From the case Ethyl Corp. v. EPA, the court explained that “endanger” means something less than actual harm. When the EPA determines whether to regulate lead as endangering human health, probability of harm is not required, but a case-by-case analysis is needed for regulation. The implication of this case is relatively ambiguous, because it does not clearly define the standard of risk assessment.
As far as I’m concerned, the line between significant and insignificant risk should be drawn based on the size of the affected population and the extent of danger that certain materials post on the affected groups. Specifically, the EPA could draw a diagram, with a range of the number of affected population and a range of the extent of danger as determinants.…show more content… It is an economically efficient way because of three reasons. First, the EPA is not able to determine all the risks that are caused by different companies, because the opportunity cost is too high. The EPA can allocate its time to deal with more urgent problems rather than spending much time assessing risks for different companies. Second, letting companies assess and report risks themselves creates incentives for companies to internalize costs. As a company detects a significant risk of health issues from the production process, the company would want to reduce the risk from the production process to avoid being punished. This creates good incentives for companies to self-regulate. More importantly, after companies internalize the risk reducing costs, the public will have a lower risk of being harmed. Since the significant risk is already reduced during the production process rather than being detected after emission, public health would not be endangered as it is without precautionary regulation. Thus, letting companies calculate and report risks to the EPA is more economically efficient than the EPA assessing risks
