PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE This article was downloaded by: [University of Greenwich] On: 14 December 2009 Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 908060688] Publisher Taylor & Francis Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37- 41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK Environmental Technology Publication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t791546829 A review of literature and computer models on exposure assessment T. E. Butt a ; M. Clark b ; F. Coulon c ; K. O. K. Oduyemi d a School of Architecture & Construction, University of Greenwich, London, UK b School of Built & Natural Environment, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK c Centre for Resource Management and Efficiency, Sustainable Systems Department, School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Cranfield, UK d Department of Built & Natural Environment, School of Contemporary Sciences, University of Abertay Dundee, Scotland, UK Online publication date: 14 December 2009 To cite this Article Butt, T. E., Clark, M., Coulon, F. and Oduyemi, K. O. K.(2009) 'A review of literature and computer models on exposure assessment', Environmental Technology, 30: 14, 1487 — 1501 To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09593330903345952 URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330903345952 Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE
This article was downloaded by: [University of Greenwich]On: 14 December 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 908060688]Publisher Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK
Environmental TechnologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t791546829
A review of literature and computer models on exposure assessmentT. E. Butt a; M. Clark b; F. Coulon c; K. O. K. Oduyemi d
a School of Architecture & Construction, University of Greenwich, London, UK b School of Built &Natural Environment, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, UK c Centre for ResourceManagement and Efficiency, Sustainable Systems Department, School of Applied Sciences, CranfieldUniversity, Cranfield, UK d Department of Built & Natural Environment, School of ContemporarySciences, University of Abertay Dundee, Scotland, UK
Online publication date: 14 December 2009
To cite this Article Butt, T. E., Clark, M., Coulon, F. and Oduyemi, K. O. K.(2009) 'A review of literature and computermodels on exposure assessment', Environmental Technology, 30: 14, 1487 — 1501To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/09593330903345952URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09593330903345952
Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf
This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.
The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
Environmental Technology
Vol. 30, No. 14, 14 December 2009, 1487–1501
ISSN 0959-3330 print/ISSN 1479-487X online© 2009 Taylor & FrancisDOI: 10.1080/09593330903345952http://www.informaworld.com
A review of literature and computer models on exposure assessment
T.E. Butt
a
*, M. Clark
b
, F. Coulon
c
and K.O.K. Oduyemi
d
a
School of Architecture & Construction, University of Greenwich, Avery Hill Campus, Mansion Site, Bexley Road, Eltham, SE9 2PQ, London, UK;
b
School of Built & Natural Environment, University of Central Lancashire, Preston, PR1 2HE, UK;
c
Centre for Resource Management and Efficiency, Sustainable Systems Department, School of Applied Sciences, Cranfield University, Cranfield, MK43 0AL, UK;
d
Department of Built & Natural Environment, School of Contemporary Sciences, University of Abertay Dundee, Bell Street, Dundee, DD1 1HG, Scotland, UK
Taylor and Francis Ltd
(
Received 23 October 2007; Accepted January 2009
)
10.1080/09593330903345952
At the present time, risk analysis is an effective management tool used by environmental managers to protect theenvironment from inevitable anthropogenic activities. There are generic elements in environmental risk assessments,which are independent of the subject to which risk analysis is applied. Examples of these elements are: baseline study,hazard identification, hazards’ concentration assessment and risk quantification. Another important example of suchgeneric elements is exposure assessment, which is required in a risk analysis process for landfill leachate as it wouldin any other environmental risk issue. Furthermore, computer models are also being developed to assist risk analysisin different fields. However, in the review of current computer models and literature, particularly regarding landfills,the authors have found no evidence for the existence of a holistic exposure assessment procedure underpinned witha computational method for landfill leachate. This paper, with reference to the relevant literature and modelsreviewed, discusses the extent to which exposure assessment is absent in landfill risk assessment approaches. Thestudy also indicates a number of factors and features that should be added to the exposure assessment system in orderto render it more strategic, thereby enhancing the quantitative risk analysis.
Keywords:
waste disposal sites; landfill leachate; risk analysis; risk assessment; exposure analysis; exposureassessment; literature review; computer models
1. Introduction
1.1. Background
Because of factors such as the industrial revolution,escalating mass production of commodities, increasedurbanization, propagation of the human population andeconomic growths at national and international levels,wastes are generated at a rate greater than ever before.These wastes include industrial, commercial anddomestic waste streams. Although, in some cases,wastes are reported as being reduced at regional level[1], unfortunately, on the whole, waste production isstill on the increase in the UK [2–9]. Even if wastes arereduced at regional level, in some cases the release ofgreenhouse gases/carbon emissions, related to the trans-port of waste from the point of production to recyclingfacilities and outlets, could outweigh the ‘green’ advan-tage of reuse and/or recycling. For instance, it has beenreported that waste from the North-East of the UK isbeing driven as far as Wales for recycling [10]. More-over, waste is the inescapable outcome of the activitiesthat characterize human society; indeed in one sense it
is an indicator of the health of the modern economy[11]. It can be safely said that no matter now high wemove up the waste hierarchy (which is describedbelow), there will always be some waste left for land-filling.
Sustainable waste management simply means manag-ing waste by prioritizing as per the Waste Hierarchy,which is shown in Figure 1 [5,8,9,12,13]. This implieswaste prevention is the topmost priority if possible. Theother priorities in descending order are reduction; reuse;recovery via recycling, composting and energy utiliza-tion; and disposal, which also includes landfilling. Withreference to Figure 1, it must be noted that the landfillwaste option not only occupies a place in the last groupi.e. ‘Disposal’ but also is in the second to the last categoryup the waste hierarchy, i.e. ‘Recovery’.
Figure 1. The waste hierarchy. The arrow points from the least preferred waste management option to the topmost priority [DoE and Welsh Office, 1995a, 1995b, SITA, 2004, Envirowise, 2005, SEPA, 2008].
Having established that waste production is an inev-itable characteristic of an industrial society; most of thewaste produced, particularly in the UK [5], is generallydisposed to landfills. Waste disposal to landfills, ingeneral, is an easy and cheap waste management option.However, landfilling does raise severe environmental
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Downloaded By: [University of Greenwich] At: 17:41 14 December 2009
1488
T.E. Butt
et al.
concerns. One reason for this is that during the processof waste degradation, landfills produce waste productsin three phases. These are: solid (i.e. more or lessdegraded waste), liquid (i.e. leachate, which is waterpolluted with wastes) and gas (usually referred to aslandfill gas, comprising, for example, methane, carbondioxide and hydrogen sulphide).
Furthermore, landfills have the potential to pollutethe three principal environmental media – the atmo-sphere, the lithosphere and the hydrosphere. Such pollu-tion will be transmitted through these media and willimpact, either directly or indirectly, upon humans, thenatural environment (including aquatic and terrestrialflora and fauna) and the built environment [18,19].Thus, the risks associated with landfills need to beassessed and managed to guard the environment againstlandfill hazards, not only for humans but also otherreceptors including flora, fauna, water and land or soils.
On the other hand, environmental legislation is notonly becoming stricter and more stringent but also hasincreasingly followed a global trend. Some examples ofsuch legislation are listed below in chronological order.Some legislation is directly related to landfills (e.g. theLandfill Directive, the Waste Management LicensingRegulations, the Environmental Protection Act), whileothers are indirectly related. Directives cover not onlythe UK but also the other member states of the Euro-pean Union.
●
EC Directive on Groundwater [20],
●
EC Directive on EIA (Environmental ImpactAssessment) [21],
●
Environmental Protection Act, 1990 [22],
●
EC Directive on the Conservation of NaturalHabitats and of Wild Fauna and Flora (TheHabitats Directive) [23],
●
Waste Management Licensing Regulations[24,25],
●
Environment Act, 1995 [26],
●
EU Directive on IPPC (Integrated PollutionControl and Prevention) [27],
●
Groundwater Regulations [28],
●
Landfill Directive [29],
●
Water Framework Directive, [30],
●
Landfill Regulations [31–33,91],
●
Strategic Environmental Assessment (SEA)Directive [34].
In parallel with the growing environmental concernsand the globalization process described earlier, havingrealized the significance and effectiveness of riskassessment in environmental management, environ-mental legislators have started to impose risk analysisas a tool for meeting legal requirements associated withwaste hazards [35]. For instance, to protect groundwaterfrom landfill leachate, a risk assessment exercise wasintroduced in the UK as a legal requirement from 1
Figure 1. The waste hierarchy. The arrow points from the least preferred waste management option to the topmost priority[2,3,92,93,127].
Downloaded By: [University of Greenwich] At: 17:41 14 December 2009
Environmental Technology
1489
May 1994, through Regulation 15 of the WasteManagement Licensing Regulations [24] and theGroundwater Regulations [28]. The Landfill Directiveis implemented in England and Wales through theLandfill Regulations [31], made under the PollutionPrevention and Control (PPC) Act (England and Wales)1999. The overall aim of the Landfill Directive, whichcame out in 1999, is to prevent or reduce as far as possi-ble negative impacts on the environment – in particularthe pollution of surface water, groundwater, soil and air– and on the global environment, including the green-house effect, as well as any resulting risk to humanhealth, from the landfilling of waste, during the wholelife-cycle of the landfill [36]. Equivalent legislation,which is called the Landfill (Scotland) Regulations, hascome out in Scotland [37–40]. Equivalent legislationhas also been in place in Northern Ireland since 2003[41]. It can be deduced from all these legislative instru-ments that the ‘out of sight, out of mind’ conceptregarding wastes (i.e. simply and blindly buried into theground and forgotten) is no longer applicable. Toachieve the maximum protection of the environmentagainst the hazards associated with landfill sites, allpotential hazards must be identified and risks associatedwith them assessed.
A risk assessment has two main aspects: hazardassessment and risk estimation [42]. The former aspectgenerally focuses on identification of the hazards’source, pathways and receptors/targets, whereas thelatter facet is to establish how likely it is that a givenhazard would reach and hit the receptor/target via thepathway. Specifically, in the former context, risk analy-sis has been applied to a number of subjects for a longtime. However, it is the latter aspect, i.e. the risk estima-
tion part of risk assessment, which is a comparativelynew and rapidly growing science, particularly in rela-tion to probabilistic and statistical approaches. Thus, onthe whole, risk assessment is a relatively new and fastdeveloping field of study [19,43,44]. This is not just inrelation to landfills and other environmental issues butalso in relation to other business fields including thefood industry, ecology, epidemiology, health physics,radiation, earthquakes, finance, construction manage-ment, building contract selection, insurance, economics,fire, landslides, ship navigation and the oil industry[19,44–52]. Regardless of the type of risk assessmentand the environmental area of application, one of theimportant parts of risk analysis is exposure assessment[53]. In the literature review carried out by the authors(examples and further details are contained in Table 1and Section 2), it was concluded that risk analysisapproaches for landfill leachate do not have a holisticexposure assessment procedure aided by a computermodel. A number of important elements of exposureassessment that are absent in risk analysis approachesand computer models are discussed below.
1.2. Definition and terminology implications
Figure 2 represents an overall structure of risk analysiswith a range of building blocks including baselinestudy, hazard identification, exposure assessment,hazards’ concentration assessment, pollutants’ migra-tion assessment, significance assessment, uncertaintyassessment, hazard indices and risk quantification. Inthe UK the term generally used is risk assessment, asopposed to risk analysis, which is more often used in theUSA. Therefore, the authors have noticed that both
Figure 2. The exposure assessment framework in relation to overall risk assessment structure (adapted, derived and concludedfrom the work of various authors including Peacock and Whyte [94], WDA [95], Tweeds [44], WHO [46], EPA [96], TOSC[97], CIRIA [42], Viswanathan et al. [98], CMSA [99]).
Downloaded By: [University of Greenwich] At: 17:41 14 December 2009
1490
T.E. Butt
et al.
terms are used interchangeably in the literature. Thus,this paper uses both risk assessment and risk analysisinterchangeably. This also helps to cover an interna-tional audience rather than just a national one.
Figure 2. The exposure assessment framework in relation to overall risk assessment structure (adapted, derived and concluded from the work of various authors including Peacock and Whyte [1992], WDA [1994], Tweeds [996], WHO [1997], US EPA [2000], TOSC [2000], CIRIA [2001],Viswanathan
et al.
[2002], CMSA [2004]).
Figure 2 shows the position of exposure assessmentin relation to the overall risk analysis structure. Thefigure also illustrates the other building blocks of therisk assessment process. In the figure, exposure assess-ment further branches out into its parts and sub-parts.The other building blocks are not the focus of thispaper, thus their parts and sub-parts are beyond thescope of this paper.
In the context of landfill risk analysis, the authorsdescribe an exposure assessment process as that funda-mental stage of a risk assessment exercise in which agiven landfill, i.e. the pollutant source, is characterizedand pathways and environmental receptors are identifiedand categorized. For this, the basic information comesfrom the baseline study module of the risk assessment,where the relevant information would already have beengathered by the risk assessor [19]. Similarly, hazards/pollutants would have already been specified in thehazard identification section of the risk assessment [54].In exposure assessment, in addition to identification,characterization and categorization of the hazards’source, pathways and receptors/targets, exposures of theidentified receptors to the identified hazards throughidentified pathways are also quantified to support thequantitative risk analysis. It is worth mentioning thatthe term ‘holistic’ in this paper implies an overall frame-work or system, covering all aspects and factors of theexposure assessment from the point of view of theleachate.
2. Literature on risk analysis and exposure assessment
The literature on risk assessment that is related to envi-ronmental issues, specifically regarding landfills, is themain focus of this review. This literature reviewincludes, for instance, Gregory
et al.
[55], Nathanailand Nathanail [56], Bardos
et al.
, [57,58], Eduljee [59],Redfearn
et al.
[60], DoE [61] and CIRIA [42] (seemore references in Table 1). In this study, in addition tothe latest literature, some old material has also beenconsidered, to check if any developments on the subjectwere made in the far past. The review of the literatureclearly shows that exposure assessment is a crucialfactor in an environmental risk analysis becausehazards’ source, pathways and receptors have to bespecified and exposures have to be measured in order tobe able to establish the degree and nature of risks. Thefollowing two sub-sections explain why the develop-ment of a strategic framework of exposure assessmentis necessary for landfill leachate.
2.1. Current and future legislation
Table 1 shows that the current literature (and computermodels discussed in section 3) regarding risk analysisand exposure assessment are just about sufficient tomeet the current legislation requirements, such as thedrinking water standards. The literature mainly consid-ers humans as receptors. Furthermore, in terms of thedevelopment of an overall exposure assessment proce-dure, there is a lack of attention given to some otheraspects. Some examples of such aspects are:
●
receptors other than humans, such as aquatic andterrestrial flora and fauna (like fish, crops),
●
natural and yet non-living receptors such as land/soil, air, watercourses/groundwater, etc.,
●
the built environment such as human-madeponds, buildings and structures,
●
watercourses other than those used by humans fordrinking, such as rivers of various water grades[62],
●
statistical descriptions for maximum and meanexposure quantification, in order to assist withmeasuring risks for worst case and most likelyscenarios, respectively, in a risk analysis process.
The above listed areas become more important as futurelegislation becomes more stringent, inclusive and inte-grated (Section 1). For instance, the Water FrameworkDirective [30] will be incorporated into the UK legisla-tion in the near future. This Directive includes newrequirements for protection and restoration not only ofground waters but also of surface waters and dependentecological systems [35]. Similarly, the Landfill Direc-tive and Regulations go beyond surface and groundwater and include air, soil, the global environment,greenhouse gases, and human health [29,32,34,91].Another directive, generally referred to as the HabitatDirective [23], brings a legal obligation to combathazards in order to guard and enhance natural habitatsand wild fauna and flora. On the basis of these examplesof legislation, which are tending to be much more holis-tic than ever before, it can be concluded that an evenmore integrated approach towards exposure assessmentand subsequent risk analysis is required.
2.2. Non-integrated literature on exposure assessment and risk assessment
A review of environmental related literature led to theconclusion that a comprehensive, robust, detailed andsound risk assessment methodology, with a number ofessential features, does not exist in an integratedmanner. Examples of such essential features are listedbelow:
Downloaded By: [University of Greenwich] At: 17:41 14 December 2009
Environmental Technology
1491Ta
ble
1.L
iter
atur
e re
view
exa
mpl
es:
disc
ussi
ng p
rese
nt a
nd a
bsen
t el
emen
ts o
f ex
posu
re a
sses
smen
t.
Pub
lica
tion
Ele
men
ts p
rese
ntE
lem
ents
abs
ent
ICE
, [10
0]T
his
publ
icat
ion
desc
ribe
s ri
sk a
sses
smen
t fro
m th
e pe
rspe
ctiv
e of
co
ntam
inat
ed l
and
rath
er t
han
spec
ific
ally
fro
m t
he l
andf
ill
poin
t of
vie
w. T
his
publ
icat
ion
just
out
line
s th
e m
ain
cont
ents
of
exp
osur
e as
sess
men
t fo
r an
y ty
pe o
f co
ntam
inat
ed l
and,
but
do
es n
ot p
rese
nt a
rob
ust
and
obje
ctiv
e pr
oced
ure
for
carr
ying
ou
t exp
osur
e as
sess
men
t for
land
fill
s or
any
con
tam
inat
ed la
nd
wit
h it
ems
as l
iste
d in
the
adj
acen
t co
lum
n 3
of t
his
tabl
e.
Fro
m t
he t
erm
‘el
emen
ts a
bsen
t’ t
he a
utho
r im
plie
s kn
owle
dge
gaps
and
li
mit
atio
ns i
n th
e re
sear
ch w
orks
to
date
wit
h re
gard
to
expo
sure
ass
essm
ents
fr
om t
he p
ersp
ecti
ve o
f la
ndfi
ll e
xpos
ure
anal
ysis
. 1.
The
re i
s ab
senc
e of
an
iden
tifi
cati
on a
nd c
ateg
oriz
atio
n pr
oced
ure
for
poll
utan
ts a
t so
urce
(i.e
. a g
iven
lan
dfil
l). P
athw
ays
(inc
ludi
ng e
xpos
ure
med
ium
and
exp
osur
e ro
utes
suc
h as
ing
esti
on, d
erm
al, i
nhal
atio
n) a
nd
rece
ptor
s/ta
rget
s ar
e ab
sent
.2.
(a)
The
re is
no
syst
em f
or m
easu
ring
or
quan
tify
ing
expo
sure
of
rece
ptor
s to
ha
zard
s, c
over
ing
all
poss
ible
exp
osur
e ro
utes
via
whi
ch h
azar
ds c
an
poss
ibly
ent
er r
ecep
tors
’ bo
unda
ries
.(b
)T
here
is
no f
unct
ion
or f
acil
ity
that
all
ows
expo
sure
s fr
om v
ario
us
indi
vidu
al e
xpos
ure
rout
es to
be
aggr
egat
ed f
or a
giv
en r
ecep
tor
expo
sed
to a
giv
en h
azar
d.3.
The
re i
s no
con
side
rati
on g
iven
to
asse
ssin
g th
e si
gnif
ican
ce o
f an
d li
kely
un
cert
aint
ies
invo
lved
in
the
elem
ents
, par
ticu
larl
y ex
posu
re m
easu
rem
ent,
indi
cate
d ab
ove.
(a
)S
igni
fica
nce
asse
ssm
ent
play
s a
role
in
scre
enin
g ou
t in
sign
ific
ant
para
met
ers,
e.g
. whi
ch p
athw
ay a
nd/o
r re
cept
or is
neg
ligi
ble
to c
onsi
der
in a
n ex
posu
re a
naly
sis
proc
ess
and,
con
sequ
entl
y, t
he r
isk
asse
ssm
ent
proc
ess.
(b)
Unc
erta
inty
ass
essm
ent
assi
sts
the
iden
tifi
cati
on o
f un
cert
aint
ies
invo
lved
in
mea
suri
ng a
par
amet
er, e
.g. m
odel
s’ l
imit
atio
ns, e
stim
atio
n m
etho
ds’
assu
mpt
ions
, dat
a qu
alit
y.4.
The
re a
re n
o pr
ovis
ions
for
exp
osur
e as
sess
men
t to
ass
ist
wit
h m
easu
ring
bo
th w
orst
cas
e an
d m
ost
like
ly r
isk
scen
ario
s.5.
The
app
lica
tion
and
int
egra
tion
of
conc
epts
of
max
imum
, mea
n an
d m
inim
um e
xpos
ures
are
not
inc
lude
d, i
.e. e
ngag
emen
t of
sta
tist
ical
de
scri
ptio
ns t
hat
can
help
add
ress
iss
ues
of u
ncer
tain
ties
, and
tem
pora
l an
d sp
atia
l va
riat
ions
.6.
It is
not
in th
e re
mit
of
the
publ
icat
ion
to o
ffer
a h
olis
tic
com
pute
r m
odel
of
an i
nteg
rate
d ex
posu
re a
naly
sis
syst
em f
or l
andf
ill
leac
hate
, whi
ch c
onta
ins
all
the
afor
esai
d fe
atur
es o
r el
emen
ts.
Gol
der A
ssoc
iate
s,
[101
]T
his
publ
icat
ion
rega
rds
risk
ass
essm
ent o
nly
for
smal
l and
clo
sed
land
fill
s. I
t bri
efly
men
tion
s ha
zard
s an
d ri
sks
in th
e co
ntex
t of
cont
amin
atio
n of
gro
undw
ater
, con
tam
inat
ion
of s
urfa
ce w
ater
, ga
s ac
cum
ulat
ion
and
dire
ct e
xpos
ure
to c
onta
min
ated
soi
l, sh
arp
obje
cts
or h
azar
dous
gas
es. T
hese
are
the
only
sce
nari
os,
whi
ch t
his
publ
icat
ion
addr
esse
s ve
ry b
rief
ly.
The
re is
no
stra
tegi
c pr
oced
ure
to c
arry
out
the
expo
sure
ass
essm
ent p
roce
ss in
a
quan
tita
tive
man
ner
for
land
fill
lea
chat
e, w
hich
cou
ld t
ake
acco
unt
of a
ll
poss
ible
sce
nari
os. T
here
is
a la
ck o
f an
in-
dept
h al
gori
thm
ic e
xpos
ure
quan
tifi
cati
on s
yste
m t
hat
sequ
enti
ally
tie
s to
geth
er t
he f
acto
rs i
nvol
ved,
suc
h as
exp
osur
e du
rati
on, f
requ
ency
, exp
osur
e m
edia
and
rou
tes.
In
sum
mar
y, it
is
not i
n re
mit
of
this
pub
lica
tion
to a
ddre
ss a
ll th
e el
emen
ts m
enti
oned
abo
ve (
in
Row
1)
in a
hol
isti
c fo
rmat
spe
cifi
call
y fo
r la
ndfi
ll l
each
ate.
CIR
IA, [
42]
Thi
s pu
blic
atio
n is
onl
y fo
r cl
osed
lan
dfil
l si
tes.
The
pub
lica
tion
co
ntai
ns a
cha
pter
spe
cifi
call
y on
ris
k as
sess
men
t, w
hich
als
o co
ntai
ns a
bri
ef s
ecti
on o
n ex
posu
re a
sses
smen
t w
here
mai
n fa
ctor
s of
exp
osur
e an
alys
is a
re o
nly
men
tion
ed.
The
re i
s no
pro
cedu
re f
or e
xpos
ure
asse
ssm
ent.
Downloaded By: [University of Greenwich] At: 17:41 14 December 2009
1492
T.E. Butt
et al.Ta
ble
1.(
Con
tinu
ed
).
Pub
lica
tion
Ele
men
ts p
rese
ntE
lem
ents
abs
ent
Env
iron
men
t A
genc
y, [
35]
Pro
vide
s gu
idel
ines
for
lan
dfil
l ri
sk a
sses
smen
t an
d on
ly f
or
grou
ndw
ater
as
rece
ptor
. Ide
ntif
ies
som
e fu
ndam
enta
l re
quir
emen
ts o
f ris
k as
sess
men
t on,
e.g
. geo
logy
, hyd
roge
olog
y an
d si
te i
nves
tiga
tion
.
Tho
ugh
a gu
idel
ine
on l
andf
ill
risk
ass
essm
ent
exis
ts, i
t do
es n
ot c
onsi
der
rece
ptor
s ot
her
than
gro
undw
ater
. Tho
ugh
this
pub
lica
tion
rel
ates
to
risk
as
sess
men
t for
land
fill
leac
hate
, it i
s no
t hol
isti
c in
the
form
of
a m
etho
dolo
gy
or r
eady
-to-
use
proc
edur
e. T
here
are
no
cons
ider
atio
ns o
f qu
anti
fica
tion
of
expo
sure
and
ris
k. T
he c
ompu
ter
mod
elli
ng a
spec
t of
the
pub
lica
tion
(i.e
. L
andS
im)
is d
iscu
ssed
in
Sec
tion
3.
DE
TR
et a
l.
, [10
2]T
he d
ocum
ent
stat
es t
hat
it p
rovi
des
mat
eria
l, in
gen
eral
, for
the
de
velo
pmen
t of
ris
k an
alys
is g
uida
nce
to a
ssis
t is
sues
lik
e co
ntam
inat
ed l
and,
was
te m
anag
emen
t an
d m
ajor
acc
iden
t ha
zard
s.
The
pub
lica
tion
add
ress
es a
ran
ge o
f is
sues
in
gene
ral
(lis
ted
in t
he l
eft
colu
mn)
bu
t no
t sp
ecif
ical
ly f
or l
andf
ills
or
land
fill
lea
chat
e. T
he o
bjec
tive
of
this
pu
blic
atio
n is
not
to
deve
lop
an i
nteg
rate
d ex
posu
re a
sses
smen
t to
ass
ist
quan
tita
tive
ris
k an
alys
is. I
n su
mm
ary,
in th
e co
ntex
t of
land
fill
leac
hate
all
the
elem
ents
abo
ve (
Row
1)
are
not
in t
he r
emit
of
this
pub
lica
tion
.D
EF
RA
and
E
nvir
onm
ent
Age
ncy,
[77
]
Thi
s pu
blic
atio
n re
late
s to
hum
an e
xpos
ure
asse
ssm
ent
for
cont
amin
ated
lan
d. D
etai
ls o
n va
riou
s as
pect
s of
exp
osur
e as
sess
men
t are
giv
en. E
xam
ples
are
exp
osur
e pa
ram
eter
s (s
uch
as e
xpos
ure
dura
tion
, fre
quen
cy),
soi
l re
leas
e an
d tr
ansf
er
mec
hani
sms,
exp
osur
e eq
uati
ons,
hum
an a
ctiv
itie
s an
d ag
es,
expo
sure
rou
tes
and
vari
ous
land
-use
s.
Dea
ls in
det
ail w
ith
hum
ans
as r
ecep
tors
, but
not
oth
er e
nvir
onm
enta
l spe
cies
and
ec
osys
tem
s. E
lem
ent 5
, abo
ve, i
s al
so n
ot p
rese
nt. I
t doe
s no
t spe
cifi
call
y re
late
to
lan
dfil
l le
acha
te. I
t is
for
con
tam
inat
ed l
and
in g
ener
al.
Env
iron
men
t A
genc
y, [
103]
Thi
s do
cum
ent
brie
fly
addr
esse
s a
broa
d an
d di
vers
e ra
nge
of
face
ts o
f la
ndfi
ll r
isk
anal
ysis
alo
ng s
ocia
l, te
chni
cal,
envi
ronm
enta
l, ec
onom
ic, l
egis
lati
ve a
nd m
anag
eria
l th
emes
. B
oth
land
fill
gas
and
leac
hate
are
add
ress
ed. T
he m
ain
scop
e of
th
e gu
idan
ce i
s li
mit
ed t
o fi
ve a
reas
of
risk
ana
lysi
s, w
hich
are
ac
cide
nts
and
thei
r co
nseq
uenc
es, h
ydro
geol
ogy,
lan
dfil
l ga
s,
part
icul
ate
mat
ter
and
stab
ilit
y. T
he d
ocum
ent
brie
fly
touc
hes
on e
lem
ents
like
sou
rce,
pat
hway
s an
d re
cept
ors
but n
ot a
s pa
rts
of a
n ex
posu
re a
sses
smen
t sy
stem
.
A h
olis
tic
expo
sure
ass
essm
ent
proc
edur
e ac
com
pani
ed w
ith
a co
rres
pond
ing
com
pute
r m
odel
is
not
in t
he r
emit
of
this
pub
lica
tion
. The
re i
s no
all
owan
ce
for
expo
sure
qua
ntif
icat
ion.
Sta
tist
ical
des
crip
tion
s li
ke m
axim
um, m
ean
and
min
imum
exp
osur
es a
re n
ot i
n th
e sc
ope
eith
er. A
s th
e do
cum
ent
stat
es, t
here
ar
e fi
ve m
ain
area
s w
hich
con
stit
ute
the
mai
n re
mit
of
the
guid
ance
(li
sted
in
the
left
col
umn)
. How
ever
, lan
dfil
l le
acha
te i
s no
t on
e of
the
m t
houg
h it
is
addr
esse
d to
an
exte
nt. T
he g
uida
nce
also
men
tion
s th
at it
doe
s no
t pro
vide
all
th
e de
tail
nee
ded
to c
ondu
ct r
isk
anal
ysis
for
a la
ndfi
ll, a
nd th
e sa
me
hold
s fo
r ex
posu
re a
sses
smen
t.G
rego
ry
et a
l.,
[55
]T
his
publ
icat
ion
is f
or r
isk
anal
ysis
of
land
fill
gas
onl
y an
d co
ncer
ns m
ainl
y hu
man
s as
rec
epto
rs. E
ngag
es w
ith
som
e ri
sk
asse
ssm
ent
mod
ules
suc
h as
gas
gen
erat
ion,
hum
an e
xpos
ure
asse
ssm
ent
wit
h qu
anti
fica
tion
asp
ect,
poll
utan
ts’
mig
rati
on.
The
ris
k qu
anti
fica
tion
asp
ect
is a
bsen
t. It
is
not
for
land
fill
lea
chat
e. E
lem
ent
5 ab
ove
is n
ot e
mbe
dded
, eve
n fo
r la
ndfi
ll g
as. F
rom
a l
each
ate
pers
pect
ive,
all
th
e af
ores
aid
elem
ents
are
abs
ent.
Mos
chan
drea
s
et a
l.
, [53
]F
ocus
es o
n on
e ty
pe o
f ha
zard
, i.e
. par
ticu
late
mat
ter
(PM
) an
d on
ly i
n ai
r as
an
expo
sure
med
ium
. The
onl
y ex
posu
re r
oute
ac
coun
ted
for
is i
nhal
atio
n an
d th
is c
onsi
ders
onl
y hu
man
s as
re
cept
ors.
Doe
s no
t pr
esen
t ex
posu
re a
sses
smen
t as
an
over
all
proc
edur
e an
d, s
peci
ally
, el
emen
t 5
abov
e is
not
inc
lude
d. T
his
publ
icat
ion
is n
ot s
peci
fica
lly
for
land
fill
s. A
s m
enti
oned
in th
e co
rres
pond
ing
adja
cent
left
cel
l, co
nsid
erat
ion
of
type
s of
haz
ard,
exp
osur
e m
ediu
m, e
xpos
ure
rout
e an
d re
cept
or is
ver
y li
mit
ed.
Bag
li a
nd S
pado
ni,
[63]
Thi
s pu
blic
atio
n ta
kes
acco
unt
of i
ndus
tria
l fa
cili
ties
as
poll
utan
t so
urce
s an
d hu
man
s as
rec
epto
rs. I
t tou
ches
on
vari
ous
aspe
cts
of e
xpos
ure
asse
ssm
ent
incl
udin
g ex
posu
re r
oute
s, e
quat
ions
an
d qu
anti
fica
tion
. Als
o br
iefl
y w
rite
s ab
out r
isk
asse
ssm
ent i
n th
e li
ght
of G
IS (
geog
raph
ical
inf
orm
atio
n sy
stem
s).
It i
s no
t fo
r la
ndfi
lls
at a
ll. E
xpos
ure
asse
ssm
ent
is n
ot p
rese
nted
as
an o
vera
ll
proc
edur
e. R
ecep
tors
oth
er th
an h
uman
s ha
ve n
ot b
een
incl
uded
. In
the
cont
ext
of l
andf
ill
leac
hate
, all
the
ele
men
ts m
enti
oned
abo
ve a
re a
bsen
t as
wel
l.
Red
fear
n
et a
l.
, [60
]T
his
publ
icat
ion
is r
elat
ed to
ris
k as
sess
men
t and
thus
als
o br
iefl
y m
enti
ons
expo
sure
ass
essm
ent.
How
ever
, thi
s pu
blic
atio
n is
re
late
d to
lan
dfil
l ga
s an
d no
t le
acha
te. T
hus,
it
focu
ses
on t
he
expo
sure
rou
te o
f in
hala
tion
onl
y. A
lso,
it
iden
tifi
es s
ome
sens
itiv
itie
s an
d un
cert
aint
ies
asso
ciat
ed w
ith
expo
sure
as
sess
men
t.
Apa
rt f
rom
a v
ery
lim
ited
sec
tion
on
expo
sure
ass
essm
ent,
ther
e is
no
proc
edur
e fo
r de
scri
bing
how
to
perf
orm
the
exp
osur
e an
alys
is p
roce
ss. A
ll t
he e
lem
ents
m
enti
oned
abo
ve a
re a
bsen
t fro
m th
e pe
rspe
ctiv
e of
leac
hate
. Alt
houg
h th
e fi
rst
four
ele
men
ts a
re p
artl
y ad
dres
sed
to a
n ex
tent
, the
con
side
rati
on i
s fr
om t
he
land
fill
gas
per
spec
tive
.
Downloaded By: [University of Greenwich] At: 17:41 14 December 2009
Environmental Technology
1493Ta
ble
1.(
Con
tinu
ed
).
Pub
lica
tion
Ele
men
ts p
rese
ntE
lem
ents
abs
ent
DoE
, [61
]T
his
publ
icat
ion
port
rays
, mor
e th
an a
ny o
ther
lite
ratu
re s
tudi
ed to
da
te, e
xpos
ure
asse
ssm
ent
in a
hol
isti
c m
anne
r. H
owev
er, t
he
focu
s is
on
hum
an h
ealt
h on
ly a
nd n
o ot
her
envi
ronm
enta
l re
cept
ors.
Sim
ilar
ly, n
ot a
ll p
oten
tial
pat
hway
s ha
ve b
een
incl
uded
: on
ly s
ix e
xpos
ure
path
way
s, w
hich
cov
er m
ost
risk
s to
hum
an h
ealt
h fr
om l
andf
ills
.
Doe
s no
t pr
esen
t an
exp
osur
e as
sess
men
t pr
oced
ure
in a
hol
isti
c m
anne
r, i
n th
e fo
rm o
f a c
ompu
ter m
odel
, tha
t is
elem
ent n
umbe
r 6 (a
bove
in R
ow 1
) is
abse
nt.
Doe
s no
t ta
ke a
ccou
nt o
f al
l en
viro
nmen
tal
rece
ptor
s su
ch a
s fl
ora
and
faun
a,
but
only
hum
ans.
Wit
h re
fere
nce
to p
oint
2 a
bove
. Thi
s pu
blic
atio
n do
es n
ot
seem
to
have
a f
acil
ity
whe
re a
ll i
ndiv
idua
l ex
posu
res
via
vari
ous
corr
espo
ndin
g in
divi
dual
exp
osur
e ro
utes
, cou
ld b
e su
mm
ed u
p to
det
erm
ine
tota
l ex
posu
re f
or a
giv
en r
ecep
tor
expo
sed
to a
giv
en h
azar
d. D
oes
not
take
ac
coun
t of
sta
tist
ical
asp
ects
, as
indi
cate
d in
ele
men
t 5
abov
e.E
dulj
ee, [
59]
A p
roce
dure
on
expo
sure
ass
essm
ent
has
been
out
line
d, w
hich
co
vers
ele
men
ts li
ke 1
and
2 (
list
ed a
bove
) to
var
ious
leve
ls o
f de
tail
. How
ever
, onl
y hu
man
s ha
ve b
een
cons
ider
ed a
s re
cept
ors.
No
com
pute
r m
odel
exi
sts
for
the
expo
sure
ass
essm
ent
proc
edur
e in
a h
olis
tic
man
ner.
Ele
men
ts 3
, 4 a
nd 5
abo
ve a
re a
bsen
t an
d el
emen
t 2
is a
ddre
ssed
to
a li
mit
ed e
xten
t. T
he p
roce
dure
pre
sent
ed e
xclu
des
vari
ous
envi
ronm
enta
l re
cept
ors
such
as
flor
a, f
auna
and
the
bui
lt e
nvir
onm
ent.
Asa
nte-
Dua
h,
[104
]E
ncir
cles
all
im
port
ant
aspe
cts
of r
isk
anal
ysis
and
man
agem
ent
(inc
ludi
ng e
xpos
ure
asse
ssm
ent)
of
cont
amin
ated
land
s, b
ut n
ot
in t
he f
orm
of
a m
etho
dolo
gy. T
he v
ario
us a
spec
ts h
ave
been
co
nsid
ered
ind
epen
dent
ly o
f ea
ch o
ther
.
Not
spe
cifi
call
y fo
r la
ndfi
lls.
Als
o al
l th
e el
emen
ts a
bove
are
abs
ent.
Dau
gher
ty, [
105]
Con
tain
s de
tail
s no
t on
ly o
f ex
posu
re b
ut a
lso
of s
ourc
es (
of
haza
rds)
, pat
hway
s an
d re
cept
ors
in s
epar
ate
chap
ters
.T
his
publ
icat
ion,
lik
e ot
hers
, doe
s no
t de
pict
exp
osur
e as
sess
men
t in
the
for
m o
f a
proc
edur
e th
at a
ris
k as
sess
or c
ould
use
to m
easu
re e
xpos
ure.
The
pub
lica
tion
is
not
spe
cifi
call
y fo
r la
ndfi
lls.
Mor
eove
r, a
ll t
he e
lem
ents
abo
ve a
re a
bsen
t.E
nvir
onm
ent
Age
ncy,
[10
6]T
his
land
fill
risk
ass
essm
ent p
ubli
cati
on is
from
the
pers
pect
ive
of
issu
es i
nclu
ding
noi
se, o
dour
, lit
ter,
bir
ds, v
erm
in, i
nsec
ts a
nd
mud
on
road
.
The
pub
lica
tion
is n
ot a
bout
land
fill
leac
hate
. Thu
s, th
e el
emen
ts in
dica
ted
in R
ow
1 ab
ove
are
not
in t
he s
cope
of
the
publ
icat
ion.
Ber
nard
et a
l.
, [1
07,1
08]
The
se tw
o pa
pers
(P
arts
1 a
nd 2
) ar
e on
haz
ard
anal
ysis
of
land
fill
le
acha
te. T
hey
disc
uss
leac
hate
s fr
om 2
5 la
ndfi
lls
in F
ranc
e as
ca
se s
tudi
es, u
sing
a n
umbe
r of
met
hods
for
det
erm
inin
g le
acha
te t
oxic
ity
and
then
com
pari
ng t
he p
hysi
co-c
hem
ical
ch
arac
teri
stic
s of
the
lea
chat
es.
Alt
houg
h th
e te
chni
ques
ide
ntif
ied
on m
easu
ring
tox
icit
y of
lan
dfil
l le
acha
te c
an
be u
sefu
l in
exp
osur
e as
sess
men
t fo
r a
give
n la
ndfi
ll, t
hese
pap
ers
do n
ot
pres
ent p
roce
dure
s fo
r ex
posu
re a
naly
sis,
and
the
elem
ents
exp
ress
ed a
bove
are
no
t ad
dres
sed
in a
n in
tegr
ated
man
ner.
EP
D, [
109]
Thi
s pu
blic
atio
n is
a g
uide
line
for
haz
ard
anal
ysis
of
land
fill
gas
. It
bri
efly
cov
ers
vari
ous
aspe
cts
of h
azar
d an
d ri
sk a
sses
smen
t su
ch a
s ha
zard
mit
igat
ion
mea
sure
s an
d a
sour
ce–p
athw
ay–
targ
et a
naly
sis.
The
pub
lica
tion
is
not
for
land
fill
lea
chat
e. E
ven
for
land
fill
gas
, the
afo
resa
id
elem
ents
are
eit
her
abse
nt o
r pa
rtly
cov
ered
to a
lim
ited
ext
ent (
as m
enti
oned
in
the
left
col
umn)
.
Kav
azan
jian
et a
l.
, [1
10];
Eis
enbe
is
et a
l.
, [11
1];
Jagg
y, [
112]
; W
DA
, [95
];
LaG
oy, [
43];
D
OE
, [11
3]; a
nd
Pie
per
et a
l.
, [1
14]
In a
ddit
ion
to o
ther
old
lite
ratu
re o
n la
ndfi
ll a
sses
smen
t dis
cuss
ed
earl
ier
in t
he c
urre
nt p
aper
, the
se p
ubli
cati
ons
wer
e al
so
inve
stig
ated
to
mak
e su
re i
f an
y w
ork
had
been
don
e on
ex
posu
re a
naly
sis
rela
tive
ly f
urth
er i
n th
e pa
st. T
hese
pap
ers
wer
e fo
und
to a
ddre
ss v
ario
us r
isk
asse
ssm
ent
issu
es l
ike
seis
mic
haz
ard
anal
ysis
for
lan
dfil
ls, r
isk
asse
ssm
ent
itse
lf,
land
fill
typ
e an
d na
ture
, con
tam
inat
ed l
and
rem
edia
tion
, ha
zard
ous
was
tes,
HW
IR (
haza
rdou
s w
aste
ide
ntif
icat
ion
rule
) an
d sp
ecif
ic h
azar
ds s
uch
as p
olyc
hlor
inat
ed d
iben
zo-p
-dio
xins
an
d fu
rans
(P
CD
D/F
).
The
se p
ubli
cati
ons
cove
r var
ious
asp
ects
and
fact
ors
of ri
sk a
sses
smen
t (in
clud
ing
expo
sure
ana
lysi
s) to
var
ying
deg
rees
. How
ever
, non
e of
them
app
ear t
o pr
esen
t a
holi
stic
sys
tem
of
the
expo
sure
ass
essm
ent
proc
ess
in a
qua
ntit
ativ
e m
anne
r fo
r la
ndfi
ll l
each
ate,
whi
ch c
ould
tak
e ac
coun
t of
all
pos
sibl
e sc
enar
ios
and
elem
ents
ind
icat
ed i
n R
ow 1
abo
ve.
SE
PA
, [11
5]T
his
publ
icat
ion
rega
rds
land
fill
ris
k as
sess
men
t in
the
cont
ext o
f la
ndfi
ll l
each
ate
line
rs a
nd d
rain
age
syst
ems.
Thi
s pu
blic
atio
n do
es n
ot d
escr
ibe
a st
rate
gic
proc
edur
e to
car
ry o
ut th
e ex
posu
re
asse
ssm
ent
proc
ess
in a
qua
ntit
ativ
e m
anne
r.
Downloaded By: [University of Greenwich] At: 17:41 14 December 2009
1494
T.E. Butt
et al.Ta
ble
1.(
Con
tinu
ed
).
Pub
lica
tion
Ele
men
ts p
rese
ntE
lem
ents
abs
ent
CP
PD
, [11
6]C
urre
ntly
the
pub
lica
tion
is
in a
dra
ft f
orm
. It
rega
rds
haza
rd a
nd
risk
ass
essm
ent
in t
he c
onte
xt o
f na
tura
l ha
zard
s su
ch a
s fl
oodi
ng, e
arth
quak
e, l
ands
lide
s an
d w
ildf
ires
.
The
pub
lica
tion
doe
s no
t con
side
r an
thro
poge
nic
acti
viti
es a
nd th
eref
ore
does
not
co
nsid
er la
ndfi
lls
at a
ll. I
t dis
cuss
es v
ario
us n
atur
al h
azar
ds, w
ith
stat
isti
cs, b
ut
does
not
pre
sent
a s
truc
ture
d ex
posu
re a
naly
sis
proc
edur
e ev
en f
or t
he n
atur
al
haza
rds
cove
red.
Rud
land
et a
l.
, [1
17]
Des
crib
es a
bas
ic f
ram
ewor
k fo
r th
e ri
sk a
sses
smen
t of
co
ntam
inat
ed l
and.
Not
spe
cifi
call
y fo
r la
ndfi
lls.
All
the
ele
men
ts a
bove
(R
ow 1
) ar
e ab
sent
.
Auc
klan
d R
egio
nal
Cou
ncil
, [11
8]
Thi
s pu
blic
atio
n, w
hich
is
a go
vern
men
t do
cum
ent
for
loca
l au
thor
itie
s, c
over
s ri
sk a
sses
smen
t in
a v
ery
broa
d se
nse
of
haza
rds.
The
se i
nclu
de n
atur
al h
azar
ds s
uch
as t
orna
does
, fl
oodi
ng, e
arth
quak
es; t
echn
olog
ical
haz
ards
like
hig
h pr
essu
re
gas
mai
ns, c
ompu
ter
syst
ems
fail
ure;
bio
logi
cal
haza
rds
incl
udin
g di
seas
e am
ongs
t pe
ople
, ani
mal
s or
pla
nts;
and
civ
il/
poli
tica
l ha
zard
s co
mpr
isin
g te
rror
ism
and
civ
il u
nres
t.
The
pub
lica
tion
is n
ot s
peci
fica
lly
for
land
fill
s. I
t jus
t enc
apsu
late
s al
l nat
ural
and
an
thro
poge
nic
haza
rds
wit
hout
pre
sent
ing
a ho
list
ic p
roce
dure
eit
her
for
expo
sure
ass
essm
ent
or r
isk
anal
ysis
. The
for
mat
is
mor
e li
ke a
che
ckli
st.
DO
E, [
119]
Thi
s en
viro
nmen
tal
guid
ance
men
tion
s ri
sk-b
ased
cor
rect
ive
acti
on (
RB
CA
) st
anda
rds
deve
lope
d fo
r ad
dres
sing
pet
role
um
and
chem
ical
rel
ease
s. T
he p
urpo
se o
f th
is g
uide
is
to e
xpla
in
risk
-bas
ed d
ecis
ion
mak
ing
and
the
RB
CA
pro
cess
for
en
viro
nmen
tal
rest
orat
ion
of c
hem
ical
ly c
onta
min
ated
sit
es.
The
pur
pose
of
this
doc
umen
t is
not
the
dev
elop
men
t of
a h
olis
tic
expo
sure
as
sess
men
t met
hodo
logy
. The
sys
tem
pre
sent
ed is
not
for
land
fill
s as
suc
h. T
he
syst
em p
lace
mor
e em
phas
is o
n de
term
inin
g th
e da
ta r
equi
red
for
tech
nica
l de
cisi
on m
akin
g ra
ther
tha
n on
fol
low
ing
spec
ific
ste
ps o
f an
exp
osur
e as
sess
men
t pr
oces
s, a
s in
dica
ted
in t
he a
fore
said
ele
men
ts i
n R
ow 1
.E
PA
, [12
0];
EP
A,
[121
–123
]T
hese
fou
r do
cum
ents
cov
er r
isk
asse
ssm
ents
rel
atin
g to
ne
urot
oxic
ity,
rep
rodu
ctiv
e to
xici
ty, e
colo
gy a
nd c
arci
noge
ns,
resp
ecti
vely
.
The
se d
ocum
ents
may
be
usef
ul i
n ex
posu
re a
sses
smen
t an
d ri
sk a
naly
sis
of
land
fill
lea
chat
e in
the
con
text
of
esta
blis
hing
neu
roto
xici
ty, r
epro
duct
ive
toxi
city
, eco
logi
cal
and
carc
inog
enic
aff
ects
of
leac
hate
pol
luta
nts.
How
ever
, th
ese
publ
icat
ions
are
not
pro
duce
d sp
ecif
ical
ly f
rom
the
poi
nt o
f vi
ew o
f la
ndfi
ll le
acha
te. T
hus,
ther
e is
no
inte
grat
ed p
roce
dure
to c
arry
out
an
expo
sure
an
alys
is p
roce
ss in
a q
uant
itat
ive
man
ner
for
land
fill
leac
hate
, whi
ch c
ould
take
ac
coun
t of
all
pos
sibl
e sc
enar
ios
and
the
elem
ents
ind
icat
ed a
bove
in
Row
1.
EP
A, [
124,
125]
The
se p
ubli
cati
ons
are
pure
ly f
or e
xpos
ure
asse
ssm
ent.
Thu
s, th
ey
enci
rcle
the
subj
ect f
rom
man
y di
ffer
ent p
ersp
ecti
ves
incl
udin
g no
t onl
y as
pect
s of
haz
ards
, pat
hway
s, r
ecep
tors
and
exp
osur
es;
but a
lso
type
s of
dos
es (
e.g.
pot
enti
al d
ose,
inta
ke d
ose,
app
lied
do
se),
exp
osur
e–do
se r
elat
ions
hips
, unc
erta
inty
ass
essm
ent,
indi
vidu
al a
nd p
opul
atio
n ex
posu
re, e
xpos
ure
anal
ysis
in
epid
emio
logi
cal
stud
ies
and
posi
tion
of
the
expo
sure
as
sess
men
t it
self
wit
h re
spec
t to
ris
k ch
arac
teri
zati
on.
Alt
houg
h th
ese
publ
icat
ions
foc
us p
urel
y on
exp
osur
e as
sess
men
t, th
e do
cum
ents
do
not
por
tray
a h
olis
tic
proc
edur
e fo
r ca
rryi
ng o
ut e
xpos
ure
anal
ysis
, eit
her
spec
ific
ally
for
lan
dfil
ls o
r fo
r an
y ot
her
envi
ronm
enta
l ri
sk a
naly
sis.
All
the
el
emen
ts a
bove
(R
ow 1
) ar
e ab
sent
in
thes
e pu
blic
atio
ns f
rom
the
lan
dfil
l pe
rspe
ctiv
e.
CM
SA
, [99
];
Pun
coch
ar,
[126
]; K
oivi
sto
et a
l.
, [15
];
Fel
dman
and
W
hite
, [16
];
CH
EM
Uni
t, [1
7];
Pau
luhn
, [1
28];
Mut
h
et a
l.
, [14
];
Tar
azon
a an
d V
ega,
[12
9]
The
se p
ubli
cati
ons
rela
te t
o ha
zard
and
ris
k as
sess
men
t in
the
co
ntex
t of
the
se r
espe
ctiv
e su
bjec
ts:
min
ing,
wor
kpla
ce,
gene
tica
lly
mod
ifie
d or
gani
sms,
neu
rolo
gy, i
ndoo
r en
viro
nmen
t, ec
olog
y, t
oxic
olog
y, f
ood
and
chem
ical
s.
The
se p
ubli
cati
ons
are
not f
or la
ndfi
lls.
All
the
afor
esai
d el
emen
ts a
re a
bsen
t fro
m
the
land
fill
lea
chat
e pe
rspe
ctiv
e.
Downloaded By: [University of Greenwich] At: 17:41 14 December 2009
Environmental Technology
1495
●
encompassing various types of landfill systemsand their surroundings,
●
taking into account all possible characteristics oflandfills in terms of risks and quantification ofrisks,
●
embedding procedures of relevant modules (suchas baseline study, hazard identification, hazards’concentration assessment, exposure analysis,pollutants’ migration, etc.). Figure 2 illustratesthese modules.
A number of knowledge gaps have been found in theliterature reviewed to date. One of the common gaps isan integrated and computer aided procedure for carry-ing out exposure assessment, specifically for landfillleachate. The literature on exposure assessment islimited, indirect and piecemeal. The current literatureaccounts for different aspects of exposure analysis todifferent levels of detail. The publications are non-inte-grated and independent of each other. Some publica-tions (such as [60]) focus on humans as receptors andonly consider the inhalation exposure route, whereasother environmental species and exposure routes areexcluded. Some publications emphasize certain types ofhazards and not all possible hazards (for example [53]focus only on the particulate matter hazard). In somepublications, only multimedia and multipathway expo-sure and risk assessment of contamination due to anindustrial facility are discussed (e.g. [63]. Some publi-cations (such as [59,61] consider exposure analysis in ageneral context and focus only on humans as receptors.Some literature concentrates on exposure from thecontaminated land perspective but not specifically land-fills. Further details are given in Table 1. In summary,there does not exist an exposure assessment procedurethat allows integrated consideration of all the factorslisted in Table 1 (first row) for all environmental recep-tors, both living and non-living, via all exposure routes.
3. Computer models of risk analysis and exposure assessment
The development of computational methods and theability to model systems more precisely now enablehazards to be quantified, their effects to be simulated,and risk analysis to be pursued with greater accuracy.This leads to a more effective risk management. Thesedevelopments are not only important for all areas ofhuman endeavour, but have particular relevance to envi-ronmental issues where the risks involved are increas-ingly seen as substantial. However, no evidence of acomputer model of total risk assessment, which regardsthe knowledge gaps indicated in Section 2, has beenfound. The case is identical in terms of computermodelling for exposure assessment alone, as discussed
in detail later in this section. In this paper, a computermodel is seen as an electronic representation of a meth-odology or procedure.
The investigation of various relevant computermodels during the literature review led to the identifica-tion of models that are closely related to landfill riskassessment. These models are LandSim [64,65], HELP[66], GasSim [67,68], GasSimLite [69] and RIP [70,71].The first four computer models were specificallydesigned for landfills, although the features of the RIP(Repository Integration Programme) were subsequentlyextended to take landfills into account on a compara-tively large scale. While other software types studied arenot demonstrably related to landfill risks, they couldstill be used to an extent to investigate some aspects oflandfill exposure assessments and, consequently, riskassessments.
Software packages addressing landfill risk assess-ment do not holistically encapsulate all elements ofrisk analysis methodology for landfills, including thatof exposure assessment. However, some of thecomputer models could deal with some aspects ofexposure assessment for landfills. For example, theRIP, which is an integrated probabilistic simulator forenvironmental systems, has been designed generallyfor any potential pollutant source in the ground e.g. achemical storage tank. So with the RIP, which is ageneric software model, risk assessors have to adapt itto their specific problems (such as landfills). Thisadaptation is time-consuming and it is not an easy taskfor everyone [72]). The RIP has features that embracesource, pathway and receptor. This it does in terms oflikely concentrations of hazards leaking from thesource, migrating via a pathway, and reaching andentering receptors. However, the RIP does not readilyprovide such a straightforward exposure assessmentprocedure for landfill leachate where a landfill asses-sor could identify and categorize the hazards’ source(that is a given landfill), pathways (mainly exposuremedia) and receptors. In the same manner, it alsodoes not readily provide for a consideration ofstatistical descriptions for maximum and mean expo-sure values.
On the other hand the LandSim model, which ispurely for landfill risk assessment, does not embed allparts of a landfill risk assessment process, including thatof exposure assessment. LandSim just probabilisticallyestimates the likely concentration of a leachate pollutantthat can reach a given point in the ground (for examplea groundwater abstraction point) in a certain time, interms of years. It does not allow for the quantificationof exposure, such as the degree of exposure for people(or livestock) if they were to consume this groundwater.Therefore, the LandSim’s characteristic of pollutantconcentration estimation in an exposure medium such
Downloaded By: [University of Greenwich] At: 17:41 14 December 2009
1496
T.E. Butt
et al.
as groundwater can be taken a step further to quantifyexposure to, for instance, livestock or a fish farm, whichwould make quantitative risk assessment more compre-hensive. This way, a holistic exposure assessmentmethodology can be useful to further build on the infor-mation obtained from a software model such asLandSim. Similarly, the HELP (Hydro-geological Eval-uation of Landfill Performance) model contains onlysome aspects of landfill risk assessment. These aremainly the design features of landfill (such as liners andcapping) and some of the baseline study aspects (likeprecipitation and surface run-off). However, it does notconsider a very important aspect of risk assessment, i.e.an exposure assessment system. Although the softwareGasSim deals with some aspects of risk assessment,including gas generation, migration, impact andexposure, it is only for landfill gas and not leachate.Also, the exposure aspect regards mainly humans andthe atmosphere as receptors, and no other environmen-tal species are taken into account. GasSimLite is alsofrom the perspective of landfill gas only and can be usedonly in terms of calculating gas emissions.
The ConSim model is a tool for assessing the risksthat are posed to groundwater quality by pollutantsmigrating from contaminated land [73]. The authorslearnt that this is not specifically for landfills, particu-larly when landfills have a leachate head and/or liners,which is a likely scenario with modern landfills [74].Also, this model does not accommodate receptors otherthan groundwater. The CLEA (Contaminated LandExposure Assessment) model considers risks only tohuman health and not other environmental receptorssuch as plants, animals, buildings and controlled waters[75]. Pathways are seen only from the perspective ofsoil as an exposure medium and not leachate [76]. Also,this model has been developed for contaminated landand not specifically for landfills [77]. Other elementsare absent in the model, such as those at no. 5mentioned in the first row of Table 1.
Spatial Analysis and Decision Assistance (SADA)is software that incorporates tools from environmentalassessment fields into an effective problem solvingenvironment [78]. These tools include integratedmodules for visualization, geospatial analysis, statisti-cal analysis, human health risk assessment, ecologicalrisk assessment, cost–benefit analysis, sampling design,and decision analysis. Out of this wide range of tools ormodules, only two of the most relevant are describedhere as examples. The Human Health Risk moduleprovides a full human health risk assessment and asso-ciated databases from a range of land-use scenarios.These include residential, industrial, agricultural, recre-ational and excavation but not specifically landfills.Ecological Risk is another module or unit of the SADAwhich allows users to perform benchmark screenings,
and has the ability to calculate forward risk to a numberof terrestrial and aquatic receptors that are currentlybeing added. Even after this module has been fullydeveloped, it may only be helpful to an extent toaddress a few aspects of landfill exposure assessments.For instance, it may assist in identifying a whole rangeof environmental receptors (both aquatic and terres-trial), but, for humans as receptors, the user still willhave to consult the former module i.e. Human HealthRisk module. The SADA appears to contain a numberof various software tools to address a range of differentrisk scenarios. Thus, landfill assessors will have to pickthe right combination of these different software toolseach time they are carrying out a landfill exposure anal-ysis, and yet SADA will not provide for each and everyfacet of landfill exposure assessment in a readilyuseable format. Moreover, as the title ‘Spatial Analysisand Decision Assistance’ states, the focus appears to bemore on spatial than temporal factors.
The Adaptable Risk Assessment Modelling System(ARAMS) is a computer-based modelling and database-driven analysis system developed for the US Army forestimating the human and ecological health impacts andrisk associated with military-relevant compounds(MRCs) and other constituents [79]. ARAMS takes vari-ous existing databases and models for exposure, intake/update and effects (health impacts) and incorporatesthem into conceptual site-models. The user may need tochoose which particular model and/or database to use foreach scenario. The heart of ARAMS is the object-oriented Conceptual Site Model (CSM), but that relieson another computer program called FRAMES discussedbelow. Thus, it is not an easy task to adapt ARAMS intoa landfill leachate scenario every time a landfill assessordecides to use it. Although, ARAMS appears to concen-trate mostly on the exposure assessment facet of riskanalysis, it does not cover all the elements indicated inTable 1 (first row, last column) in an algorithmic fashion,specifically for landfills. Similarly, the Multimedia Envi-ronmental Pollutant Assessment System (MEPAS) isanother computer-based program that is a suite of envi-ronmental models, developed to assess environmentalcontamination problems for government, industrial, andinternational clients [80]. The software integrates trans-port and exposure pathways for chemical and radioactivereleases to determine their potential impact on thesurrounding environment, individuals, and populations.In the context of landfills, the situation with MEPAS isnot much different than that of ARAMS: neither presentsan overall exposure assessment methodology of landfillleachate.
The Framework for Risk Analysis MultimediaEnvironmental Systems (FRAMES) is a software plat-form for selecting and implementing environmentalsoftware models for risk assessment and management
Downloaded By: [University of Greenwich] At: 17:41 14 December 2009
Environmental Technology
1497
problems, which may even include governance issues[81]. In other words, the purpose of FRAMES is toassist users in developing environmental scenarios andto provide options for selecting the most appropriatecomputer codes to conduct human and environmentalrisk management analyses [82]. This program is a flex-ible tool and offers an overall approach to understand-ing how industrial activities affect humans and theenvironment. It incorporates models that integrateacross scientific disciplines, allowing for tailored solu-tions to specific activities, and it provides meaningfulinformation to business and technical managers.FRAMES is the key to identifying, analysing andmanaging potential environmental, safety and healthrisks. Thus, FRAMES is a hugely generic program, andyet it does not contain software for a landfill leachatescenario, which could guide a landfill assessor toperform a landfill exposure analysis holistically includ-ing all the factors (first row, Table 1) in one place.
The RESRAD is a combination of two words,residual and radiation [83], and is used as an acronymfor Residual Radiation environmental analysis [84].The RESRAD is a family of computer codes or modulesto provide a scientifically based assessment of thedegree of cleanliness of residual contamination and toprovide useful tools for evaluating human health risksfrom such contamination [85]. These codes or modulesinclude [85,86]:
●
RESRAD, for soil contaminated with radionu-clides,
●
RESRADBUILD, for buildings contaminatedwith radionuclides,
●
RESRAD-CHEM, for soil contaminated withhazardous chemicals,
●
RESRADBASELINE, for risk assessmentsagainst measured (baseline) concentrations ofboth radionuclides and chemicals in environmen-tal media,
●
RESRAD-ECORISK, for ecological riskassessments,
●
RESRAD-RECYCLE, for recyclng and reuse ofradiologically contaminated metals and equip-ment,
●
RESRAD-OFFSITE, for off-site receptor dose/risk assessment.
From the above it is obvious that none of thesemodules/codes is specifically for landfill leachate,although they address a range of environmental issuesand aspects. Even if these codes or modules are used incombination, they are not able to address all the featuresof exposure analysis of landfill leachate, expressed inthe first row of Table 1. Furthermore, to combine theseinto a landfill leachate context alone would be a
cumbersome task to execute each time an exposureassessment and risk analysis were to be performed fordifferent landfill scenarios. For instance, RESRAD-CHEM considers nine exposure pathways includinginhalation of dust and volatiles; ingestion of plant foods,meat, milk, soil, aquatic food and water; and dermalabsorption from soil and water contact. This code mayhelp address aspects of exposure assessment but not allthe absent elements in an integrated format. However,this code is no longer being updated [87].
Another three computer models developed for expo-sure assessment and risk analysis are RISC-HUMAN3.1, RUM and Vlier-Humaan [88–90], respectively),but they have been built for contaminated land and notspecifically for landfills. Only humans are considered asreceptors in these software packages. Other potentialenvironmental receptors, such as watercourses and thebuilt environment, have not been taken into consider-ation. The aggregation aspect (i.e. total exposure of thesame receptor via various routes, as mentioned in point2b, first row of Table 1) and statistical considerations(point 5, first row of Table 1) are also absent.
In summary, the authors have come across no inte-grated computer model of a holistic exposure assessmentprocedure, which could assist in the execution of theexposure analysis process, specifically for a given land-fill leachate from start to end and considering a wholerange of eventualities and/or scenarios. Currently avail-able computer models lack the elements indicated in thefirst row of Table 1, either completely or partly. Theseabsent elements or knowledge gaps require furtherinvestigation and resolution. Also, current computermodels do not present such a concise exposure assess-ment model for landfill leachate, which, as a completeunit, could readily be assembled with the format of othermodules and sub-modules of the total risk assessmentframework indicated in Figure 2. In parallel with theliterature (Section 2), computer models are also availablein a non-integrated manner. Thus, not only a holisticprocedure of exposure assessment but also a correspond-ing computer model in an integrated format, specificallyfor landfill leachate, which encapsulates all the absentelements (first row, Table 1) under one umbrella, canhelp to perform a quantitative exposure analysis moreeffectively and efficiently. Subsequently, this will assistthe risk analysis process.
4. Conclusion
Despite having a high potential to pollute the environ-ment, landfills are an inevitable and required wastedisposal option. Risk assessment and management is aneffective tool to guard the environment against landfillhazards. However, there is no integrated methodologyof landfill risk analysis, along with a corresponding
Downloaded By: [University of Greenwich] At: 17:41 14 December 2009
1498
T.E. Butt
et al.
knowledge-based computer model, which is helpfulenough to execute the process of risk assessment forlandfill leachate from the start (i.e. baseline study)through exposure assessment to the end (i.e. hazardindices and risk quantification). A number of knowl-edge gaps have been identified in the literaturereviewed to date, and a holistic exposure assessmentprocedure accompanied by a corresponding computermodel is one of them. The exposure assessment is oneof the most important factors of an effective and quan-titative risk analysis, as the success of the latter is basedon the former.
Current literature and models are just about able tomeet the risk assessment requirements of the presentenvironmental legislation in the UK. Future legisla-tion will be more stringent and wider in scope toencapsulate more environmental species such as vari-ous food chain links, ecological systems, terrestrialand aquatic flora and fauna. Therefore a morecomprehensive, concise and robust risk analysissystem, underpinned by a more strategic exposureassessment approach, will be needed. This researchwork assists the authors to recognise the necessity andsignificance of exposure assessment and to identifyknowledge gaps and the limitations of current models,thereby laying the foundation for developing in thefuture a more complete and sequential, or step-by-step, procedure for quantitative exposure assessmentin an integrated fashion specifically for landfillleachate. This study may also be helpful for construct-ing a corresponding holistic computer model ofexposure analysis.
Acknowledgements
The authors acknowledge the financial support of DundeeCity Council in this project. We are additionally grateful forthe discussion and help received from Mr Peter Goldie of theEnvironment & Consumer Protection Department, DundeeCity Council. The support from Stephen T. Washburn(Managing Principal, ENVIRON, New Jersey, USA), Dr I.M.Spence (Consultant Environmental Geologist, Scotland), andcolleagues at the University of Abertay Dundee, including MrOlisanwendu Ogwuda and Mr Phillip Jenkins, is also highlyappreciated.
References
[1]
[1] Scottish Executive,
Key Scottish Environment Statis-tics 2004: A Scottish Executive National StatisticsPublication
, Crown Copyright, 2004.
[2]
[2] DoE (Department of the Environment) and the WelshOffice,
Making Waste Work: Summary
, HMSO,London, 1995.
[3]
[3] DoE (Department of the Environment) and the WelshOffice,
Making Waste Work: A Strategy for Sustain-able Waste Management in England and Wales
,HMSO, London, 1995.
[4]
[4] J. Davies,
Diversion ahead: Which route(s) to take?
Wastes Manag
.
November (1999), pp. 32–33.
[5]
[5] DETR (Department of the Environment, Transport andthe Regions),
Waste Strategy: England and Wales,
Part 1, Crown Copyright, 2000.
[6]
[6] Cabinet Office,
Public Attitudes Towards Recyclingand Waste Management: Quantitative and QualitativeReview
, Cabinet Office, 2002.
[7]
[7] DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs),
The Environment in Your Pocket 2003:National Statistics
, Crown Copyright, 2003.
[8]
[8] DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs),
Environmental Report on Changes toWaste Strategy 2000 for the Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment,
DEFRA, 2005.
[9]
[9] DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs),
Guidance on Municipal Waste Manage-ment Strategies,
DEFRA, 2005.
[10]
[10] D. Ewen,
Lancashire, Wales and Cheshire: Our ‘local’waste sites: We lift lid on real cost of rubbish recy-cling,
Evening Express
, 13 September, 2005, pp. 4–5.
[11]
[11] S. Tromans and D. Stiles,
The practical guide towaste management law,
Wastes Manag. August(2004), p. 47.
[12]
[12] SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency),
National Waste Strategy Scotland,
SEPA, Scotland,1999.
[13]
[13] D.C Wilson,
Hazardous waste management around theworld,
Wastes Manag. October (2000), pp. 49–52.
[14]
[14] M.K. Muth, S.A. Karns, and D.W. Anderson,
Analysisof Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP)survey data,
RTI Project No. 6673.008 (Final Report),Research Triangle Institute (RTI), 2001.
[15]
[15] R.A. Koivisto, K.M. Tormakangas, and V.S. Kaup-pinen,
Hazard identification and risk assessmentprocedure for genetically modified plants in thefield: GMHAZID,
Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 8(2001), pp. 1–7.
[16]
[16] R.G. Feldman and R.F. White,
Role of the neurologistin hazard identification and risk assessment,
Environ.Health. Perspect. 104 (1996), pp. 227–237.
[17]
[17] CHEM (Chemical Hazards and Emergency Manage-ment) Unit, Department of Emergency Services(Queensland Government, Australia),
Carrying out arisk assessment for dangerous goods
(under theDangerous Goods Safety Management Act 2001)
,
DGSM Information Paper No. 6, (October), 2003.
[18]
[18] F. Moriarty,
Ecotoxicology: The Study of Pollutants inEcosystems,
2nd ed., T.J. Press, Padstow, 1993.
[19]
[19] T.E. Butt and K.O.K. Oduyemi,
A holistic approach toconcentration assessment of hazards in the risk assess-ment of landfill leachate,
Environ. Int. 28 (2003),pp. 597–608.
[20]
[20] EC (European Community),
Groundwater Directive,
80/68/EEC, 1980.
[21]
[21] EC (European Community),
Directive on EIA(Environmental Impact Assessment),
85/337/EEC,1985.
[22]
[22] EPA (Environmental Protection Act), The StationaryOffice, London, 1990.
[23]
[23] EC (European Community),
Directive on the conser-vation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora(the Habitats Directive), 92/43/EEC, 1992.
[24] [24] SI (Statutory Instrument), Waste Management Regula-tions 1994, SI No. 1056, 1994.
[25]
Downloaded By: [University of Greenwich] At: 17:41 14 December 2009
Environmental Technology 1499
[25] SI (Statutory Instrument), Waste Management Licens-ing (Amendment and Related Provisions) Regulations2005, SI No. 803, 2005.
[26] [26] EA (Environment Act), The Stationary Office,London, 1995.
[27] [27] EU (European Union), Directive on Integrated Pollu-tion Prevention and Control (IPPC) in September, 96/61/EU, 1996.
[28] [28] SI (Statutory Instrument), Groundwater Regulations1998, SI No. 2746, 1998.
[29] [29] EC (European Community), Landfill Directive, 99/31/EC, 1999.
[30] [30] EC (European Community), Water Framework Direc-tive, 2000/60/EC, 2000.
[31] [31] SI (Statutory Instrument), Landfill (England andWales) Regulations, SI No. 1559, 2002.
[32] [32] SI (Statutory Instrument), Landfill (England andWales) (Amendment) Regulations 2004, SI No. 1375,2004.
[33] [33] Scottish Executive, Welsh Assembly Government,Department of the Environment (DoE) NorthernIreland, and Office of the Deputy Prime Minister(ODPM), A Guide to the Strategic EnvironmentalAssessment Directive, ODPM, UK, 2005.
[34] [34] ODPM (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister), TheStrategic Environmental Assessment Directive: Guid-ance for Planning Authorities – Practical guidance onapplying European Directive 2001/42/EC ‘on theassessment of the effects of certain plans andprogrammes on the environment’ to land use andspatial plans in England, ODPM, UK, 2003.
[35] [35] Environment Agency, Hydrogeological Risk Assess-ments for Landfill and the Derivation of GroundwaterControl and Trigger Levels, Environment Agency,Bristol, 2003.
[36] [36] CIWM (Chartered Institute of Waste Management),Landfill Directive, 2008. Available at www.ciwm.co.uk/pma/2044.
[37] [37] SSI (Scottish Statutory Instrument), The PollutionPrevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000,SSI No. 323, 2000.
[38] [38] SSI (Scottish Statutory Instrument), Landfill (Scot-land) Regulations 2003, SSI No. 235, 2003.
[39] [39] SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency),SEPA Technical Guidance Note: HydrogeologicalRisk Assessment for Landfills and the Derivation ofControl and Trigger Levels, Version 2.12, SEPA, UK,2005.
[40] [40] SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency),Landfill Directive: Guidance on monitoring of landfillleachate, groundwater and surface water, 2005.Available at http://www.sepa.org.uk/guidance/landfill_directive/monitoring.htm.
[41] [41] SR (Statutory Rule), The Landfill Regulations (North-ern Ireland), SR No. 496, 2003.
[42] [42] CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and Informa-tion Association), Remedial engineering for closed land-fill sites, CIRIA Report C557, CIRIA, London, 2001.
[43] [43] P.K. LaGoy, Risk Assessment: Principles and Applica-tions for Hazardous Waste and Related Sites, Noyes,Park Ridge, NJ, 1994.
[44] [44] Tweeds, Laxton’s Guide to Risk Analysis and Manage-ment, Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford, 1996.
[45] [45] G.E. Rejda, Principles of Risk Management andInsurance, 5th ed., Harper Collins College, NewYork, 1995.
[46] [46] WHO (World Health Organization), HACCP: Intro-ducing the Hazard Analysis and Critical Control PointSystem, WHO, Geneva, 1997.
[47] [47] J.K. Mitchell, Hazards in changing cities, Appl. Geol.18 (1998), pp. 1–6.
[48] [48] HSE (Health and Safety Executive), Quantitative riskassessment for offshore installations: Risk management,Offshore Research Focus No. 123, HSE, 1998, p. 76.
[49] [49] CIWEM (the Chartered Institution of Water and Envi-ronmental Management), Environmental risk, ScottishAnnual Symposium, Edinburgh Conference Centre,(16 November) 1999.
[50] [50] C.A. Brebbia (ed.), Risk analysis II, Second Interna-tional Conference on Computer Simulation in RiskAnalysis and Hazard Mitigation, Bologna, Italy, (11–13 October) 2000.
[51] [51] T.E. Butt and K.O.K. Oduyemi, Risk analysis II:Significance of baseline study in landfill risk assess-ment, Second International Conference on ComputerSimulation in Risk Analysis and Hazard Mitigation,Bologna, Italy, (11–13 October), 2000.
[52] [52] T.E. Butt, N. Mair, and K.O.K. Oduyemi, Hazardidentification and categorisation for waste disposalsites. Part 1: An integrated approach lacks, RiskManag. 8 (2006), pp. 133–148.
[53] [53] D.J. Moschandreas, J. Watson, P. D’Abreton, J.Scire, T. Zhu, W. Klein, and S. Saksena, Methodol-ogy of exposure modeling, Chemosphere 49 (2002),pp. 923–946.
[54] [54] T.E. Butt, N. Mair, and K.O.K. Oduyemi, Hazardidentification and categorisation for waste disposalsites. Part 2: A computer-aided procedure, RiskManag. 8 (2006), pp. 206–220.
[55] [55] R.G. Gregory, A.J. Revans, M.D. Hill, M.P. Meadows,L. Paul, and C.C. Ferguson, A framework to assessrisks to human health and the environment from land-fill gas, R&D Technical Report No, 271, UnderContract CWM168/98, Environment Agency, Bristol,1999.
[56] [56] P. Nathanail and J. Nathanail, Risk-based site charac-terisation, Wastes Manag. October (2003), pp. 49–50.
[57] [57] P. Bardos, P. Nathanail, and J. Nathanail, How do youtreat contaminated sites? Wastes Manag. September(2003), pp. 20–23.
[58] [58] P. Bardos, P. Nathanail, and J. Nathanail, Risk assess-ment: Have you got a real problem? Wastes Manag.November (2003), pp. 44–46.
[59] [59] G.H. Eduljee, Assessment of risks to human healthfrom landfilling of household wastes, Environ. Sci.Technol. 9 (1998), pp. 113–135.
[60] [60] A. Redfearn, R.D. Roberts, and J.C. Dockerty, Analy-sis and application of human health and ecologicalrisk assessment methodologies for landfills, Proceed-ings of Waste 2000: Waste Management at the Dawnof the Third Millennium, England, (2–3 October)2000, pp. 455–464.
[61] [61] DoE (Department of the Environment), The technicalaspects of controlled waste management: Healtheffects from hazardous waste landfill sites, Report No.CWM/057/92, DoE, 1995.
[62] [62] SI (Statutory Instrument), Surface Water (RiverEcosystem) (Classification) Regulations 1994, SI No.1057, 1994.
[63] [63] S. Bagli and G. Spadoni, Risk analysis II: A multime-dia, multiple pathway exposure and risk assessmentusing EHHRA-GIS – a real case of contamination due
Downloaded By: [University of Greenwich] At: 17:41 14 December 2009
1500 T.E. Butt et al.
to an industrial facility, Second International Confer-ence on Computer Simulation in Risk Analysis andHazard Mitigation, Bologna, Italy, (11–13 October)2000, pp. 115–124.
[64] [64] Environment Agency, LandSim 2.5: GroundwaterRisk Assessment Tool for Landfill Design, Environ-ment Agency, Bristol, 2003.
[65] [65] Environment Agency, LandSim, Release 2 (V.2.02):Landfill Performance Simulation by Monte CarloMethod, Environment Agency R&D Publication 120,2001.
[66] [66] Scientific Software Group, Environmental softwareand publications (catalogue), 1998. Available at http://www.scisoftware.com/products/visual_help_details/visual_help_details.html.
[67] [67] G.M. Attenborough, D.H. Hall, R.G. Gregory, andL. McGoochan, Development of a landfill gas riskassessment model: GasSim, Proceedings of SolidWaste Association of North America, 25 AnnualLandfill Gas Symposium, Monterey, CA, (March)2002, pp. 25–28.
[68] [68] Golder Associates, GasSim: Landfill gas risk assess-ment tool, GasSim Technical Summary (PDF Format),2003. Available at http://www.gassim.co.uk/GasSim_TS_final.pdf.
[69] [69] Environment Agency, GasSimLite user manual, 2002.Available at http://www.gassim.co.uk/GasSimLite/GASSIMLT_manual_v101.pdf.
[70] [70] Golder Associates, RIP (Repository IntegrationProgramme) (Integrated Probabilistic Simulator forEnvironmental Systems), 1998. Available at http://www.golder.com/rip/intro.htm#What.
[71] [71] Landcare Research (Manaaki Whenua LandcareResearch, a New Zealand Crown Research Institute),Risk Assessment Model Reviews, 2003. Available athttp://www.contamsites.landcareresearch.co.nz/risk_assessment_models_reviews.htm.AQMR]
[72] [72] I. Miller, Personal Communication, Golder Associ-ates, UK, 1998.
[73] [73] J.J. Whittaker, S.R. Buss, A.W. Herbert, and M.Fermor, Benchmarking and Guidance on the Compari-son of Selected Groundwater Risk Assessment Models,NGACLC (National Groundwater 7 ContaminatedLand Centre) Report No. NC/00/14, EnvironmentAgency, Bristol, 2001.
[74] [74] Environment Agency, Contaminant Impact onGroundwater: Simulation by Monte Carlo Method,ConSim Version 2, Environment Agency R&D Publi-cation 132 (Golder Associates), 2003.
[75] [75] Environment Agency, Contaminated Land ExposureAssessment (CLEA), 2003. Available at http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/landquality/113813/274663/.
[76] [76] Environment Agency, DEFRA (Department for Envi-ronment, Food and Rural Affairs), and SEPA (ScottishEnvironment Protection Agency), Contaminated LandExposure Assessment (CLEA) Model 2002. Version1.3: User Manual, Environment Agency, DEFRA andSEPA, 2002.
[77] [77] DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food andRural Affairs) and Environment Agency, Contami-nated Land Exposure Assessment Model (CLEA):Technical basis and algorithms, R&D PublicationCLR Report No. 10, National Groundwater andContaminated Land Centre of the EnvironmentAgency, 2002.
[78] [78] TIEM (The Institute of Environmental Modelling),SADA (Spatial Analysis and Decision Assistance),University of Tennessee Research Corporation, 2006.Available at http://www.tiem.utk.edu/∼ sada/.
[79] [79] ERDC (Engineer Research and Development Center),ARAMS: An Adaptable Risk Assessment ModellingSystem, US Army Corps of Engineers, 2006. Availableat http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil.
[80] [80] PNNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory),Introduction to MEPAS (Multimedia EnvironmentalPollutant Assessment System), PNL, 2006. Availableat http://mepas.pnl.gov/mepas/index/html.
[81] [81] A. Evangelidis, FRAMES: A risk assessment frame-work for e-Services, Electron. J. e-Gov. 2 (2003), pp.21–30.
[82] [82] PNNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory),FRAMES (Framework for Risk Analysis MultimediaEnvironmental Systems), 2006. Available at http://mepas.pnl.gov/FRAMESV1/.
[83] [83] DMS (Decision Mapping System), DMS Glossary,2006. Available at nalu.geog.washington.edu/dms/glossary/_content.html.
[84] [84] Farlex Inc., The Free Dictionary, 2006. Available athttp://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/RESRAD.
[85] [85] EAD (Environmental Assessment Division), RESRADProgram, Argonne National Laboratory, 2006.Available at http://www.ead.anl.gov/project/images/pa/20resrad.pdf.
[86] [86] EAD (Environmental Assessment Division), RESRADProgram: Developing the RESRAD Family ofComputer Codes for Environmental Risk Assessment,Argonne National Laboratory, 2006. Available athttp://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/documents/anlrares.pdf.
[87] [87] EAD (Environmental Assessment Division),RESRAD-Chem, Argonne National Laboratory, 2006.Available at http://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/home2/chem.cfm.
[88] [88] Van Hall Instituut of Business Center, RISC-HUMAN3.1, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands, 2000; softwareavailable at http://www.risc-site.nl.
[89] [89] Van Hall Instituut of Business Center, RUM, Leeuwar-den, The Netherlands, 2001; software available athttp://www.risc-site.nl.
[90] [90] Van Hall Instituut of Business Center, Vlier-Humaan,Leeuwarden, The Netherlands, 2002; software avail-able at http://www.risc-site.nl.
[91] [91] SI (Statutory Instrument), Landfill (England andWales) (Amendment) Regulations 2005, SI No. 1640,2005.
[92] [92] Envirowise, Introduction to the Waste Hierarchy,Crown Copyright, 2005. Available at http://www.imagereporting.co.uk/environment/downloads/.
[93] [93] SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency), Thewaste hierarchy (Sustainable use of resources), 2008.Available at http://www.sepa.org.uk/waste/moving_towards_zero_waste/waste_hierarchy.aspx.
[94] [94] W.S. Peacock and I.L. Whyte, Site investigation andrisk analysis, Proceedings of ICE (Institute of CivilEngineers) Conference Civil Engineering 92, (May)1992, pp. 74–81.
[95] [95] WDA (Welsh Development Agency), The WDAManual on the Remediation of Contaminated Land,ECOTEC Research & Consulting Ltd., EnvironmentalAdvisory Unit, 1994.
[96] [96] EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) US,Hazardous Waste Identification Rule (HIWR):
Downloaded By: [University of Greenwich] At: 17:41 14 December 2009
Environmental Technology 1501
Identification and listing of hazardous of hazardouswastes, Notice of data availability and request forcomments, Federal Register Vol. 65, No. 138, RiskAssessment Forum, EPA, Washington, DC, (18July) 2000, pp. 44491–44506.
[97] [97] TOSC (Technical Outreach Services for Communi-ties), Human health risk assessment, 2000. Availableat http://www.egr.msu.edu/tosc/ashland/february_17_2000/fs_ risk_assessment.pdf.
[98] [98] S. Viswanathan, N. Shah, and V. Venkatasubrama-nian, Hybrid Framework for Hazard Identification andAssessment in Batch Processes, AIChE J. 48 (2002),pp. 1765–1774.
[99] [99] CMSA (Chamber of Mines of South Africa), SouthAfrican Mining Industry Guide to Hazard Identifica-tion & Risk Assessment (HIRA), SA Safety Adviser’sOffice, 2004.
[100][100] ICE (Institution of Civil Engineers), ICE Design andPractice Guide: Contaminated Land Investigation,Assessment and Remediation, Thomas Telford, London,1994.
[101][101] Golder Associates, Risk assessment for small andclosed landfills: Small and closure criteria, Applica-tion 4176, Golder Associates, New Zealand, 2002.
[102][102] DETR (Department of the Environment, Transport andthe Regions), Environment Agency and the Institutefor the Environment and Health: Guidelines forEnvironmental Risk Assessment and Management, TheStationary Office, London, 2000.
[103][103] Environment Agency, Guidance on Assessment ofRisks from Landfill Sites, External consultationVersion 1.0, Environment Agency, Bristol, 2004.
[104][104] D.K. Asante-Duah, Managing Contaminated Sites:Problem Diagnosis and Development of Site Restora-tion, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, 1996.
[105][105] J. Daugherty, Assessment of Chemical Exposures:Calculation Methods for Environmental Professionals,Lewis Publishers–CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 1998.
[106][106] Environment Agency, Procedure for identifying risksfrom landfills, Version 1.2, Environment Agency,Bristol, 2003.
[107][107] C. Bernard, P. Guido, J.R. Colin, and A. Le Dû-Delepierre, Estimation of the hazard of landfillsthrough toxicity testing of leachates–1: Determinationof leachate toxicity with a battery of acute tests,Chemosphere 33 (1996), pp. 2303–2320.
[108][108] C. Bernard, P. Guido, J.R. Colin, and A. Le Dû-Delepierre, Estimation of the hazard of landfillsthrough toxicity testing of leachates–2: Comparison ofphysico-chemical characteristics of landfill leachateswith their toxicity determined with a battery of tests,Chemosphere 35 (1997), pp. 2783–2796.
[109][109] EPD (Environmental Protection Department), HongKong Government (Waste Facilities DevelopmentGroup), Landfill gas hazard assessment guidance note,Report No. EPD/TR8/97, EPD, 1997.
[110][110] E. Kavazanjian Jr., R. Bonaparte, G.W. Johnson, G.R.Martin, and N. Matasovic, Hazard analysis for a largeregional landfill, Proceedings of the Geotechnical Engi-neering Division of the ASCE in Conjunction with theASCE Convention, ASCE (American Society of CivilEngineers), San Diego, CA, (23–27 October) 1995.
[111][111] J.J. Eisenbeis, R.H. Montgomery, and T.G. Sanders,A Risk Assessment methodology for hazardous wastelandfills, Geotechnical & Geohydrological Aspects ofWaste Management, 8th Geohydro Waste Manage-
ment Symposium, Fort Collins, CO, (February) 1986,pp. 417–426.
[112][112] M. Jaggy, Risk analysis of landfills, in special issue:Integrated Regional Health and Environmental RiskAssessment and Safety Management, Int. J. of Envi-ron. Pollut. 6 (1996), pp. 537–545.
[113][113] DOE (Department of Energy), RCRA CorrectiveAction: Human Health Assessment, RCRA Informa-tion Brief. EH-231-045/0594, 1994.
[114][114] A. Pieper, W. Lorenz, M. Kolb, and M. Bahadir,Determination of PCDD/F (polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans) for hazard assessment in amunicipal landfill contaminated with industrial sewagesludge, Chemosphere 34 (1997), pp. 121–129.
[115][115] SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency),Framework for Risk Assessment for Landfill Sites:The Geological Barrier, Mineral Layer and theLeachate Sealing and Drainage System, SEPA, 2002.
[116][116] CPPD (Cumberland Plateau Planning District), HazardIdentification & Risk Assessment (Draft), Dewberry,2004.
[117][117] D.J. Rudland, R.M. Lancefield, and P.N. Mayell,Contaminated land risk assessment: A guide to goodpractice, CIRIA C552, CIRIA (Construction IndustryResearch and Information Association), 2001.
[118][118] Auckland Regional Council, Hazard Guideline No. 2:Hazard identification and risk assessment for localauthorities, Technical Publication No. 106, AucklandLocal Authority Hazard Liaison Group, Auckland, 2002.
[119][119] DOE (Department of Energy) US, Risk-based correc-tive action: Environmental guidance, DOE/EH-413-9815, DOE, 1998.
[120][120] EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) US, Guide-lines for neurotoxicity risk assessment, Federal Regis-ter 63 (93):26926-26954, EPA/630/R-95/001F, RiskAssessment Forum, EPA, Washington, DC, 1998.
[121][121] EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) US,Guidelines for reproductive toxicity risk assess-ment, EPA/630/R-96/009, Risk Assessment Forum,EPA, Washington, DC, 1996.
[122][122] EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) US,Proposed guidelines for ecological risk assessment,EPA/630/R-95/002B, Risk Assessment Forum, EPA,Washington, DC, 1996.
[123][123] EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) US,Proposed guidelines for carcinogen risk assessment,EPA/600/P-92/003C, Risk Assessment Forum, EPA,Washington, DC, 1996.
[124][124] EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) US, Guide-lines for Exposure Assessment, Federal Register No.104, Vol. 57, Risk Assessment Forum, EPA, Washing-ton, DC, 1992.
[125][125] EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) US, Guide-lines for exposure assessment, Federal Register No.104, Vol. 57, EPA/600Z-92/001, Risk AssessmentForum, EPA, Washington, DC, 1999.
[126][126] P. Puncochar, The science and art of identifying work-place hazards, Occup. Hazards 65 (2003), p. 50.
[127][127] SITA, The waste hierarchy, Position paper, 2004.Available at www.sita.co.uk/downloads/PP_WH. pdf.
[128][128] J. Pauluhn, Hazard identification and risk assessmentof pyrethroids in the indoor environment, Toxicol.Lett. 107 (1999), pp. 193–199.
[129][129] J.V. Tarazona and M.M. Vega, Hazard and risk assess-ment of chemicals for terrestrial ecosystems, Toxicology181–182 (2002), pp. 187–191.
Downloaded By: [University of Greenwich] At: 17:41 14 December 2009
Related Documents
