Should Ecological and Human Health Risk Assessments be Based on Similar Endpoints?
. B.A. Williams, J.A. Nedoff, L.J. Kennedy; Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, Portland, Oregon, and Kennedy/Jenks Consultants, San Francisco, CA. billwilliams@kennedyjenks.com Abstract: The goal of a Human Health Risk Assessment (HHRA) is to estimate the potential risk to humans by exposure to contaminants. While a focus of the HHRA is protection of the maximally exposed individual, an Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) is designed to protect communities and populations of wildlife species. Under FIFRA and TSCA, ERAs are designed to characterize chemical-specific risks including potential adverse effects to local populations and communities of plants and animals (e.g., reductions in populations of fish-eating birds, or reductions in survival, reproduction, or species diversity of indigenous benthic communities). HHRA has been of paramount interest in risk assessments at most sites, but ERA has become an increasingly more important element of the risk assessment process for CERCLA sites and for
