Order this information in Print

Order this information on CD-ROM

Download in PDF Format

     

Click here to make tpub.com your Home Page

Page Title: Commission on risk assessment
Back | Up | Next

Click here for a printable version

Google


Web
www.tpub.com

Home


   
Information Categories
.... Administration
Advancement
Aerographer
Automotive
Aviation
Combat
Construction
Diving
Draftsman
Engineering
Electronics
Food and Cooking
Math
Medical
Music
Nuclear Fundamentals
Photography
Religion
USMC
   
Products
  Educational CD-ROM's
Printed Manuals
Downloadable Books
   

 

lines of evidence are quotient estimates, modeling results, field
experiments, or field observations. Lines of evidence may be qualitative
or quantitative. Five criteria to evaluate if changes in assessment
endpoints are "adverse changes" are mentioned in this document. These
criteria are:
(1) Nature of effects.
(2) Intensity of effects.
(3) Spatial scale.
(4) Temporal scale.
(5) Potential for recovery.
One hint given for evaluating "adverse effects" is to keep both the ecological
and statistical contexts of the results in mind. A complete risk description should
also be included in the risk characterization report.
The final section of the "Proposed Guidelines" (USEPA 1996c) is a reminder
that the assessor should communicate to the risk manager the major risks to
assessment endpoints and the extent of the data supporting the conclusions made
in the risk assessment. Then, the risk manager can consider the results of the risk
assessment, as well as other social, political, economic, or legal issues to make a
decision about further environmental action (if any). The authors of this document
also mention that a risk characterization report is a way to communicate ecological
risks to the general public. Thus, an ecological risk assessment serves a dual
purpose, to guide risk management decisions and to communicate with the public
about environmental concerns.
Also in the "Proposed Guidelines" document are several useful appendices.
Appendix B defines Key Terms used in ecological risk assessment guidance.
Appendices C and D provide examples of conceptual models and analysis phase
considerations, respectively. A hypothetical example for evaluating ecological
adversity is also given in Appendix E.
Commission on risk assessment
Document: "Risk assessment and risk management in regulatory decision-
making." Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management, Washington,
DC. (Omenn et al. 1996).
Contact: Gilbert S. Omenn (Chairman of the Commission), Dean, School of
Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Washington, Seattle.
Significance: This is an important document in that it expresses a clear
concern from a Congressionally mandated commission that risk assessment be
incorporated into the Federal decision making processes. The United States
Congress mandated this commission as part of the Clean Air Act Amendments of
A6
Appendix A Summary of Federal, State, and Regional Guidance

Privacy Statement - Press Release - Copyright Information. - Contact Us - Support Integrated Publishing

Integrated Publishing, Inc. - A (SDVOSB) Service Disabled Veteran Owned Small Business