|
||||
|
||||
Learning from NEPA: Some Guidelines for Responsible Federal Risk LegislationCelia Campbell-MohnVermont Law School John S. ApplegateIndiana University Maurer School of Law Harvard Environmental Law Review, Vol. 23, p. 93, 1999 Abstract: The past three or more Congresses have seen substantial efforts to enact "risk reform" legislation that would require environmental, health, and safety regulations to be adopted following the performance of risk assessments modeled on quantitative risk assessment methods for carcinogens. While such a requirement has potentially beneficial effects on the quality of the resulting rules, there is also a substantial potential for mischief by reorienting substantive environmental, health, and safety regulation, and by introducing substantial new costs and delays into the regulatory process. This article, which is derived from a report by the authors to support an American Bar Association recommendation on risk legislation, presents eight guidelines that ought to be followed by such legislation were it to be adopted. The article also draws on the experience with the National Environmental Policy Act. Environmental impact statements are analogous to risk assessments in many (heretofore unrecognized) respects, especially the importance of distinguishing between a procedural, analytical tool for decisionmaking and a substantive, result-determinative element of rulemaking.
Number of Pages in PDF File: 46 JEL Classification: Q28, Q38 Accepted Paper SeriesDate posted: November 5, 1998Suggested CitationContact Information
|
|
|||||||||||||||||
© 2013 Social Science Electronic Publishing, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
FAQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Copyright
This page was processed by apollo5 in 0.312 seconds