National Academy of Sciences | 150 Year Anniversary

Questions? Call 800-624-6242

| Items in cart [0]

The National Academies Press

PAPERBACK
price:$49.00
add to cart

Rights & Permissions

topleft topright

Issues in Risk Assessment (1993)
Commission on Life Sciences (CLS)

Citation Manager

. "MICHAEL SLIMAK: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ACTIVITIES IN ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT." Issues in Risk Assessment. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press, 1993.

Please select a format:

BibTeX EndNote RefMan


Page
289
bottomleft bottomright

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.


Issues in Risk Assessment

should be comprehensive, detailed, and flexible enough "to consider unique scientific evidence in particular instances." Finally, the 1983 report recommended establishment of a "Board on Risk Assessment Methods." Some of the suggested functions of the board are now being carried out by CRAM.

Michael Slimak: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Activities In Ecological Risk Assessment

Michael Slimak, deputy director of EPA's Office of Ecological Processes and Effects Research, presented an overview of EPA's past and present activities in ecological risk assessment. Dr. Slimak identified five major problems that have made these assessments difficult to perform in a consistent way:

  • The need to consider multiple species and levels of biological organization;

  • The diversity and multiplicity of end points (e.g., mortality and biochemical cycling);

  • The simultaneous actions of multiple stressors, such as pollution and habitat loss;

  • The difficulty of relating ecological changes to societal values;

  • The multiplicity of regulatory mandates under which EPA operates.

Dr. Slimak defined ecological risk assessment as a "probabilistic statement of the 'outcome' [effects] associated with an ecological receptor being exposed to some form of stress." He then described some of the agency's approaches to assessing exposures and outcomes, focusing on two generic classifications: predictive or "bottom-up" assessments for single chemicals, as exemplified by the regulation of pesticides and toxic chemicals, and holistic or "top-down" assessments, such as assessments of wetland loss, effects of acid deposition, and global climate change. Most of EPA's attention has been devoted to predicting ecological effects of single chemicals from laboratory toxicity-test data. Although relatively elaborate guidelines and procedures have been developed for this purpose, the predictive approach has inherent weaknesses

Page
289
Front Matter (R1-R18)
Executive Summary (1-2)
USE OF THE MAXIMUM TOLERATED DOSE IN ANIMAL BIOASSAYS FOR CARCINOGENICITY (3-8)
THE TWO-STAGE MODEL OF CARCINOGENESIS (9-9)
A PARADIGM FOR ECOLOGIC RISK ASSESSMENT (10-12)
Issues In Risk Assessment Use Of Maximum Tolerated Dose in Animal Bioassays for Carcinogenicity (13-14)
BACKGROUND (15-17)
SCOPE OF REPORT (18-20)
DEFINITIONS AND BACKGROUND (21-23)
CORRELATIONS (24-32)
RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TOXICITY AND CARCINOGENICITY OBSERVED AT MTD (33-42)
QUALITATIVE INFORMATION (43-48)
QUANTITATIVE INFORMATION (49-52)
OPTION 1 (53-53)
OPTION 2 (54-54)
OPTION 3 (55-56)
Option 4A (57-58)
Option 4B (59-60)
5 Conclusions and Recommendations (61-66)
REFERENCES (67-78)
BACKGROUND (79-79)
DEFINING AND DETERMINING THE MTD (80-90)
Appendix B Organizing Subcommittee (91-92)
Appendix C Federal Liaison Group (93-94)
Appendix D Workshop Program (95-96)
Appendix E Workshop Attendees (97-110)
1. INTRODUCTION (111-112)
2.1 Measures of Carcinogenic Potency (113-115)
2.2 Carcinogenic Potency Database (CPDB) (116-116)
2.3 Variation in Carcinogen Potency (117-118)
2.4 Classification of Carcinogens (119-120)
3.1 Empirical Correlations (121-124)
3.2 Range of Possible TD50 Values (125-125)
3.3 Analytical Correlations (126-127)
3.4 Model Dependency (128-129)
3.5 Genotoxic vs. Nongenotoxic Carcinogens (130-130)
4.1 Predictions Based on the MDT (131-131)
4.2 Predictions Based on Mutagenicity and Acute Toxicity (132-134)
5.1 Correlation Between Upper Bounds On the Low Dose Slope and MTD (135-135)
5.2 Correlation Between q1* and the TD50 (136-138)
5.3. Preliminary Estimate of Risk (139-139)
6. INTERSPECIES EXTRAPOLATION (140-140)
6.1 Extrapolation from Rats to Mice (141-143)
6.2 Extrapolation from Rodents to Humans (144-145)
7. CONCLUSIONS (146-148)
8. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS (149-149)
9. REFERENCES (150-159)
ANNEX A: MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD METHODS FOR FITTING THE WEIBULL MODEL (160-161)
ANNEX B. SHRINKAGE ESTIMATORS OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF CARCINOGENIC POTENCY (162-163)
ANNEX C: ADJUSTMENT OF POTENCY VALUES FOR LESS THAN LIFETIME EXPOSURE (164-165)
ANNEX D: CORRELATION BETWEEN TD50 AND MTD (166-168)
ANNEX E: CORRELATION BETWEEN TD50S FOR RATS AND MICE (169-172)
Appendix G Informal Search for ''Supercarcinogens" (173-174)
CRITERIA AND CANDIDATE CHEMICALS (175-176)
DATA (177-180)
RESULTS (181-181)
DISCUSSION (182-184)
Issues in Risk Assessment The Two-Stage Model Of Carcinogenesis (185-186)
INTRODUCTION (187-187)
BIOLOGIC CONSIDERATIONS (188-189)
THE TWO-STAGE MODEL (190-195)
APPLICATIONS OF THE TWO-STAGE MODEL TO ANIMAL DATA (196-211)
Data Needs (212-212)
Criteria for Adoption (213-213)
Prospects (214-214)
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (215-216)
REFERENCES (217-222)
BIOLOGICAL FACTORS IN TWO-STAGE MODELS (223-225)
TWO-STAGE MODEL OF CLONAL EXPANSION (226-227)
APPLICATION OF THE TWO-STAGE MODEL TO ANIMAL DATA (228-232)
Appendix B Workshop Program (233-234)
Appendix C Workshop Federal Liaison Group (235-236)
TOPIC GROUP MEMBERS (237-238)
Appendix E Workshop Organizing Task Group (239-240)
Isuees In Risk Assessment A Paradigm for Ecological Risk Assessment (241-242)
1 Introduction (243-246)
2 Scope of Ecological Risk Assessment (247-248)
COMPONENTS OF THE 1983 FRAMEWORK (249-250)
CONSISTENCY OF CASE STUDIES WITH THE 1983 FRAMEWORK (251-253)
INTEGRATION OF ECOLOGICAL RISK INTO THE 1983 FRAMEWORK (254-254)
DEFINITION OF FRAMEWORK COMPONENTS FOR ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (255-258)
EXTRAPOLATION ACROSS SCALES (259-260)
QUANTIFICATION OF UNCERTAINTY (261-261)
VALIDATION OF PREDICTIVE TOOLS (262-262)
VALUATION (263-264)
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)
TERRY F. YOSIE BUILDING ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT AS A POLICY TOOL (283-285)
D. WARNER NORTH: RELATIONSHIP OF WORKSHOP TO NRC'S 1983 RED BOOK REPORT (286-288)
MICHAEL SLIMAK: U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY ACTIVITIES IN ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT (289-292)
CASE STUDY 1: TRIBUTYLTIN RISK MANAGEMENT IN THE UNITED STATES (293-293)
Discussion (294-294)
CASE STUDY 2: ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT FOR TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE EXPOSED TO AGRICULTURAL CHEMICALS (295-296)
CASE STUDY 3A: MODELS OF TOXIC CHEMICALS IN THE GREAT LAKES: STRUCTURE, APPLICATIONS, AND UNCERTAINTY ANALYSIS (297-298)
CASE STUDY 3B: ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT OF TCDD AND TCDF (299-299)
Discussion (300-300)
CASE STUDY 4: RISK ASSESSMENT METHODS IN ANIMAL POPULATIONS: THE NORTHERN SPOTTED OWL AS AN EXAMPLE (301-301)
Discussion (302-302)
CASE STUDY 5: ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS AND RISKS ASSOCIATED WITH THE INTRODUCTION OF EXOTIC SPECIES FOR BIOLOGICAL CONTROL OF A... (303-303)
Discussion (304-304)
CASE STUDY 1: UNCERTAINTY AND RISK IN AN EXPLOITED ECOSYSTEM: A CASE STUDY OF GEORGES BANK (305-306)
Discussion (307-308)
Generic Issues (309-309)
Analysis of Case Studies (310-310)
DOSE-RESPONSE ASSESSMENT (311-311)
Selection of End Points (312-312)
Consideration of Nonlinearities And Discontinuities (313-313)
Understanding the Stressor (314-314)
Additions to the 1983 Paradigm Needed for Ecological Risk Assessment (315-315)
Modeling Needs for Stress-Response Relationships (316-316)
Methods of Measuring Stressors for Ecological Exposure Assessment (317-317)
Definition of Risk Characterization (318-318)
Components of Risk Characterization (319-319)
Organization and Presentation (320-320)
Differences from and Similarities To the 1983 Report (321-321)
Application to the Case Studies (322-323)
Agricultural Chemicals (324-324)
Northern Spotted Owl (325-325)
General Discussion: Models and Risk Assessment (326-326)
Uncertainties Identified In the Case Studies (327-327)
Implications of Uncertainty for Ecological Risk Assessment (328-328)
VALUATION (329-330)
Risk Assessment Has Many Uses (331-332)
Different Risk Assessment Methods Are Suited to Different Risk Assessment Needs (333-333)
Risk Assessors and Risk Managers Need to Communicate (334-334)
Credibility is Crucial (335-336)
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 289
Issues in Risk Assessment should be comprehensive, detailed, and flexible enough "to consider unique scientific evidence in particular instances." Finally, the 1983 report recommended establishment of a "Board on Risk Assessment Methods." Some of the suggested functions of the board are now being carried out by CRAM. Michael Slimak: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Activities In Ecological Risk Assessment Michael Slimak, deputy director of EPA's Office of Ecological Processes and Effects Research, presented an overview of EPA's past and present activities in ecological risk assessment. Dr. Slimak identified five major problems that have made these assessments difficult to perform in a consistent way: The need to consider multiple species and levels of biological organization; The diversity and multiplicity of end points (e.g., mortality and biochemical cycling); The simultaneous actions of multiple stressors, such as pollution and habitat loss; The difficulty of relating ecological changes to societal values; The multiplicity of regulatory mandates under which EPA operates. Dr. Slimak defined ecological risk assessment as a "probabilistic statement of the 'outcome' [effects] associated with an ecological receptor being exposed to some form of stress." He then described some of the agency's approaches to assessing exposures and outcomes, focusing on two generic classifications: predictive or "bottom-up" assessments for single chemicals, as exemplified by the regulation of pesticides and toxic chemicals, and holistic or "top-down" assessments, such as assessments of wetland loss, effects of acid deposition, and global climate change. Most of EPA's attention has been devoted to predicting ecological effects of single chemicals from laboratory toxicity-test data. Although relatively elaborate guidelines and procedures have been developed for this purpose, the predictive approach has inherent weaknesses

OCR for page 290
Issues in Risk Assessment that have long been recognized. Recently, water quality regulation has moved toward a top-down approach based on measurement of community integrity from field data. Many of the problems facing EPA are not amenable to the predictive approach, either because they involve stresses other than toxic chemicals or because they involve direct observation of adverse ecological changes. Examples discussed by Dr. Slimak include explanation of dolphin-stranding incidents, a reported worldwide amphibian decline, and performance of ecological assessments at Superfund sites. Such studies involve difficult scientific problems. The National Acidic Precipitation Assessment Program's assessment of the relationship of sulfur dioxide deposition to aquatic resource quality (NAPAP, 1991) best demonstrates problems encountered by EPA. For the last 5 years, EPA has been conducting an ecological risk assessment research program focused on developing better predictive models for single-chemical assessments. A major new initiative, the Environmental Monitoring and Assessment Program (EMAP), will attempt to measure ecosystem quality on regional and national scales through a nationwide monitoring program. The results will be used to determine the success of EPA's regulatory programs and to support future risk assessments. The EPA Risk Assessment Forum has initiated the development of guidelines for ecological risk assessment analogous to the existing guidelines for health risk assessment. A series of risk assessment colloquia was held during 1990. The proceedings were summarized and published in early 1991 in a report entitled Issues in Ecological Risk Assessment . A "framework document," intended to provide the conceptual basis for detailed guidelines, is now being reviewed (EPA, 1992a). A strategy for subject-specific guidelines structured around ecosystem types, levels of biological organization, end points, and stressors is being developed simultaneously. Case studies illustrating current practice are being developed and a report containing case studies will be announced in the Federal Register (EPA, 1992b). Dr. Slimak closed his presentation by raising issues for consideration at the CRAM workshop: The amenability of ecological risk assessments to biostatistical treatment; End point identification and selection;

OCR for page 291
Issues in Risk Assessment Ecological values; The relationship of the 1983 paradigm to regulatory processes; The relationship between risk assessment and risk management.

OCR for page 292
Issues in Risk Assessment This page in the original is blank.