Decision level exposure limit

Another type of time-weighted average exposure limit is the decision level (DL), which is expressed as a fraction of the OEL. In general, it is based on judgment, and it is greater than a dose of 50% and usually corresponds to one-fourth of the dose. For special substances, such as carcinogens, it should... 

Furthermore, it is important to consider the accuracy and available resources when defining a mixture problem. It can be difficult to determine the accuracy and costs beforehand, because accuracy often trades off with costs, and it is influenced by data availability and the actual risk level. Efficiency considerations imply that an assessment should be as cheap as possible, but sufficiently detailed to make a motivated decision. For site-specific assessments, a detailed and costly assessment is necessary only when the actual risks are close to the level that is considered unacceptable. For other outcomes, for example, when the actual risk is much lower or higher than the unacceptable level, a more crude and cheap assessment may suffice. Similar reasoning applies when deriving safe exposure or concentration levels. If limited data are available, a conservative value may be derived. If implementation of this conservative value turns out to be too costly, it is worthwhile to invest resources in gathering additional data and subsequently deriving a more accurate value. This is reflected in the loops of the risk assessment approach (Figure 5.1), which has resulted in many tiered approaches, such as those discussed in Section 5.4.4. 

High exposure permanent white, blue, or black smoke heavy soot deposits, especially near emission points widespread worker complaints CO2 levels in excess of 1000 ppm and/or CO levels in excess of 10 ppm or NOj levels above the exposure limit controls likely not adequate immediate cessation of operations and decision on new control strategy before resnming reevaluation required... 

TLVs are guidelines (not standards) prepared by the American Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists (ACGIH) to assist industrial hygienists in making decisions regarding safe levels of exposure to various hazards found in the workplace. TLV incorporates the PEL values already described. However, it also incorporates a short-term exposure limit and an absolute upper limit. A TLV reflects the level of exposure that the typical worker can experience without an unreasonable risk of disease or injury. 

OELs are expressed either as parts per million (ppm) volume/volume or as mg/m, and are related to a time reference period (e.g. 8h Time Weighted Average (TWA) or 15 min Short Term Exposure Limit (STEL)). They do not provide a rigid dividing line between safe and unsafe conditions and it is good practice to maintain exposure as low as reasonably practicable below the limit. Exposures measured as described earlier may be compared with these limits and a decision taken on whether exposure is satisfactorily low or whether further exposure reduction is necessary. Exposure should be monitored with a frequency depending on its likely variability and the extent to which it is below the relevant OEL. Continuous monitoring of exposure is rarely required. It is important to remember that for substances with a SKIN notation the OEL is only valid as a level likely to be sufficiently low to protect health when adequate precautions have been taken to prevent skin exposure. 

This is confusing. Why don t risk assessors simply decide what level of exposure is safe for each chemical, and risk managers simply put into effect mechanisms to ensure that industry reaches the safe level Why should different sources of risk be treated differently Why apply a no risk standard to certain substances (e.g., those intentionally introduced into food, such as aspartame) and an apparently more lenient risk-henefit standard to unwanted contaminants of food such as PCBs, methylmercury, and aflatoxins (which the FDA applies under another section of food law) Why allow technological limitations to influence any decision about health What is this risk-henefit balancing nonsense Aren t some of these statutes simply sophisticated mechanisms to allow polluters to expose people to risk ... 

In the decision whether toxicity studies may be omitted at tonnage levels at or above 100 tons/year is appropriate or not, a TTC value might be used in the comparison with the available exposure information. However, due to limitations and uncertainties in the derivation of TTC values, as well as the fact that the TTC concept has not yet been evaluated for the diverse group of industrial chemicals and for different routes of exposure other than dietary, the Nordic group concluded that it is too premature to use the TTC concept within REACH. 

The main sources of exposure to mercury for the general population are from the diet and dental amalgam.21,28 The main dietary source of mercury is fish and this has led to interest in potential exposure to mercury on the neurological development of children from populations with high fish consumption.29 There is no statutory control of mercury in most food in the UK, but the levels of mercury in fish are controlled by European Commission Decision 93/351/EEC which sets an average limit for mercury in fish of 0.5 mg/kg or 0.5 ppm (part per million).30 This average limit is, however, increased to 1.0 mg/kg or 1 ppm for the edible parts of the predatory and bottom-dwelling species listed in the Annex to the Decision. 

However, the true exposures are rarely known for a given individual and are estimated using modelling procedures based upon available data. Uncertainty regarding exposure estimates arises as a result of the limited availability of empirical information, as well as limitations in the measurements, models or techniques used to develop representations of complex physical, chemical and biological processes. As described by NRC (1994), uncertainty forces decision makers to judge how probable it is that risks will be overestimated or underestimated for every member of the exposed population . Furthermore, because every individual can have a different exposure level, it is also possible that the estimate of uncertainty can differ among individuals. 

Acknowledgment that mixtures may cause risks that are not fully covered by single compound evaluations does not automatically imply that mixture assessments should be performed for all potential mixture exposures. This depends on the problem at hand, the specific exposure situation, and the available information. If a regulator must make a decision about the remediation of 1 contaminated soil plot, and it is already known that one of the mixture components exceeds the remediation threshold, and this fact results in a need for remedial action itself, then a mixture assessment is redundant. Mixture assessment for contaminated soils (and other compartments and exposure routes) is useful if the known individual components do not exceed their respective thresholds, but if it is suspected that the overall mixture may still cause unacceptable adverse effects, and in case risk managers have a limited budget for a large number of contaminated sites, that is, when they have to prioritize the most hazardous sites to be remediated first, while other sites should possibly be subject to simple risk reduction measures. The situation is different for mixture emissions. Here, potential mixture effects should always be addressed because the aim was and is to establish an emission level that is lower than a certain (acceptable) effect level. 

Our scientific knowledge is especially limited on the effects of pollution on highly variable and complex ecological and human systems. A question for decision-makers is how science can establish an assimilative capacity - a predicable level of harm from which an ecosystem can recover - or a safe level of exposure when the exact effect, its magnitude, distribution, and interconnections are unknown (Gee, 1997). 

---