Methods Used in the United States for the Assessment and Management of Health Risk Due to Chemicals

  • J. W. Falco
  • R. V. Moraski
Part of the NATO · Challenges of Modern Society book series (NATS, volume 12)


Assessing the risk from either deliberate or accidental environmental chemical releases is a key factor in developing a strategy for the control of environmental pollution or the protection of human health. A risk assessment also may be used to estimate the degree of risk reduction that could result from the consideration of control scenarios that may be implemented in the regulatory process. Over the years legislation and regulations have been enacted in the United States to control the release of potentially hazardous chemicals into the environment and to institute risk reduction strategies. The result has been a diversity of approaches and technical quality in risk assessments which have complicated the management of environmental risks. Consequently, several efforts have been undertaken in an effort to gain an understanding of the risk assessment/risk management process and to reduce the multiplicity of approaches used by the various federal agencies.


Environmental Protection Agency Risk Assessment Process Hazard Identification National Toxicology Program Consumer Product Safety Commission 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Andersen, M. E., Clewell, H. J., III, Gargas, M. L., Smith, F. A., and Reitz, R. H., 1986, Physiologically based pharmacokinetics and the risk assessment process for methylene chloride. Submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  2. Andersen, M. E., Clewell, H. J., III, Gargas, M. L., Smith, F. A., and Reitz, R. H., 1987, Physiologically based pharmacokinetics and the risk assessment process for methylene chloride, Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol., 87: 185–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. CEFIC, 1987 (Mar.), Methylene chloride (dichloromethane): further experimental data, telex from M. Harris, ICI Americas, to J. Hopkins, Office of Toxic Substances, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
  4. Congressional Research Service, 1983 (Mar.), “A Review of Risk Assessment Methodologies,” for the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  5. FDA, 1985, Cosmetics; proposed ban on the use of methylene chloride as an ingredient of aerosol cosmetic products, Federal Register, 50 (243): 51551–51559.Google Scholar
  6. Friedlander, B. R., Hearne, T., and Hall, S., 1978, Epidemiologic investigation of employees chronically exposed to methylene chloride: mortality analysis, J. Occup. Med., 20: 657–666.Google Scholar
  7. Hearne, F. T., and Friedlander, B. R., 1981, Follow-up of methylene chloride study, J. Occup. Med., 23: 660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hearne, F. T., Grose, F., Pifer, J. W., and Friedlander, B. R., 1986 (June 16), “Methylene Chloride Mortality Study Update,” Eastman Kodak Company.Google Scholar
  9. HRAC,. 1987, “Technical Analysis of Mew Methods and Data Regarding Dichloromethane Hazard Assessments,” EPA-600/8-87-029, prepared by an interagency work group of the Integrated Chlorinated Solvents Project.Google Scholar
  10. International Agency for Research on Cancer, 1982, “IARC Monographs on the Evaluation of the Carcinogenic Risk of Chemicals to Humans,” Supplement 4, Lyon, France.Google Scholar
  11. National Research Council, 1983, “Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process,” National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., for the National Academy of Sciences.Google Scholar
  12. NTP, 1985, “NTP Technical Report on the Toxicology and Carcinogenesis Studies of Dichloromethane in F344/N rats and B6C3F1 Mice (Inhalation Studies),” NTP-TR-306.Google Scholar
  13. OSHA, 1986, Occupational safety of methylene chloride, Federal Register, 51 (226): 42257.Google Scholar
  14. OSTP, 1985 (Mar. 14), Chemical carcinogens: a review of the science and its associated principles, February 1985, Federal Register, 50(50):10372–10442.Google Scholar
  15. Ott, M. G., Skory, L. K., Holder, B. B., Bronson, J. M., and Williams, P. R., 1983, Health evaluation of employees occupationally exposed to methylene chloride, Scand. J. Work Environ. Health, 9 (Suppl. 1): 8–16.Google Scholar
  16. Preuss, P. W., and Ehrlich, A. M., 1987, The Environmental Protection Agency’s risk assessment guidelines, JAPCA, 37 (7): 784–791.Google Scholar
  17. Russo, J., Tay, L. K., and Russo, I. H., 1982, Differentiation of the mammary gland and susceptibility to carcinogenesis, Breast Cancer Res. Treat., 2 (1): 5–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. U.S. CPSC, 1986, Household products containing methylene chloride: status as hazardous substances, Federal Register, 51 (161): 29778–29809.Google Scholar
  19. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 1985 (Apr.), “Risk Assessment and Risk Management of Toxic Substances,” prepared by the Committee to Coordinate Environmental and Related Programs.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Press, New York 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. W. Falco
    • 1
  • R. V. Moraski
    • 2
  1. 1.Office of Environmental Processes and Effects ResearchUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyUSA
  2. 2.Office of Health and Environmental AssessmentUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyUSA

Personalised recommendations