Benefits Approach

  • Ralph A. Luken
Part of the Studies in Risk Uncertainty book series (SIRU, volume 1)

Abstract

A few of the provisions of the Clean Air Act mandate benefits-based standards as the regulatory approach for reducing emissions. Because the Clean Air Act requires setting standards in these cases based on balancing benefits and costs, there should be a close correspondence between the benefits from improvements in human health and welfare and the costs of emission reductions. This correspondence should result in: (1) aggregate benefits from the regulation exceeding aggregate costs, and (2) benefits exceeding costs at most mills. The absence of air quality modeling and formal benefit-cost comparisons in implementing the benefits-based standard for total reduced sulfur (TRS) limits the likelihood of achieving a reasonable balance in all circumstances, however. Consequently, the relationship between benefits and costs is likely to vary across unique geographic situations, but not nearly to the extent or to the degree that it would with technology- or ambient-based standards.

Keywords

Emission Reduction Emission Factor Hydrogen Sulfide Kraft Pulp Odor Threshold 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

References

  1. Associated Press. February 7, 1990. “Unsealed Grand Jury Report Hits Industry for Odors in Florida City.” Chicago Tribune Co., Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  2. Brandes, Debra A. (ed.). 1984. 1985 Post’s Pulp and Paper Directory. Miller Freeman Publications, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  3. Eagan, Timothy. April 6, 1988. “Tacoma Journal; On Good Days the Smell Can Hardly Be Noticed.” Special to the New York Times Co., New York, NY.Google Scholar
  4. E.H. Pechan and Associates. 1987. “Air Pollution Control Costs for Pulp and Paper Mills.” Report to the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Springfield, VA.Google Scholar
  5. Lareau, Thomas J., and Douglas A Rae. 1989. “Valuing WTP for Diesel Odor Reductions: An Application of Contingent Ranking Technique.” Southern Economics Journal, 55:728–742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Medynski, Ann L. (ed.). 1973. Post’s 1974 Pulp and Paper Directory. Miller Freeman Publications, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  7. National Academy of Sciences (NAS). 1979. Odors from Stationary and Mobile Sources. National Academy of Sciences, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  8. Putnam, Hayes and Bartlett, Inc. 1984. “Analysis of Cost Effective Pollution Control Strategies in the Pulp and Paper Industry.” Draft report to the Office of Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  9. U.S.Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 1979. “Kraft Pulping: Control of TRS Emissions from Existing Sources.” EPA-450/2–78–0036. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.Google Scholar
  10. ———. 1980. “User’s Guide for MPTER, A Multiple Point Gaussian Dispersion Algorithm with Optional Terrain Adjustment.” EPA-600/8–80–016. Research Triangle Park, NC.Google Scholar
  11. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)1986. “Health Assessment Document for Hydrogen Sulfide.”EPA-600/8–86/026A External Review Draft, Washington, DC.Google Scholar

References

  1. Smith, Franklin. 1986. “CDS Quick Look Report.” Computer printout from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  2. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. “Kraft Pulping: Control of TRS Emissions from Existing Sources.” EPA-450/2–78–0036. Research Triangle Park, NC.Google Scholar
  3. ———. 1984. “1984 National Emissions Report.” Office of Air QualityPlanning and Standards, Research Triangle Park, NC.Google Scholar

References

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1979. “Kraft Pulping: Control of TRS Emissions from Existing Sources.” EPA-450/2–78–0036. Research Triangle Park, NC.Google Scholar

References

  1. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1980. “User’s Guide for MPTER, A Multiple Point Gaussian Dispersion Algorithm with Optional Terrain Adjustment.” EPA-600/8–80–016. Research Triangle Park, NC.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ralph A. Luken
    • 1
  1. 1.U.S. Environmental Protection AgencyWashington, D.CUSA

Personalised recommendations