Epa Mats Ria Benefits

The epa estimated in the mats ria that the annualized mercury related health benefits of reducing mercury emissions would be less than 10 million.

Epa mats ria benefits.

Typically an ria is structured similarly to an eia except that a benefits analysis of the rule is included along with an estimation of the net benefits. The epa projected that the co benefits associated with reducing these non hap pollutants would be substantial. The impacts of mercury emissions on human health and the environment are well understood. Epa is likely to soon issue a final rule withdrawing the appropriate and necessary finding that underpins the mercury and air toxic standards mats.

Recent studies that account for more pathways of methylmercury exposure and additional health effects suggest that the monetized benefits of reducing power plant mercury emissions in the u s. July 17 2020 epa finalized minor revisions to the electronic reporting requirements for mats. The most likely immediate. Judicial review and administrative reconsideration under caa section 307 b 1 judicial review of this final action is available only by filing a petition for review in the united states court of appeals for the district of.

See epa s about pdf page to learn more. As mentioned above we used the available 2014 emissions and air quality modeling for the csapr to update the benefits of the csapr for 2016. Instead epa sought to ground its approach in its understanding of the clean air act s mandates with respect to hazardous air pollutants. Among other shortcomings the 2011 mats ria that epa relied on only accounts for the benefits of mercury reductions to children of freshwater recreational anglers in the u s a small fraction of the total population affected.

You may need a pdf reader to view some of the files on this page. Ria documents are listed below organized by. The costs and benefits associated with mats are discussed in detail in the february 16 2012 final mats rule. May 22 2020 epa published a final revised supplemental cost finding for mats and the clean air act required risk and technology review.

When epa issued the supplemental appropriate and necessary finding in 2016 its preferred approach to considering cost was not to perform a cost benefit analysis although it did include as an alternative a cost benefit analysis. Mats ria we did not perform air quality modeling for the final mats scenario.