U.S. EPA Authority to Use Cumulative Risk Assessments in Environmental Decision-Making
Abstract
:List of Abbreviations
APA | Administrative Procedure Act |
CAA | Clean Air Act |
CEQ | Council on Environmental Quality |
Cir. | Circuit |
D.C. Cir. | U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit |
EIS | Environmental Impact Statement |
EJ | Environmental Justice |
EO | Executive Order |
EPA | U.S. Environmental Protection Agency |
FDA | Food and Drug Administration |
FDCA | Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act |
FR | Federal Register |
NAAQS | National Ambient Air Quality Standard |
NEJAC | National Environmental Justice Advisory Council |
NEPA | National Environmental Policy Act |
NRC | National Research Council |
1. Introduction
1.1. The Movement toward Consideration of Cumulative Risks
DEFINING CUMULATIVE EFFECTS.
1.2. How EPA Uses Risk Assessment
1.2.1. What is Risk Assessment?
- (1) Hazard Identification: First, the Agency examines whether a stressor has the potential to cause harm to humans and/or ecological systems, and if so, under what circumstances.
- (2) Dose-Response Assessment: EPA then examines the numerical relationship between exposures and effects.
- (3) Exposure Assessment: The Agency then examines what is known about the frequency, timing, and levels of contact with a stressor.
1.2.2. How EPA Uses Risk Assessment in Decision-Making
1.3. What this Article is About
1.4. The Context for Judicial Review of the Issues in the United States
2. How a Court would Examine EPA’s Assertion of Statutory Authority to Use Cumulative Risk Assessment Methodologies in Decision-Making [48]
2.1. How Might EPA Persuade a Court that Broad or Unspecific Statutory Language Gives the Agency Authority to Use Cumulative Risk Assessment in Decision-Making?
2.2. What Might a Challenger Assert as a Counter-Argument to EPA’s Claim of Authority?
2.3. How might a Court Evaluate whether a Reinterpretation of Authority to Permit the Use of a Cumulative Risk Methodology was Valid?
Can an agency change its interpretation of authorizing legislation? | |
---|---|
Unlikely if… | Likely if… |
• Old interpretation has received court approval; | • The agency provides a rationale for the change; |
OR | AND |
• Old interpretation is consistent with other Congressional or agency action; | • New evidence supports a different interpretation to satisfy the statutory mandate; |
OR | AND |
• New interpretation is arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion. | • The agency provides adequate notice of and opportunity to comment on methodology change. |
3. If EPA Overcame a Challenge to Its Authority, What Evidence must It Offer that a Decision Based on Data Derived From a Cumulative Risk Assessment was Rational?
4. Conclusions
Acknowledgments
Conflict of Interest
References and Notes
- Human Health Research Strategy; Report No. EPA/600/R-02/050; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Aggregate and Cumulative Risk. Human Exposure and Atmospheric Sciences. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/heasd/risk/ (accessed on 26 March 2012).
- Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment; Report No. EPA/630/P-02/001F; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
- Sexton, K.; Linder, S.H. The role of cumulative risk assessment in decisions about environmental justice. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2010, 7, 4037–4049. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lewis, A.S.; Sax, S.N.; Wason, S.C.; Campleman, S.L. Non-chemical stressors and cumulative risk assessment: An overview of current initiatives and potential air pollutant interactions. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2011, 8, 2020–2073. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- According to the U.S. EPA’s Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment, a stressor is any “physical, chemical, or biological entity that can induce an adverse response” ([3], p. 74). This definition encompasses the concept that stressors may not cause harm directly, but instead may increase vulnerability to harm by other stressors ([3], p. xvii). “For example, chemicals such as toluene can damage the auditory system and have been shown to potentiate the effects of a physical stressor, noise, on hearing loss” ([3], p. 47). Examples of non-chemical stressors include: lack of health care; personal activities (e.g., smoking, diet, and alcohol consumption); natural phenomena (e.g., forest fires, floods); biological pathogens; psychosocial stress; noise; and heat ([3], pp. 51-52; [4,5]).
- Callahan, M.A.; Sexton, K. If cumulative risk assessment is the answer, what is the question? Environ. Health Perspect. 2007, 115, 799–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- According to EPA’s Framework for Cumulative Risk Assessment, cumulative risk assessment involves an “analysis, characterization, and possible quantification of the combined risks to health or the environment from multiple agents or stressors” ([3], p. 72). Cumulative risk assessments may include both human health and ecological effects ([3], p. 30). Cumulative risk refers to the combined threats from exposure to multiple stressors via all relevant routes [7].
- Protection of Environment. In Code of Federal Regulations; 2011; Section 1508.7, Title 40.
- Although EPA does not have an official definition for “cumulative effects,” and different organizations and scholars define this terms in different ways, the U.S. Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has defined the term “cumulative impact” for purposes of implementing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). CEQ regulations state that a cumulative impact is “the impact on the environment which results from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency …or person undertakes such other actions. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but, collectively significant actions taking place over a period of time” [9]. The discussion of cumulative effects in this article is broader than the NEPA definition in that the concept here specifically encompasses the combined effects of different types of stressors via multiple exposure pathways, in addition to additive impacts over time.
- The Law of Environmental Justice: Theories and Procedures to Address Disproportionate Risks, 2nd; Berrard, M.B.; Foster, S.R. (Eds.) American Bar Association: Chicago, IL, USA, 2008.
- Ethyl Corp. vs. EPA; p. 1976, 541 F.2d 1, D.C. Cir.
- National Research Council (NRC), Science and Decisions: Advancing Risk Assessment; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 2009.
- National Environmental Justice Advisory Council, Ensuring Risk Reduction in Communities with Multiple Stressors: Environmental Justice and Cumulative Risks/Impacts; National Environmental Justice Advisory Council: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
- EPA’s Action Development Process: Interim Guidance on Considering Environmental Justice During The Development of an Action; Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2010.
- Sexton, K.; Olden, K.; Johnson, B.L. Environmental justice”: The central role of research in establishing a credible scientific foundation for informed decision making. Toxicol. Ind. Health 1993, 9, 685–727. [Google Scholar]
- Sexton, K. Sociodemographic aspects of human susceptibility to toxic chemicals: Do class and race matter for realistic risk assessment? Environ. Toxicol. Pharmacol. 1997, 4, 261–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jacobs, D.E. Environmental health disparities in housing. Am. J. Public Health 2011, 101 (Suppl 1), S115–S122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Institute of Medicine (IOM), Toward Environmental Justice: Research, Education, and Health Policy Needs; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1999.
- Chakraborty, J.; Maantay, J.A.; Brender, J.D. Disproportionate proximity to environmental health hazards: Methods, models, and measurement. Am. J. Public Health 2011, 101 (Suppl 1), S27–S36. [Google Scholar]
- Bullard, R.D.; Mohai, P.; Saha, R.; Wright, B. Toxic Wastes and Race at Twenty: 1987-2007. Grassroots Struggles to Dismantle Environmental Racism in the United States: Executive Summary; United Church of Christ, Justice and Witness Ministries: Cleveland, OH, USA, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Bullard, R.D. Dumping in Dixie: Race, Class and Environmental Quality; Westview Press: Boulder, CO, USA, 1990. [Google Scholar]
- Brown, P. Race, class, and environmental health: A review and systematization of the literature. Environ. Res. 1995, 69, 15–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brender, J.D.; Maantay, J.A.; Chakraborty, J. Residential proximity to environmental hazards and adverse health outcomes. Am. J. Public Health 2011, 101 (Suppl 1), S37–S52. [Google Scholar]
- Sadd, J.L.; Pastor, M.; Morello-Frosch, R.; Scoggins, J.; Jesdale, B. Playing it safe: Assessing cumulative impact and social vulnerability through an environmental justice screening method in the south coast air basin, California. Int. J. Env. Research Public Health 2011, 8, 1441–1459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ringquist, E.J. Assessing evidence of environmental inequities: A meta-analysis. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 2005, 24, 223–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perlin, S.A.; Wong, D.; Sexton, K. Residential proximity to industrial sources of air pollution: Interrelationships among race, poverty, and age. J. Air Waste Manag. Assoc. 2001, 51, 406–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perlin, S.A.; Sexton, K.; Wong, D.W. An examination of race and poverty for populations living near industrial sources of air pollution. J. Expo. Anal. Environ. Epidemiol. 1999, 9, 29–48. [Google Scholar]
- Payne-Sturges, D.; Gee, G.C. National environmental health measures for minority and low-income populations: Tracking social disparities in environmental health. Environ. Res. 2006, 102, 154–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- O’Neill, M.S.; Jerrett, M.; Kawachi, I.; Levy, J.I.; Cohen, A.J.; Gouveia, N.; Wilkinson, P.; Fletcher, T.; Cifuentes, L.; Schwartz, J. Health, wealth, and air pollution: Advancing theory and methods. Environ. Health Perspect. 2003, 111, 1861–1870. [Google Scholar]
- Morello-Frosch, R.; Shenassa, E.D. The environmental “riskscape” and social inequality: Implications for explaining maternal and child health disparities. Environ. Health Perspect. 2006, 114, 1150–1153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Morello-Frosch, R.; Jesdale, B.M. Separate and unequal: Residential segregation and estimated cancer risks associated with ambient air toxics in U.S. metropolitan areas. Environ. Health Perspect. 2005, 114, 386–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C. Environmental justice: Building a unified vision of health and the environment. Environ. Health Perspect. 2002, 110 (Suppl 2), S141–S144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guzy, G.S. General Counsel Memorandum, EPA Statutory and Regulatory Authorities under which Environmental Justice Issues may be Addressed in Permitting; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Washington, DC, USA, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Opportunities for Advancing Environmental Justice: An Analysis of U.S. EPA Statutory Authorities; ELI Project No. 981623; Environmental Law Institute: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
- Plan EJ 2014: Legal Tools; U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Environmental Justice, U.S. Government Printing Office: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
- Kuehn, R.R. The environmental justice implications of quantitative risk assessment. Univ. Ill. Law Rev. 1996, 1, 103–172. [Google Scholar]
- Committee on Risk Assessment of Hazardous Air PollutantsCommission on Life SciencesNational Research CouncilScience and Judgment in Risk Assessment; The National Academies Press: Washington, DC, USA, 1994.
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Asssessment: Basic Information. Available online: http://epa.gov/riskassessment/basicinformation.htm#risk (accessed on 26 March 2012).
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Human Health Risk Assessment. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/risk_assessment/health-risk.htm (accessed on 26 March 2012).
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Risk Assessment: Step 4-Risk Characterization. 2014. Available online: http://epa.gov/riskassessment/risk-characterization.htm (accessed on 26 March 2012).
- Note that these steps are conducted after a planning and scoping stage.
- Hornstein, D.T. Reclaiming environmental law: A normative critique of comparative risk analysis. Columbia Law Rev. 1992, 92, 562–633. [Google Scholar]
- Administrative Procedure Act. In U.S. Code; 2011; Sections 553-559, 701-706, Title 5.
- Lubbers, J.S. A Guide to Federal Agency Rulemaking, 4th ed; ABA Publishing: Chicago, IL, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Adler, M.D. Against “individual risk”: A sympathetic critique of risk assessment. Univ. Pa. Law Rev. 2005, 153, 1121–1250. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Adler, M.D. Risk, death and harm: The normative foundations of risk regulation. Minn. Law Rev. 2003, 87, 1293. [Google Scholar]
- As stated above, this article uses the cumulative risk assessment paradigm to discuss EPA’s interpretation of its statutory authority, but the analysis applies whenever there is judicial review of an agency’s interpretation a statute it has been charged with implementing.
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. vs. Natural Resources Defense Council; 1984; 467 U.S. 837.
- Sunstein, C.R. Cost-benefit default principles. Mich. Law Rev. 2001, 99, 1651–1723. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- FDA vs. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp; 2000; 529 U.S. 120.
- Morton vs. Ruiz; 1974; 415 U.S. 199.
- New Jersey vs. EPA; p. 2008, 517 F.3d 574, D.C. Cir.
- Whitman vs. American Trucking Associations; 2001; 531 U.S. 457.
- The Sunstein article analyzes case law mainly relating to agency consideration of cost, and concludes that in order to achieve regulatory goals-for example, to allocate resources so that they save more lives or produce a cleaner environment-regulators must often take account of all of a proposed regulation’s adverse effects, at least where those effects clearly threaten serious and disproportionate public harm. Therefore, the author concludes that courts should read silences or ambiguities in the language of regulatory statutes as permitting, not forbidding, rational consideration of all consequences of regulation ([50], p. 1652, citing [54], p. 490, Breyer, J., concurring in part and concurring in the judgment). Although the Sunstein article addresses an agency’s discretion to consider cost where a statute is silent, the analysis can be analogized, in part, to an agency consideration of cumulative risk assessment results where a statute is silent as to risk.
- American Trucking Associations vs. EPA; 1999; 175 F.3d 1027, D.C. Cir.
- Competitive Enterprise Institute vs. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration; 1992; 956 F.2d 321, D.C. Cir.
- American Water Works Association vs. EPA; 1994; 40 F.3d 1266, D.C. Cir.
- Grand Canyon Air Tour Coalition vs. Federal Aviation Administration; 1998; 154 F.3d 455, D.C. Cir.
- George E. Warren Corp. vs. EPA; 1998; 159 F.3d 616, D.C. Cir.
- Michigan vs. EPA; 2000; 213 F.3d 663, D.C. Cir.
- Massachusetts vs. EPA; 2007; 549 U.S. 497.
- North Carolina vs. EPA; 2008; 531 F.3d 896.
- Kruse, E. Case Comment: North Carolina vs. Environmental Protection Agency. Harv. Envtl. Law Rev. 2009, 33, 283–296. [Google Scholar]
- Clean Air Act. In U.S. Code; 2011; Section 7410(a)(2)(D), Title 42.
- Clean Air Act. In U.S. Code; 2011; Section 7409(b)(1), Title 42.
- Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association vs. State Farm Mutual Auto Insurance Co.; 1983; 463 U.S. 29.
- By reinterpretation of authority in this context, the authors are referring to an EPA assertion that its interpretation of a statute involves a new reliance on some factor not named in the statute (e.g., cumulative risk assessment)—especially where the Agency has not relied on that factor in past interpretations.
- Maislin Industries, U.S. Inc. vs. Primary Steel Inc.; 1990; 497 U.S. 116.
- In the Maislin Industries case, the Supreme Court explained that “once we have determined a statute’s clear meaning, we adhere to that determination … and we judge an agency’s later interpretation of the statute against our prior determination of the statute’s meaning” ([69], p. 131).
- Smiley vs. Citibank (S.D.), N.A.; 1996; 517 U.S. 735.
- Am. Farm Bureau Fedn. vs. EPA; 2009; 559 F.3d 512, D.C. Cir.
- New York vs. EPA; 2005; 413 F.3d 3, D.C. Cir.
- Buente, D.T., Jr.; Gerard, W.E.; Visser, J.F. Limited oversight: The role of the Federal courts vis-à-vis the Environmental Protection Agency in air pollution control under the Clean Air Act. Duke Environ. Law Policy Forum 2011, 21, 309–345. [Google Scholar]
- In the New York vs. EPA case, the D.C. Circuit upheld EPA’s decision to alter its definition of emissions increases for New Source Review under the Clean Air Act [73].
- Administrative Procedure Act. In U.S. Code; 2011; Section 706(2)(A), Title 5.
- Lead Industry Ass’n vs. EPA; 1980; 647 F.2d 1130, D.C. Cir.
- City of Waukesha vs. EPA; 2003; 320 F.3d 228, D.C. Cir.
- Northwest Coalition for Alternatives to Pesticides vs. EPA; 2008; 544 F.3d 1043, 9th Cir.
- Coalition of Battery Recyclers Ass’n vs. EPA; 2010; 604 F.3d 613, D.C. Cir.
- Administrative Procedure Act. In U.S. Code; 2011; Sections 501 et seq., Title 5.
- Administrative Procedure Act. In U.S. Code; 2011; Sections 553(b)-(c), Title 5.
- Note that under the Administrative Procedure Act, EPA must provide adequate notice of and opportunity to comment on such a methodology change [80,81].
- Tucson Herpetological Society vs. Salazar; 2009; 566 F.3d 870, 9th Cir.
- Northwest Ecosystem Alliance vs. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Services; 2007; 475 F.3d 1136, 9th Cir.
- Marsh vs. Oregon Natural Resources Council; 1989; 490 U.S. 360.
- Miami-Dade County vs. U.S. EPA; 2008; 529 F.3d 1049, 11th Cir.
- Mossville Environmental Action Now vs. EPA; 2005; 370 F.3d 1232, D.C. Cir.
- Center for Auto Safety vs. Peck; 1985; 751 F.2d 1336, D.C. Cir. (Wright, J., dissenting).
- American Iron & Steel Inst. vs. EPA; 1997; 115 F.3d 979, D.C. Cir.
- Perhac, R.M., Jr. Does risk aversion make a case for conservatism? RISK: Health, Safety Enviro. 1996, 7, 297–304. [Google Scholar]
- Conservative risk assumptions are those that err on the side of overstating risk under conditions of uncertainty. For example, where there is a known probability distribution, using a conservative assumption might involve selecting a risk estimate at the 95th percentile-meaning there is a 95 percent chance that the actual risk is overestimated and only a 5 percent chance that it is underestimated [91].
- West Virginia vs. EPA; 2004; 362 F.3d 861, D.C. Cir.
- New York vs. Reilly; 1992; 969 F.2d 1147, 1152, D.C. Cir.
- Citizens to Preserve Overland Park, Inc. vs. Volpe; 1971; 401 U.S. 402, 416.abrogated on other grounds, Califano vs. Sanders; 1977; 430 U.S. 99, 97.
- Hapner vs. Tidwell; 2010; 621 F.3d 1239, 9th Cir.
- Leather Industries of America, Inc. vs. EPA; 1994; 40 F.3d 392, D.C. Cir.
- Corrosion Proof Fittings vs. EPA; 1991; 947 F.2d 1201, 5th Cir.
- Eagle-Picher Indus., Inc. vs. EPA; 1985; 759 F.2d 905, D.C. Cir.
- California Trucking Ass’n vs. Interstate Commerce Comm’n; 1990; 900 F.2d 208, 9th Cir.
- Strategies for Addressing Cumulative Impacts in Environmental Justice Communities; Environmental Justice Advisory Council; Cumulative Impacts Subcommittee; New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection: Trenton, NJ, USA, 2009.
- Minnesota Pollution Control Agency, Process for Cumulative Levels and Effects Analysis for Minn. Stat. § 116.07, subd. 4a; 2008.
- Report of the Health Outcome Data Work Group; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, New York State Department of Health: Albany, NY, USA, 2006.
- Final Report of the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation Disproportionate Adverse Environmental Impact Analysis Work Group; New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Disproportionate Adverse Environmental Impact Analysis Work Group: Albany, NY, USA, 2004.
© 2012 by the authors; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open-access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/).
Share and Cite
Alves, S.; Tilghman, J.; Rosenbaum, A.; Payne-Sturges, D.C. U.S. EPA Authority to Use Cumulative Risk Assessments in Environmental Decision-Making. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2012, 9, 1997-2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9061997
Alves S, Tilghman J, Rosenbaum A, Payne-Sturges DC. U.S. EPA Authority to Use Cumulative Risk Assessments in Environmental Decision-Making. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2012; 9(6):1997-2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9061997
Chicago/Turabian StyleAlves, Sarah, Joan Tilghman, Arlene Rosenbaum, and Devon C. Payne-Sturges. 2012. "U.S. EPA Authority to Use Cumulative Risk Assessments in Environmental Decision-Making" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 9, no. 6: 1997-2019. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph9061997