Assessment of health protectiveness of the risk-based soil remediation standards of the midwestern states

Human and Ecological Risk Assessment

Volumn 13, Issue 3, 2007, Pages 543-573

  Erdal, Serap ^a   Carollo, Amy N ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT CHICAGO   (United States)

Author keywords

Cleanup level; Midwestern U.S; Remediation; Risk assessment; Soil; State

Indexed keywords

EID: 34248588678     PISSN: 10807039     EISSN: 15497860     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10807030701341126     Document Type: Article

References (53)

1. ASTM (American Society of Testing and Materials). 1995. Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action Applied at Petroleum Release Sites. E 1739-95. Philadelphia, PA, USA
2. Bonomo L, Caserini S, Pozzi C, et al. 2000. Target cleanup levels at the site of a former manufactured gas plant in Northern Italy: Deterministic versus probabilistic results. Environ Sci Technol 34(18):3843-48
3. Booth PN and Jacobson MA. 1992. Development of cleanup standards at Superfund sites: An evaluation of consistency. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 42:762-66
4. Bowers TS. 1999. The concentration term and derivation of cleanup goals using probabilistic risk assessment. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 5:809-21
5. Burmaster DE and Harris RH. 1993. The magnitude of compounding conservatisms in Superfund risk assessments. Risk Anal 13:131-34
6. Burmaster DE and Thompson KM. 1995. BackCalculating cleanup targets in probabilistic risk assessments when the acceptability of cancer risk is defined under different risk management policies. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 1:101-20
7. CAEPA (California Environmental Protection Agency). 2003. The Air Toxics Hot Spots Program Guidance Manual for Preparation of Health Risk Assessments. Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Oakland, CA, USA, August
8. Calabrese EJ and Kostecki PT. 1989. Petroleum Contaminated Soils. Volume 2: Remediation Techniques, Environmental Fate, Risk Assessment, Analytical Methodologies, pp 485-95. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI, USA
9. Cohen N. 1997. The politics of environmental risk: Perceptions of risk assessment in the state legislatures. Policy Studies J 25:470-84
10. Davis C and Davis SK. 1999. State enforcement of the federal hazardous waste program. Polity. 31:451-68
11. Decision Engineering Co. 2005. "Crystal Ball 7.1 Software." Denver, CO, USA
12. De Sousa C. 2001. Contaminated sites: The Canadian situation in an international context. J Environ Manage 62:131-54
13. Downey DC, Benson LA, and Taffinder SA. 1997. Trends in regulatory acceptance of risk-based cleanup goals and natural attenuation for site closure. Remediation 8:71-86
14. Hamed MM. 1999. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of public health risk assessment from contaminated soil. J Soil Contain 8:285-306
15. Hope BK. 1999. Distributions selected for use in probabilistic human health risk assessments in Oregon. Hum Ecol Risk Assess 5(4):785-808
16. Hwang ST. 1992. Determining target cleanup levels: A risk assessment-based decision process for contaminated sites J Environ Sci Health A 27:843-61
17. ILEPA (Illinois Environnemental Protection Agency). 2002. Part 742: Tiered Approach to Corrective Action Objectives, SubChapter f: Risk-Based Cleanup Objectives, Chapter I: Pollution Control Board, Subtitle G: Waste Disposal, Title 35: Environmental Protection, Springfield, IL, USA
18. INDEM (Indiana Department of Environmental Management). 2001. Risk Integrated System of Closure: Technical Guide. Office of Land Quality, Indianapolis, IN, USA, February 15
19. Lester JP, Franke JL, Bowman AO, et al. 1983. Hazardous wastes, politics, and public policy: A comparative State analysis. West Polit. Q 36:257-85
20. MIDEQ (Michigan Department of Environmental Quality). 1998. Training Material for the Part 201 Cleanup Criteria. Environmental Response Division, Lansing, MI, USA, January
21. MIDEQ. 2002. Administrative Rules for Part 201, Environmental Contamination Response Activity: Rules 701-752. Environmental Response Division, Lansing, MI, USA, December 13
22. sat Concentrations. Remediation and Redevelopment Division, Lansing, MI, USA, December 10
23. MIDEQ. 2004b. Operational Memorandum No. 1: Part 201 Cleanup Criteria. Remediation and Redevelopment Division, Lansing, MI, USA, December 10
24. MIDEQ. 2004c. Operational Memorandum No. 5: Groundwater Surface Water Interface Criteria. Remediation and Redevelopment Division, Lansing, MI, USA, September 30
25. MIDEQ. 2005a. Operational Memorandum No. 1, Technical Support Document -Attachment 6: Part 201 Soil Direct Contact Criteria. Remediation and Redevelopment Division, Lansing, MI, USA, April
26. MIDEQ. 2005b. Operational Memorandum No. 1, Technical Support Document -Attachment 9: Part 201 Groundwater Protection Criteria. Remediation and Redevelopment Division, Lansing, MI, USA, March
27. MNPCA (Minnesota Pollution Control Agency). 1998. Risk-Based Guidance for Soil Leaching Pathway: User's Guide. Working Draft. Site Remediation Section, St. Paul, MN, USA, May
28. MNPCA. 1999. Risk-Based Guidance for Soil-Human Health Pathway, Volume 2: Technical Support Document. Draft Guidelines. Site Remediation Section, St. Paul, MN, LISA, January
29. NRC (National Research Council). 1983. Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: Managing the Process. National Academy Press, Washington, DC, USA
30. OHEPA (Ohio Environmental Protection Agency). 2005. Closure Plan Review Guidance for RCRA Facilities. Division of Hazardous Waste Management. Columbus, OH, USA, June
31. Patrick PA, Reece KD, and Callahan BG. 1995. Sensitivity analysis for setting soil cleanup standards. Remediation 6:19-35
32. Proctor DM, Shay EC, and Scott PK. 1997. Health-based soil action levels for trivalent and hexavalent chromium: A comparison with state and federal standards. J Soil Contain 6:595-648
33. Rahm D. 1998. Superfund and the politics of US hazardous waste policy. Environ Polit 7:75-91
34. USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part A) (Interim Final). EPA/540/1-89002. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, USA
35. USEPA. 1991. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part B, Development of Risk-Based Preliminary Remediation Goals) (Interim). Publication 9285.7-01B. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, USA
36. USEPA. 1992a. Supplemental Guidance to RAGS: Calculating the Concentration Term. Publication 9285.7-01. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DC, USA, May
37. USEPA. 1992b. Guidelines for Exposure Assessment. EPA/600Z-92/001. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, USA, May 29
38. USEPA. 1993. Provisional Guidance for Quantitative Risk Assessment of Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons. EPA/600/R-93/089. Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, USA, July
39. USEPA. 1995. Guidance for Risk Characterization. Science Policy Council, Washington, DC, USA, February
40. USEPA. 1997. Exposure Factors Handbook, Volume I - General Factors. EPA/600/P-95/002Fa. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, USA, August
41. USEPA. 1999. Data Collection for the Hazardous Waste Identification Rule, Section 8.0: Human Exposure Factors. Office of Solid Waste, Washington, DC, USA, October
42. USEPA. 2001. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund: Volume III-Part A: Process for Conducting Probabilistic Risk Assessment. EPA540-R-02-002. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, USA, December
43. USEPA. 2002a. Supplemental Guidance for Developing Soil Screening Levels for Superfund Sites. OSWER 9355.4-24. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, USA, December
44. USEPA. 2002b. Child-Specific Exposure Factors Handbook. EPA-600-P-00-002B. Interim Report. National Center for Environmental Assessment, Office of Research and Development, Washington, DC, USA, September
45. USEPA. 2003. Human Health Toxicity Values in Superfund Risk Assessments, OSWER Directive 9285.7-53. Memorandum from Michael B. Cook, Director of Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation to Superfund National Policy Managers, Regions 1-10. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DC, USA, December 5
46. USEPA. 2004a. EPA Region IX Preliminaiy Remediation Goals Table (Update). USEPA Region IX, San Francisco, CA, USA, October
47. USEPA. 2004b. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Volume I - Human Health Evaluation Manual (Part E, Supplemental Guidance for Dermal Risk Assessment). EPA/540/R/99/005. Final. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Washington, DC, USA, July
48. USEPA. 2005. EPA Region III Risk-Based Concentration Table (Update). USEPA Region III, Philadelphia, PA, USA, April
49. WIDNR (Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources). 1997. Soil Cleanup Levels for Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons (PAHs) Interim Guidance. PUB-RR-519. Remediation and Redevelopment Program, Madison, WI, USA, June 11
50. WIDNR. 2001. Chapter NR 720: Soil Cleanup Standards. Register No: 541. Madison, WI, USA, January
51. WIDNR. 2002a. Guidance for Hazardous Waste Remediation. PUBL-RR-705. Draft. Bureau for Remediation and Redevelopment, Bureau of Waste Management, Madison, WI, USA, November 21
52. WIDNR. 2002b. Determining Residual Contaminant Levels using the EPA Soil Screening Level Web Site. PUB-RR-682. Remediation and Redevelopment Program, Madison, WI, USA, June 11. Available at 〈http://dnr.wi.gov/org/aw/rr/ archives/pubs/RR682.pdf〉
53. WIDNR. 2004. Guidance on Soil Performance Standards. PUB-RR-528. Remediation and Redevelopment Program, Madison, WI, USA, April