Cancer risk management A review of 132 federal regulatory decisions

Are Risk Regulators Rational? Evidence from Hazardous Waste Cleanup Decisions

“…This result is consistent with the "reference risk effect' (Viscusi et al, 1987) and the "status quo" bias established by William Samuelson and Zeckhauser (1988). In a review of 132 regulatory decisions involving cancer risks, Curtis C. Travis et al (1987) found that in choosing which chemical risks to regulate, federal agencies were strongly influenced by the levels of maximum individual cancer risks [e.g., every risk above 4 X 10-3 was regulated and no action was taken (with one exception) on risks below 1 X 10-6]. There was not a "strong correlation between the size of the population exposed and the likelihood of regulation," but there was an influence of total population risks (e.g., expected annual cancer deaths) on the likelihood of regulation.…”

Developing evidence-based prescriptive ventilation rate standards for commercial buildings in California: a proposed framework

“…Workplace lifetime cancer risk estimates for offices, using California OEHHA cancer potency factors (Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment 2009) with the method of Parthasaranthy et al (2013), are 1.9 x 10 -5 and 1.6 x 10 -5 , for the Title 24 and ASHRAE 62.1-2010 MVRs at default occupancies, respectively. These are just above the risk level of approximately one in 10 -6 that is considered sufficient to justify regulation or corrective measures (Travis et al 1987). At present, no data are available on the combined risks of chemicals with common modes of action, such as multiple aldehydes.…”

Risk assessment (chemical and radiological) due to intake of uranium through the ingestion of drinking water around two proposed uranium mining areas, Jharkhan d, India

“…Since then, the 10 -6 risk level has become commonplace in the regulation and management of environmental contaminants, with the strongest endorsement coming from the US-EPA, which employs 10 -6 as its primary risk benchmark for "acceptable" exposure to carcinogens within the general population. Although a 1-in-1-million (10 -6 ) cancer risk is the most frequently used risk level for the management of risks posed by environmental (including soil) contamination, many agencies and provinces, including the US-EPA, identify a range of increased cancer incidence risks; generally, from 1-in-10 000 (or 1 × 10 -4 ) to 1-in-1 000 000 (or 1 × 10 -6 ) is considered an acceptable risk range depending on the situation and circumstances of exposure (Graham, 1993;Kelly, 1991;Lohner, 1997;Travis et al, 1987;US-EPA, 1991). Thus, in general, the US-EPA considers excess cancer risks that are below about 1 chance in 1 000 000 (1×10 -6 ) to be so small as to be negligible, and risks above 1×10 -4 to be sufficiently large that some sort of remediation is desirable.…”