Using emerging science to inform risk characterizations for wildlife within current regulatory frameworks.

Many jurisdictions have regulatory frameworks that seek to reduce the effects of environmental exposures of anthropogenic chemicals on terrestrial wildlife (i.e., mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians). The frameworks apply for new and existing chemicals, including pesticides (prospective assessments), and to environmental contamination from releases (retrospective risk assessments). Relatively recently, there have been many scientific advances that could improve risk estimates for wildlife. Here, we briefly describe current regulations from North America (United States and Canada) and from Europe that include risk assessments for wildlife to ascertain whether they are conducive to the use of emerging science and new methods. We also provide examples where new and emerging science may be used to improve wildlife risk characterization and identify areas in need of future research. Integr Environ Assess Manag 2024;20:765-779. © 2024 His Majesty the King in Right of Canada and The Authors. Integrated Environmental Assessment and Management © 2024 Society of Environmental Toxicology & Chemistry (SETAC). Reproduced with the permission of the Minister of Environment and Climate Change Canada. This article has been contributed to by U.S. Government employees and their work is in the public domain in the USA.

Regulatory considerations for the potential development and application of metal cleanup values.

This article addresses the regulatory issues associated with the application of recent data to support Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances (REACH) requirements in Europe and the use of metal-specific parameters by other countries to generate remediation values for metals in soil. The purposes of this article are to: 1) present approaches and advances developed over the last decade in Europe for the REACH regulation and proposed in Australia by the National Environment Protection Council, 2) review current US and Canadian regulatory practices on ecological soil cleanup values, and 3) evaluate the application of new scientific approaches, methods, and soil criteria development processes used in other countries.

Getting fire risk assessment right.

The NHS has one of the world's largest and most varied estates, which at any time accommodates many of the most dependent people in society. With around 6,000 fires occurring in NHS premises each year, its duty of care--and that of other healthcare providers--demands very close attention to fire safety. Here Dr David Charters BSc, PhD, CEng, FIFireE, MIMechE, MSFPE, director of Fire Engineering at BRE Global, an independent third party approvals body offering certification of fire, security, and sustainability products and services, examines the critical role of fire risk assessment, and explains why the process should provide the 'foundation' for effective fire safety measures.

Baseline ecological risk assessment of the Calcasieu Estuary, Louisiana: Part 1. Overview and problem formulation.

A remedial investigation/feasibility study (RI/FS) of the Calcasieu Estuary cooperative site was initiated in 1998. This site, which is located in the southwestern portion of Louisiana in the vicinity of Lake Charles, includes the portion of the estuary from the saltwater barrier on the Calcasieu River to Moss Lake. As part of the RI/FS, a baseline ecological risk assessment (BERA) was conducted to assess the risks to aquatic organisms and aquatic-dependent wildlife exposed to environmental contaminants. The purpose of the BERA was to determine if adverse effects on ecological receptors are occurring in the estuary; to evaluate the nature, severity, and areal extent of any such effects; and to identify the substances that are causing or substantially contributing to effects on ecological receptors. This article describes the environmental setting and site history, identifies the chemicals of potential concern, presents the exposure scenarios and conceptual model for the site, and summarizes the assessment and measurement endpoints that were used in the investigation. Two additional articles in this series describe the results of an evaluation of effects-based sediment-quality guidelines as well as an assessment of risks to benthic invertebrates associated with exposure to contaminated sediment.

The Nexus between ecological risk assessment and natural resource damage assessment under CERCLA: introduction to a Society of Environmental Toxicology and ChemistryTechnical Workshop.

A SETAC Technical Workshop titled "The Nexus Between Ecological Risk Assessment and Natural Resource Damage Assessment Under CERCLA: Understanding and Improving the Common Scientific Underpinnings," was held 18-22 August 2008 in Gregson, Montana, USA, to examine the linkage, nexus, and overlap between ecological risk assessment (ERA) and natural resource damage assessment (NRDA) under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). Experts from a broad range of relevant scientific, legal, and policy disciplines convened to 1) ascertain the potential for improved scientific harmonization of the processes of ERA and NRDA; 2) identify where statutory, regulatory, or scientific constraints might exist that would constrain or preclude the harmonization of the 2 processes; 3) determine approaches that might overcome these constraints; and 4) recommend research or potential changes in regulatory policies that might serve to improve both processes. This is the introduction to a series of 3 papers that describe the findings and conclusions of this workshop. Although unanimity was not achieved on all technical, legal, or policy questions posed to the participants, some consensus areas did arise. First, there appear to be few if any legal constraints to using the environmental data collected for ERA or NRDA for both processes. Second, although it is important to recognize and preserve the distinctions between ERA and NRDA, opportunities for data sharing exist, particularly for the characterization of environmental exposures and derivation of ecotoxicological information. Thus, effective coordination is not precluded by the underlying science. Where a cooperative, interactive process is involved among the response agencies, the natural resource trustees, and the responsible party(s), technical, legal or regulatory constraints can be minimized. Finally, one approach that might enhance the potential applicability of data collected for the ERA is to consider ecosystem services in the development of assessment endpoints. These points are explained in greater detail in the series of papers published herein.

Effective coordination and cooperation between ecological risk assessments and natural resource damage assessments: a new synthesis.

Although ecological risk assessments (ERAs) and natural resource damage assessments (NRDAs) are performed under different statutory and regulatory authorities, primarily the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA), as currently practiced, the activities typically overlap. ERAs performed as part of the response process (typically by the US Environmental Protection Agency [USEPA]) should be closely coordinated with the natural resource trustees' (trustees') NRDAs. Trustees should actively participate in the early stages of the remedial investigation (RI) and work with USEPA, including the potentially responsible parties (PRPs), when appropriate, to coordinate NRDA data needs with those of the RI. Close coordination can present opportunities to avoid inefficiencies, such as unnecessary resampling or duplicate data gathering, and provide the opportunity to fulfill both process requirements with a few well-designed investigations. Early identification of opportunities for practical combined assessment can save money and time as the restoration process proceeds and facilitate a cooperative resolution of the entire site's CERCLA liability. The Society of Environmental Toxicology and Chemistry (SETAC) convened an invited workshop (August 2008) to address coordination between ERA and NRDA efforts. This paper presents the findings and conclusions of the Framework Work Group, which considered technical issues common to each process, while mindful of the current legal and policy landscape, and developed recommendations for future practice.