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 309
Issues in Risk Assessment Appendix F Breakout Sessions HAZARD IDENTIFICATION A. Maki and D. Patton The hazard identification group examined the case studies in light of the 1983 Red Book paradigm and experience with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for health risk assessments to set the context for discussing hazard identification in ecological risk assessment. Generic issues related to paradigm flexibility, scope of ecological risk assessment, the role of uncertainty in research, and the role of nonscientific consideration were discussed. Specific issues were examined for each case study in terms of ecological hazard. Generic Issues There was general agreement that flexibility existed (even if not always applied) in the 1983 paradigm and in forthcoming EPA health guidelines. Flexibility is desirable for ecological risk assessment. Although the four components of the paradigm—hazard identification, dose-response assessment, exposure assessment, and risk characterization—are appropriate for any ecological risk paradigm, they may be combined in different ways. For example, hazard identification may be combined with other steps or treated separately case by case. The group also agreed that uncertainties that were not fully analyzed for hazard