EPA is frequently accused of ignoring the benefits and costs of regulation in its setting of environmental standards, especially when regulating hazardous substances. In the case of Superfund clean-ups, for example, it was concluded after reviewing clean-up decisions at 50 Superfund sites, that the choice of remedial action was uncorrelated with current and
future health risks. In the regulation of air toxics, EPA has frequently been accused of ignoring regulatory costs and, as a a consequence, setting standards that imply extremely high costs per life saved. The purpose of this research is to examine whether EPA has in fact considered both
benefits and costs in regulating hazardous substances. Specifically, researchers will focus on two classes of regulatory decisions: the choice of remedial actions at Superfund sites, and EPA's setting of standards for hazardous substances under the Clean Air Act and the Toxic Substances Control Act.