The Statutory Basis of Risk Assessment

  • Frederic A. Morris
  • Eugene Duvernoy
Part of the Advances in Risk Analysis book series (AIRA, volume 2)


American society has become increasingly concerned with the environmental, health, and safety risks posed by technology. This concern has led to two developments. One is the passage of numerous federal statutes regulating risk. The other is the development of increasingly sophisticated techniques for the assessment of risk. In principle, these two developments should complement each other: risk assessment techniques should provide a structured, systematic framework for assessing risk as required by statute. In practice, a review of some 33 federal environmental, health, and safety statutes indicates that legal requirements are too vague and in-consistent to lend themselves easily to the application of formal risk assessment techniques.

These deficiencies will not be easily solved. It is sometimes proposed that regulatory statutes be amended to provide clearer direction for risk assessment. However, such direction is politically unrealistic, analytically complex, and difficult to implement. It is also been proposed that Congress address inconsistencies in regulatory statutes by imposing a single unifying framework for risk assessment that all agencies would use. However, it is not at all obvious that imposition of a single framework for risk assessments would accommodate often inconsistent public risk preferences better than the haphazard, inconsistent pattern of requirements now in place.

However, two intermediate reforms could be useful. First, in amending or enacting environmental, health, and safety statutes, the drafters should review a checklist of risk assessment elements to insure that any vagueness or ambiguity is an intentional act of delegation. Second, instead of attempting to develop a single comprehensive framework for risk assessment, the appropriate Congressional committees could explore the possibility of imposing several such frameworks, each applying to a broad category of hazards.


Risk Measure Safety Risk Administrative Agency Federal Food Pressure Relief Valve 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    See J. G. Burke, Bursting Boilers and Federal Power, in: Technology and Culture (Melvin Kranzberg and William H. Davenport, eds.), Meridian, Silver Spring, Maryland (1975).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    MacPherson v. Buick Motor Co., 217 N.Y. 382, 111 N.E. 1050 (1916).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Now part of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. Secs. 301-392 and the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, 42 U.S.C. Secs. 2011-2296.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    United States v. Carroll Towing Co., 159 F. 2d 169, 173 (2d Cir., 1947).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    See for example, G. Calabresi, The Costs of Accidents: Legal and Economic Analysis, Yale University Press, New Haven (1970), R. Coase, The Problem of Social Costs, Journal of Law and Economics, 3 (1960).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Handler, A Rebuttal: The Need for a Sufficient Scientific Base for Government Regulation, George Washington Law Review, 43, 808 (1975).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    H. P. Green, The Risk-Benefit Calculus in Safety Determinations, George Washington Law Review, 43, 791 (1975).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    D. Okrent, Risk-Benefit Evaluation for Large Technological Systems, Nuclear Safety, p. 149 (March–April 1979).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    See W. D. Rowe, An Anatomy of Risk, Wiley, New York (1977), p. 28.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    W. P. Darby and J. K. Gohagen, Some Statistical Insights into Regulating Food Additives under the Delaney Amendment, in: Research in Public Policy Analysis and Management (J. P. Crecine, ed.), Vol. 2, JAI Press, Greenwich, Connecticut (1981).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Adapted in K. T. Bogen, Coordination of Regulatory Risk Analysis: Current Framework and Legislative Proposals, Congressional Research Service (June 19, 1981), p. 4.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    See generally W. H. Rodgers, Jr., Judicial Review of Risk Assessments: The Role of Decision Theory in Unscrambling the Benzene Decision, Environmental Law, 11, 301 (1981).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    5 U.S.C. Secs. 500-576; 701-706.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    42 U.S.C. Secs. 4321-4361.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    D. L. Bazelon, Coping with Techology through the Legal Process, Cornell Law Review, 62, 817–823 (1977).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    S. C. Florman, Risk Analysis and the Congressman-Engineer, Technology Review (February/March 1982), p. 13.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    B. Fischoff et al., How safe is enough? A psychometric study of attitudes toward technological risks and benefits, Policy Sciences, 9 (1978).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1984

Authors and Affiliations

  • Frederic A. Morris
    • 1
  • Eugene Duvernoy
    • 1
  1. 1.Battelle Human Affairs Research CentersSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations