Towards an EEA Europe-wide assessment of areas under risk

12,7
MB for soil contamination

424
stron

2607
ID European Environment Agency

2005
rok

Volume I

Background and outcomes of the project



Contents

1. Introduction . 5

1.1 Scope of the report .5

1.2 Background .5

1.3 Policy developments..6

2. Problem areas: a discussion on definitions and relevant criteria for their identification 9

2.1 A preliminary discussion on suitable criteria for the identification of problems areas for soil

contamination ..9

2.2 A working definition of areas under risk for soil contamination .11

3. Project methodology 13

3.1 Steps followed.13

3.2 A tiered approach..14

3.3 Dealing with uncertainties16

3.4 Constraints and boundary conditions (limitations of the first phase of the project).17

3.5 Peer review 17

4. Project outcomes .. 19

4.1 Application of the methodology to selected mining and industrial sites 19

4.2 Results of the preliminary assessment 19

4.2.1 Human health risks at mining sites 20

4.2.2 Human health risks at EPER sites..20

4.3 Conclusions of expert workshop.21

4.4 Follow-ups .22

5. References. 24

Annex 1 Maps and graphs .. 25

Annex 2 Minutes: Expert Workshop on Local Soil

Contamination . 31

List of participants 32

Opening 33

Session 1: Proposed EEA Screening method.34

Session 2: National and regional methods38

Session 3. Specific questions to the invited experts .40

Session 4. General discussion .41

Session 5: Information on development of soil issues at the EEA ...44


Volume II

Review and analysis of existing methodologies for preliminary risk assessment

Contents

Executive summary. 5

1. Introduction.. 6

1.1. Scope of the report.. 6

1.2. Background.. 6

1.3. Policy developments.. 7

2. Objectives of the review 9

3. Description of methodology data sheets 10

3.1. General information . 10

3.2. Main features of the methodology.. 10

3.3. Integration with other assessment and land planning tools.. 11

3.4. Main elements of the methodology and risk calculation algorithm .. 11

3.5. Indicators/factors/parameters list and description .. 11

3.6. Parameters classification and harmonization . 11

3.7. User interface 12

4.2 Data base architecture 18

4. Results of the analysis 21

4.1. Harmonized parameters. 21

5. References . 26

Annexes . Methodology data sheets 28

Annex 1: AGAPE .. 29

Annex 2: Alaska Hazard Ranking Method (A.H.R.M.) 33

Annex 3: Analisi del Rischio per la Gerarchizzazione dei siti Inquinati presenti nell.Anagrafe

(A.R.G.I.A.). 38

Annex 4: Baden-Wurttemberg Method (B.W.M.) .. 43

Annex 5: Contaminated Sites Screening Model (C.S.S.M.) 47

Annex 6: Dundee Risk Evaluator Assessment Model (D.R.E.A.M.).. 53

Annex 7: Geologian TutkimusKeskus (GTK).. 60

Annex 9: Indiana Scoring Model (I.S.M.) 74

Annex 10: Lombardia Risorse (L.R.) 81

Annex11: National Classification System for Contaminated Sites (N.C.S.C.S.) 85

Annex 12: Numerical Ranking System (N.R.S.). 93

Annex 13: Method Regione Piemonte (R.P.). 103

Annex 14: Method for Inventories of Contaminated Sites (M.I.F.O.) . 107

Annex 15: Relative Risk Site Evaluation (R.R.S.E.).. 115

Annex 16: Receptor Source Proximity Relative Risk-Screening Model (R.R.S.M.)121

Annex 17: Risk Assessment for Small Closed Landfills (R.A.S.C.L.) .. 125

Annex 18: RIsk of COntaminated SItes (RI.SI.CO.) .. 131

Annex 19: Risk Screening System for contaminated sites (R.S.S.) .. 140

Annex 20: Remediation Urgency Method (R.U.M.) 144

Annex 21: Simplified Risk Assessment (S.R.A.) 160

Annex 22: Site Assessment Model (S.A.M.).. 166

Annex 23: Site Assessment Prioritization System (S.A.P.S.) 174

Annex 24: Site Prioritisation Criteria (S.P.C.) .. 179

Annex 25: SnamProgetti (S.P.).. 182

Annex 26: System for the Prioritisation of Point Sources (S.P.P.S., Geoenviron)185

Annex 27: Washington Ranking Methods (WA.R.M.).. 192



Volume III

PRA.MS: scoring model and algorithm



Contents

Executive summary. 5

1. Introduction .. 7

1.1 Scope and background of the report . 7

1.2 Objectives and model outline . 8

1.3 A tiered approach 13

1.4 Constraints and boundary conditions (limitations) of the methodology.. 15

1.5 Peer review .. 15

2. Tier 2 .. 16

2.1 Overview 16

2.2 Parameters in the model . 16

2.3 Human Health Risk Assessment 19

2.3.1 Groundwater (GW).. 19

2.3.2 Surface Water (SW) 24

2.3.3 Air (AIR) .. 28

2.3.4 Direct Contact (DC) 32

2.3.5 Algorithm for overall human health risk site scoring from factor and route scores 34

2.4 Ecological risk assessment .. 35

2.4.1 Ecological risk to Surface Water (SW) . 35

2.4.2 Ecological risk to Protected Areas (PA) 40

2.4.3 Algorithm for overall ecological site scoring from factor and receptor scores . 42

2.5 Uncertainty analysis .. 42

2.5.1 Human Health. 42

2.5.2 Ecological receptors 45

2.6 Options for multiple sources: scoring sources hazard .. 47

2.6.1 One contaminant typology .. 49

2.6.2 Two-contaminant typologies.. 49

2.6.3 Three or more-contaminants typologies 49

3. Tier 1 .. 50

3.1 Overview 50

3.2 Parameters in the model . 50

3.3 Human Health Risk Assessment 51

3.3.1 Scoring the Source indicator .. 51

3.3.2 GW factors weights . 52

3.3.3 SW factors weights.. 53

3.3.4 AIR factors weights. 53

3.3.5 Algorithm for overall risk site scoring from factor and route scores . 55

3.4 Ecological Risk Assessment 56

3.4.1 Ecological risk to Surface Water.. 56

3.4.2 Ecological risk to Protected Areas (PA) 57

3.4.3 Algorithm for overall ecological site scoring from factor and receptor scores . 59

3.5 Uncertainty analysis .. 60

3.5.1 Human health . 60

4. References.. 65

List of annexes

Annex 1: Source Hazard classification by contaminant Risk phrases -Tier 2.66

Annex 2A: Source Quantity classification - Tier 2 Human Health (GW, SW, AIR, DC) and Tier 2

Ecological (SW) .68

Annex 2B: Source Quantity classification - Tier 2 Ecological (PA)..70

Annex 2C: Source Quantity classification - Tier 1 Human Health (GW, SW, AIR, DC) and Tier 1

Ecological (SW) .71

Annex 2D: Source Quantity classification - Tier 1 Ecological (PA)..73

Annex 3: Source Hazard classification by Branch Type - Tier 1 .75

Annex 4: Example of Tier 2 application to a mining site of the DECHMINUE database..80


Application of the PRA.MS model to selected industrial and mining sites