JEP  Vol.4 No.8 B , August 2013
An Evaluation of Different Risk Ranking Systems
Abstract: A number of risk ranking systems for contaminated sites have been developed by different jurisdictions. While the intent of each of these systems is similar, it is not clear whether they provide results that are comparable. In this paper, 20 contaminated sites are used to assess the United States’ Preliminary Assessment (PA) system, Sweden’s Methods for Inventories of Contaminated Sites (MICS) and New Zealand’s Risk Screening System (RSS) methods. The results were compared with each other and with Canada’s National Classification System for Contaminated Sites (NCSCS) as well as preliminary quantitative risk assessment (PQRA) results. The objectives were to determine if the systems yield similar recommendations regarding further actions, and to assess if there are acceptable correlations between different methods. The study concludes that PA, MICS and NCSCS methods can achieve similar conclusions, although there is a certain degree of inconsistency that is present, RSS can distinguish the very high and very low risk sites and, acceptable correlations exists among the methods except for PA and PQRA.
Cite this paper: H. Sha, R.J. Thiessen, and G. Achari, "An Evaluation of Different Risk Ranking Systems," Journal of Environmental Protection, Vol. 4 No. 8A2, 2013, pp. 78-86. doi: 10.4236/jep.2013.48A2010.

[1]   Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME), “Guidance Document on the Management of Contaminated Sites in Canada,” 1997.

[2]   G. Prokop, M. Schamann and I. Edelgaard, “Management of Contaminated Sites inWestern Europe,” European Environment Agency, 2000.

[3]   R. J. Thiessen and G. Achari, “A Comparison of 2008 National Classification System for Contaminated Sites scores to Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment Hazard Quotients,” Canadian Journal of Civil Engineering, Vol. 38, No. 7, 2011, pp. 719-728.

[4]   United States Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA), “Guidance for Performing Preliminary Assessments under CERCLA,” 1991.

[5]   Swedish Environmental Protection Agency (SERA), “Methods for Inventories of Contaminated Sites,” Environmental Quality Criteria and Guidance for Data Collection, 2002.

[6]   Ministry for the Environment New Zealand (MENZ), “Risk Screening System,” Contaminated Land Management Guidelines No. 3, Wellington, 2004.

[7]   Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME), “National Classification System for Contaminated Sites: Guidance Document,” Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment, Winnipeg, 2008.

[8]   R. J. Thiessen, “An Evaluation of the 2008 National Classification System for Contaminated Sites,” M.Sc. Thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, 2010.

[9]   Health Canada, “Federal Contaminated Site Risk Assessment in Canada, Part I: Guidance on Human Health Preliminary Quantitative Risk Assessment (PQRA),” 2004.

[10]   Canadian Council of Ministers of Environment (CCME), “A Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment: General Guidance,” 1996.

[11]   Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat (TBCS), “Federal Contaminated Sites Inventory,” 2010.

[12]   J. H. Zar, “Significance Testing of the Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient,” Journal of American Statistical Association, Vol. 67, No. 339, 1972, pp. 578-580.

[13]   C. Spearman, “The Proof and Measurement of Association between Two Things,” International Journal of Epidemiology, Vol. 39, No. 5, 2010, pp. 1137-1150. doi:10.1093/ije/dyq191

[14]   Wolfram Math World, “Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient,” 2013.

[15]   K. B. T. Oberg, “Initial Screening of Contaminated Land: A Comparison of US and Swedish Methods,” Environ Manage, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2007, pp. 226-234.