As part of the regulatory development process, the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) collects data, makes various assumptions about the data, and analyzes the data. Although EPA acts in good faith, the agency cannot always be aware of all relevant data, make only appropriate assumptions, and use applicable analytical methods. Regulated industries must carefully review every component of the regulatory decision-making process to identify misunderstandings and errors and to supply additional data that is relevant to the regulatory action. This paper examines three examples of how EPA's data, assumptions, and analytical methods have been critiqued. The first two examples involve EPA's cost-effectiveness (CE) analyses prepared for the offshore oil and gas effluent limitations guidelines and as part of EPA Region 6's general permit for coastal waters of Texas and Louisiana. A CE analysis regulations to the incremental amount of pollutants that would be removed by the recommended treatment processes. The third example, although not involving a CE analysis, demonstrates how the use of non-representative data can influence the outcome of an analysis.
展开▼
