Conservative versus mean risk assessments: Implications for superfund policies

Journal of Environmental Economics and Management

Volumn 34, Issue 3, 1997, Pages 187-206

  Viscusi, W Kip ^a   Hamilton, James T ^b   Dockins, P Christen ^c  

^a HARVARD LAW SCHOOL   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c U S ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ENVIRONMENTAL REMEDIATION; HAZARDOUS WASTE; RISK ASSESSMENT; SUPERFUND; WASTE SITE;

EID: 0031430870     PISSN: 00950696     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/jeem.1997.1012     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Bogen K. T. A note on compounded conservatism. Risk Anal. 14:1994;379-381.
2. Burmaster D. E., Harris R. H. The magnitude of compounding conservatism in Superfund risk assessments. Risk Anal. 13:1993;131-134.
3. Calabrese E. J., Stanek E. J. III, Gilbert C. E., Barnes R. M. Preliminary adult soil ingestion estimates: Results of a pilot study. Regulatory Toxicol. Pharmacol. 12:1990;88-95.
4. Analysis of the Impact of Exposure Assumptions on Risk Assessment of Chemicals in the Environment. 1991.
5. Cullen A. C. Measures of compounding conservatism in probabilistic risk assessment. Risk Anal. 14:1994;389-393.
6. Dockins P. C., Hamilton J. T., Viscusi W. K. The Costs of Conservative Risk Assessment: Monte Carlo Evidence from Superfund Sites. 1997;Duke University.
7. Finkel A. M. Is risk assessment really too conservative? Revising the revisionists. Columbia J. Environ. Law. 14:1989;427-467.
8. Finley B., Proctor D., Scott P., Harrington N., Paustenbach D., Price Paul. Recommended distributions for exposure factors frequently used in health risk assessment. Risk Anal. 14:1994;533-553.
9. Finley B., Paustenbach D. The benefits of probabilistic exposure assessment: Three case studies involving contaminated air, water, and soil. Risk Anal. 14:1994;53-73.
10. Goodman L. A., Kruskal W. H. Measures of Association for Cross Classifications. 1979;Springer-Verlag, New York.
11. Graham J. D., Green L. C., Roberts M. J. In Search of Safety: Chemicals and Cancer Risk. 1989;Harvard Univ. Press, Cambridge.
12. Hamilton J. T., Viscusi W. K. How Costly is Clean? An Analysis of the Benefits and Costs of Superfund Site Remediations. 1997;Duke University.
13. Hamilton J. T., Viscusi W. K. The benefits and costs of regulatory reforms for Superfund. Stanford Environ. Law J. 16:1997;159-198.
14. Hird J. A. Superfund: The Political Economy of Environmental Risk. 1994;Johns Hopkins Univ. Press, Baltimore.
15. Krier J. E. Risk and design. J. Legal Studies. 19:1990;781-790.
16. Latin H. Good science, bad regulation, and toxic risk assessment. Yale J. on Regulation. 5:1988;89-148.
17. Lave L., Ennever F. K., Rosenkranz H. S., Omenn G. S. Information value of the rodent bioassay. Nature. 336:1988;631-633.
18. A Comparison of Monte Carlo Simulation-Based Exposure Estimates with Estimates Calculated Using EPA and Suggested Michigan Manufacturers Association Exposure Factors. 1993.
19. Science and Judgment in Risk Assessment. 1994;National Academy Press, Washington.
20. Nichols A., Zeckhauser R. J. The perils of prudence: How conservative risk assessments distort regulation. Regulation. 10:1986;13-24.
21. Noll R. G., Krier J. E. Some implications of cognitive psychology for risk regulation. J. Legal Studies. 19:1990;747-779.
22. Page T. A generic view of toxic chemicals and similar risks. Ecol. Law Quart. 7:1978;207-244.
23. Roseberry A. M., Burmaster D. E. Lognormal distributions for water intake by children and adults. Risk Anal. 12:1992;99-104.
24. Seed J., Brown R. P., Olin S. S., Foran J. A. Chemical mixtures: Current risk assessment methodologies and future directions. Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology. 22:1995;76-94.
25. Smith R. Use of Monte Carlo simulation for human exposure assessment at a Superfund site. Risk Anal. 14:1994;433-439.
26. Stanek E. J. III, Calabrese E. J. Daily estimates of soil ingestion in children. Environ. Health Perspect. 103:1995;276-285.
27. Unfinished Business: A Comparative Assessment of Environmental Problems. 1987;USEPA, Washington.
28. Risk Assessment Guidelines for Superfund, Vol. I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A). 1989;Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Toxic Integration Branch, Washington.
29. Exposure Factors Handbook. 1989;Office of Health and Environmental Assessment, Washington.
30. Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decisions. 1991;Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington.
31. A Monte Carlo Approach to Simulating Residential Occupancy Periods and Its Application to the General Population. 1992;Office of Air Quality, Washington.
32. EPA's Use of Risk Assessments in Cleanup Decisions. 1995.
33. Viscusi W. K. Fatal Tradeoffs: Public and Private Responsibilities for Risk. 1992;Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
34. Viscusi W. K. Smoking: Making the Risky Decision. 1992;Oxford Univ. Press, New York.
35. Viscusi W. K., Hamilton J. T. Are Risk Regulators Rational? Evidence from Hazardous Waste Cleanup Decisions. 1997;Duke University.
36. Viscusi W. K., Magat W. A., Huber J. Communication of ambiguous risk information. Theory Decision. 31:1991;159-173.