Superfund: A program without priorities - Environmental Science

Superfund: A program without priorities. Curtis Travis, and Carolyn Doty. Environ. Sci. Technol. , 1989, 23 (11), pp 1333–1334. DOI: 10.1021/es00069...
0 downloads 0 Views 1MB Size
Superbd: A program without priorities By Curtis C.Travis ami olrolyn B. Dory

The cleanup of hazardous-waste sites in the United States has become a major industry. The number of sites on the National Priority List (NPL) has reached 1175, and cleanup cost for these sites may reach $30 billion ( I ) . Another $55-$74 billion will be needed for new sites being added to the NPL (2). Inanattempt toobtainanoverview of the Superfund remedial action decision process, we performed an in-depth analysis of 50 of the 74 decisions signed during fiscal year 1987 (3. 4). We found a large gap between expressed expectations for the Superfund program and reality. There is a general belief that many people are being exposed to elevated health risks at Superfund sites. The facts do not appear to support this viewpoint. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry reviewed 288 NPL sites and found 8% with actual or potential current exposure. Our review confirms this finding. The most startling statistic we found was that before remediation, 70% of all the Superfund sites had risk levels in the 1W4to IO-' range, the same range that EPA targets as acceptable after remediation. Although estimates of future risks were often high, these estimates were based on hypothetical exposure scenarios. We acknowledge that there is an intense public demand for cleanup of hazardous-waste sites. However, given the limited resources of Superfund, the immediate focus should be on identification and cleanup of sites where risk is real and current. Risk assessment, the cornerstone of EPA's current decision-making process, plays a limited role in defining cleanup priorities. Eighty-eight percent of all sites reviewed were remediated, with little correlation between risk levels and decisions to remediate. All sites with contaminated soils remaining on-site were remediated, regardless of risk levels or the likelihood of migration to groundwater. Risk ranges for contaminated groundwater were essentially identical for sites that were remediated W13936wBgns231333u)1.5wo

0

c