PROTECTFP6-036425 Derivation of Taxonomic Screening Values.

Slides:

Advertisements

Similar presentations

David Copplestone Centre for Ecology & Hydrology - Lancaster October 2011.

Advertisements

Numerical benchmarks: proposed levels and underlying reasoning

Lim Sei cK.  Information!  What information is expected in a progress report?  The answer to this question depends, as you might expect, on the.

Business: Graded Unit 2 Kenneth Allen

Supplemental Figure 1 A No. at risk T T T

Annual Inspections of First Nation Water and Wastewater Facilities Derek Hill, P.Eng., Senior Engineer Mohammed Karim, P.Eng., Senior Engineer, Water\Wastewater.

What makes a good project?.  A testing ground for concepts presented in the taught programme  An opportunity to demonstrate the ability to apply knowledge.

PROTECTFP PROTECT: First Proposed Levels for Environmental Protection against Radioactive Substances Definitions, Derivation Methods to Determine.

THE ECONOMICS OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY

“International context and response to draft D5b – a conservation agencies view” PROTECT Workshop, Aix en Provence. 14 May 2008.

PROTECTFP Radioprotection of the environment in France: IRSN current views and workplan K. Beaugelin-Seiller, IRSN Vienna IC, June 2007.

Breach of a Requirement of the Code Marisa Orbea New York 19 June 2012.

Risk Analysis & Management. Phases Initial Risk Assessment Risk Analysis Risk Management and Mitigation.

PROTECTFP Work Package 1:- results from questionnaire and overview of tools for chemical assessment.

Environmental risk assessment of chemicals Paul Howe Centre for Ecology & Hydrology, UK.

1 SPECIFIC PURPOSES E.G GENERAL PURPOSE: To inform SPECIFIC PURPOSES: To inform my audience of the recent progress in AIDS research. To inform my audience.

Getting truly effective consumer involvement Shared decision-making workshop October 2014.

PROTECTFP CEH, UK (Co-ordinator) SSI, Sweden IRSN, France NRPA, Norway EA, England & Wales.

Methods for Incorporating Aquatic Plant Effects into Community Level Benchmarks EPA Development Team Regional Stakeholder Meetings January 11-22, 2010.

Factors to consider when Evaluating Research. Is the research hypothesis...  sufficiently specific?  clearly stated?

P247. Figure 9-1 p248 Figure 9-2 p251 p251 Figure 9-3 p253.

Plan to develop system requirements through science cases Claire Max Sept 14, 2006 NGAO Team Meeting.

Risk Analyses and the Development of Radiological Benchmarks Tom Hinton (IRSN)

Karin Hannes Centre for Methodology of Educational Research K.U.Leuven.

…patient reported outcome (PRO) measure for your clinical study Dr Keith Meadows, DHP Research & Consultancy Ltd.

PROTECTFP Numerical Benchmarks for protecting biota against radiation in the environment Methodology to derive benchmarks, selected methods used.

An Emissions Cap Alternative to New Source Review September 27, 1999.

Regulation 16B As referenced in Approved Document B 2006.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON RADIOLOGICAL PROTECTION —————————————————————————————————————— ICRP And Protection of The Environment Dr Jack Valentin Scientific.

Charge Question 1-1: Please comment on whether the assessment provides a clear and logical summary of EPA’s approach and analysis. Please provide specific.

The Fair Funding Challenge Margaret Judd Sufficiency and Funding Manager Dorset County Council.

Training Session Product File Notes and Registration Reports, 23 October Registration Report: General aspects M. Trybou Federal Public Service of.

Introduction Financial Statement Analysis Prepared By: Anuj Bhatia, Professor, Shah Tuition Classes Ph

PROTECTFP Derivation of Environmental Radiological Protection Benchmarks an overview

Determining Generic Levels of Skill Proficiency

Community pharmacy e-learning module on oesophago-gastric cancer awareness Steve Williamson 1, Suzanne Thompson 1, Caroline Latta 2, Ann Gunning 2 NECN.

PROTECTFP PROTECT Questionnaire Responses Jo Hingston.

CEH Lancaster 27 th – 29 th June What is a benchmark? Why are benchmarks needed? How are benchmarks derived? How are benchmarks used?

Charge Question 4-1: Please comment on the ecotoxicity studies selected to represent the most sensitive species in each of the risk scenarios (acute aquatic,

SUERF Annual Lecture Risk Management – A supervisor’s approach Gabriel Bernardino EIOPA Chairman Helsinki, 22 September 2011.

Successful Concepts Study Rationale Literature Review Study Design Rationale for Intervention Eligibility Criteria Endpoint Measurement Tools.

PROTECTFP PROTECT recommendations – application in practice.

Discussion of Unpaid Claim Estimate Standard  Raji Bhagavatula  Mary Frances Miller  Jason Russ November 13, 2006 CAS Annual Meeting San Francisco,

Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Dekant Department of Toxicology University of Würzburg Germany Risk, Hazard, and Innovation.

An overview of multi-criteria analysis techniques The main role of the techniques is to deal with the difficulties that human decision-makers have been.

Page June 2015 OICA position on venting EVSTF-04-11e.

VERTEBRATE ANIMAL FORMS 5A and 5B USE OF ANIMALS IN RESEARCH Patterned after Federal regulations for use of animals in research Patterned after Federal.

Committee on University Effectiveness Working Group on Institutional Assessment April 8, 2011.

Projects and Activities Defining activities some assumptions that will be relevant when we start to produce an activity plan. Activities must be defined.

UNIT No. 3 Capital Budgeting Nature Significance Technique of Capital Budgeting Pay back Method Accounting Rate of Return Net Present Value Profitability.

PROTECTFP Recommendations of Work Package 1 David Copplestone.

Unit 4: Promoting learning by managing progression.

Comparison of Budget and Actual Achievement BUDGETS Key Definitions: Budgetary control: Involves comparing budgeted figures with actual figures and acting.

Abstract A step-wise or ‘tiered’ approach has been used as a rational procedure to conduct environmental risk assessments in many disciplines. The Technical.

© Edco 2010 Exploring Science Biology Biology. © Edco 2007 Exploring Science Biology Biology is the study of living things (organisms). CHAPTER 1 LIVING.

Measuring The Impact of Advocacy

CHAPTER 13 The budgeting process.

Applications of the Derivative

تحليل الحساسية Sensitive Analysis.

بعض النقاط التي تؤخذ في الحسبان عند تقييم الاستثمارات الزراعية

Objectives 1. An overall understanding of how appropriate human resources can be provided for the organization 2. An appreciation for the relationship.

Unit 9 Evaluation of Strategies Professor John Tribe

GCSE AQA Product Design

Project collaborators’ names

Role of Higher Tier Data in the Derivation of the Ni EQS

Journey to deeper thinking

IPPC Member Consultation 1 July to 1 December 2013

ISO and TR Update for FDA Regulated Industries

Scientific Inquiry Standards B – 1.7 and B – 1.8.

Presentation transcript:

PROTECTFP Derivation of Taxonomic Screening Values

PROTECTFP Taxonomic Screening Values Our background thinking…

PROTECTFP Taxonomic Screening Values Our background thinking… The use of generic screening values identifies the most exposed BUT is not necessarily the most at risk organism Having taxonomic screening values could aid regulation

PROTECTFP Taxonomic Screening Values Our background thinking… The use of generic screening values identifies the most exposed BUT is not necessarily the most at risk organism Having taxonomic screening values could aid regulation Initially, thought to apply SSD approach to derive PNEDRs for each constituent grouping (e.g. vertebrates, plants, invertebrates) Ideally, want all appropriate taxonomic groups

PROTECTFP Taxonomic Screening Values Using data such as the UNSCEAR figure (already discussed) thought this might help determine groupings

PROTECTFP Taxonomic Screening Values Using data such as the UNSCEAR figure (already discussed) thought this might help determine groupings Accepting that this was an inappropriate endpoint, we initially proposed the following: Vertebrates, Invertebrates, Higher and Lower plants BUT…

PROTECTFP Taxonomic Screening Values Evaluation of available effects data for inclusion in SSD clearly showed that we could not derive numbers for all the planned groups using the TGD

PROTECTFP Taxonomic Screening Values Evaluation of available effects data for inclusion in SSD clearly showed that we could not derive numbers for all the planned groups using the TGD Note – it was felt that the most sensitive (vertebrates) might lead to PNEDR which was lower than generic screening value

PROTECTFP Taxonomic Screening Values Evaluation of available effects data for inclusion in SSD clearly showed that we could not derive numbers for all the planned groups using the TGD Note – it was felt that the most sensitive (vertebrates) might lead to PNEDR which was lower than generic screening value If this proved to be the case, proposed to replace the generic screening value with the lowest PNEDR

PROTECTFP Taxonomic Screening Values Sensitivity analysis of the limited data sets showed that only removing the vertebrates made any difference to the overall SSD Key issue is the limited data sets for each taxonomic group

PROTECTFP Taxonomic Screening Values Sensitivity analysis of the limited data sets showed that only removing the vertebrates made any difference to the overall SSD Key issue is the limited data sets for each taxonomic group Is our CONCEPT for the derivation of the taxonomic screening values clear?