Environmental protection agency (EPA) respond heavily to public health issue and to environmental issues. Like many agency decisions, the EPA's decision centered on cost-benefit analysis, attempting to determine the appropriate economic burden necessary to achieve an adequate level of safety, and whether this burden was reasonable (Wecker, 1994). Reserve Mining v. EPA and Corrosion Proof Fittings v. EPA cases focused mainly on regulating a use of asbestos. This essay will summarize the trail process and add a simple insight on the trail harvest for each case. This essay will also add scholars analysis discussion of trail procedure and the agency decision -making process over each case.
Reserve Mining v. EPA case, which its federal litigation …show more content…
Environmental Protection Agency, the most noticeable congressional response to public concerns over asbestos's public health risks was the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This status broadened the EPA authorization to examine a carcinogenic effect of asbestos and its tendency to cause other diseases (Wecker, 1994). By the time the EPA set out to regulate asbestos, it had accumulated evidence to indicate that it was a “highly potent carcinogen” and could cause other diseases as well, including “mesothelioma” (sometimes referred to as “black lung disease”) (Masur & Posner, 2016). Therefore, in 1989, EPA three stages asbestos ban rule, which prohibited approximately 94 percent of all asbestos in the United State, was challenged by an asbestos industry group in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. Environmental Protection Agency case. Petitioners, including manufacturers of asbestos products and the Asbestos Industry Association, argued that the findings on which the rule was based were not supported by substantial evidence. In 1991, the Fifth Circuit court, by applying TSCA's substantial evidence standard, held that the EPA presented insufficient evidence to justify the asbestos product ban. This decision increases the Agency's burden of proof under TSCA and heightens the standard of review that the federal courts may apply in administrative decisions. Moreover, Corrosion Proof Fittings reached beyond asbestos regulation, restricting the EPA's ability …show more content…
EPA, the EPA attempted to assess the magnitude of the U.S. population's exposure to asbestos, the risk of harm from such exposure, and the impact of this risk on the exposed population. The EPA concluded that people incur "very large" risks of cancer due to exposure to asbestos released during the life cycles of the products considered. EPA required by status to consider various regulatory options and to estimate the economic consequences of the rule. To fulfil with this requirement, EPA prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis by interpreting the cost-benefit analysis (CPA) of an expected economic consequences (Wecker, 1994). The EPA estimated that the ban rule would save 148-202 lives at a cost of approximately $ 450-800 million dollars, based on a thirteen-year projection using discounted benefits and cost of substitutes (Stadler, 1993). The summary of analysis fails to disclose cost-per-life statistic which would include a value of human life. This important statistic would enable the public to compare the cost of regulating asbestos with the cost of reducing some other threat to public health. The EPA could have explained that the quantitative study was an inadequate basis for a decision because the exposure data was limited. the EPA published a summary that inadequately explained to the layperson (and to the court) the relative importance of the various attributes it considered in making the decision. The deficiencies of the
Reserve Mining v. EPA case, which its federal litigation …show more content…
Environmental Protection Agency, the most noticeable congressional response to public concerns over asbestos's public health risks was the Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA). This status broadened the EPA authorization to examine a carcinogenic effect of asbestos and its tendency to cause other diseases (Wecker, 1994). By the time the EPA set out to regulate asbestos, it had accumulated evidence to indicate that it was a “highly potent carcinogen” and could cause other diseases as well, including “mesothelioma” (sometimes referred to as “black lung disease”) (Masur & Posner, 2016). Therefore, in 1989, EPA three stages asbestos ban rule, which prohibited approximately 94 percent of all asbestos in the United State, was challenged by an asbestos industry group in Corrosion Proof Fittings v. Environmental Protection Agency case. Petitioners, including manufacturers of asbestos products and the Asbestos Industry Association, argued that the findings on which the rule was based were not supported by substantial evidence. In 1991, the Fifth Circuit court, by applying TSCA's substantial evidence standard, held that the EPA presented insufficient evidence to justify the asbestos product ban. This decision increases the Agency's burden of proof under TSCA and heightens the standard of review that the federal courts may apply in administrative decisions. Moreover, Corrosion Proof Fittings reached beyond asbestos regulation, restricting the EPA's ability …show more content…
EPA, the EPA attempted to assess the magnitude of the U.S. population's exposure to asbestos, the risk of harm from such exposure, and the impact of this risk on the exposed population. The EPA concluded that people incur "very large" risks of cancer due to exposure to asbestos released during the life cycles of the products considered. EPA required by status to consider various regulatory options and to estimate the economic consequences of the rule. To fulfil with this requirement, EPA prepared a Regulatory Impact Analysis by interpreting the cost-benefit analysis (CPA) of an expected economic consequences (Wecker, 1994). The EPA estimated that the ban rule would save 148-202 lives at a cost of approximately $ 450-800 million dollars, based on a thirteen-year projection using discounted benefits and cost of substitutes (Stadler, 1993). The summary of analysis fails to disclose cost-per-life statistic which would include a value of human life. This important statistic would enable the public to compare the cost of regulating asbestos with the cost of reducing some other threat to public health. The EPA could have explained that the quantitative study was an inadequate basis for a decision because the exposure data was limited. the EPA published a summary that inadequately explained to the layperson (and to the court) the relative importance of the various attributes it considered in making the decision. The deficiencies of the