Interstate Comparison of Soil Remediation Standards among Six Mid-Atlantic States, USA ()
Abstract
To address and help mitigate potential public health and ecological
impacts associated with contaminated soil, most state environmental agencies
have promulgated cleanup standards or action level criteria that are based
broadly on US Environmental Protection Agency risk assessment methodologies.
These standards or criteria often are assembled into easy-to-use look-up tables
that allow responsible parties (RPs) to determine quickly the extent of
remediation that could be required simply by comparing site investigation data
to the listed cleanup goal or standard. This paper compares and contrasts soil
remediation standards and criteria for 20 common soil pollutants taken from
state environmental agency look-up tables for five Middle Atlantic States: New
York, Connecticut, New Jersey, Delaware, Pennsylvania, and Maryland. We examine
the differences between numeric remedial goals for these pollutants and propose
a relative rank for each state based on the overall degree of soil cleanup
standard or criterion stringency. In order to identify and rank the stringency
of the residential cleanup goals or standards published by the six Mid-Atlantic
States, a three-step process was used that included compiling in one data set, the
numerical (mg/kg), residential or unrestricted use look-up values published by
state for each of the 20 contaminants; organizing and grouping those values in
numerical sequence into one of three categories ranging from lowest (Most
Restrictive) to highest (Least Restrictive); and then ranking each state by the
number of first place finishes in each stringency category: Most Restrictive,
Moderately Restrictive, and Least Restrictive. The socioeconomic consequences
of these ranks were examined relative to their effects on gross state product,
unemployment, and health.
Share and Cite:
Blauvelt, R. and Sweet, M. (2014) Interstate Comparison of Soil Remediation Standards among Six Mid-Atlantic States, USA.
Journal of Environmental Protection,
5, 811-818. doi:
10.4236/jep.2014.510083.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
References
|
[1]
|
Muller, J. (2011) Environmental Industry Outlook for 2011. Environmental Business Journal, 24, 4-12.
|
|
[2]
|
Newport, F. (2013) State of the States: Alabama, North Dakota, Wyoming Most Conservative States. Gallup, Inc., Washington DC.
http://www.gallup.com/poll
|
|
[3]
|
Bergstrom, J.C., Boyle, K.J. and Yabe, M. (2004) Trading Taxes vs. Paying Taxes to Value and Finance Public Environmental Goods. Environmental and Resource Economics, 28, 533-549.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/B:EARE.0000036779.58923.02
|
|
[4]
|
Blomquist, G.C., Newsome, M.A. and Stone, D.B. (2003) Measuring Principals’ Values for Environmental Budget Management: An Exploratory Study. Journal of Environmental Management, 68, 83-93.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0301-4797(03)00005-7
|
|
[5]
|
Hajkowicz, S. (2009) Cutting the Cake: Supporting Environmental Fund Allocation Decisions. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 2737-2745.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.03.002
|
|
[6]
|
Jennings, A.A. (2012) Analysis of Worldwide Naphthalene Surface Soil Regulatory Guidance Values. Soil and Sediment Contamination, 21, 451-497.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15320383.2012.672492
|
|
[7]
|
Kowalsky, E.S. and Jennings, A.A. (2012) Worldwide Regulatory Guidance Values for Chlorinated Benzene Surface Soil Contamination. Journal of Environmental Engineering, 138, 1085-1105.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)EE.1943-7870.0000574
|
|
[8]
|
Tenbrunsel, A.E., Wade-Benzoni, K.A., Messick, D.M. and Bazerman, M.H. (2000) Understanding the Influence of Environmental Standards on Judgments and Choices. Academy of Management Journal, 43, 854-866.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1556414
|
|
[9]
|
Levinson, A. (2001) An Industry-Adjusted Index of State Environmental Compliance Costs. In: Carraro, C. and Metcalf, G.E., Eds., Behavioral and Distributional Effects of Environmental Policy, University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
http://dx.doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226094809.003.0005
|