ENVIRONMENT REPORTER 2 Doe Le - 4 -e 7. The “See Viscusi.‘cited in footnote 22. “There is clearly a greater degree of volition involving such higher-risk occupational choices as deep sea diver or structural Le ad 4 eos + om - Finally, the willingness-to-pay estimates from the labor market studies involve a small reduction in the risk of immediate death. But reduced environmental exposure to a carcinogen, for example, yields a small reduction in the statistical probability of death at some timein the future (twenty or more years). There is reason to believe that the willingness to pay to reduce the risk of immediate death is greater than the willingness to pay to reduce the risk of contracting cancer at some distant point in the future. Because the adverse health effects are delayed, the loss in years of useful life associated with contracting cancer at some point in the future is substantially smaller than the loss resulting from an immediate accidental death. In addition,.of course, the adverse health effects of contracting Greater attention to risk reduction in1 relation to control costs would substantially improve EPA's process of setting emissions standards for hazardous air pollutants. In particular, changing EPA's current practice of not considering risk information in setting “Best Available Technology” standards could produce major improvements in regulatory policy, and would be a logical extension of EPA’s current use of risk information at other stages of the standardsetting process. Underthe current practice of using risk information only for limited purposes, the likely public health gains per dollar of expenditure resulting from recent EPA regulatory proposals could vary across sources by a factor of more than 2000. The expected reduction in cancer incidence ranges from less than 0.001 to 2.000 expected cases avoided per million dollars of compliance expenditures. At some plants, EPA expects compliance with its proposed standards to yield exceedingly small public health gains. Increased emphasis on likely reduction in exposure and health risks would lessen such extreme variation and improve EPA standards. This paper has discussed alternative regulatory strategies that could achieve most of EPA’s intended public health gains at one-third of the cost or less. The paper has madeseveral other suggestions concerning the use of risk and cost data that are intended to strengthen _ the EPA regulatory process. —~,. tiles, Viscusi argues that the willingness-to-pay estimates for this more risk averse part of the population constitutes a “best” estimate of the willingness to pay for a small reduction in involuntary risk for the general population. E. Sommary | the mates are almost the same (asymptotic) across these quar- included in population risk estimates. Only in cases where the annual risks to individuals are exceptional — that is, substantially greater than the other risks of daily life -— is there good reason to weight more heavily individual risk to the most exposed individual. ~ &® in a recent study the effect of differences in risk averseness across the workforce on the willingness-to-pay estimates. To do this, he estimated willingness to pay to avoid risk within each quartile of risk averseness. Viscusi reports that the least risk averse quartile (i.e., the most willing to accept additional risk) of the workforce has a willingness to pay for a reduction in risk that is roughly one-half that for the remaining workforce. Further, he reports that for the more risk averse individuals (in the remaining three quartiles) there is very little variation from quartile to quartile in willingness to pay for small reductions in risk. Because there is less volition associated with job choice for the remaining three quartiles,” and the willingness-to-pay esti- give an additional weighting to any individual risks — maximum individual risks will be accounted for, as they are Peat Aae anemo> a volition on estimates of the willingness to pay to achieve small reductions in risk. For example, Viscusi has examined ' steel worker than in choosing the more routine occupations comprising the least risky occupational groupings. * For example, the present worth of a benefit delayed for twenty years is roughly half the current value at a real discount rate of three percent and it is roughly onetenth the current value at a real discount rate of ten percent. wee A more important point is that the labor market studies contain evidence on the effect of differences in the degree of cancer are deferred and time preference considerations alone reduce the willingness to pay.” This evidence suggests that, over a broad range of environmental exposures where health risks are roughly comparable to other risks encountered in daily life, EPA need not als dramatically reduce their risks by slightly increasing the distance from the facility. Pe location specific, the most exposed individuals can generally + 1606 “ wart. Ny Journal submitting a complete application for interim authorization 1-13-84 calling (202) 382-4126, or Douglas B. Seba, Executive Secretary, at (202) 382-2552. Copyright © 1964 by The Bureau of National Affairs, inc., Washington, D.C. 0013-921 1/84/$0+ 50 a Environmentat Protection Agency Jan. 3 amended regulations governing selective enforcement auditing of new gasoline and diesel light-duty vehicles and trucks to clarify which rules apply for light-duty trucks, effective Feb. 2 (49 FR 68). EPA Jan. 5 extended until Feb. 1 Maryland’s deadline for =8Madion -+ Departments and Agencies for Phase II, Components B and C of its hazardous waste management program under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) (49 FR 585). EPA’s Science Advisory Board announced it will hold a public meeting on biological effects of radiofrequency radiation on Jan. 24-25 at 9 am. at EPA Research Center, Research Triangle Park, N.C. (49 FR 662), for information or to submit comments, contact Terry F. Yosie, Director, by -nwe, - EXECUTIVE BRANCH th