Scientific Review of the Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin from the Office of Management and Budget

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

About | Ordering | New

LoginRegister

| Items in cart [0]

PAPERBACK
price:$62.00
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

Free PDF Access

Free Resources

Related Titles

Scientific Review of the Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin from the Office of Management and Budget (2007)
Board on Environmental Studies and Toxicology (BEST)

Citation Manager Export the bibliographic data for this book in your chosen format
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.

Citation Manager

. "2 Consistency with National Research Council and Other Reports." Scientific Review of the Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin from the Office of Management and Budget. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 2007.

Please select a format:

Page
25


E-mail Share on facebook Facebook Share on delicious Delicious Share on stumbleupon Stumble Share on twitter Twitter More Sharing ServicesMore

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.

Scientific Review of the Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin from the Office of Management and Budget

formal analyses of uncertainties and for undefined “central estimates” may, in the absence of peer-reviewed technical guidance on the evaluation and expression of uncertainties, result in risk characterizations of reduced rather than enhanced quality and consistency. These are serious concerns because any attempt to advance the practice of risk assessment that does not lean heavily on nearly 25 years of expert study of the topic and reflect scientific consensus is likely to produce the opposite effect. The chapters that follow in this report provide further discussion of those concerns.

REFERENCES

ASME (American Society of Mechanical Engineers). 2002. Standard for Probabilistic Risk Assessment for Nuclear Power Plant Applications. ASME RA-S-2002. American Society of Mechanical Engineers. December 20, 2002.

ANS (American Nuclear Society). 2003. External-Events PRA Methodology: ANSI/ANS-58.21-2003. American National Standard. American Nuclear Society. December 2003.

EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 2001. Toxicological Review of Chloroform (CAS No. 67-66-3): In Support of Summary Information on the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS). EPA/635/R-01/001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC [online]. Available: http://www.epa.gov/iris/toxreviews/ 0025-tr.pdf [accessed Oct. 2, 2006].

NRC (National Research Council). 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

NRC (National Research Council). 1994. Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

NRC (National Research Council). 1996. Understanding Risk: Informing Decisions in a Democratic Society. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

OMB (U.S. Office of Management and Budget). 2006. Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin. Released January 9, 2006. Washington, DC: Office of Management and Budget, Executive Office of the President [online]. Available: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/ proposed_risk_ assessment_bulletin_010906.pdf [accessed Oct. 11, 2006].

PCCRARM (Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management). 1997. Risk Assessment and Risk Management in Regulatory Decision-Making, Vol. 2. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office [online]. Available: http://www.riskworld.com/Nreports/1997/riskrpt/volume2/pdf/v2epa. PDF [accessed Oct. 3, 2006].