The role of risk based corrective action and risk based end states principles in a former manufactured gas plant site remediation
V.M. Vyas1, M.G. Gochfeld1, N.R. Sussman2, P.G. Georgopoulos1, and P.J. Lioy1
1Environmental and Occupational Health Sciences Institute, UMDNJ-Robert Wood Johnson Medical School and Rutgers University; 2School of Public Health, the University of Pittsburgh
Environmental remediation decisions are driven by the need to minimize human health and ecological risks posed by environmental releases. The Risk Based Corrective Action (RBCA) approach has been promoted by regulatory agencies as a scientifically sound and administratively effective way of responding to the demands of site remediation, while at the same time ensuring the protection of human health and the environment. The environmental characteristics and accessibility of a site, and the mode of human and ecological exposure to contamination onsite or offsite, are all strongly dependent on the current or anticipated land use and the character of surrounding environs. Furthermore, existing or prior land use and level of contaminant mobility will focus decisions on the degree of health and ecological risk reduction required to obtain the end state results. In particular, residential land use discussions are recognized as the cause of highly conservative risk assessments. Understanding of the impact of end state land use on risk-based decision making and on establishing cleanup criteria has led to the conjunction of RBCA with a Risk Based End States (RBES) paradigm. A case study is presented, of a remedial action program at a former manufactured gas plant site that successfully integrated RBCA and RBES principles to achieve timely and effective clean-up. This action occurred in a residential community and all parties agreed that a residential landuse was the desired remediation goal.
This work has been supported by a grant to the Consortium for Risk Evaluation with Stakeholder Participation, from the US Department of Energy (USDOE), Instrument DE-FG26-00NT 40938. The viewpoints expressed in this report are the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the USDOE or its contractors. Supporting documents were obtained through an Open Public Records Act (OPRA) request (number 8702) to the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection.