Policy Guidance Documents
Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment EPA/630/P-03/001F March 2005 | Cancer_Guidelines_3-25-05.pdf, 468KB
Risk Assessment Forum - U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Abstract: These guidelines revise and replace the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's, or the Agency's) Guidelines for Carcinogen Risk Assessment, published in 51 FR 33992, September 24, 1986 (U.S. EPA, 1986a) and the 1999 interim final guidelines (U.S. EPA, 1999a; see U.S. EPA 2001b). They provide EPA staff with guidance for developing and using risk assessments. They also provide basic information to the public about the Agency's risk assessment methods.
Circular A-4 to the Heads of Executive Agencies and Establishments, September 17, 2003 | OMBa-4.pdf, 550KB
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Abstract: This Circular is designed to assist analysts in the regulatory agencies by defining good regulatory analysis - called either "regulatory analysis" or "analysis" for brevity - and standardizing the way benefits and costs of Federal regulatory actions are measured and reported. Executive Order 12866 requires agencies to conduct a regulatory analysis for economically significant regulatory actions as defined by Section 3(f)(1). This requirement applies to rulemakings that rescind or modify existing rules as well as to rulemakings that establish new requirements.
Estimating The Public Health Benefits Of Proposed Air Pollution Regulations | NRC2002.pdf, 1.92MB
National Research Council of the National Academies
Abstract: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)has estimated that thousands of premature deaths and numerous cases of illness, such as chronic bronchitis and asthma attacks, could be prevented by reducing exposure to air pollution. These estimates come from regulatory health benefits analyses, which attempt to quantify changes in the expected cases of mortality and illness that are likely to result from proposed air pollution regulations. The estimates are often controversial, and the methods used to prepare them have been questioned.
In 2000, Congress recognized concerns about the methods used by EPA and emphasized the need for "the most scientifically defensible methodology in estimating health benefits." It directed EPA to ask the National Academy of Sciences "to conduct a study of this issue and recommend to the agency a common methodology to be followed in all future analyses."
Proposed Risk Assessment Bulletin | OMB_bulletin_010906.pdf, 157KB
Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Abstract: As part of an ongoing effort to improve the quality, objectivity, utility, and integrity of information disseminated by the federal government to the public, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), in consultation with the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP), proposes to issue new technical guidance on risk assessments produced by the federal government.
Procedures Guide for Structured Expert Judgment | ROCG99.pdf, 414KB
Roger M. Cooke and L.J.H Goossens
Abstract: This document is a guide for using structured expert judgment to quantify uncertainty in quantitative models. The methods applied here have been developed by a host or researchers over the last 30 years. During the years 1990 - 1999, the European Commission and the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission undertook a joint uncertainty study of accident consequence codes for nuclear power plants using structured expert judgment. The purpose was not only to perform an uncertainty analysis of the US accident consequence code MACCS and the European accident consequence code COSYMA. The wider purpose was to form a baseline for the state of the art in using structured expert judgment for quantifying uncertainty. The reports emerging from this work are intended to be useful outside the community of nuclear accident consequence modeling. Indeed the quantification of uncertainty in the modeling of dispersion, deposition, foodchain transport, and cancer induction, may be used in many fields of environmental modeling and health protection. In the same spirit the methods for using structured expert judgment to quantify uncertainty are applicable far beyond the accident consequence modeling community.