A Comparison of Three Risk Assessment Techniques for Evaluating a Hazardous Waste Landfill

Abstract

ABSTRACT Three risk assessment procedures were used to evaluate an inactive waste facility in eastern Washington: benchmark comparison, formal subjective analysis, and the Hazard Ranking System (HRS). Using benchmark comparison and formal subjective evaluation the site was found to pose limited hazard to humans and the environment. The HRS approach was shown to produce a wide range of values. In all but 10% of the cases, the HRS technique produced scores which would not place the site on the National Priorities List (NPL). The effectiveness of the formal subjective approach is seen as significant, and could be potentially useful given projected demands for future waste sight evaluations.