Defaults and incentives in risk-informed regulation

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment (HERA)

Volumn 5, Issue 4, 1999, Pages 635-644

  Bier, Vicki M ^a   Jang, Seung C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

^b Korea Atomic Energy Research Institute   (South Korea)

Author keywords

Defaults; Environmental Protection Agency; Nuclear Regulatory Commission; Risk analysis; Risk informed regulation

Indexed keywords

EID: 26444441570     PISSN: 10807039     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10807039.1999.9657759     Document Type: Review

References (15)

1. Applegate, J.S. 1991. The Perils of Unreasonable Risk: Information, Regulatory Policy, and Toxic Substances Control, Columbia Law Review 91, 261-333.
2. Beizer, R.B. 1991. The Peril and Promise of Risk Assessment, Regulation 14(4), 40-49.
3. Bier, V.M. 1994. After 15 Years of Quantitative Safety Goals, Now What? American Nuclear Society Executive Conference on Policy Implications of Risk-Based Regulation, Washington, D.C.
4. Burmaster, D.E. 1998. Personal communication.
5. Graham, J.D. 1991. Improving Chemical Risk Assessment, Regulation 14(4), 14-18.
6. Griesmeyer, J.M. and Okrent, D. 1980. On the Development of Quantitative Risk Acceptance Criteria. An Approach to Quantitative Safety Goals for Nuclear Power Plants. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Washington, D.C. NUREG-0739.
7. Harris, R.H. and Burmaster, D.E. 1992. Restoring Science to Superfund Risk Assessment, Toxics Law Reporter 6, 1318-1323.
8. Harvard Group on Risk Management Reform. 1995. Reform of Risk Regulation: Achieving More Protection at Less Cost. Center for Risk Analysis, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, Massachusetts.
9. National Research Council. 1994. Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C.
10. Nichols, A.L. and Zeckhauser, R.J. 1988. The Perils of Prudence: How Conservative Risk Assessments Distort Regulation, Regul. Toxicol. and Pharmacol. 8, 61-75.
11. Solow, R.M. 1971. The Economist's Approach to Pollution and Its Control, Science 173, 498-503.
12. Specter, H. and Braun, C. 1994. Safety Goals, Safety Policy, and Economic Opportunities. American Nuclear Society Executive Conference on Policy Implications of Risk-Based Regulation, Washington, D.C.
13. USEPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, OSWER Directive 9285.6-03, Washington, D.C. Supplemental Guidance, Standard Default Exposure Factors, Interim Final.
14. USNRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1975. Reactor Safety Study: An Assessment of Accident Risks in U.S. Commercial Nuclear Power Plants. Washington, D.C., WASH-1400.
15. USNRC (U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission). 1997. The Use of PRA in Risk-Informed Applications. Draft Report for Comment, Washington, D.C., NUREG-1602.