Risk Assessment of Landfill Disposal Sites State of the Art 2008 Waste Management

8/9/2019 Risk Assessment of Landfill Disposal Sites State of the Art 2008 Waste Management

1/13

Risk assessment of landll disposal sites State of the art

Talib E. Butt a, *, Elaine Lockley b , Kehinde O.K. Oduyemi c,1

a The Sustainability Centre in Glasgow (SCG), George Moore Building, 70 Cowcaddens Road,Glasgow Caledonian University, Glasgow G4 0BA, Scotland, UK

b Be Environmental Ltd. Suite 213, Lomeshaye Business Village, Turner Road, Nelson, Lancashire, BB9 7DR, England, UK c Built and Natural Environment, Baxter Building, University of Abertay Dundee, Bell Street, Dundee DD1 1HG, Scotland, UK

Accepted 17 May 2007Available online 30 October 2007

Abstract

A risk assessment process can assist in drawing a cost-effective compromise between economic and environmental costs, therebyassuring that the philosophy of sustainable development is adhered to. Nowadays risk analysis is in wide use to effectively manage envi-ronmental issues. Risk assessment is also applied to other subjects including health and safety, food, nance, ecology and epidemiology.The literature review of environmental risk assessments in general and risk assessment approaches particularly regarding landll disposalsites undertaken by the authors, reveals that an integrated risk assessment methodology for landll gas, leachate or degraded waste doesnot exist. A range of knowledge gaps is discovered in the literature reviewed to date. From the perspective of landll leachate, this paperidenties the extent to which various risk analysis aspects are absent in the existing approaches.

2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Sustainable waste management simply means managingwaste by prioritising as per the waste hierarchy ( DoE, 1995;DETR, 2000 ). This implies waste reduction is the topmostpriority if possible. The other priorities in descending orderare reuse; recovery via recycling, composting, and energy;and disposal which also includes landlling. Most of thewaste produced, particularly in the UK ( DETR, 2000a ),is generally disposed to landlls. Waste disposal to land-lls, in general, is an easy and low-cost waste managementoption but it does raise environmental concerns. During

the process of waste degradation, landlls produce wasteproducts in three phases ( Fig. 1). These are solid (i.e.,degraded waste); liquid (i.e., leachate, which is water pol-luted with wastes); and gas (usually referred to as landllgas).

Further, landlls and their aforesaid waste productsmay pollute the three principal environmental media the atmosphere, the lithosphere and the hydrosphere(Fig. 2). Such pollution will be transmitted through thesemedia and will have an impact, either directly or indirectly,upon human, the natural environment (including aquaticand terrestrial ora and fauna) and the built environment.This highly necessitates that hazards and risks of landllsbe assessed and managed to guard the environment andits species from landll hazards.

Public concerns and awareness regarding environmentalprotection have grown world-wide. This is also reected in

the development of environmental legislation in differentcountries. For instance, the UK legislation has beenincreasingly addressing and guiding sustainable environ-mental management in all areas, through a series of regulations. In line with this, environmental issues andenvironmental law have increasingly followed a globaltheme. Examples of such legislation are:

EC Directive on Groundwater ( EC, 1980); EU Directive on Integrated Pollution Control and Pre-vention (IPPC) ( EU, 1996);

0956-053X/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2007.05.012

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 0141 331 8629; fax: +44 0141 3318533.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T.E. Butt), [email protected] (K.O.K. Oduyemi).

1 Tel.: +44 1382 308126; fax: +44 1382 308261.

www.elsevier.com/locate/wasman

Available online at www.sciencedirect.com

Waste Management 28 (2008) 952964
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]:[email protected]


2/13

EC Directive on Environmental Impact Assessment(EIA) (EC, 1985);

Waste Management Licensing Regulations ( SI, 1994,2005);

Environmental Protection Act (1990) ; Environment Act (1995) ;

Water Framework Directive ( EC, 2000); Landll Directive ( EC, 1999); EU Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitatsand of Wild Fauna and Flora (the Habitats Directive)1992.

The realisation of the signicance and effectiveness of risk assessment or analysis (abbreviated as RA in thispaper) in environmental management has also reachedthe environmental legislation. That is why the legislationhas started to impose risk assessment as a tool for meetinglegal requirements associated with waste hazards ( Environ-ment Agency, 1999, 2003a ). This trend is being followed invarious countries around the world. The UK is mentionedas an example as follows. For instance, for the protectionof groundwater from landll leachate, a risk assessmentrequirement has been legislatively introduced in the UKsince 1st May 1994, through Regulation 15 of the WasteManagement Licensing Regulations ( SI, 1994) and theGroundwater Regulations ( SI, 1998). The Landll Direc-tive (EC, 1999) is implemented in England and Walesthrough the Landll Regulations ( SI, 2002), made underthe Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) Act (Englandand Wales) 1999. Similarly, the advent of the WaterFramework Directive ( EC, 2000), which will be transposed

into UK legislation in near future, pushes boundaries of

protection of environmental receptors beyond just ground-water to surface waters and dependent ecological systems.That means a much more integrated approach. The Habi-tat Directive brings legal obligation to combat hazards inorder to guard and enhance natural habitats and wildfauna and ora ( EC, 1992). It can be deduced from all of these legislative instruments that the out of mind conceptregarding wastes is no longer applicable. To achieve maxi-mum protection of the environment against the hazardsassociated with landll sites, all potential hazards mustbe identied and risks associated with them assessed.Therefore, risk assessment is increasingly being applied tolandll sites, at the planned, operational or completedstage (Environment Agency, 2003a; Kent County Council,undated ). Risk assessment is a vital tool for environmentalrisk control or reduction as the output of the former canguide practices to improve risk management ( Fig. 3). Thus,the degree of effectiveness of the risk control or reduction ishighly dependent on the information derived from the riskanalysis.

2. Current risk assessment approaches

Risk assessment is a continually developing evaluationtool. This is not just in relation to landlls and other envi-

ronmental issues but also in relation to other subjects andbusiness elds including, the food industry, ecology, epide-miology, health physics, radiation, earthquakes, nance,construction management, building contract selection,insurance, economics, oil industry, business, regulatorysystems, clinical governance and hospitals ( IoD, 2003;Brebbia, 2000; Scott and Stone, 2004; CIWEM, 1999;DETR, 2000a,b; Carter and Smith, 2001; Thomas, 1998;Mitchell, 1998; WHO, 1997; Rejda, 1995; HSE, 2003,1998; Tweeds, 1996; LaGoy, 1994; EPA, 1992; CHEMUnit, 2003 ). However, literature on risk assessment thatis related to environmental issues and specically regardinglandlls has been the main focus of the review in this paper.This includes Environment Agency (2004), CIRIA (2001),DETR (2000a,b), Redfearn et al. (2000), Gregory et al.(1999), Eduljee (1998), Butt and Oduyemi (2000, 2003)and more mentioned in Table 1 . Regardless of the typeof risk assessment and the environmental area of applica-tion, the basic theme or fundamentals are the same. Thatis, there has to be a target/environmental receptor thatmay be affected by a hazard or unwanted event via a path-way. Similarly, there are three ways to control risks, whichare: remove the hazards source, remove the hazards recep-tors, or manipulate the pathways between the source andreceptors. For any of these ways, the information is to

come from a risk analysis exercise.

RiskAssessment

(RA)

RiskReduction

(RR)

(Output) (Input)

Fig. 3. Relationship between risk assessment and risk reduction.

(Degraded) WasteLeachateGas

(inputs) (outputs)LandfillDegradation

Process(Unstable) WasteWaterAir

Fig. 1. Inputs and outputs of a landll degradation process.

Landfillas a

Pollutant Source

Atmosphere(Air)

Lithosphere(Soil / land)

Hydrosphere(Water)

Fig. 2. Three principal environmental media and fundamental pathwaysfor (landll) hazards to travel through (source: Moriarty, 1993 adapted bythe authors).

T.E. Butt et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 952964 953


3/13


4/13


5/13


6/13


7/13

The literature review by the authors led to the conclu-sion that a comprehensive, robust and sound risk assess-ment methodology only specically for landll leachate inan integrated manner with features (examples below) doesnot exist:

embedding individual procedures of relevant RA factorssuch as hazard identication, exposure quantication,hazards concentration assessment, and preliminaryinvestigation;

encompassing the various types of landll systems andtheir surroundings;

covering all possible characteristics of landlls such aslandll liners and landll capping;

baseline study (including subjects such as geology,hydrology, hydrogeology, meteorology, geography,topography, site engineering and human inuence);

hazard identication and categorisation into groupssuch as toxic, non-toxic, carcinogenic, and non-carcino-genic hazards;

hazard concentration assessment at various links of agiven pathway, that is not only at the landll pollutantsource but also in other links of the pathway such asexposure medium and within boundaries of targets/receptors;

exposure assessment with exposure quantication. Alsothe consideration of exposure not only to groundwatercourses but also other environmental receptors such assurface waters, land/soil, ecosystems, humans, aquaticand terrestrial ora and fauna;

employment of statistical description such as maximum,

minimum, and mean/most likely values of variousparameters involved in a RA process; categorisation of values of each risk assessment factorinto two groups, one for assisting in working out mostlikely risk scenario and other for worst case risk scenario;

encapsulating other features and scenarios such asallowing for toxic, carcinogenic and non-carcinogenicrisks;

consideration of the three landll phases, which are pre-operational stage (i.e., design and development phase),in operation stage, and post operational stage (i.e., com-pleted and post closure phase);

adhesion of quantitative aspects to various RA parame-ters so that risks are quantiable or can be measuredquantitatively;

provisions for the analysis of signicance or sensitivityof characteristics and parameters of various RA items.For instance, out of total number of pathways in a givenlandll scenario which ones are insignicant to affectand thus can be omitted from the risk assessmentprocess;

facilities for the assessment of uncertainties that may beinvolved in different characteristics and parameters of RA sections and sub-sections. Examples of such uncer-tainties are temporal and spatial variations and interpo-

lation from animal data in toxicology; C M S A ( 2 0 0 4 )

,

P u n c o c h a r ( 2 0 0 3 )

,

K o i v i s t o e t a l . (

2 0 0 1 ) ,

F e l d m a n a n d W h i t e

( 1 9 9 6 )

, C H E M U n i t

( 2 0 0 3 )

, P a u l u h n

( 1 9 9 9 )

, M u t h e t a l .

( 2 0 0 1 )

, T a r a z o n a a n d

V e g a ( 2 0 0 2 )

T h e s e p u b l i c a t i o n s a r e r e g a r d i n g h a z a r d

a n d r i s k a s s e s s m e n t i n t h e c o n t e x t o f t h e s e

r e s p e c t i v e s u b j e c t s : m i n i n g , w o r k p l a c e ,

g e n e t i c a l l y m o d i e d o r g a n i s m s ,

n e u r o l o g y , i n d o o r e n v i r o n m e n t , e c o l o g y ,

t o x i c o l o g y , f

o o d , a n d c h e m i c a l s

T h e s e p u b l i c a t i o n s a r e n o t f o r l a n d l l s i n t h e r s t p l a c e . A l l t h e a f o r e s a i d e l e m e n t s a r e a b s e n t f r o m t h e l a n d l l l e a c h a t e p e r s p e c t i v e

958 T.E. Butt et al. / Waste Management 28 (2008) 952964


8/13

allowance of analysis of pollutants fate and transport,thereby addressing a range of parameters such as dilu-tion, retardation, and dispersion.

A range of knowledge limitations has been found in theliterature reviewed to date. One of the most common

knowledge gaps has been that of a user-friendly, sequen-tial/stage-by-stage, categorical, in detail and yet integratedand quantitative methodology for carrying out risk assess-ment in a holistic manner specically for landll leachate.The driving force behind this research study is to establishbackground for the development of a framework of such arisk analysis approach with holism, which is comprehensiveand yet only specic to landll leachate. In order to achievethis, the paper investigates the state of the art of riskassessment approaches, both non-computational as wellas computational. It is noticed by the authors that the lit-erature to date is limited, indirect and in a piece-meal ornon-integrated manner. One apparent reason is that thereis no literature generated with the intent of a holisticapproach to risk assessment for landlls in the rst place.Brief remarks on the review of some of the literature andthe characteristics of the knowledge gaps and limitationsare contained in Table 1 . It is worth mentioning that theterm holistic in this publication implies an overall frame-work encompassing or encapsulating all aspects and fac-tors of the risk assessment of landll leachate from startto end.

3. Computer-aided approaches state of the art

The development of computational methods and theability to model systems more precisely enables hazardsto be quantied, their effects to be simulated and risk anal-ysis to be pursued with greater accuracy, leading to a moreeffective risk management. These developments are notonly important for all areas of human endeavour, but haveparticular relevance to environmental issues where the risksinvolved are increasingly seen as substantial. However, theauthors did not come across a computational approach of a total risk assessment methodology that addresses theknowledge gaps listed in Section 2. It should be noted thatin this study a computer model is seen as an electronic rep-

resentation of a procedure or methodology.An investigation of the various relevant computer-aidedapproaches that are recognised to be closely related tolandll risk assessment was undertaken, namely:

LandSim ( Environment Agency, 2003e, 2001, 1996 ), HELP Hydro-geological Evaluation of Landll Per-formance ( Scientic Software Group, 1998 ),

GasSim (Attenborough et al., 2002; Golder Associates,2003),

GasSimLite ( Environment Agency, 2002 ), and RIP Repository Integration Programme ( LandcareResearch, 2003; Golder Associates, 1998 ).

The rst four computer programmes are specicallydesigned for landlls, although the features of the RIP weresubsequently extended to take landlls into account on acomparatively large scale. The other software types exam-ined by the authors are not demonstrably related to landllrisk, although they could be used to underpin some of the

aspects of landll risk assessment. For instance, DrillGuide (Scientic Software Group, 1997/98 ) is useful inthe sense that it can be included in the geology module of the baseline study of a given landll, which consequentlywill help in the risk assessment process.

As far as the software packages specically on landllrisk assessment are concerned, they do not holisticallyencapsulate all of the elements of RA methodology forlandll leachate. For example, the LandSim software,which is purely for landll risk assessment, probabilisticallyestimates likely concentrations of leachate pollutants thatcan reach a given point in the ground (e.g., groundwaterabstraction point) in a certain time, in terms of years. Italso allows for temporal and spatial variations. However,it does not include the quantication aspect of exposureanalysis, for instance, what would be the amount of expo-sure for people (or livestock) if they were to consume thisgroundwater. Therefore, the LandSims characteristic of pollutant concentration estimation in an exposure mediumsuch as groundwater can be taken a step further to quantifyexposure (e.g., for livestock or a sh farm), which wouldmake the quantitative risk assessment more comprehen-sive. Furthermore, it is a tool mainly focusing groundwateras a receptor and not particularly other environmentalreceptors such as human population, livestock, and cropsin a farm eld. Even though the software has a featurewhere leachate hazards are listed as a typical inventory orinput data and can also be over-ridden on case-specicbasis, there is no allowance for the categorisation of haz-ards into groups such as toxic, non-toxic, carcinogenicand non-carcinogenic. In summary, the LandSim is a partof the total RA not the total RA system itself. Similarly,the HELP programme contains only some aspects of land-ll risk assessment. These are mainly the design features of landll (such as liners, capping) and some of the baselinestudy aspects (such as precipitation, surface runoff), whilenot addressing many other RA modules and sub-modules.

The software GasSim, although dealing with relevant riskassessment modules, including gas generation, migration,impact and exposure, as the name GasSim suggests, isdesigned for assessing landll gas and not for leachate.The GasSimLite is also developed from the perspective of landll gas only and can also only be used in terms of cal-culating gas emissions. As with the other models men-tioned, both GasSim and GasSimLite are not total RAmodels in a categorical and algorithmic manner.

On the other hand the RIP, which is an integrated prob-abilistic simulator for environmental systems, has not beenspecically developed for landll risk assessment. It hasbeen designed generally for any potential pollutant source



9/13

in the ground, e.g., a chemical storage tank. So with theRIP, which is a generic software, risk assessors have toadapt it to their specic problems such as landlls. Thisadaptation is time consuming and not an easy task foreveryone (Miller, 1998). Although RIP can be applied tolandlls for issues such as contaminant release and trans-

port, it does not readily provide such a straightforwardtotal RA procedure for landll leachate, which a risk asses-sor could follow in a sequential and systematic fashion.GoldSim is another general-purpose simulation softwareto support an even wider variety of applications, most of which fall into one of the following three categories: envi-ronmental systems modelling, business and economic mod-elling, and engineered system modelling ( GoldSimTechnology Group, 2003 ). Thus it outgrows even theRIP in terms of generics and in parallel to RIP,; users haveto learn how to adapt the GoldSim to their specicproblems.

The ConSim programme is a tool for assessing the risksthat are posed to groundwater quality by pollutantsmigrating from contaminated land ( Whittaker et al.,2001). The authors nd that this has not been specicallydesigned for use with landlls; particularly when landllshave a leachate head and/or liners, which is very likely withmodern engineered landlls ( Environment Agency, 2003b ).The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA)software considers risks posed by hazards to human healthonly and not to other environmental receptors such asplants, animals, buildings and controlled waters ( Environ-ment Agency, 2003c ). Pathways are considered only fromthe perspective of soil as an exposure medium and not

leachate (Environment Agency, DEFRA and SEPA,2002). As for ConSim, the CLEA programme has beendesigned for use with contaminated land and not speci-cally for landlls (DEFRA & Environment Agency,2002) and once again, neither ConSim, nor CLEA offer acomplete RA model for landll leachate.

The EPAs Multimedia, Multipathway, and Multirecep-tor Risk Assessment (3MRA) allows for evaluation of vewaste management unit types and landll is one of them.The other four are waste pile, aerated tank, surfaceimpoundment, and land application unit ( Leavesley andNicholson, 2005 ). Thus, this renders the model more gen-eral than if it had been only specic to landll leachate.The model does not include a complete set of exposureroutes. For example, some human exposure pathways suchas dermal exposure are not included, nor is the potentialfor adverse effects beyond a 2 km radius around wastemanagement units (i.e., the attendant risks to humanhealth and the environment associated long-range trans-port and accumulation). Also, concurrent exposures tomultiple contaminants in the waste are not considered(EPA, 2004 ). The model encapsulates a host of living recep-tors but does not seem to mainly include non-living itemsas standalone receptors, although they may be indirectlycovered as part of ecological systems ( CEAM, 2005; Wein-

berg et al., 2003).

The Hazardous Waste Identication Rule (HWIR)methodology represents the manner in which a UnitedStates national-scale assessment is conducted to determinehuman and ecological risks for establishing appropriatecontaminant-specic exemption levels for relevant indus-trial waste streams. The HIWR modelling technology has

also been developed to automate the risk assessment meth-odology. The objective of the HIWR system is to reducethe possible over regulation. Thus waste streams whichqualify under the HIWR rule, i.e., listed wastes that couldmeet the HIWR exit level criteria (in a given scenario)would no longer be subject to the hazardous waste manage-ment system specied in Resource Conservation andRecovery Act (RCRA). This way HIWR can assist in sus-tainable waste management by supporting waste minimisa-tion and the development of innovative waste treatmenttechnologies. The HIWR approach covers a variety of liv-ing receptors such as soil fauna, mammals, and plants butdoes not seem to address non-living items as receptors inthemselves. The focus appears to be wastes themselvesrather than a given landll scenario in the context of quan-tifying risks posed by the landll. ( NERL, 2001; EPA,1999a,b, 2000, 2003, 2005; DOE, 1994).

Spatial Analysis and Decision Assistance (SADA) is asoftware programme that incorporates tools from environ-mental assessment elds into an effective problem solvingenvironment ( TIEM, 2006 ). These tools include integratedmodules for visualisation, geo-spatial analysis, statisticalanalysis, human health risk assessment, ecological riskassessment, cost/benet analysis, sampling design, anddecision analysis. Out of this wide range of tools or mod-

ules, only the two most relevant are selected to describehere as examples. The Human Health Risk module pro-vides a full human health risk assessment and associateddatabases from a range of land use scenarios. These includeresidential, industrial, agricultural, recreational, and exca-vation land uses, but not specically landlls . EcologicalRisk is another module or unit of the SADA which allowsusers to perform benchmark screenings and the ability tocalculate forward risk to a number of terrestrial and aqua-tic receptors that are currently being added. Even after thismodule has been fully developed, it may only be helpful toan extent to address only two aspects of landll risk assess-ments: (1) assisting in identifying a whole range of environ-mental receptors (both aquatic and terrestrial) and yet forhumans as receptors, the user still will have to consult theformer module, i.e., Human Health Risk module; and (2)in establishing critical concentration levels, which is onlya factor of the Concentration Assessment section of thetotal risk assessment methodology. It seems that SADAis one of a number of software programmes addressing dif-ferent scenarios. A landll assessor will have to work onselecting the right combinations of these different softwareprogrammes each time they are carrying out a landll riskanalysis and yet SADA will not provide for each and everyfacet of the landll risk assessment in a readily useable for-

mat. Moreover, as the title speaks for itself, the focus of the



10/13

Spatial Analysis and Decision Assistance appears to bemore on spatial than temporal.

Adaptable risk assessment modelling system (ARAMS)is a computer-based, modelling and database driven analy-sis system developed for the US Army for estimating thehuman and ecological health impacts and risk associated

with military relevant compounds (MRCs) and other con-stituents ( ERDC, 2006 ). ARAMS takes various existingdatabases and models for exposure, intake/update, andeffects (health impacts) and incorporates them into concep-tual site-models. The user may need to choose which par-ticular model and/or database to use for each scenario.The heart of ARAMS is the object-oriented ConceptualSite Model (CSM), but that relies yet on another computerprogramme called FRAMES discussed below. Thus it isnot an easy task to adapt ARAMS into a landll leachatescenario every time if a landll assessor decides to useARAMS. Moreover, ARAMS appears to concentratemostly on the exposure assessment facet of a risk analysis,which is just a part of the total risk assessment methodol-ogy. It does not have other facilities such as a baselinestudy section comprising, for instance, geology, hydrology,hydrogeology, topography, etc. that are necessarilyrequired in a landll risk analysis. Similarly, MultimediaEnvironmental Pollutant Assessment System (MEPAS) isanother computer-based programme that is a suite of envi-ronmental models developed to assess contaminated envi-ronmental problems for government, industrial, andinternational clients ( PNNL, 2006a ). The software inte-grates transport and exposure pathways for chemical andradioactive releases to determine their potential impact

on the surrounding environment, individuals, and popula-tions. MEPAS modules have been integrated in theFRAMES software platform to allow MEPAS models tobe used with other environmental models to accomplishthe desired analysis. In the context of landlls, the situationwith MEPAS is not much different than ARAMS. Both thecomputer programmes are not to and do not present anoverall risk assessment methodology of landll leachatewith the intent of holism.

Framework for Risk Analysis Multimedia Environmen-tal Systems (FRAMES) is a software platform for selectingand implementing environmental software models for riskassessment and management problems, which may eveninclude electronic governance issues ( Evangelidis, 2003).In other words, the purpose of FRAMES is to assist usersin developing environmental scenarios and to provideoptions for selecting the most appropriate computer codesto conduct human and environmental risk managementanalyses (PNNL, 2006b ). This programme is a exibleand overall approach to understanding how industrialactivities affect humans and the environment. It incorpo-rates models that integrate across scientic disciplines,allowing for tailored solutions to specic activities, and itprovides meaningful information to business and technicalmanagers. FRAMES is the key to identifying, analysing,

and managing potential environmental, safety and health

risks. As obvious with this discussion, FRAMES is ahugely generic programme, and yet it does not contain asoftware for landll leachate which could guide a landllassessor to perform a landll risk analysis with the widerange of risk assessment features listed in Section 2.

The RESRAD is a combination of two words RESidual

and RADiation ( DMS, 2006 ), which is used as an acronymfor Residual Radiation environmental analysis ( Farlex,2006). The RESRAD is a family of computer codes to pro-vide a scientically based answer to the question how cleanis clean and to provide useful tools for evaluating humanhealth risk from residual contamination ( EAD, 2006a ).These codes include (EAD, 2006a,b ):

1. RESRAD, for soil contaminated with radio-nuclides;2. RESRADBUILD, for buildings contaminated with

radio-nuclides;3. RESRAD-CHEM, for soil contaminated with hazard-

ous chemicals;4. RESRADBASELINE, for risk assessments against

measured (baseline) concentrations of both radio-nuc-lides and chemicals in environmental media;

5. RESRAD-ECORISK, for ecological risk assessments;6. RESRAD-RECYCLE, for recycle and reuse of radio-

logically contaminated metals and equipment; and7. RESRAD-OFFSITE, for off-site receptor dose/risk

assessment.

From the above it is obvious that none of the familymembers is specically for landll leachate, although RES-RAD addresses wide-ranging environmental issues and

aspects. Even if these members are used in combination,these are not able to address all factors and aspects of riskanalysis of landll leachate, for instance, landll phases;detailed and categorical baseline study; etc. Furthermore,to combine these into a landll leachate context alonewould be a cumbersome task to execute each time a landllrisk assessment is performed for different landll scenarios.However, there is no stopping landll assessors from pro-cessing landll data sets using any of these seven codeswhile they carry out a landll risk analysis. For instance,RESRAD-CHEM considers nine exposure pathwaysincluding inhalation of dust and volatiles; ingestion of plant foods, meat, milk, soil, aquatic food and water; anddermal absorption from soil and water contact. This codemay help address aspects of exposure assessment, whichis only one unit of the total risk assessment process. How-ever, this code is no longer being updated ( EAD, 2006c ).

RISC-HUMAN 3.1, RUM and VlierHumaan ( VanHall Instituut of Business Center, 2000, 2001, 2002 , respec-tively) are three other software packages relating to riskanalysis with a main emphasis on exposure assessment;however, they are designed for use with contaminated landand not specically for landlls.

In summary, in the light of above investigation, theauthors contend the following: like non-computational

RA approaches, there is no computational RA approach



11/13

either that contains all of the RA factors (listed in Section2) with the idea of holism and continuity, which landllassessors could use specically for landll leachate fromstart to end.

4. Concluding remarks

Landlls continue to be one of the main methods of waste disposal despite their relatively high potential to pol-lute the environment. Therefore risk assessment is requiredas a tool to identify and dene landll hazards for the envi-ronment. The risk assessment is a most important factor of an effective risk control, as the degree of success of the lat-ter is based on the former. The other side of the coin is thatthere does not exist such a holistic risk assessment method-ology for landll leachate, which could help to perform theprocess of risk assessment from the start (i.e., baselinestudy) through to the end (i.e., hazard indices and riskquantication). Main examples of features that are eitherwholly or partly absent in the state of the art of landllrisk assessment approaches are statistical descriptions; sig-nicance and uncertainty assessments; temporal and spatialvariations of various landll characteristics; risk quantica-tion for carcinogenic as well non-carcinogenic hazards;aggregation of risks; hazard identication and categorisa-tion; consideration of background concentrations of pollu-tants in exposure media and receptors; and the means toassist derive risks in the categories of most likely and worstcase scenarios. This research allows the authors to recog-nise the necessity, identify knowledge gaps and establishbases for developing a more holistic framework of an algo-

rithmic and quantitative methodology of risk analysis forlandll leachate in an integrated manner.

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the nancial support of Dun-dee City Council in this project. We are additionally grate-ful for the discussion and help received from Mr. PeterGoldie of the Environment and Consumer ProtectionDepartment, Dundee City Council. The support from Ste-phen T. Washburn (Managing Principal, ENVIRON, NewJersey, US), Dr. I.M. Spence (Consultant EnvironmentalGeologist, Scotland), Dr. M.I. Baloch (Wessex Water,UK) and Mr. Phillip Jenkins (University of Abertay Dun-dee, Scotland) is also highly appreciated.

References

Asante-Duah, D.K., 1996. Managing Contaminated Sites: ProblemDiagnosis and Development of Site Restoration. John Wiley, NewYork.

Attenborough, G.M., Hall, D.H., Gregory, R.G., McGoochan, L., 2002.Development of a landll gas risk assessment model: GasSim. In:Proceedings for Solid Waste Association of North America, 25 AnnualLandll Gas Symposium, Monterey, CA, USA, March, pp. 2528.

Auckland Regional Council, 2002. Hazard identication and risk assess-ment for local authorities hazard guideline no. 2. Technical

Publication No. 106, Auckland Local Authority Hazard LiaisonGroup, September.

Bardos, P., Nathanail, P., Nathanail, J., 2003b. Risk Assessment Haveyou got a real problem? Wastes Management (November), 4445.

Bardos, P., Nathanail, P., Nathanail, J., 2003a. How do you treatcontaminated sites? Wastes Management (September), 2023.

Bernard, Clement, Guido, Persoone, Colin, Janssen R., Anne, Le Du -Delepierre, 1996. Estimation of the hazard of landlls through toxicitytesting of leachates 1. Determination of leachate toxicity with abattery of acute tests. Chemosphere 33 (11), 23032320.

Bernard, Clement, Guido, Persoone, Colin, Janssen R., Anne, Le Du -Delepierre, 1997. Estimation of the hazard of landlls through toxicitytesting of leachates 2. Comparison of physico-chemical character-istics of landll leachates with their toxicity determined with a batteryof tests. Chemosphere 35 (11), 27832796.

Brebbia, C.A. (Ed.). 2000. Risk Analysis II Second InternationalConference on Computer Simulation in Risk Analysis and HazardMitigation, Bologna, Italy, 1113 October. WIT Press.

Butt, T.E., Oduyemi, K.O.K., 2003. A holistic approach to concentrationassessment of hazards in the risk assessment of landll leachate.Environment International 28 (7), 597608.

Butt, T.E., Oduyemi, K.O.K., 2000. Signicance of baseline study inlandll risk assessment, In: Risk Analysis II Second InternationalConference on Computer Simulation in Risk Analysis and HazardMitigation, Bologna, Italy, 1113 October. pp. 93103.

Carter, G., Smith, S., 2001. Construction safety risk improving the levelof hazard identication. In: ESREL 2001 European Safety andReliability International Conference, Torino, Italy, September 1620.

Center for Exposure Assessment Modeling (CEAM), 2005. NationalExposure Research Laboratory, Environment Protection Agency(EPA). Multimedia, multi-pathway, multi-receptor exposure and riskassessment (3MRA). . December 28.

Chemical Hazards and Emergency Management (CHEM), 2003. Unit Department of Emergency Services (Queensland Government, Aus-tralia), carrying out a risk assessment for dangerous goods (under theDangerous Goods Safety Management Act 2001) DGSM Informa-tion Paper No. 6, October.

Construction Industry Research and Information Association (CIRIA),2001. Remedial Engineering for Closed Landll Sites. C 557, CIRIA,London.

The Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management(CIWEM), 1999. Environmental risk. In: Scottish Annual Symposium.Edinburgh Conference Centre, Organised by CIWEM ScottishBranch, Tuesday, 16th November).

Chamber of Mines of South Africa (CMSA), 2004. South African miningindustry guide to hazard identication and risk assessment (HIRA).SA Safety Advisers Office.

Cumberland Plateau Planning District (CPPD), 2004. Hazard identica-tion and risk assessment (Draft). Dewberry, February 24.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) andEnvironment Agency, 2002. The contaminated land exposure assess-

ment model (CLEA): Technical basis and algorithms. R&D Publica-tion CLR 10, Document prepared by the National Groundwater andContaminated Land Centre of the Environment Agency.

Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), 2002.Foreword from the Department of Environment, Transport and theRegions and Foreword form the Environment Agency. . Page pub-lished: August 2, 2000. Page last modied: September 19.

Department of the Environment, Transport and Regions (DETR), 2000a.Waste Strategy 2000 England and Wales (Part 1). Crown Copyright.

Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (DETR),2000b. Environment Agency and the Institute for the Environment andHealth. Guidelines for Environment Risk Assessment and Manage-ment. The Stationary Office, London.

DecisionMapping System (DMS), 2006. DMSGlossary. . November 1.

http://www.epa.gov/ceampubl/mmedia/3mra/ABSTRACT.TXThttp://www.epa.gov/ceampubl/mmedia/3mra/ABSTRACT.TXThttp://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/risk/eramguide/01.htmhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/risk/eramguide/01.htmhttp://nalu.geog.washington.edu/dms/glossary_content.htmlhttp://nalu.geog.washington.edu/dms/glossary_content.htmlhttp://nalu.geog.washington.edu/dms/glossary_content.htmlhttp://nalu.geog.washington.edu/dms/glossary_content.htmlhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/risk/eramguide/01.htmhttp://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/risk/eramguide/01.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/ceampubl/mmedia/3mra/ABSTRACT.TXThttp://www.epa.gov/ceampubl/mmedia/3mra/ABSTRACT.TXT


12/13

Department of Energy (DOE), 1994. RCRA corrective action humanhealth assessment, RCRA Information Brief. EH-231-045/0594, May.

Department of Energy (DOE), 1998. US, Risk-based corrective action environmental guidance. DOE/EH-413-9815.

Department of the Environment (DoE) and the Welsh Office, 1995a.Making Waste Work A Strategy for Sustainable Waste Managementin England and Wales. HMSO, London.

Department of the Environment (DoE), 1995b. The technical aspects of controlled waste management health effects from hazardous wastelandll sites. Report No. CWM/057/92.

Environmental Assessment Division (EAD), 2006a. RESRAD Program.Argonne National Laboratory. .

Environmental Assessment Division (EAD), 2006b. RESRAD Program.Argonne National Laboratory. .

Environmental Assessment Division (EAD), 2006c. RESRAD-Chem.Argonne National Laboratory. . November 1.

European Community (EC), 1980. Directive on groundwater (80/68/EEC).European Community (EC), 1985. Directive on Environmental Impact

Assessment (EIA) (i.e., 85/337/EEC) which came into effect in July1988.

European Community (EC), 1992. Directive on the conservation of naturalhabitatsand of wild fauna andora (the Habitats Directive), 92/43/EEC.

European Community (EC), 1999. Landll Directive (99/31/EC).European Community (EC), 2000. Water Framework Directive (2000/60/

EC).Eduljee,G.H.,1998.Assessment of risks to human health from landlling of

household wastes.In: Issues in Environmental Science and Technology.Risk Assessment and Risk Management 9, 113135.

Eisenbeis, J.J., Montgomery, R.H., Sanders, T.G., 1986. A risk assessmentmethodology for hazardous waste landlls geotechnical & geohy-drological aspects of waste management. In: 8th Geohydro WasteManagement Symposium, Fort Collins, USA, February, pp. 417426.

Environment Act (EA), 1995. Crown Copyright, London. .

Environment Agency, 1996. LandSim Performance Simulation by MonteCarlo Method (a LandSim Software Manual). Golder Associates Ltd.

Environment Agency, 1999. Internal Guidance on the Interpretation andApplication of Regulation 15 of the Waste Management LicensingRegulations 1994 (The Protection of Groundwater with respect toLandll).

Environment Agency, 2001. LandSim, Release 2 (V.2.02) LandllPerformance Simulation by Monte Carlo Method. R&D Publication120.

Environment Agency, 2002. GasSimLite User Manual. Golder Associates.Environment Agency, 2003a. Hydrogeological Risk Assessments for

Landll and the Derivation of Groundwater Control and TriggerLevels.

Environment Agency, 2003b. Contaminant impact on groundwater:simulation by Monte Carlo method. ConSim Version 2, R&D

Publication 132, Golder Associates.Environment Agency, 2003c. Contaminated land exposure assessment(CLEA). , November.

Environment Agency, 2003d. Procedure for identifying risks fromlandlls. Version 1.2, December.

Environment Agency, 2003e. LandSim 2.5 Groundwater risk assessmenttool for landll design, Bristol.

Environment Agency, 2004. Guidance on assessment of risks from landllsites. External consultation version 1.0, Bristol, May.

Environment Agency, Department for Environment, Food and RuralAffairs (DEFRA) and Scottish Environment Protection Agency(SEPA), 2002. Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA)Model. CLEA 2002 Version 1.3, User Manual.

Environmental Protection Act (EPA), 1990a. The Stationary Office,

London.

Environmental Protection Act (EPA), 1990b. Crown Copyright. .

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1992. US, Guidelines forExposure Assessment, Federal Register No. 104, vol. 57.

Environment Protection Agency (EPA), 1996a. US, Guidelines forReproductive Toxicity Risk Assessment, EPA/630/R-96/009.

Environment Protection Agency (EPA), 1996b. US, Proposed Guidelinesfor Ecological Risk Assessment, EPA/630/R-95/002B.

Environment Protection Agency (EPA) 1996c. US, Proposed Guidelinesfor Carcinogen Risk Assessment, EPA/600/P-92/003C.

Environment Protection Agency (EPA), 1998. US, Guidelines for neuro-toxicity risk assessment. Federal Register 63 (93):26926-26954, EPA/630/R-95/001F. Risk Assessment Forum.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), 1999a. US, Guidelines forexposure assessment. ,FR 57, EPA/600Z-92/001, last modied: March.

Environment Protection Agency (EPA), 1999b. Data Requirements andCondence Indicators for Ecological Benchmarks supporting Exemp-tion Criteria for the Hazardous Waste Identication Rule (HWIR99),October.

Environment Protection Agency (EPA), 2000. US, Hazardous WasteIdentication Rule (HIWR): Identication and listing of hazardous of hazardous wastes. Notice of Data Availability and Request forComments, Federal Register vol. 65, No. 138, Tuesday, July 18, pp.4449144506.

Environment Protection Agency (EPA), 2003. US, Proposed Revisions tothe Hazardous Waste Identication Rule (HWIR) Fact Sheet,EPA530-F-03-003. ,April.

Environment Protection Agency (EPA) 2004. PAs Multimedia, Multi-pathway, and Multireceptor Risk Assessment (3MRA) ModelingSystem A review by the 3MRA review panel of the EPA scienceadvisory board, EPA-SAB-05-003, November.

Environment Protection Agency (EPA), 2005. US, Hazardous wasteidentication rule assessment. , January.

Environmental Protection Department (EPD), 1997. Hong Kong Gov-ernment (Waste Facilities Development Group), Landll gas hazardassessment guidance note. Report No. EPD/TR8/97.

Engineer Research and Development Center (ERDC), 2006.ARAMS, an adaptable risk assessment modelling system. USArmy Corps of Engineers. ,August.

European Union (EU), 1996. adopted a directive (96/61/EU) on Inte-grated Pollution Prevention and Control (IPPC) in September.

Evangelidis, A., 2003. FRAMES a risk assessment framework fore-services. Electronic Journal of e-Government 2 (1), 2130.

Farlex Inc. 2006. The Free Dictionary. , November 1.

Feldman, R.G., White, R.F., 1996. Role of the Neurologist in HazardIdentication and Risk Assessment. Environ Health Perspectives 104(Suppl. 2), 227237.

Golder Associates, 2002. Risk Assessment for Small and Closed Landlls Small and Closure Criteria. Application 4176, Golder Associates(NZ) Ltd., December.

Golder Associates, 2003. GasSim landll gas risk assessment tool,GasSim Technical Summary (PDF Format). , December.

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd., 1998. Repository Integration Programme(RIP) (Integrated Probabilistic Simulator for Environmental Systems). .

GoldSim Technology Group LLC, 2003. GoldSim (Probabilistic UserEnvironment). Version 8.01, Users Guide, GoldSim TechnologyGroup LLC, October.

Gregory, R.G., Revans, A.J., Hill, M.D., Meadows, M.P., Paul, L.,Ferguson, C.C., 1999. A Framework to assess risks to human healthand the environment from landll gas. R&D Technical Report 271,

Under Contract CWM168/98, Environment Agency.

http://www.ead.anl.gov/project/images/pa/20resrad.pdfhttp://www.ead.anl.gov/project/images/pa/20resrad.pdfhttp://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/documents/anlrares.pdfhttp://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/documents/anlrares.pdfhttp://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/home2/chem.cfmhttp://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/home2/chem.cfmhttp://www.hmso.gov.acts/actshttp://www.hmso.gov.acts/actshttp://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/landqualityhttp://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/landqualityhttp://www.hmso.gov.acts/actshttp://www.hmso.gov.acts/actshttp://www.epa.gov/nceawww1/exposure.htmhttp://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/epaprintonly.cgihttp://www.epa.gov/nerl/research/2001/g5-1.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/nerl/research/2001/g5-1.htmlhttp://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/RESRADhttp://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/RESRADhttp://www.gassim.co.uk/GasSim_TS_final.pdfhttp://www.gassim.co.uk/GasSim_TS_final.pdfhttp://www.golder.com/rip/intro.htm#Whathttp://www.golder.com/rip/intro.htm#Whathttp://www.gassim.co.uk/GasSim_TS_final.pdfhttp://www.gassim.co.uk/GasSim_TS_final.pdfhttp://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/RESRADhttp://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/RESRADhttp://www.erdc.usace.army.mil/http://www.epa.gov/nerl/research/2001/g5-1.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/nerl/research/2001/g5-1.htmlhttp://www.epa.gov/cgi-bin/epaprintonly.cgihttp://www.epa.gov/nceawww1/exposure.htmhttp://www.hmso.gov.acts/actshttp://www.hmso.gov.acts/actshttp://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/landqualityhttp://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/landqualityhttp://www.hmso.gov.acts/actshttp://www.hmso.gov.acts/actshttp://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/home2/chem.cfmhttp://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/home2/chem.cfmhttp://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/documents/anlrares.pdfhttp://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/documents/anlrares.pdfhttp://www.ead.anl.gov/project/images/pa/20resrad.pdfhttp://www.ead.anl.gov/project/images/pa/20resrad.pdf


13/13

Health and Safety Executive (HSE), 1998. Quantitative risk assessment foroffshore installations risk management. Offshore Research Focus,HSE, No. 123, October, p. 76.

Health and Safety Executive (HSE), 2003. Five steps to risk assessment.HSE, Revision 1, July.

Institute of Directors (IoD), 2003. Risk Management Helping directorsto identify and control business risks effectively. Director PublicationsLtd., May.

Jaggy, M., 1996. Risk analysis of landlls. In: Gheorghe, A.V. (Ed.),Integrated Regional Health and Environmental Risk Assessment andSafety Management. International Journal of Environment andPollution 6 (46), pp. 537545.

Kavazanjian Jr., E., Bonaparte, R., Johnson, G.W., Martin, G.R.,Matasovic, N., 1995. Hazard analysis for a large regional landll. In:Proceedings of the Geotechnical Engineering Division of the ASCE inConjunction with the ASCE Convention, San Diego, USA, October2327. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.

Kent County Council (KCC), undated. Environmental AssessmentHAND BOOK. Published by the Planning Department, KCC(Designed, Illustrated and Produced by County Visuals, PlanningDepartment, KCC).

Koivisto, R.A., Tormakangas, K.M., Kauppinen, V.S., 2001. Hazardidentication and risk assessment procedure for genetically modiedplants in the eld GMHAZID, vol. 8. Environmental Science andPollution Research, Ecomed Publishers.

LaGoy, P.K., 1994. Risk Assessment Principles and Applications forHazardous Waste and Related Sites. Noyes Publications.

Landcare Research (Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research a NewZealand Crown Research Institute), 2003. Risk assessment modelreviews. .

Leavesley, G.H., Nicholson, T.J., 2005. Interagency steering committee onmultimedia environmental models (ISCMEM). , December 28.

Miller, I., 1998. Personal Communication. Golder Associates, UK.Mitchell, J.K., 1998. Hazards in changing cities. Applied Geology 18 (1),

16.Moriarty, F., 1993. Ecotoxicology: The Study of Pollutants in Ecosystems,

second ed. T.J. Press (Padstow) Ltd.Muth, M.K., Karns, S.A., Anderson, D.W., 2001. Analysis of hazard

analysiscriticalcontrolpoint(HACCP) surveydata.Final Report RTIProject Number 6673.008, Research Triangle Institute (RTI), July.

National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL), 2001. Signicantndings from the hazardous waste identication rule (HIWR) assess-ment. NERL Research Abstract, October.

Pauluhn, J., 1999. Hazard identication and risk assessment of pyre-throids in the indoor environment. Toxicology Letters 107, 193199.

Pieper, A., Lorenz, W., Kolb, M., Bahadir, M., 1997. Determination of PCDD/F (polychlorinated dibenzo- p-dioxins and furans) for hazardassessment in a municipal landll contaminated with industrial sewagesludge. Chemosphere 34 (1), 121129.

Pacic Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), 2006a. Introduction to

MEPAS (Multimedia Environmental Pollutant Assessment System),PNL. . Last updated: Sep-tember 1.

Pacic Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), 2006b. Framework forRisk Analysis Multimedia Environmental Systems (FRAMES), PNL. . Last updated: January 24.

Puncochar, P., 2003. The science and art of identifying workplace hazards.Occupational Hazards 65 (9), 50 (ProQuest).

Redfearn, A., Roberts, R.D., Dockerty, J.C., 2000. Analysis andapplication of human health and ecological risk assessment method-

ologies for landlls. In: Proceedings Waste 2000 Waste Managementat the dawn of the third Millennium, England, October 23, pp. 455 464.

Rejda, G.E., 1995. Principles of Risk Management and Insurance, fth ed.Harper Collins College Publishers, New York.

Rudland, D.J., Lanceeld, R.M., Mayell, P.N., 2001. Contaminated LandRisk Assessment A guide to good practice. CIRIA C552 (Construc-tion Industry Research and Information Association).

Scientic Software Group, 1997/98. Environmental Software and Publi-cations (Catalogue), Washington, DC 20020 3041. .

Scientic Software Group, 1998. Environmental Software and Publica-tions (Catalogue), Washington, DC 20020 3041. .

Scott, D., Stone, C., 2004. Clinical governance and risk manage-ment. Second Annual Report 20032004, East Sussex Hospitals,NHS Trust.

Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA), Framework for RiskAssessment for Landll Sites The Geological Barrier, Mineral Layerand the Leachate Sealing and Drainage System. SEPA, August.

Statutory Instruments (SI), 1994. UK, Waste Management LicensingRegulations 1994, SI No. 1056, Crown Copyright.

Statutory Instrument (SI), 1998. The Groundwater Regulations 1998, SINo. 2746, Crown Copyright.

Statutory Instrument (SI), 2002. The Landll (England and Wales)Regulations, SI No. 1559, Crown Copyright.

Statutory Instruments (SI), 2005. UK, Waste Management Licensing(Amendment and Related Provisions) Regulations 2005, SI No.803.

Tarazona, J.V., Vega, M.M., 2002. Hazard and risk assessment of chemicals for terrestrial ecosystems. Toxicology 181182, 187 191.

Thomas, P.T., 1998. Immunotoxicology: hazard identication and riskassessment. Nutrition Reviews 56 (1), 131134 (ProQuest ScienceJournals).

The Institute of Environmental Modelling (TIEM), 2006. Spatial Analysisand Decision Assistance (SADA), University of Tennessee ResearchCorporation. . Last updated: June12.

Tweeds, 1996. Laxtons guide to risk analysis and management (animprint of ButterworthHeinemann).

Van Hall Instituut of Business Center, 2000. Software titles: RISC-HUMAN 3.1, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands. .

Van Hall Instituut of Business Center, 2001. Software titles: RUM,Leeuwarden, The Netherlands. .

Van Hall Instituut of Business Center, 2002. Software titles: Vlier-Humaan, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands. .

Welsh Development Agency (WDA), 1994. The WDA Manual on theRemediation of Contaminated Land. ECOTEC Research and Con-sulting Ltd., Environmental Advisory Unit Ltd.

Weinberg, Nadine, Henning, Miranda, Kladias, Michael, Killingstad,

Marc, 2003. Technical critique of the multimedia, multipathway,multireceptor risk assessment model. Human and Ecological RiskAssessment 9 (7), 16791700.

Whittaker, J.J., Buss, S.R., Herbert, A.W., Fermor, M., 2001. Bench-marking and guidance on the comparison of selected groundwater riskassessment models. National Groundwater 7 Contaminated LandCentre (NGACLC) Report NC/00/14, Environment Agency, Decem-ber.

World Health Organization (WHO), 1997. HACCP Introducing theHazard Analysis and Critical Control Point System, WHO.

http://www.contamsites.landcareresearch.co.nz/risk_assessment_models_reviews.htmhttp://www.contamsites.landcareresearch.co.nz/risk_assessment_models_reviews.htmhttp://www.iscmem.org/WorkGroup_02.htmhttp://www.iscmem.org/WorkGroup_02.htmhttp://mepas.pnl.gov/mepas/index/htmlhttp://mepas.pnl.gov/FRAMESV1/http://www.siosoftware.com/http://www.siosoftware.com/http://www.scisoftware.com/products/visual_help_details/visual_help_details.htmlhttp://www.scisoftware.com/products/visual_help_details/visual_help_details.htmlhttp://www.tiem.utk.edu/~sada/http://www.risc-site.nl/http://www.risc-site.nl/http://www.risc-site.nl/http://www.risc-site.nl/http://www.risc-site.nl/http://www.risc-site.nl/http://www.risc-site.nl/http://www.risc-site.nl/http://www.tiem.utk.edu/~sada/http://www.scisoftware.com/products/visual_help_details/visual_help_details.htmlhttp://www.scisoftware.com/products/visual_help_details/visual_help_details.htmlhttp://www.siosoftware.com/http://www.siosoftware.com/http://mepas.pnl.gov/FRAMESV1/http://mepas.pnl.gov/mepas/index/htmlhttp://www.iscmem.org/WorkGroup_02.htmhttp://www.iscmem.org/WorkGroup_02.htmhttp://www.contamsites.landcareresearch.co.nz/risk_assessment_models_reviews.htmhttp://www.contamsites.landcareresearch.co.nz/risk_assessment_models_reviews.htm

Date post:	01-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	gkarlatir
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Risk Assessment of Landfill Disposal Sites State of the Art 2008 Waste Management

Documents