Introduction to Contaminated Site Management - Dealing with Contaminated Sites: From Theory Towards Practical Application - page 11

Fig. 1.2 Small allotments in Jiangsu province, China, used by the local population for their food
supply (photo: F. Swartjes)
contaminants, this negative approach is sometimes exaggerated. There were several
reasons for negative sentiments associated with those events of the 1970s and 1980s.
First, humans were confronted with an unknown threat. Today we understand con-
taminated soils much better, and it is widely recognized that clear and objective
information about a specific case, and the risks involved, is essential. Second, the
citizens concerned felt betrayed by the government. When they bought real estate,
no information was provided about the health risks they might be confronted with.
In most countries today the transfer of property is accompanied by detailed infor-
mation, often supported by computer systems that show the actual soil quality. In
reality, in both the Love Canal and the Lekkerkerk cases, the government was as
much overwhelmed by the phenomenon of soil contamination as were the citizens.
Following the Love Canal scandal, a clay lining was used to prevent further
leaching of contaminants and a dirt cover was provided to prevent contact between
the contaminants and humans. Unfortunately, these protective layers were damaged
during construction work as a result of underestimating the threats involved. It is
unlikely, however, that such technical mistakes, made in the early days of Risk
Management, are still being made today.
1.1.4 The Contaminated Site Management Framework
1.1.4.1 Schematization
Several different frameworks for contaminated site management on the basis of risks
are available. In Fig. 1.3 a schematization of the contaminated site management
framework that is followed in this topic, roughly in accordance with the highly
influential report on Risk Assessment by the US National Research Council (US
National Research Council 1983 ), has been illustrated in a simple graph.
The first step in this contaminated site management framework is prob-
lem definition (aka: issue framing ). The second step is Risk Assessment , which