Professional Documents
Culture Documents
com
a,*
c,1
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
Built and Natural Environment, Baxter Building, University of Abertay Dundee, Bell Street, Dundee DD1 1HG, Scotland, UK
Accepted 17 May 2007
Available online 30 October 2007
Abstract
A risk assessment process can assist in drawing a cost-eective compromise between economic and environmental costs, thereby
assuring that the philosophy of sustainable development is adhered to. Nowadays risk analysis is in wide use to eectively manage environmental 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 disposal
sites undertaken by the authors, reveals that an integrated risk assessment methodology for landll gas, leachate or degraded waste does
not exist. A range of knowledge gaps is discovered in the literature reviewed to date. From the perspective of landll leachate, this paper
identies 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 managing
waste by prioritising as per the waste hierarchy (DoE, 1995;
DETR, 2000). This implies waste reduction is the topmost
priority if possible. The other priorities in descending order
are reuse; recovery via recycling, composting, and energy;
and disposal which also includes landlling. Most of the
waste produced, particularly in the UK (DETR, 2000a),
is generally disposed to landlls. Waste disposal to landlls, in general, is an easy and low-cost waste management
option but it does raise environmental concerns. During
the process of waste degradation, landlls produce waste
products in three phases (Fig. 1). These are solid (i.e.,
degraded waste); liquid (i.e., leachate, which is water polluted with wastes); and gas (usually referred to as landll
gas).
Corresponding author. Tel.: +44 0141 331 8629; fax: +44 0141 331
8533.
E-mail addresses: t_e_butt@hotmail.com (T.E. Butt), k.oduyemi@
abertay.ac.uk (K.O.K. Oduyemi).
1
Tel.: +44 1382 308126; fax: +44 1382 308261.
0956-053X/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.wasman.2007.05.012
Landfill
Degradation
Process
(outputs)
(Degraded) Waste
Leachate
Gas
Risk
Assessment
(Output)
953
(Input)
(RA)
Risk
Reduction
(RR)
Atmosphere
(Air)
Landfill
as a
Pollutant Source
Lithosphere
(Soil / land)
Hydrosphere
(Water)
protection of environmental receptors beyond just groundwater to surface waters and dependent ecological systems.
That means a much more integrated approach. The Habitat Directive brings legal obligation to combat hazards in
order to guard and enhance natural habitats and wild
fauna and ora (EC, 1992). It can be deduced from all of
these legislative instruments that the out of mind concept
regarding wastes is no longer applicable. To achieve maximum protection of the environment against the hazards
associated with landll sites, all potential hazards must
be identied and risks associated with them assessed.
Therefore, risk assessment is increasingly being applied to
landll sites, at the planned, operational or completed
stage (Environment Agency, 2003a; Kent County Council,
undated). Risk assessment is a vital tool for environmental
risk control or reduction as the output of the former can
guide practices to improve risk management (Fig. 3). Thus,
the degree of eectiveness of the risk control or reduction is
highly dependent on the information derived from the risk
analysis.
2. Current risk assessment approaches
Risk assessment is a continually developing evaluation
tool. This is not just in relation to landlls and other environmental issues but also in relation to other subjects and
business elds including, the food industry, ecology, epidemiology, health physics, radiation, earthquakes, nance,
construction management, building contract selection,
insurance, economics, oil industry, business, regulatory
systems, 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; CHEM
Unit, 2003). However, literature on risk assessment that
is related to environmental issues and specically regarding
landlls 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 type
of risk assessment and the environmental area of application, the basic theme or fundamentals are the same. That
is, there has to be a target/environmental receptor that
may be aected by a hazard or unwanted event via a pathway. Similarly, there are three ways to control risks, which
are: remove the hazards source, remove the hazards receptors, or manipulate the pathways between the source and
receptors. For any of these ways, the information is to
come from a risk analysis exercise.
954
Table 1
Literature review examples: discussion on elements of landll risk assessment (RA) present and absent
Publication
Elements present
Elements absent
Golder Associates (2002) This publication regards risk assessment From the term elements absent the authors imply knowledge gaps and limitations of research works carried out to date:
1. The publication is not to present a total risk analysis (RA) methodology that contains the features and the modules with their
only for small and closed landlls. It
sub-modules (listed below) integrated together in an algorithmic, ready-to-use, sequentially linked, categorical, user-friendly
briey mentions hazards and risks in the
format, continual and step-by-step, which a user could holistically follow from start to end in a self-guiding fashion
context of contamination of groundwater;
2. A detailed baseline study system, which could assist a risk assessor to identify and categorise all landll site characteristics that
contamination of surface water; gas
are needed in dierent stages of the risk assessment process, is not in the remit of this publication. Examples are:
accumulation and; direct exposure to
Geology: top soil, drift, rock, porosity, eective porosity, ssures, density, geological materials and minerals, depth and
contaminated soil, sharp objects or
width or volume of the geological materials, and other geological properties
hazardous gases. These are the only four
Hydrology: evaporation, transpiration, interception, (surface) runo, inltration, percolation, groundwater ingress, etc.
scenarios, which this publication
Hydrogeology: vadose/unsaturated and phreatic/saturated zones, perched groundwater, hydraulic gradient, permeability,
addresses very briey
groundwater speed and direction, and other hydro-geological properties
Topography: landforms/inclinations (to assist in measuring runo to or from a given landll), natural environment, habitats, built environment, water-courses, etc.
Geography: latitudes, longitudes, geographic zones, e.g., tropical and other geographic properties that can also help in estimating other baseline study parameters such as expected rainfall
Meteorology: precipitation (duration, frequency, intensity), wind speed and direction, wet and dry bulb temperatures,
humidity, degree of sun and cloudiness, etc.
Human inuences: past, present and/or future potential anthropogenic activities such as quarrying, water abstractions, construction and development
Site management: site history, site type, site location, site design and engineering (e.g., liners, drainage system), waste management activities, environmental monitoring, waste types
3. It is not in the scope of this publication to develop a procedure for hazard identication and categorisation to assist a risk
assessor to group hazards in categories such as toxic, non-toxic, carcinogenic, non-carcinogenic, hazards due to settings/layout
and/or processes, leachate quantication, leachate qualities (such as maturity, age, hardness), etc.
4. Does not oer approaches to categorise and establish concentration levels for various pollutants both temporally and spatially.
For instance, concentration levels at a landll (the pollutant source), exposure medium, receptor intake concentration, thresholds or safety levels, background or existing concentration in a given receptor before leachate reaches
5. There is no strategic procedure to carry out exposure assessment process in a quantitative manner for landll leachate, which
could take account of all possible scenarios. There is lack of in-depth algorithmic exposure quantication system that sequentially ties together the factors involved such as exposure duration, frequency, exposure media and routes
6. Signicance assessment of all characteristics and parameters of the modules and sub-modules of the risk assessment. For
instance, is the amount of interception and/or liquid waste for a given landll signicant enough to consider in leachate quantity measurement; what conservative measures are taken for what parameters and why; etc.
7. Uncertainty assessment of all characteristics and parameters of the modules and sub-modules of the risk assessment. Where
these uncertainties could be due to models limitations; estimations methods; data quality; etc.
8. Migration assessment of pollutants in the form of categorical and sequential procedure is not present. This should include
features of both pollutants transport phenomena (such as dispersion, advection, retardation) and attenuation phenomena
(such as dilution, absorption, adsorption, cation exchange reactions)
9. No details on Hazard Indices (HI) specically in the context of landll leachate whereas HI is a very important quantitative
indicator of risk levels and therefore a signicant feature of quantitative risk assessment
10. There is no strategic procedure of risk quantication/estimation in which a risk assessor could consider all leachate hazards via
all possible pathways for all possible receptors in an integrated fashion to work out total risk as well as individual risks on the
basis of one hazard via one pathway for one receptor
11. There is no evidence of consideration given to work out worst case and most likely risk scenarios
(continued on next page)
Table 1 (continued)
Publication
Elements present
Elements absent
CIRIA (2001)
Line missing
955
Environment Agency
(2003a)
12. A given landll can be at pre-operation stage (i.e., design and development phase), in-operation stage and/or post-operation
stage (i.e., completed and post closure phase). The issue of each of the three landll stages, which a given landll could be in, is
not discussed
13. For risk assessment to be quantitative, all relevant parameters of the modules and sub-modules need to be quantied. The
more the objective measurement of such parameters the more successful quantication of the risk will be. The publication does
not seem to be able to touch on quantitative aspects of various risk assessment parameters
14. There is lack of aggregation facility in the modules and sub-modules of the risk assessment. For instance, if a living receptor
such as a human receives pollutant via dermal contact as well as ingestion. So the total concentration entering the humans
body would be the sum of the concentrations via these two individual exposure routes
15. There seems to be lack of consideration of temporal and spatial variations of various parameters of risk analysis modules and
sub-modules. For instance, temporal variation of leachate quality that is in terms of becoming mature over time or aging; spatial variation in unsaturated/vadose zone underneath a given landll in order to gure out eective vadose thickness; etc.
16. Lack of employment of statistical descriptions particularly in the context of maximum, minimum and most likely values of
various parameters (e.g., precipitation, concentration of pollutant reaching receptors, exposure duration). Such statistical
descriptions can be helpful to gure out worst case and most likely risk scenarios as well as address uncertainties and temporal
and spatial variations
17. The publication is not for large landlls. It is not for pre-operation and in-operation stages either
In the context of holisticness, the authors nd this publication to be closest to a more strategic, sequential and integrated RA
framework for landll leachate. Apart from some aspects of some RA modules (as highlighted in the left column), overall all the
elements from 1 to 16 above are either absent or not addressed to a degree where they all could be tied together into an algorithmic
procedure of quantitative RA. Some elements are not in the scope of the document and examples are as follows. Exposure
quantication aspect is not in the remit of the publication. Apart from surface and groundwater, environmental receptors such as
humans, eco-systems, aquatic and terrestrial ora and fauna are not the main focus. Categorisation of hazards into toxic, nontoxic, carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic streams so that hazard indices and risks could be measured and aggregated separately
along these four streams. Employment of statistical descriptions such as maximum, minimum and most-likely values of various
quantiable HA parameters in particular to assist in establishing most-likely and worst-case risk scenarios. Though most of the
Baseline Study areas are indicated, the Baseline Study has not been categorised into a structure of eight headings/modules
indicated above in Point 2. In particular, the modules meteorology and geography are not included in this publication
In-operational and pre-operational landlls are excluded. The publication is not specically for landll leachate. Some of the RA
modules aspects (mentioned in the left column) are taken into account to an extent, but not to a level where they could be put
together in the form of total categorical and sequential methodology of RA. In summary, some of the elements from 1 to 16 above
are partly addressed but not all of them in an integrated manner
Environment Agency
(2004)
EPD (1997)
This publication addresses a range of risk analysis issues in general (listed in the left column). However, the focus is not specically
landll leachate, but rather a host of environmental hazards. Therefore it is immensely general. Moreover, the document does not
present the framework in the form of a ready-to-use procedure of risk assessment in which all risk analysis factors sit together in a
logical and functional sequence. For instance, in-depth Baseline Study in housing the eight modules (indicated above in 2) does not
fall in the remit of this document. Conclusively, all the factors from 1 to 17 above are absent in the context of being strictly specic
to landll leachate. Where as the research work discussed in this paper and the following Part 2 publication is regarding the
development of such a total risk analysis system which attempts to put together all sections and subsections related to risk analysis
process specically of landll leachate in a sequential order at one place
The publication is not about landll leachate in the rst place. The elements 116 are absent
Environment Agency
(2003d)
956
DETR (2000a,b)
The publications are not on RA procedure at all. So all the elements 116 above are absent. However, the techniques identied on
measuring toxicity of landll leachate can be useful in exposure assessment and hazards concentration assessment modules of RA
for a given landll. But these papers still do not present procedures for exposure analysis and concentration assessment modules as
part of RA
These are not specically for landlls and all the elements from 1 to 16 above are absent from the perspective of landll leachate
As the document states itself that there are ve main areas, which constitute the main scope of the guidance (listed in the left
column). Yet landll leachate is not one of them, though is addressed to an extent. The guidance also mentions that it does not
provide all of the detail needed to conduct risk analysis for a landll. However, in the context of holisticness the authors nd this
guidance as the second most integrated RA framework for landll leachate. However, some examples of the elements from above
needing more or less further development work in this document are hazard indices, deriving risks for worst case and most likely
scenarios, consideration of temporal and spatial variations, and statistical descriptions. Some of the above elements are not in the
scope of the document and examples are as follows. Exposure quantication aspect is absent. Some of the Baseline Study modules
such as meteorology, human inuence and geography are not addressed
The publication is not for landll leachate. Even for landll gas the elements from 1 to 16 are either completely absent or very few
are partly covered to limited extent (as mentioned in the left column). From leachate point of view, all 116 are totally absent
Table 1 (continued)
Elements present
Elements absent
Kavazanjian et al.
(1995); Eisenbeis et al.
(1986); Jaggy (1996);
Asante-Duah (1996);
WDA (1994); Pieper
et al. (1997); DoE
(1995)
Element 1 is totally absent where as the other elements are described to various levels in a piece-meal fashion (as in indicated in the
left column) and thus these publications do not oer a categorical and sequential procedure for RA in a holistic manner for landll
leachate
SEPA (2002)
CPPD (2004)
DOE (1998)
The publication is not for anthropogenic activities in the rst place. Therefore does not consider landlls at all. It discusses various
natural hazards with statistics, but does not present a structured RA procedure. The elements from 1 to 16 above are absent
Not specically for landlls. All of the elements from 1 to 16 above are absent in the context of landll leachate
The publication is not specically for landlls. It just encapsulates all natural and anthropogenic hazards without presenting a
holistic RA procedure. The format is more like a checklist. In nutshell, all of the elements from 1 to 16 (above) are absent not only
for landlls but for any hazards in general
The purpose of this document is not the development of a holistic risk assessment methodology. The system presented is not for
landlls as such. The system emphasises more on determining the data required for technical decision making rather than on
following specic process steps for risk analysis. Elements 117 are completely and/or partly absent
These documents may be useful in risk analysis of landll leachate in the context of establishing neurotoxicity, reproductive
toxicity, ecological and carcinogenic aects of leachate pollutants. However, these publications are not produced specically from
the point of view of landll leachate and thus in this sense all of the elements indicated above are missing
957
Line missing
Apart from the aspect of liners and drainage systems, which form part of Site Management sub-module of the Baseline Study
above, the elements 116 are absent
Publication
CMSA (2004),
Puncochar (2003),
Koivisto et al. (2001),
Feldman and White
(1996), CHEM Unit
(2003), Pauluhn
(1999), Muth et al.
(2001), Tarazona and
Vega (2002)
These publications are regarding hazard These publications are not for landlls in the rst place. All the aforesaid elements are absent from the landll leachate perspective
and risk assessment in the context of these
respective subjects: mining, workplace,
genetically modied organisms,
neurology, indoor environment, ecology,
toxicology, food, and chemicals
958
The literature review by the authors led to the conclusion that a comprehensive, robust and sound risk assessment methodology only specically for landll leachate in
an integrated manner with features (examples below) does
not exist:
embedding individual procedures of relevant RA factors
such as hazard identication, exposure quantication,
hazards concentration assessment, and preliminary
investigation;
encompassing the various types of landll systems and
their surroundings;
covering all possible characteristics of landlls such as
landll 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 groups
such as toxic, non-toxic, carcinogenic, and non-carcinogenic hazards;
hazard concentration assessment at various links of a
given pathway, that is not only at the landll pollutant
source but also in other links of the pathway such as
exposure medium and within boundaries of targets/
receptors;
exposure assessment with exposure quantication. Also
the consideration of exposure not only to groundwater
courses but also other environmental receptors such as
surface waters, land/soil, ecosystems, humans, aquatic
and terrestrial ora and fauna;
employment of statistical description such as maximum,
minimum, and mean/most likely values of various
parameters involved in a RA process;
categorisation of values of each risk assessment factor
into two groups, one for assisting in working out most
likely risk scenario and other for worst case risk scenario;
encapsulating other features and scenarios such as
allowing for toxic, carcinogenic and non-carcinogenic
risks;
consideration of the three landll phases, which are preoperational stage (i.e., design and development phase),
in operation stage, and post operational stage (i.e., completed and post closure phase);
adhesion of quantitative aspects to various RA parameters so that risks are quantiable or can be measured
quantitatively;
provisions for the analysis of signicance or sensitivity
of characteristics and parameters of various RA items.
For instance, out of total number of pathways in a given
landll scenario which ones are insignicant to aect
and thus can be omitted from the risk assessment
process;
facilities for the assessment of uncertainties that may be
involved in dierent characteristics and parameters of
RA sections and sub-sections. Examples of such uncertainties are temporal and spatial variations and interpolation from animal data in toxicology;
959
960
961
962
963
964
Health and Safety Executive (HSE), 1998. Quantitative risk assessment for
oshore installations risk management. Oshore 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 directors
to identify and control business risks eectively. Director Publications
Ltd., May.
Jaggy, M., 1996. Risk analysis of landlls. In: Gheorghe, A.V. (Ed.),
Integrated Regional Health and Environmental Risk Assessment and
Safety Management. International Journal of Environment and
Pollution 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 in
Conjunction with the ASCE Convention, San Diego, USA, October
2327. American Society of Civil Engineers, New York.
Kent County Council (KCC), undated. Environmental Assessment
HAND BOOK. Published by the Planning Department, KCC
(Designed, Illustrated and Produced by County Visuals, Planning
Department, KCC).
Koivisto, R.A., Tormakangas, K.M., Kauppinen, V.S., 2001. Hazard
identication and risk assessment procedure for genetically modied
plants in the eld GMHAZID, vol. 8. Environmental Science and
Pollution Research, Ecomed Publishers.
LaGoy, P.K., 1994. Risk Assessment Principles and Applications for
Hazardous Waste and Related Sites. Noyes Publications.
Landcare Research (Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research a New
Zealand Crown Research Institute), 2003. Risk assessment model
reviews. <http://www.contamsites.landcareresearch.co.nz/risk_assessment_models_reviews.htm>.
Leavesley, G.H., Nicholson, T.J., 2005. Interagency steering committee on
multimedia environmental models (ISCMEM). <http://www.iscmem.org/WorkGroup_02.htm>, 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
analysis critical control point (HACCP) survey data. Final Report RTI
Project Number 6673.008, Research Triangle Institute (RTI), July.
National Exposure Research Laboratory (NERL), 2001. Signicant
ndings from the hazardous waste identication rule (HIWR) assessment. NERL Research Abstract, October.
Pauluhn, J., 1999. Hazard identication and risk assessment of pyrethroids 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 hazard
assessment in a municipal landll contaminated with industrial sewage
sludge. Chemosphere 34 (1), 121129.
Pacic Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), 2006a. Introduction to
MEPAS (Multimedia Environmental Pollutant Assessment System),
PNL. <http://mepas.pnl.gov/mepas/index/html>. Last updated: September 1.
Pacic Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL), 2006b. Framework for
Risk Analysis Multimedia Environmental Systems (FRAMES), PNL.
<http://mepas.pnl.gov/FRAMESV1/>. 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 and
application of human health and ecological risk assessment method-