A quantitative evaluation of ten approaches to setting site‐specific cleanup objectives

Abstract
Over the past several years, a number of reviews of various approaches employed or proposed by different jurisdictions for setting contaminated site cleanup objectives have been conducted. These methods are normally divided into two groups: absolute and relative. The absolute approach establishes a numerical concentration for a contaminant in soil that is applied to all sites, regardless of site‐specific factors. The relative approach generally employs a risk assessment modeling technique to derive a soil cleanup number based on site‐specific and chemical‐specific factors that will result in an acceptable exposure or risk. In the latter case, the numerical concentrations may vary from site to site, but the risk is the same. In the former, the numerical concentration is the same from site to site, but the risk, although unstated, varies. Numerous reviews of these methods have been undertaken, but all have been qualitative in nature, examining theoretical bases and not comparing the actual performance of each method in the assessment of one site. We have undertaken to derive cleanup guidelines for a single, existing contaminated site in Canada using ten different methods. Five of these were absolute methods (British Columbia Assessment Criteria, Alberta Soil Guidelines, Ontario Decommissioning Guidelines, Quebec ABC's, and New Jersey Acceptable Soil Contaminant Levels) and five were relative methods (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Public Health Evaluation Manual, U.S. Army Primary Pollutant Limit Values, California Site Mitigation Decision Tree, California Technical Standard, and AERIS). The resulting analysis compares relative methods to absolute, examines the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, and discusses the similarities and differences of the outputs of the various approaches when employed to set cleanup objectives.

This publication has 0 references indexed in Scilit: