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 (Cont.)
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
   

 

compare the risk of cancer and noncancer effects, such as "margin-of-
exposure" ratio which is currently used in a limited capacity by the
USEPA.
b. A second issue of concern is how risk assessments account for variations
in population exposure and susceptibility. The Commission recommends
distributional approaches (i.e., probabilistic risk assessment) to more
accurately address variations in exposure and susceptibility.
c. A third issue under debate is describing uncertainties associated with risk
assessments. The Commission highlights the importance of
communicating both quantitative and qualitative risk to risk managers.
The importance of focusing risk assessment on other forms of risk, such
as that associated with microorganisms and radiation, in addition to risk
posed by chemicals is also expressed.
The Commission proposes the involvement of stakeholders in the ecological
risk assessment process, as well as in human health risk assessment. It notes that
the current framework for conducting ecological risk assessments needs
supplemental guidance regarding the involvement of stakeholders in ecological
risk assessment.
The next section of the report addresses the use of cost analysis in conjunction
with risk assessment in regulatory decision-making. The Commission states that,
"Considering costs and benefits in regulatory decision-making can help to clarify
the tradeoffs and implications associated with alternative regulatory policies and
help regulatory agencies to set priorities." Two forms of cost analysis are
highlighted in this document. One is "cost-effectiveness analysis" which can help
choose an option which meets a specific regulatory goal for the least amount of
money. The second form of cost analysis is "benefit-cost analysis" which is used
to "assess the benefits and cost of different health-based standards with different
levels of health protection."
There is also a section of the Commission's report which discusses
communication and comparison of risk. The Commission stresses the fact that risk
assessors, risk managers, stakeholders, and the public all have different
perceptions of risk. However, risk assessment can help to reach a consensus
regarding priorities for environmental health and safety ("comparative-risk
ranking"). Also in their report, the Commission cautions risk assessors in the use
of "bright lines," "numerical values between unacceptable and negligible
magnitudes of risk or exposure concentrations of concern." "Bright lines" should
be used as goals for decision-making but should not be applied inflexibly. The
Commission further expresses its view on the importance of peer review in risk
assessment and that laws expanding judicial review to cases regarding agency
compliance with "detailed procedural requirements" or "the resolution of complex
scientific issues" should not be supported.
The next section of the document outlines current Federal agency risk
assessment and risk management practices. Also, within the USEPA,
recommendations are made for the incorporation of risk assessment methods to
A8
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