Guidance quality values

Examples of guidance values developed by the WHO include air quality guidelines and drinking water guidelines, and (in collaboration with the FAO) maximum residue limits (MRLs) for pesticides and veterinary dmgs and maximum levels for food additives. 

NYWQSGV. 1987. New York Water Ambient Quality Standards and Guidance Values, 4/1/87. 

Technical Guidance Document and Water Framework Directive approaches EU member state, North American, and other international approaches) and the way in which they are implemented (e.g., mandatory pass or fail probabilistic, e.g., 95th percentiles or tiered risk assessment frameworks). Soil and water standards were considered, as were values for the protection of human health and the natural environment. The focus was on European regulatory frameworks, although expert input was sought from other jurisdictions internationally. Chemical standards for aquatic (water and sediment) and terrestrial (soil and groundwater) systems were the main focus for the meeting. This workshop built on, and included some participants from, a 1998 SETAC workshop Re-evaluation of the State of the Science for Water-Quality Criteria Development (Reiley et al. 2003). 

ISO] International Organization for Standardization. 2004. Soil quality guidance on the determination of background values. Geneva ISO CD 19258. 

CFR Part 1910 Subpart Z) provide guidance on controlling workplace exposures. The specific paradigm and values should be referenced in each instance. Consistent with the preference to supplant default assumptions with actual data, the process should make reasonable efforts to ascertain the availability and quality of such data and explicitly state where the process makes use of default assumptions or actual data. 

The situations, where multiple log Kow data are available for the same substance, the possibility of conflicting results might arise. If log Kow data both > and < 4 have been obtained for a substance, then the data of the highest quality and the best documentation should be used for determining the bioconcentration potential of the substance. If differences still exist, generally the highest valid value should take precedence. In such situation, QSAR estimated log Kow could be used as a guidance. 

The difference betw n the two types of French limit values, their enforcement, and the possibilities labour inspectors have become clear when loddr at the power of the Labour Inspectorate with respect to these two OELs. Air quality control measurements by the labour inspectors are only possible tor substances for which a binding limit value exists, which are thc e tor dust/fibres of asbestos, lead, benzene, vinyl chloride monomem etc. For substances for which indicative limit values have been adopted and published, the ender of 9 October 1987 does not allow the labour inspectors to enforce these OELs directly by issuing inqjrovement or entorcement orders. The nature of these limit values ( indicative/guidance ) does not pennit prescription of exact measures to enforce them. The cmly possibility to enforce them is via indirect sanctions on failures of the ventilation system and similar offences. 

Quality of management pertains to the quality of organizational policies, procedures, values, and the resource-allocation system. It also addresses the quality of leadership and management decisions, supervision, and guidance provided to the workforce as it relates to the delivery of products and services. 

The central moral issue raised by this sort of case is whether the quality of the individual s life is sufficiently compromised by neocortical death to make intentioned termination of that life morally permissible. While alive, he made it clear to both family and friends that he would prefer to be allowed to die rather than be mechanically maintained in a condition of irretrievable loss of consciousness. Deciding whether the judgment in such a case should be allowed requires deciding which capacities and qualities make life worth living, which qualities are sufficient to endow it with value worth sustaining, and whether their absence justifies deliberate termination of a life, at least when this would be the wish of the individual in question. Without this decision the traditional norms of medical ethics, beneficence and nonmaleficence, provide no guidance. Without this decision, it cannot be determined whether termination of life support is a benefit or a harm to the patient. 

---