How Clean Is Clean: A Comparison

By Kenneth S. Kamlet

An essential element of most voluntary cleanup programs is to gear required cleanups to present or anticipated future land uses so that higher-contact (greater risk of exposure) uses receive more complete cleanups. Avoiding the extra expense of cleanup for cleanup’s sake is part of the incentive to attract developers and other investors to brownfield sites.
Some states are more risk-averse than others. For example, the degree to which cleanup standards must protect against incremental lifetime cancer risks varies among states by a factor of more than 1,000.
New York and New Jersey limit excess cancer risk to one in a million (1 x 10-6) for any carcinogen. In Massachusetts, the cancer risk limit is one in ten thousand (1 x 10-4) for combinations of carcinogens. Pennsylvania takes a middle ground, setting a cancer risk range (of 10-4 to 10-6). Some question the marginal benefit of very strict cancer risk limits against the backdrop of a U.S. cancer incidence of one in four (250,000 x 10-6).

Kenneth S. Kamlet is director of legal affairs at Newman Development Group in Vestal, N.Y. and serves as co-chair of the policy and legislative committee for NBA’s New York Chapter.

Readers are encouraged to call errors or omissions to Ken’s attention at: ken@newmandevelopment.com