Risk-Based Approach to Contaminated Land and Groundwater Assessment: Two Case Studies

  • Eleonora Wcisło
  • Marek Korcz
  • Jacek Długosz
  • Alecos Demetriades
Conference paper
Part of the NATO Science for Peace and Security Series C: Environmental Security book series (NAPSC)

Abstract

The human health risk-based approach to contaminated land and groundwater assessment is described. It was developed under the EC financed NORISC project, and later on included in the technical guidelines for guiding remedial activities in Cyprus and Poland. The approach is designed as a two-step process: (1) preliminary site assessment and (2) site-specific assessment. The proposed site-specific human health risk assessment (HRA) process consists of two key phases: (a) baseline human health risk assessment (BHRA), including development of a data set, exposure assessment, toxicity assessment and risk characterisation, and (b) development of site-specific risk-based remedial levels (RBRLs). The proposed site-specific HRA method is based on the methodology of the United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), and is applied throughout the entire remediation process, including the phases before, during and after remediation. In order to present the practical application of the HRA procedure two case studies are described: (1) Moni industrial site (Cyprus) – concentrating on contaminated soil, and (2) Milan-Meton site (Italy) and Linz-Heilham site (Austria) – assessing groundwater contamination.

Keywords

United States Environmental Protection Agency Health Risk Assessment Hazard Quotient Exposure Scenario Dermal Contact 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Notes

Acknowledgements

The Moni data were generated during the project of the “National Inventory of Potential Sources of Soil Contamination in Cyprus” (Tender number 5/2004), and the results are published by permission of the Director of the Cyprus Geological Survey Department, and the General Director of the Hellenic Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration.

References

  1. 1.
    Bardos P, Lewis A, Nortcliff S, Matiotti C, Marot F, Sullivan T (2003) CLARINET report “Review of decision support tools for contaminated land and their use in Europe”. Austrian Federal Environment Agency, on behalf of CLARINET, ViennaGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Carlon C (ed) (2007) Derivation methods of soil screening values in Europe. A review and evaluation of national procedures towards harmonization. Annex 2 – Country reports, EUR 22805-EN. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, IspraGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ferguson C, Darmendrail D, Freier K, Jensen BK, Jensen J, Kasamas H, Urzelai A, Vegter J (eds) (1998) Risk assessment for contaminated sites in Europe, vol 1, Scientific basis. LQM Press, NottinghamGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Ferguson CC, Kasamas H (eds) (1999) Risk assessment for contaminated sites in Europe, vol 2, Policy frameworks. LQM Press, NottinghamGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gzyl J, Wcislo E, Biesiada M, Gzyl G, Krupanek J (2004) Health risk assessment due to groundwater contamination. Ingegneria e Geologia degli Acquiferi (IGEA), special issue on the INCORE project (19): 101–108 (Supplemento a GEAM, A.XLI n.3)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kuperberg JM, Wcislo E, Teaf CM (1996) Application of risk-based approaches to the remediation of a refinery site in Poland. In: Program of third international symposium and exhibition on environmental contamination in Central and Eastern Europe, Warsaw, 10–13 Sept 1996 (abstract p 148)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sanka M (2007) Czech Republic. In: Carlon C (ed) Derivation methods of soil screening values in Europe. A review and evaluation of national procedures towards harmonization. Annex 2 – Country reports, EUR 22805-EN. European Commission, Joint Research Centre, Ispra, pp 145–149Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (1989) Risk assessment guidance for Superfund, vol I, Human health evaluation manual. Part A, Interim Final, EPA/540/1-89/002. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (1991a) Risk assessment guidance for Superfund, vol I, Human health evaluation manual, Part B, Development of risk-based preliminary remediation goals, Interim, EPA/540R-92/003, Publication 9285.7-01B. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (1991b) Role of the baseline risk assessment in Superfund remedy selection decisions, OSWER directive 9355.0–30. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (1991c) Risk assessment guidance for Superfund, vol I, Human health evaluation manual, Part C, Risk evaluation of remedial alternatives, Interim, Publication 9285.7-01C. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (1994) Memorandum: OSWER directive: revised interim soil lead guidance for CERCLA sites and RCRA corrective action facilities, EPA OSWER directive 9355.4-12. Office of Emergency and Remediation Response, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (1996a) Soil screening guidance: technical background document, EPA/540/R-95/128, Publication 9355.4-17A. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (1996b) Soil screening guidance: user’s guide, EPA/540/R-96/018, Publication 9355.4-23. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (1998) Memorandum: OSWER directive: clarification to the 1994 revised interim soil Lead (Pb) guidance for CERCLA sites and RCRA corrective action facilities. EPA/540/F-98/030. OSWER directive #9200.4-27P. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2000) Superfund supplemental guidance to RAGS: region 4 bulletins, human health risk assessment bulletins, USEPA region 4, originally published November 1995. (http://www.epa.gov/region4/waste/ots/healtbul.htm-hhremed)
  17. 17.
    USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2001) Risk assessment guidance for Superfund, vol I, Human health evaluation manual, Part D, Standardized planning, reporting, and review of Superfund risk assessment, final, Publication 9285.7-47. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2002) Supplemental guidance for developing soil screening levels for Superfund sites, OSWER 9355.4-24. Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2004) Risk assessment guidance for Superfund, vol I, Human health evaluation manual, Part E, supplemental guidance for dermal risk assessment, final, EPA/540/R/99/005, OSWER 9285.7-02EP, PB 99–963312. Office of Superfund Remediation and Technology Innovation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2006) Frequent questions from risk assessors on the Adult Lead Methodology (ALM), (http://www.epa.gov/superfund/health/contaminants/lead/almfaq.htm-screening)
  21. 21.
    USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency) (2011) Waste and cleanup risk assessment, (http://www.epa.gov/oswer/riskassessment/index.htm).
  22. 22.
    Wcislo E (2002) Risk-based approach to remediation of contaminated sites in Poland. In: Terytze K, Atanassov I (eds) Proceedings of the international workshop: assessment of the quality of contaminated soils and sites in Central and Eastern European Countries (CEEC) and New Independent States (NIS), Sofia, 30 Sept–3 Oct 2001. GortexPress, Sofia, pp 67–70Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wcislo E (2006) Examples of health risk assessment application for contaminated sites in the Upper Silesia, Poland. Report of the pilot study meeting – prevention and remediation in selected industrial sectors. Small sites in urban areas, Athens, 5–7 June 2006. Report No. 277 under the auspices of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization’s Committee on the Challenges on Modern Society (NATO/CCMS), EPA 542-R-06-003 (abstract p 14)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wcisło E (2009) Ocena ryzyka zdrowotnego w procesie remediacji terenów zdegradowanych chemicznie – procedury i znaczenie (Human health risk assessment in remediation process of contaminated sites – role and procedures), (in Polish). Wydawnictwo Ekonomia i Środowisko, BiałystokGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wcislo E, Dlugosz J, Korcz M (2003) NORISC. Human health risk assessment framework for decision-making, Deliverable 20. Institute for Ecology of Industrial Areas, Katowice. (http://www.norisc.com/)
  26. 26.
    Wcisło E, Ioven D, Kucharski R, Szdzuj J (2002) Human health assessment case study: an abandoned metal smelter site in Poland. Chemosphere 47:507–515CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wcislo E, Korcz M (2006) Guidance on contaminated site risk assessment in Cyprus, 1. Site-specific human health risk assessment (HRA), 2. Risk-based guideline values for soil contaminants (RBSGVs), Part 5, In: National Inventory of Potential Sources of Soil Contamination in Cyprus. Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration, Athens, Institute for Ecology of Industrial Areas, Katowice, GeoInvest Ltd., NicosiaGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wcisło E, Korcz M (2008) Zasady oceny ryzyka zdrowotnego na terenach zanieczyszczonych na Cyprze (Guidelines for human health risk assessment in contaminated sites in Cyprus). In: Proceedings of the IX conference of the Polish Society of Toxicology, Szczyrk, 8–12 Sept 2008, Acta Toxicol 16 (suppl.):13–14 (in Polish)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wcislo E, Korcz M, Dlugosz J, Owczarska I (2007) Human health risk assessment for the Moni Industrial Area, Cyprus. Part 10. In: National Inventory of Potential Sources of Soil Contamination in Cyprus, Institute of Geology and Mineral Exploration, Athens, Institute for Ecology of Industrial Areas, Katowice, GeoInvest Ltd., NicosiaGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Eleonora Wcisło
    • 1
  • Marek Korcz
    • 1
  • Jacek Długosz
    • 1
  • Alecos Demetriades
    • 2
  1. 1.Institute for Ecology of Industrial AreasKatowicePoland
  2. 2.Institute of Geology and Mineral ExplorationAthensGreece

Personalised recommendations