Items in cart [4] Questions? Call 888-624-8373

PAPERBACK list:$49.00 Web:$44.10 add to cart PDF BOOK your price: $37.50 add to cart Rights & Permissions Free Resources PDF EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Display this book on your site! Related Titles Health Risks from Dioxin and Related Compounds: Evaluation of the EPA Reassessment Toxicity Testing for Assessment of Environmental Agents: Interim Report Other Related Titles Issues in Risk Assessment (1993) Commission on Life Sciences (CLS) Web Search Builder Use this book's key terms to search within this book, across our collection, or across the Web. Skim This Chapter Skim this chapter and use this chapter's key terms to search within this book. Reference Finder Paste in your own text to find books that relate to your topic. Page 267   E-mail  Facebook  Digg  Stumble  Twitter More The following HTML text is provided to enhance online readability. Many aspects of typography translate only awkwardly to HTML. Please use the page image as the authoritative form to ensure accuracy. 6 Recommendations The committee recommends that risk assessors, risk managers, and regulatory agencies should adopt a uniform framework for ecological risk assessment. The framework used should be general and flexible and should facilitate communication between scientists and risk managers. The objective is to systematize the regulatory process, not to specify a particular calculational procedure or data requirement. The extension of the 1983 NRC human health risk assessment framework described in this report and summarized in Figure 3-2 emphasizes the common elements of health risk and ecological risk assessment. The committee recommends that state and federal agencies expand the issue of risk assessment in strategic planning and priority-setting. Those assessments can help agencies to focus their resources on critical environmental problems and uncertainties, and that focus would result in more cost effective and efficient regulatory initiatives. Assessments at this level can be principally judgment-based and need not involve explicit quantification. The committee recommends that agencies support the development of improved methods of risk characterization and consistent guidelines for applying them. Improvement is needed in extrapolation of population and ecosystem effects, expression of risks in terms that are useful for decision-making and understood by the public at large, and evaluation and communication of quantitative and qualitative uncertainties. EPA and other agencies, including state agencies, should institute systematic followup of risk assessments with research and monitoring to Page 267 Front Matter (R1-R18) Executive Summary (1-12) Use of the Maximum Tolerated Dose in Animal Bioassays for Carcinogenicity (13-14) 1 Introduction (15-20) 2 Correlations Between Carcinogenic Potency and Other Measures of Toxicity (21-42) 3 Advantages and Disadvantages of Bioassys That Use the MTD (43-52) 4 Options Considered (53-60) 5 Conclusions and Recommendations (61-66) References (67-78) Appendix A: Workshop Summary - Maximum Tolerated Dose: Implications for Risk Assessment (79-90) Appendix B: Workshop Organizing Subcommittee (91-92) Appendix C: Workshop Federal Liaison Group (93-94) Appendix D: Workshop Programs (95-96) Appendix E: Workshop Attendees (97-110) Appendix F: Correlation Between Carcinogenic Potency and the Maximum Tolerated Dose: Implications for Risk Assessment (111-172) Appendix G: Informal Search for Supercarcinogens (173-184) The Two-Stage Model of Carcinogenesis (185-186) Issues in Risk Assessment (187-216) References (217-222) Appendix A: Workshop Summary - Two-Stage Modelsof Carcinogenesis (223-232) Appendix B: Workshop Program (233-234) Appendix C: Workshop Federal Liaison Group (235-236) Appendix D: Workshop Attendees (237-238) Appendix E: Workshop Organizing Task Group (239-240) A Paradigm for Ecological Risk Assessment (241-242) 1 Introduction (243-246) 2 Scope of Ecological Risk Assessment (247-248) 3 Revision of 1983 Framework to Incorporate Ecological Risk Assessment (249-258) 4 Key Scientific Problems Limiting Application of Ecological Risk Assessment (259-264) 5 Conclusions (265-266) 6 Recommendations (267-268) References (269-272) Appendix A: Workshop Participants (273-278) Appendix B: Workshop Organizing Subcommittee and Federal Liaison Group (279-280) Appendix C: Workshop Introduction (281-282) Appendix D: Opening Plenary Presentations (283-292) Appendix E: Case Studies and Commentaries (293-308) Appendix F: Breakout Sessions (309-336) Appendix G: Contemplations on Ecological Risk Assessment (337-342) Appendix H: Workshop Summary (343-346) Appendix I: References for Appendixes (347-350) Appendix J: Workshop Program (351-356)

Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 267
Issues in Risk Assessment 6 Recommendations The committee recommends that risk assessors, risk managers, and regulatory agencies should adopt a uniform framework for ecological risk assessment. The framework used should be general and flexible and should facilitate communication between scientists and risk managers. The objective is to systematize the regulatory process, not to specify a particular calculational procedure or data requirement. The extension of the 1983 NRC human health risk assessment framework described in this report and summarized in Figure 3-2 emphasizes the common elements of health risk and ecological risk assessment. The committee recommends that state and federal agencies expand the issue of risk assessment in strategic planning and priority-setting. Those assessments can help agencies to focus their resources on critical environmental problems and uncertainties, and that focus would result in more cost effective and efficient regulatory initiatives. Assessments at this level can be principally judgment-based and need not involve explicit quantification. The committee recommends that agencies support the development of improved methods of risk characterization and consistent guidelines for applying them. Improvement is needed in extrapolation of population and ecosystem effects, expression of risks in terms that are useful for decision-making and understood by the public at large, and evaluation and communication of quantitative and qualitative uncertainties. EPA and other agencies, including state agencies, should institute systematic followup of risk assessments with research and monitoring to

OCR for page 268
Issues in Risk Assessment determine the accuracy of predictions and resolve remaining uncertainties. The committee recommends that EPA and other agencies support systematic research programs to improve the credibility and utility of ecological risk assessments and draw on scientific expertise available outside the agencies themselves to develop technical guidance on the scientific content of ecological risk assessments.

Representative terms from entire chapter:

risk assessments