Premium
Cleanup levels for dioxin‐contaminated soils
Author(s) -
Hirschhorn Joel S.
Publication year - 1997
Publication title -
remediation journal
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 0.762
H-Index - 27
eISSN - 1520-6831
pISSN - 1051-5658
DOI - 10.1002/rem.3440070306
Subject(s) - superfund , agency (philosophy) , confusion , environmental planning , work (physics) , risk assessment , environmental science , public health , environmental health , environmental protection , business , hazardous waste , waste management , engineering , medicine , computer science , nursing , mechanical engineering , psychology , philosophy , computer security , epistemology , psychoanalysis
EPA's use of a 1 part per billion (ppb) level for dioxin contamination in residential soils is shown to be too high and not protective of public health. It was derived in a 1984 cancer risk assessment by another federal agency, but it is inconsistent with risk‐based levels of 2 to 4 parts per trillion (ppt) obtained by using EPA's standard risk assessment methods. EPA has called the 1 ppb level a policy‐based level, which correctly distinguishes it from a risk or health‐based cleanup standard. The 1984 assessment is shown in this article to have considerable shortcomings. For over a decade, dioxins have been left in soils at levels posing health risks and sometimes at levels that EPA is legally required to address. Moreover, noncancer effects have been ignored, but recent work has shown them to support action at low ppt levels. To protect public health, be consistent with current scientific knowledge and other EPA policies, reduce confusion in the environmental management community, and be responsive to public demands for stringent dioxin cleanups, new EPA policy guidance for dioxin soil cleanups is needed, and key elements are presented in this article. In an ad hoc fashion, EPA Region 4 has recently used a 200 ppt dioxin cleanup level for residential soil, acknowledged to correspond to a one‐in‐ten‐thousand cancer risk, at two Superfund sites, which environmental professionals should be aware of. This suggests a shift in EPA policy.