Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Initial Screening of Contaminated Land: A Comparison of US and Swedish Methods

  • RESEARCH
  • Published:
Environmental Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Preliminary surveys are used to prioritize between contaminated sites to select those to be investigated more thoroughly. The data-gathering steps are almost identical between countries; however, the assessment procedures differ significantly. In this study, we have investigated 21 contaminated sites assessed as belonging to the high-risk or the very high-risk class using the Swedish Methods for Inventories of Contaminated Sites (MICS). We then applied the US Preliminary Assessment (PA) method to the same sites and compared the results and conclusions from the two screening procedures. In both cases, all sites were recommended for further investigation and the two approaches seem to corroborate one another; however, the PA assessment scores and the preliminary MICS classifications did not correlate. The results obtained with the PA method were easier to explain than the final MICS classification. The PA method also seems more transparent and easier to standardize, although objections could be made regarding the weighting scheme, because the outcome in this study was entirely dependent on the surface exposure pathway. However, to examine this in greater detail, it is necessary to include sites with less contamination: The importance of preliminary surveys in the overall risk management process gives a strong motivation for such an evaluation. Generally, the lack of research and scientific support for the various assessment procedures in use suggests that there is a need for method development, standardization, and validation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Caldwell S., A. Ortiz. 1989. Overview of proposed revisions to the Superfund Hazard Ranking System. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 39:801–807

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Doty C. B., C. C. Travis. 1990. Is EPA’s National-Priorities List correct? Environ Sci Technol 24:1778–1780

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EPA. 1991. Guidance for performing preliminary assessments under CERCLA. Report No EPA/540/G-91/013. US Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC. Available from http://www.hanford.gov/dqo/project/level5/passess.pdf (accessed 22 June, 2006)

  • Gottinger H. W. 1997. A hazard ranking system for hazardous waste. Int J Environ Pollut 7:249–259

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Gustavsson M., U. Nilsson. 2003. Evaluation and inventory results an results on MICS. County Administrative Board of Västra Götalands län, Gothenburg, Sweden (in Swedish)

    Google Scholar 

  • Hallstedt P. A., M. A. Puskar, S. P. Levine. 1986. Application of the Hazard Ranking System to the prioritization of organic-compounds identified at hazardous-waste remedial action sites. Hazard Waste Hazard Mater 3:221–232

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Haness S. J., J. J. Warwick. 1991. Evaluating the Hazard Ranking System. J Environ Manage 32:165–176

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • ISO. 2005. Soil quality— Sampling—Part 5: Guidance on the procedure for the investigation of urban and industrial sites with regard to soil contamination. International Standard 10381-5:2005. International Organization for Standardization, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Jackson J. E. 1991. A user’s guide to principal components. Wiley, New York

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • National Research Council. 1994. Ranking hazardous-waste sites for remedial action. National Academy Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Press W. H., S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, B. P. Flannery. 1992. Numerical recipes in C. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Prokop G., M. Schamann, I. Edelgaard. 2000. Management of contaminated sites in Western Europe. Topic Report No. 13/1999. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen

    Google Scholar 

  • SEPA. 2002. Contaminated sites. Report No. 5053. Swedish Environmental Protection Agency, Stockholm, Sweden. Available from http://www.naturvardsverket.se/bokhandeln/dse/620-5053-2 (accessed 22 June, 2006)

  • Spearman C. 1904. The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology 15:72–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • US Congress. 1980. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. Public Law 96–510

  • Vanderlaan G. A., C. N. Haas. 1985. Validation of the Hazard Ranking System for the assessment of feedstock frequencies in Superfund site contaminants. Hazard Waste Hazard Mater 2:535–543

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wu J. S., H. Hilger. 1984. Evaluation of EPA’s hazard ranking system. J Environ Eng 110:797–807

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Ann-Christine Wiklander at the County Administrative Board of Östergötland, who provided us with the background material and support for this study. We also wish to thank Bo Bergbäck and Nina Månsson, who gave valuable advice on the presentation of the results. Similarly, we wish to thank David M. Hassenzahl, Michael Greenberg, and an anonymous reviewer for helpful comments and suggestions to improve the manuscript.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomas Öberg.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bergius, K., Öberg, T. Initial Screening of Contaminated Land: A Comparison of US and Swedish Methods. Environmental Management 39, 226–234 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-006-0005-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00267-006-0005-4

Keywords

Navigation