Risk Assessment in the Federal Government : Managing the Process Working Papers.

Detalles Bibliográficos
Clasificación:Libro Electrónico
Autor principal: Health, Committee on the Institutional Means for Assessment of Risks to Public
Otros Autores: Council, National Research
Formato: Electrónico eBook
Idioma:Inglés
Publicado: Washington : National Academies Press, 1983.
Temas:
Health planning > United States > Decision making.
Health risk assessment.
Health Status Indicators
Santé publique > Planification > États-Unis > Prise de décision.
Risques pour la santé > Évaluation.
Health planning > Decision making
Health risk assessment
United States
Acceso en línea:Texto completo
Tabla de Contenidos:
  • RISK ASSESSMENT IN THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT: MANAGING THE PROCESS
  • PREFACE
  • Contents
  • FORMALDEHYDE The Consumer Product Safety Commission's Risk Assessment for Formaldehyde
  • A. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
  • 1. Describe the chemical and its uses.
  • Production and Uses
  • Release of Formaldehyde from Urea-Formaldehyde Foam Insulation (UFFI).
  • 2. Describe how the question of risk was elevated to the agency agenda*.
  • Irritation and Sensitization
  • Carcinogenic Risk
  • 3. Under what statutes and agency jurisdiction does the chemical fall? What statutory tests governed the decision?4. What was the decision schedule? Note any statutory or other action deadlines.
  • October 1976
  • June 10, 1980
  • November 20, 1980
  • February 5, 1981
  • April 10, 1981
  • October 26, 1981
  • April 2, 1982
  • B. IDENTIFICATION OF HAZARD (determining the presence or absence of potential toxic effects)
  • 1. What health endpoints were evaluated?
  • 2. What were the key data available for review? (What additional data were sought?)
  • 3. Who performed the initial analysis? (What was their background? Available analytic resources?)Irritation and Sensitivity
  • Carcinogenic Effects
  • 4. How was uncertainty described in reaching final interpretations? Were crucial assumptions made explicit?
  • Irritation and Sensitivity
  • Carcinogenicity
  • 5. What qualitative factors affected the weighting of data?
  • 6. What inference options were used in the Hazard Identification step? Were they explicit and in accord with any general guidelines?
  • Explicitness and Accordance with General Guidelines
  • 7. Describe any internal, internal-advisory (e.g., EPA's SAB) and external (e.g., NAS) scientific review of the initial analysis. What, if any, criticism was incurred?8. How were issues raised in the review(s) accommodated?
  • 9. What other issues arose concerning scientific data and their use? Briefly describe dissenting opinion (as pertaining to hazard identification only).
  • Irritation and Sensitization
  • Carcinogenicity
  • 10. Is the substance subject to past or possible future regulatory actions in other programs? If so, did the program office coordinate with other agencies or programs?C. QUANTIFICATION AND CHARACTERIZATION OF RISK TO HUMANS
  • 1. What health points were evaluated?
  • 2. What were the key data available for review? (What additional data were sought?)
  • Animal Data
  • Human Exposure
  • 3. Who performed the initial analysis? (What was their background? Available analytic resources?)

Ejemplares similares