Valuation of statistical life in Environmental Protection Agency decisionmaking

(a)

Findings

Congress finds that— (1)using a dollar value to establish the worth of a human life as the basis of making decisions about whether to take actions to protect humans from dying from environmental pollution has been controversial, because that practice— (A)offends many deeply held religious, moral, and ethical beliefs of people in the United States; (B)fails to sufficiently consider the long-standing use of credible and accepted alternative decisionmaking tools, such as— (i)health-based protections that use the latest science to understand and address serious health threats, including safeguards that seek to protect vulnerable individuals (such as pregnant women, infants, children, and the elderly); (ii)technology-forcing standards that promote increased research and development in effective, cutting-edge technologies that can save lives by cutting costs while— (I)reducing the use of dangerous materials; (II)preventing or reducing the release of those materials into the environment; or (III)creating new and safer systems or materials; (iii)right-to-know safeguards that— (I)inform families, communities, workers, and others about known or potential threats; (II)enable those individuals and communities to make decisions about safety based on the information; and (III)encourage emitters and users of toxic chemicals to reduce the emission and use of those chemicals; and (C)fails to promote the development and improvement of other desirable methods of decisionmaking; (2)decisionmaking by the Environmental Protection Agency usually involves policy decisions and legal standards, such as health-based protections, technology-forcing standards, or right-to-know safeguards, rather than monetized values of life and illnesses; (3)Federal agencies should continue to consider the nonquantifiable benefits of agency actions, regardless of whether the number of deaths or illnesses resulting from those actions can be quantified or expressed in monetary terms; (4)(A)there is a great difference between a voluntarily accepted risk and an involuntarily imposed risk; and (B)that difference renders the use of a value of statistical life based on measures of voluntarily accepted risks questionable as applied to involuntarily imposed risks; and (5)as of the date of enactment of this Act, applicable value of statistical life methodologies do not represent the full value of a human life, including (among other issues) the concepts that— (A)an individual may value another life more than one’s own, for example the lives of family members or children; (B)infants, children, and many other individuals do not have the ability to decide the appropriate value of avoiding death; (C)many studies of statistical life methodologies are based on a small subset of the population that may be willing to accept a higher risk of death or illness for less compensation than other members of society; and (D)differing economic situations or negotiating positions may falsely skew statistical life methodology estimates downward. (b)

Value of statistical life

(1)

Requirement

To the extent that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency (referred to in this Act as the Administrator) uses in decisionmaking any value of statistical life, including the life of pregnant women, infants, children, and the elderly, the Administrator— (A)shall not reduce that value below the highest value of statistical life used in a decisionmaking of the Administrator before the date of enactment of this Act; and (B)shall increase that value not less frequently than once each calendar year, by adjusting the value to reflect— (i)the average annual total compensation of individuals, including income and benefits; (ii)the average capital that may be liquidated upon the death of an individual; and (iii)the value of nonpaid activities, including the relevant activities described in the American Time Survey Results published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics of the Department of Labor. (2)

Prohibition

The Administrator shall not decrease the value of statistical life used in a decisionmaking by the Administrator based on age, income, race, illness, disability, date of death, or any other personal attribute or relativistic analysis of the value of life. (3)

Transparency requirement

The Administrator shall— (A)ensure that the process of the Administrator for establishing a value of statistical life under this subsection is conducted in a manner that is open to the public, including by— (i)providing public notice and an opportunity to comment for a period of at least 60 days on any proposed revision of a value of a statistical life; (ii)explaining the process to the public using common, understandable terms; and (iii)for each significant study upon which the Administrator relies, providing— (I)a short description of the methodological strengths and weaknesses of the study; and (II)a description of the injury, illness, death, or other event used as a basis for the study; and (B)provide to the Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate and the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of Representatives, concurrently with the public notice described in subparagraph (A)(i), any proposed revision of a value of a statistical life. (c)

Effect of section

Nothing in this section— (1)expresses on behalf of Congress any endorsement of any— (A)use of value of statistical life analysis as a decisionmaking criterion; (B)cost-benefit analysis; (C)regulatory decisionmaking threshold; or (D)single process of agency decisionmaking; (2)creates a duty to make or revise any standard under any other applicable law; or (3)affects any substantive standard for promulgating regulations under any other applicable law.