Environmental Management

, Volume 39, Issue 2, pp 226–234 | Cite as

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

RESEARCH

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.

Keywords

Risk assessment Contaminated soil Preliminary assessment Risk classification 

References

  1. Caldwell S., A. Ortiz. 1989. Overview of proposed revisions to the Superfund Hazard Ranking System. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 39:801–807Google Scholar
  2. Doty C. B., C. C. Travis. 1990. Is EPA’s National-Priorities List correct? Environ Sci Technol 24:1778–1780CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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)
  4. Gottinger H. W. 1997. A hazard ranking system for hazardous waste. Int J Environ Pollut 7:249–259Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. 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 3:221–232Google Scholar
  7. Haness S. J., J. J. Warwick. 1991. Evaluating the Hazard Ranking System. J Environ Manage 32:165–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  9. Jackson J. E. 1991. A user’s guide to principal components. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. National Research Council. 1994. Ranking hazardous-waste sites for remedial action. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. Press W. H., S. A. Teukolsky, W. T. Vetterling, B. P. Flannery. 1992. Numerical recipes in C. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Prokop G., M. Schamann, I. Edelgaard. 2000. Management of contaminated sites in Western Europe. Topic Report No. 13/1999. European Environment Agency, CopenhagenGoogle Scholar
  13. 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)
  14. Spearman C. 1904. The proof and measurement of association between two things. American Journal of Psychology 15:72–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. US Congress. 1980. The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980. Public Law 96–510Google Scholar
  16. 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 2:535–543Google Scholar
  17. Wu J. S., H. Hilger. 1984. Evaluation of EPA’s hazard ranking system. J Environ Eng 110:797–807CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Biology and Environmental ScienceUniversity of KalmarKalmarSweden

Personalised recommendations