IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/riskan/v10y1990i2p255-271.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Risk Assessment for Carcinogens Under California's Proposition 65

Author

Listed:
  • William S. Pease
  • Lauren Zeise
  • Alex Kelter

Abstract

Risk assessments for carcinogens are being developed through an accelerated process in California as a part of the state's implementation of Proposition 65, the Safe Drinking Water and Toxic Enforcement Act. Estimates of carcinogenic potency made by the California Department of Health Services (CDHS) are generally similar to estimates made by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The largest differences are due to EPA's use of the maximum likelihood estimate instead of CDHS use of the upper 95% confidence bounds on potencies derived from human data and to procedures used to correct for studies of short duration or with early mortality. Numerical limits derived from these potency estimates constitute “no significant risk” levels, which govern exemption from Proposition 65's discharge prohibition and warning requirements. Under Proposition 65 regulations, lifetime cancer risks less than 10−5 are not significant and cumulative intake is not considered. Following these regulations, numerical limits for a number of Proposition 65 carcinogens that are applicable to the control of toxic discharges are less stringent than limits under existing federal water pollution control laws. Thus, existing federal limits will become the Proposition 65 levels for discharge. Chemicals currently not covered by federal and state controls will eventually be subject to discharge limitations under Proposition 65. “No significant risk” levels (expressed in terms of daily intake of carcinogens) also trigger warning requirements under Proposition 65 that are more extensive than existing state or federal requirements. A variety of chemical exposures from multiple sources are identified that exceed Proposition 65's “no significant risk” levels.

Suggested Citation

  • William S. Pease & Lauren Zeise & Alex Kelter, 1990. "Risk Assessment for Carcinogens Under California's Proposition 65," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 10(2), pages 255-271, June.
  • Handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:10:y:1990:i:2:p:255-271
    DOI: 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1990.tb01047.x
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1990.tb01047.x
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/j.1539-6924.1990.tb01047.x?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. John A. Lowe & Ijaz S. Jamall, 1994. "Assessing Health Risks Associated with DDT Residues in Soils in California: A Proposition 65 Case Study," Risk Analysis, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 14(1), pages 47-52, February.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:wly:riskan:v:10:y:1990:i:2:p:255-271. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://doi.org/10.1111/(ISSN)1539-6924 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.