costs estimated
-------
IV-2
~lr*
o
5
o
*X
t— CM
CO UJ
Q£
Q. •• =3
CO O
h- UJ
^2 G3
z at
«C O-
0 Z
•J4 O
^C H*»*
O- H"
UJ IE CD
«S* UJ ' UJ
«- « P zln" tfl
> Z < O «£
M Q£ (— •»-
UJ t— —
flO !••• ^£ I""""'
2 «X _j S
£ ecSt*
o £•*—
U- Q£
co a.
H-
u.
UJ
z
UJ
03
t—
UJ
z
^J
5
i -
UJ
O£
u.
in
VO
CO
CM
**»»^
•r-.
CO
. O
UJ
" 0
•
«— «
o
CM
CM
pj
p**»
a
CO
*
in
T— 1
in*
•
>— 4
**
0
VO
£J
in
*
.CO
. 'CD
•
CO
VO
O
1
^
en
•
J^
CM
•— i
1
CJ
^£
^•4
en
"2
(O
•o
c
•O
(/)
«
•*••
4->
ia
c
t
CU
if
«*
S
^^
»
m
p^
«M«^
CL
>—
00
*
Qf>
^•4
*^%.
**!
CO
00
CM
*
*&
t^
r- 1
cn
CM
Ij0
cn
•
* p«^
CO
r- >
VO
^»
CO
in
•
H3
^
*
CO
ao
^
o
i
VO
•
^
O
1
o"
CM
r>
^ ^
• a.
«—
VO
TT
in
^•4
^N^
**\
CO
^o
^
•
(•^
CO
cn
r*.
^^
CM
•
^^
f-4
t— «
in
f^»
CM
CM
O
»-4
00
•
CM
"".
O
o
0
•
f.
CD
1
^-^
O
m
»
o
in
^•^
o
^
a.
CM
in
00
^^
CM
^
CO
o
CO
CO
CO
CM
<—i
•
in
VO
^
•
\ft
^
CM
VO
°i
t-4
in
•*•
CM
O
co
•
^
o
^m^
O
in
CM
«i
in
^•^
o
£
a.
w
CO
yD
«pH
"*X>
C3
00
VO
VO
iy\
CO
r- 1
CO
i-H
in
CO
i^t.
Z3
^j
' •
cn
CM
m
•
o
en"
•
CM
•
^J
O
i— i
•
l*»
in
o
i
^**
i
4k
a'
cn
a.
bO
t—
^^^
O
m
A
o
m
%•*
o
3E
Q.
^J
in
plMt
**^»
CO
cn
m
VI
e
o
N
•|tt»
o to
I 0
^
•
^^
fVJ
t— 1
crT
^T
^^
^.^
•
^^
CM
r~.
m
CM
in
cn
•*•.
VO
CM
f—
+J (A
• E
JS OJ
t— 4-1
c
V "^
4J 4)
C Qm
0) TS
a. c
to
o
^ 0
^— ^
05
VO
0
0
in
•
o (-
C fc- *- o
C flU
S^x
O CE O
tn ai c
in j •»• > ai
vo T) co cn
^—^
a
3E
a.
i/> e
CO *i-
QQ 4U (•>
O> JS 4J
—
CO 4>
«*• E
O •/>
vV
«J
O C
o
T3 ^—
O
^ "n
*. CU
1*- (/I
CU ^
J—
1— in .
* *o
"S §
t_ OJ
o
a.
g, ^
|-*'
d* •v
^
O
2 >>
4-> 4->
e -^
C) ^O
"c 4^
||
O 3
O C
e
•£ TJ
I
(U
«- X
"O t^2
CU *
U ^H
o
C. M_
a. o
e c
O O
4^ 4^
2. .2
0) 4J
•P- 3
vJ 3 CU
(0 «-
ai a
<_{_.,_
o o e
1^1^ (j^t ••!
J*L I
»
1
TS
ts
+-J
I/I
I
1
CM
II
*
^•B
C
1
fO
in
C
c
(O
II
X
«^-^
^^
^
X
a.
^^
^
o
o
4^^
a.
• *
>H
ai
^••k
-------
IV-3
1
f
CM
•
;>
Ol
2
a
t—
,-H
CO
o
or CM
4
O UJ
i §
1— O
oo UJ
«J
0. O
co as
f- a.
o st
5 S
0 <
x* S
^ s
Q- OS,
1 1 1 )-* ^jj
l-H IU«—
1- Z «»
•iT" JP C t J
i
i
T
^ CM
. •
en «*
en en
J. ^f CO
•>•» "N.
CO ^f
* «
CM *»•
CM P-
CM '<-t
U
<-i en
• •
O •— i
CO *
j *t m
^**» *•«»
* *
• •
i** ^
VO CO
^ t»"<
a
1
00
f«. •
• CO
O P*.
CM CM
CO CO
• •
CM VO
00 VO
zS o i
5E3M-
U4 1— -—
L^ 1^_ JBW
5si
^j
^V 1 M&-
Q£ .J *«•
O" ^ "i J
^ ^—
!_•_ i i
Un .U*
co
1--
LL.
UJ
UJ
ml
r-» vo
* •
O 00
CM •-!
*•«•. *s» .
p«. co
• •
VO • VO
00
O r».
• *
CM •—<
^4 ^H
O VO
* •
CM O
1 1
I
i
,_ j
C
z 1
£
SE
7
A.
LU
dU
^C
«c
00 CO
* •
O 0
1*4 1*4
•++. ~**,
CM in
• •
CO i-H
1 1
0
z
»-*
CO
•p
w
fQ
"P5
s
10
* *
^* ,
•^
^J
». "x.
""1 °»
--4 O
1—4 *&
w—r ^%l
1-4
CO
• 0
f** •
CM CM
CM cn
*»• *»^
o o
• •
VO O
SO 00
cn
• VO
in •
00 O
<-4 00
•-W *>x.
vo en
• •
«S- 00
^ -*
co
. • CM
^ •
t— • r~-
CM CO
• •
^- CM
m --<
cn vn
"•^ -»v.
m CM
• 9
0 O
1 1
cn cn
• •
«^
^*
. .
^-^ ^^
*-* O
1 1
^_ma^ ^ r L
o o
m vn
*-< CM
«t • »
o m
in vo
0 O
x £"
a. a.
CM O ' "1
• •
^t CO
en vo
CM CM
lf> CM
• *
VO CM
CM *-4
r*4 r-1
VO CO
^•* co"
in CM
CM CM
in r*4
0 •
r** r*»
cn co
I** VO
• •
VO '-O
o co
CM •-!
*-. •».
r-. *r
• •
cn ^»-
«r ^f
•f»
o
M
.fm
C- Q.
O CO
£ •—
m «»-
i o
•*—
^j vi
« c
f CU
t— *J
c
fit
Ql
W co
^^ -—i
^^ ^^^
^^» ^^s
r* ^*
. •
^ ^*
O
• CM
O •
•— « cn
vo <*
• •
O 0
«9- VO
t • '
o
•^ o
^04
,— vv
r— -O
O
•0 vn
c
^- o
00 <"
CTl -^
s *-
*- Q.
O E
0
(A U
c
o
•^ •
»— in
•— en
•-- cn
^3 --<
cn co c J=
*•••. *«v
CO O
• •
t-4 ^->
1 1
^* T"
.
M * |
0 O
cn en
**** I
A. fH
W» UH
CO CO
l_ 1—
o" c?
in in
•-4 CM
o m
m vo
~li-* ^*^ . Wl yz.
i- cn
a
vi O >
41 I. ft)
3 £ M
.— *J -f-
> cn
03 Of
+J Cf» »—
C 1-4 0
At •«•»
U) £ ^
£S^
Q.H- Q.
•O VI 4J
0) C_ O
*j
3 >> *
O X
u e u
in vv c
•»- > cu
•O 0» cn
*4« .^
CO -r-
O O CO (/I
1— 1
*J
CO t-
^t- e
• 3
. ^ <1i
^FT W
vn
e
o ~
v» **
•r- C
vw a
reported. The
econd is based <
i/i
O!
<- eg
J
O j*
2
•U •!—
C
0 >>
•i- 4->
•^J *^*
*Tl ^^
•w ^^
C IQ
••- 4-»
.a t-
§o
E
o
•p
cn u
O> 3
ia -o •
w c
.c * o
U -r-
•O 4-> 4->
4) -t- O
«- §«3
o ai
u. * t.
f«J.
•
•^
C
vn
(&
«•
«)
C
>
*
X
GL
cn
^_
^^
1_
o
o
(••4
£
a.
^^
•^
-------
IV-4
in previous analyses. Second, the changes to the air quality data result in a
significant increase in benefits.
Finally, it should be noted that the incremental net benefits analysis
should be viewed in light of the caveats and limitations associated with the
underlying benefit and cost analyses. Of particular importance is the fact
that the incremental net benefits analysis still provides no information on
the preferred particle size. Incremental net benefits are expressed only in
terms of TSP stringency. Although the TSP (75,150) standard appears to be the
preferred standard based on economic efficiency, it may not be preferred in
terms of particle size.
-------
REFERENCES
Argonne National Laboratory (1986-). Revised Costs and Air Quality Impacts, of
Alternative? National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Parti oil ate
Matter. Draft technical report prepared for the U.S. Environmental
Protection .Agency, February.
Manuel et al. (1983). Benefit and Net Benefit Analysis of Alternative
National Ambient Air Quality Standards for Particulate Matter. Final
report prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March.
Mathtech (1986). Revisions to the PM NAAQS Benefit Analysis. Report
prepared for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, July.
Ostro, B.O. (1983a). The Effects of Air Pollution on Work Loss and Morbidity.
Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, 10:371-382.
Ostro, B.D. (1983b). Urban Air Pollution and Morbidity: A Retrospective
Approach. Urban Studies.
Samet,.J.M. et al. (1981). The Relationship Between Air Pollution and
Emergency Room Visits in an Industrial Community. Journal of the Air
Pollution Control Association, 31: 236-240.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1984). Regulatory Impact Analysis on
the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for Particulate Matter. Pre
pared by the Strategies and Air Standards Division, Office of Air, Noise,
and Radiation, February 21.
-------
-------
V-l
V. Rationale for the Promulgated Action
[Text to be added. Text will summarize Part 50 Federal Register Notice
rationale.]
-------
-------