Hazard assessment of waste disposal sites. Part 1: literature review

Hazard assessment of waste disposal sites. Part 1: literature review

Talib E. Butt*

Sustainability Centre in Glasgow (SCG), George Moore Building,

Built and Natural Environment, Glasgow Caledonian University,

Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK

Email: [email protected]

*Corresponding author

Henry A. Davidson

Saracen Environmental Services, 125 Oakdale Drive, Heald Green,

Cheadle, Cheshire, SK8 3SN, UK


Kehinde O.K. Oduyemi

Built and Natural Environment, Baxter Building,

University of Abertay Dundee, Bell Street, Dundee, DD1 1HG, UK


Abstract: A review of the literature and computer models from the perspectiveof hazard assessment approaches, particularly relating to the risk analysis ofwaste disposal sites, has been carried out. It was found that a comprehensivehazard assessment procedure covering all modules and sub-modules for landfillleachate does not exist. The same deduction also applies to landfill gas anddegraded landfill waste, although neither of these items is the focus of thispaper. A range of knowledge deficiencies is revealed in the literature studied todate. This paper, with reference to the relevant literature and models reviewed,discusses these knowledge gaps that, if bridged, can render the hazardassessment to be more holistic in itself, as well as more effective inunderpinning landfill risk assessments. This paper also briefly outlines the placeof hazard assessment in a risk analysis process.

Keywords: hazard assessment; landfill leachate; landfills; literature review; riskanalysis; waste disposal sites.

Reference to this paper should be made as follows: Butt, T.E., Davidson, H.A.and Oduyemi, K.O.K. (2008) ‘Hazard assessment of waste disposal sites. Part 1: literature review’, Int. J. Risk Assessment and Management, Vol. 10,Nos. 1/2, pp.88–108.

Biographical notes: Talib E. Butt is working for MWH (UK) Ltd as anEnvironmental Scientist and previously he was with the Environment Agency(England and Wales) as an engineer in flood risk assessment. He has passed hisPhD in environmental risk assessment. He has a BEng (Hons.) in MechanicalEngineering and gained his MSc in Waste Management from the University ofCentral Lancashire (England) in 1998. He has worked as a Research Fellow for

111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8

88 Int. J. Risk Assessment and Management, Vol. 10, Nos. 1/2, 2008

Copyright © 2008 Inderscience Enterprises Ltd.

Hazard assessment of waste disposal sites. Part 1: literature review 89

the Sustainability Centre in Glasgow (SCG) at the Glasgow CaledonianUniversity (Scotland). He has also worked for the Institute of EnvironmentalSciences (IES) at the University of Bangor (Wales) as a sustainabledevelopment practitioner, regarding knowledge transfer on national headlineindicators of sustainable development to a diverse range of sectors, includingcommercial, industrial, communities, private and public.

Henry Davidson has over 35 years’ experience in the waste industry, disposingof 14 million tonnes of municipal, commercial and some hazardous wastesduring his career. He has been an operational manager in both the refusecollection and disposal fields. He has operated 67 landfill sites and participatedin their acquisition, design, engineering and restoration. He has operated andmaintained five direct incineration plants, including heat recovery, as well ascomposting operations. He is an assessor/verifier for the Waste ManagementIndustry Training and Advisory Board (WAMITAB). He has lectured on a part-time basis to postgraduate students at the University of Central Lancashireon wastes management. He holds a BA (Hons) in Contemporary History andPolitics, and is a member of the Chartered Institute of Wastes Management andan Associate Member of the Institute of Road Transport Engineers.

Kehinde Oduyemi graduated from the University of Birmingham with a PhD in1987. He then joined the University of Cambridge as a researcher and a visitingfellow of Robinson College for a year and a half. He is currently a senior lecturerat the University of Abertay, Dundee, leading research studies on air qualitymodelling and management, landfill risk management and sediment mechanics.He is particularly interested in the development and validation of numericalmodels and frameworks, through an understanding of the physical mechanismsat work, and in the pursuit of solutions to practical problems.

1 Introduction

One of the very obvious environmental effects brought about by the advent of the

industrial revolution in the nineteenth century is waste production in massive amounts.

According to the philosophy of sustainable waste management, prevention, minimisation,

reuse, recycling, composting and waste-to-energy incineration are preferable to a landfill

option. However, most of the waste produced, particularly in the UK, is generally disposed

to landfills (DETR, 2000a). Waste disposal to landfills, in general, is an easy and cheap

waste management option that raises environmental concerns. During the process of waste

degradation, landfills produce waste products in three forms. These are solid (which is

degraded waste); liquid (that is leachate, which is water polluted with wastes); and gas

(usually referred to as landfill gas). Landfills, due to their aforementioned waste products,

have the potential to pollute the three principal environmental media – the atmosphere, the

lithosphere and the hydrosphere. Such pollution will be transmitted through these media

and will impact, either directly or indirectly, upon humans, the natural environment

(including aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna) and the built environment. Thus, the

hazards associated with landfills have to be assessed and managed to guard the

environment against landfill impacts on humans, flora, fauna, air, water and land.

There are many problems regarding the safe and efficient use of resources, in addition

to environmental concerns. These problems generally fall within the sphere of hazard

assessment and risk analysis. People have become much more concerned about hazards

and risks to health and the environment, and are requiring answers, not only for the present

111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8

generation, but also for the generations to come (Brebbia, 2000; Butt and Oduyemi, 2003).

The UK legislation has increasingly been addressing and guiding sustainable

environmental management in all areas, through a series of regulations. In line with this,

environmental issues and environmental legislation have increasingly followed a global

theme. Such legislation includes:

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

� EC Directive on Groundwater, (EC, 1980) and Groundwater Regulations, (SI, 1998)

� EU Directive on IPPC (Integrated Pollution Control and Prevention), (EU, 1996)

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

� Environmental Protection Act, 1990

� Environment Act, 1995

� Water Framework Directive (EC, 2000)

� Landfill Directive (EC, 1999)

� EC Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of Wild Fauna and

Flora – the Habitats Directive (EC, 1992).

In a similar manner to the growing environmental concerns and globalisation process

described above, the environmental legislation has started to impose risk assessment as a

tool for meeting legal requirements associated with waste hazards (Environment Agency,

1999; 2003a). For instance, for the protection of groundwater from landfill leachate, a risk

assessment requirement was legislatively introduced in the UK on 1 May 1994, through

Regulation 15 of the Waste Management Licensing Regulations (SI, 1994) and the

Groundwater Regulations (SI, 1998). The Landfill Directive (EC, 1999) is implemented

in England and Wales through the Landfill Regulations (SI, 2002), made under the

Pollution Prevention and Control (PPC) Act (England and Wales) 1999. The equivalent

legislation, which is called Landfill (Scotland) Regulations, has come out in Scotland

(SEPA, 2005a,b; SSI, 2000, 2003). Similarly, the advent of the Water Framework

Directive (EC, 2000), which will be transposed into UK legislation in the near future,

pushes the boundaries of the 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 flora (EC, 1992). It can

be deduced from all these legislative instruments that the ‘out of mind’ concept regarding

wastes is no longer applicable. To achieve the maximum protection of the environment

against hazards associated with landfill sites, all potential hazards must be identified and

risks associated with them analysed. Hazard assessment and risk analysis, vital tools for

environmental management, are increasingly being applied to landfill sites at the planning,

operational and completed stage (Environment Agency, 2003a; Kent County Council,

undated).

Despite the fact that Hazard Assessment (HA) lies at the heart of risk analysis and

management, in the literature review it was established by the authors that no risk

characterisation approach for landfill leachate has a holistic HA procedure embedded in it.

A similar case exists for the other two waste products of landfills which are landfill gas

111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8

90 T.E. Butt, H.A. Davidson and K.O.K. Oduyemi

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/267673332_Risk_analysis_VI_Simulation_and_hazard_mitigation_Risk_analysis_2008_6th_international_conference_in_computer_simulation_risk_analysis_and_hazard_mitigation_5-7_May_2008_Cephalonia_Greece?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-756a05eb5d58fe97b21137f8fa053a2f-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzgzMTgyNTtBUzoxMDIwOTg2Mjg3NzU5NTFAMTQwMTM1MzYxODY4OQ==


and degraded waste. However, these two waste products are not the focus of this paper.

This study points out knowledge gaps in the HA, not only as an entity in itself, but also in

the view of its connection with the risk analysis process. Therefore, the paper also briefly

touches on the relationship between hazard assessment and risk analysis.

2 Current status of the hazard assessment

Hazard assessment (HA) and risk analysis are relatively new and fast developing sciences.

This is not just in the context of landfills but also in relation to other environmental issues

and business fields (Auckland Regional Council, 2002; Brebbia, 2000; Butt and Oduyemi,

2003; CIWEM, 1999; CPPD, 2004; EHSC, 2002; HSE, 2003). However, the literature on

HA and risk analysis related to environmental issues has been the main focus of the

knowledge gap analysis. Table 1 contains some details of the literature reviewed. The

review of the literature shows that HA provides a foundation for an environmental risk

assessment process. The better and stronger this foundation, the more effective and

efficient the risk analysis and, subsequently, risk management. In a risk assessment

process, before consideration of the likelihood/probability of hazards hitting receptor(s),

and the consequent consequences (which is called ‘risk estimation’), the identification,

categorisation and analysis of all potential hazards, pathways, receptors and exposures

have to be carried out (which are parts of a ‘hazard assessment’ process) (CIRIA, 2001).

This output from the hazard assessment stage is used as input to risk estimation (see Figure

1). These two stages are constituents of a complete risk analysis process. Thus, HA is like

a subset to risk analysis, as shown in Figure 2.

111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8

Figure 1 Output of Hazard Assessment is input to Risk Estimation (RA = HA + R Esti)

Figure 2 Relationships between Hazard Assessment (HA) and Risk Analysis (RA)

Table 1 Literature review examples: discussion on features and elements of hazard assessment

present and absent

111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8

92 T.E. Butt, H.A. Davidson and K.O.K. OduyemiPu

blic

atio

nFe

atur

es a

nd e

lem

ents

pre

sent

Feat

ures

and

ele

men

ts a

bsen

t

Gold

er

This

publi

cati

on c

onsi

der

s ri

sk a

sses

smen

t A

ran

ge

of

feat

ure

s an

d e

lem

ents

are

abse

nt

incl

udin

g t

he

foll

ow

ing:

Ass

oci

ates

(2

002)

only

for

smal

l an

d c

lose

d l

andfi

lls.

It

bri

efly

men

tions

haz

ards

and r

isks

in t

he

conte

xt

of

1.

Haz

ard A

sses

smen

t pro

cedure

is

not

des

crib

ed i

n a

rea

dy-t

o-u

se a

nd

conta

min

atio

n o

f gro

undw

ater

; co

nta

min

atio

n

use

r-fr

iendly

form

at,

whic

h a

use

r co

uld

holi

stic

ally

foll

ow

fro

m t

he

star

t

of

surf

ace

wat

er;

gas

acc

um

ula

tion;

and

to e

nd,

in a

sel

f-guid

ing f

ashio

n.

Ther

e is

lac

k o

f in

tegra

tion o

f var

ious

dir

ect

exp

osu

re t

o c

onta

min

ated

soil

, sh

arp

par

ts

and s

ub-p

arts

as

wel

l as

a n

um

ber

of

feat

ure

s el

abora

ted b

elow

.

obje

cts

or

haz

ardous

gas

es.

Thes

e ar

e th

e fe

w

2.

Ther

e is

no B

asel

ine

Stu

dy a

spec

t co

ver

ing a

ll e

ight

module

s: g

eolo

gy,

scen

ario

s, w

hic

h t

his

publi

cati

on a

ddre

sses

hydro

logy,

hydro

geo

logy,

met

eoro

logy,

geo

gra

phy,

topogra

phy,

site

ver

y b

rief

ly.

engin

eeri

ng a

nd h

um

an i

nfl

uen

ce.

Det

ails

on t

hes

e ar

e des

crib

ed

else

wher

e (B

utt

and O

duyem

i, 2

000;

Butt

et

al.,

2008 –

P

art

2).

3.

The

iden

tifi

cati

on a

nd c

ateg

ori

sati

on o

f le

achat

e in

thes

e m

ain g

roups

nam

ely,

leac

hat

e quan

tity

haz

ard,

leac

hat

e q

ual

ity h

azar

ds,

pro

cess

and/o

r

layout

haz

ards

and h

arm

. fu

rth

er i

den

tifi

cati

on a

nd c

ateg

ori

sati

on f

or

leac

hat

e qual

ity h

azar

ds

into

the

foll

ow

ing g

roups:

poll

uta

nt

or

pro

per

ty;

toxic

, non-t

oxic

or

both

; an

d c

arci

nogen

ic,

non-c

arci

nogen

ic o

r both

.

more

det

ails

are

els

ewher

e (B

utt

et

al.,

2008 –

par

t 2).

4.

The

iden

tifi

cati

on a

nd c

ateg

ori

sati

on o

f poll

uta

nts

at

sourc

e (t

hat

is

a

giv

en l

andfi

ll),

pat

hw

ays

(incl

udin

g e

xposu

re m

ediu

m a

nd e

xposu

re

route

s) a

nd r

ecep

tors

/tar

get

s ar

e ab

sent.

Als

o t

her

e is

no s

yst

emat

ic

pro

cedure

for

mea

suri

ng o

r qu

anti

fyin

g e

xposu

re o

f re

cepto

rs t

o h

azar

ds,

cover

ing a

ll p

oss

ible

exposu

re r

oute

s via

whic

h h

azar

ds

can p

oss

ibly

ente

r, g

iven

rec

epto

r boundar

ies

such

as

inges

tion,

der

mal

route

s an

d

inhal

atio

n.

Ther

e is

no f

eatu

re o

r fa

cili

ty o

f ad

din

g u

p t

he

indiv

idual

exposu

res

from

thes

e ex

posu

re r

oute

s in

ord

er t

o w

ork

out

tota

l ex

posu

re

to a

giv

en r

ecep

tor/

targ

et r

om

a g

iven

haz

ard.

Furt

her

dis

cuss

ion w

ith

illu

stra

tions

is p

rovid

ed e

lsew

her

e (B

utt

et

al.,

2008 –

Par

t 2).



present and absent (continued)

111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8

Publ

icat

ion

Feat

ures

and

ele

men

ts p

rese

ntFe

atur

es a

nd e

lem

ents

abs

ent

5.

Cat

egori

sati

on o

f haz

ard c

once

ntr

atio

ns

into

four

gro

ups.

Thes

e ar

e

poll

uta

nt

conce

ntr

atio

ns

at s

ourc

e (i

.e.

landfi

ll),

pat

hw

ay a

nd

rece

pto

r/ta

rget

; an

d c

riti

cal

haz

ard c

once

ntr

atio

n.

Furt

her

more

, th

e In

itia

l

(or

bac

kgro

und),

rea

chin

g a

nd f

inal

conce

ntr

atio

ns

for

both

exposu

re

med

ium

and r

ecep

tor/

targ

et,

are

abse

nt.

How

ever

, in

the

case

of

a giv

en

rece

pto

r/ta

rget

, th

e te

rm ‘

Rea

chin

g c

once

ntr

atio

n’

is c

alle

d ‘

Inta

ke

conce

ntr

atio

n’.

More

det

ails

els

ewher

e (B

utt

and O

duyem

i, 2

003;

Butt

et

al., 2

008 –

Par

t 2)

6.

Ther

e is

no p

rese

nta

tion o

f a

holi

stic

HA

in t

his

publi

cati

on i

n t

he

firs

t

pla

ce,

ther

efore

, th

ere

is l

ack o

f m

utu

al i

nte

r-co

nnec

tions/

rela

tionsh

ips

bet

wee

n t

he

var

ious

module

s an

d s

ub-m

odule

s of

the

HA

pro

cess

. S

o t

he

publi

cati

on c

annot

and d

oes

no

t cl

earl

y i

den

tify

whic

h o

utp

ut

of

whic

h

module

or

sub-m

odule

wil

l be

an i

nput

to a

noth

er m

odule

or

sub-m

odule

.

7.

This

publi

cati

on d

oes

not

take

acco

unt

of

all

landfi

ll s

izes

, ty

pes

and

syst

ems.

Als

o i

t does

not

consi

der

lan

dfi

lls

in o

per

atio

n o

r in

the

pla

nnin

g

stag

e. I

n o

ther

word

s th

is p

ubli

cati

on i

s not

indep

enden

t of

landfi

ll s

ize

and s

tages

/phas

es w

hic

h a

re p

re-o

per

atio

nal

(i.

e. d

esig

n a

nd p

lannin

g

stag

e),

in-o

per

atio

n a

nd p

ost

-oper

atio

nal

(i.

e. c

lose

d a

nd c

om

ple

ted s

tage)

.

8.

Ther

e is

a l

ack o

f quan

tifi

cati

on f

eatu

res

that

ass

ist

in d

raw

ing q

uan

tita

tive

resu

lts

from

the

HA

pro

cess

of

a giv

en l

andfi

ll i

n o

rder

to b

e use

d i

n t

he

quan

tita

tive

risk

anal

ysi

s. D

etai

ls o

f su

ch q

uan

tifi

cati

on f

eatu

res

are

des

crib

ed e

lsew

her

e (B

utt

et

al.,

2008 –

Par

t 2)

9.

Sta

tist

ical

des

crip

tions

of

elem

ents

that

can

be

mea

sure

d n

um

eric

ally

are

not

wit

hin

the

scope

of

this

publi

cati

on.



111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8

94 T.E. Butt, H.A. Davidson and K.O.K. OduyemiPu

blic

atio

nFe

atur

es a

nd e

lem

ents

pre

sent

Feat

ures

and

ele

men

ts a

bsen

t

Envir

onm

ent

Agen

cy

Pro

vid

es g

uid

elin

es f

or

landfi

ll r

isk

This

publi

cati

on i

s th

e cl

ose

st t

o w

hat

the

auth

ors

are

att

empti

ng t

o a

chie

ve,

(2003a)

asse

ssm

ent

of

landfi

ll l

each

ate.

Haz

ards

are

whic

h i

s to

dev

elop n

ot

only

an e

ven

more

str

ateg

ic H

A p

roce

dure

pre

sente

d

consi

der

ed m

ainly

fro

m t

he

per

cepti

on o

f el

sew

her

e (B

utt

et

al., 2

008 –

Par

t 2),

but

also

such

an H

A f

ram

ework

gro

undw

ater

as

a re

cepto

r/ta

rget

. In

the

form

w

hic

h i

s re

adil

y a

nd a

lgori

thm

ical

ly c

onver

tible

into

a c

orr

espondin

g

of

a fl

ow

char

t dia

gra

m o

f ri

sk a

sses

smen

t co

mpute

r m

odel

that

would

ass

ist

the

pro

duct

ion o

f H

A s

imula

tions

and

pro

cess

, so

me

elem

ents

such

as

haz

ard

haz

ard i

ndic

es f

or

var

ious

landfi

ll s

cenar

ios.

This

publi

cati

on i

s not

read

ily

iden

tifi

cati

on,

risk

est

imat

ion a

nd

tran

sfer

able

into

such

a c

om

pute

r m

odel

and,

gen

erat

ing s

uch

haz

ard

crit

ical

/ t

hre

shold

conce

ntr

atio

ns

are

indic

es f

or

all

poss

ible

sce

nar

ios

is n

ot

in t

he

scope

of

this

docu

men

t. T

his

men

tioned

. S

om

e su

b-m

odule

s of

the

BS

, publi

cati

on h

as n

ot

bee

n p

repar

ed w

ith t

he

idea

of

dev

elopin

g s

uch

an

such

as

geo

logy a

nd h

ydro

geo

logy,

are

also

in

tegra

ted a

nd s

tand-a

lone

HA

syst

em,

whic

h c

ould

not

only

be

use

d

incl

uded

.se

par

atel

y b

ut

also

ren

der

a f

ound

atio

n i

n t

he

form

of

quan

tita

tive

resu

lts

(expla

ined

els

ewher

e, B

utt

et

al., 2

008 –

Par

t 2)

that

could

be

use

d a

s an

input

to t

he

risk

est

imat

ion s

tage,

to c

om

ple

te t

he

pro

cess

of

quan

tita

tive

risk

anal

ysi

s m

ore

holi

stic

ally

. S

om

e ex

ample

s of

item

s not

incl

uded

in t

he

rem

it o

f th

is p

ubli

cati

on a

re l

iste

d a

s fo

llow

s. E

xposu

re q

uan

tifi

cati

on i

s not

wit

hin

the

scope

of

the

publi

cati

on.

Apar

t fr

om

surf

ace

and g

round w

ater

s,

envir

onm

enta

l re

cepto

rs e

.g.

hum

ans,

eco

-syst

ems,

aquat

ic a

nd t

erre

stri

al

flora

and f

auna,

are

not

the

mai

n f

ocu

s. C

ateg

ori

sati

on o

f haz

ards

into

toxic

,

non-t

oxic

, ca

rcin

ogen

ic a

nd n

on-c

arci

nogen

ic s

trea

ms

so t

hat

haz

ard i

ndic

es

and r

isks

could

be

mea

sure

d a

nd a

ggre

gat

ed s

epar

atel

y a

long t

hes

e fo

ur

stre

ams.

Em

plo

ym

ent

of

stat

isti

cal

des

crip

tions

such

as

max

imum

, m

inim

um

and m

ost

-lik

ely v

alues

of

var

ious

quan

tifi

able

HA

par

amet

ers

in p

arti

cula

r to

assi

st i

n e

stab

lish

ing m

ost

-lik

ely a

nd w

ors

t-ca

se r

isk s

cenar

ios.

Though m

ost

of

the

Bas

elin

e S

tudy a

reas

are

indic

ated

, th

e B

asel

ine

Stu

dy h

as n

ot

bee

n

cate

gori

sed i

nto

a s

truct

ure

of

eight

hea

din

gs/

module

s as

pre

sente

d

else

wher

e (B

utt

et

al., 2

008 –

Par

t 2).

Bas

elin

e S

tudy m

odule

s on

met

eoro

logy a

nd g

eogra

phy a

re n

ot

par

ticu

larl

y i

n t

he

rem

it o

f th

is

publi

cati

on.

Furt

her

det

ails

of

thes

e ex

ample

s ar

e des

crib

ed e

lsew

her

e (B

utt

et a

l.,

2008 –

Par

t 2).




111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8

Publ

icat

ion

Feat

ures

and

ele

men

ts p

rese

ntFe

atur

es a

nd e

lem

ents

abs

ent

CIR

IA (

2001)

This

publi

cati

on i

s only

for

close

d l

andfi

ll

In-o

per

atio

nal

and p

re-o

per

atio

nal

lan

dfi

lls

are

excl

uded

. T

he

publi

cati

on i

s

site

s. B

oth

haz

ards

and r

isks

toget

her

are

not

spec

ific

ally

for

landfi

ll l

each

ate.

Though s

om

e of

the

HA

module

asp

ects

div

ided

into

thre

e ty

pes

nam

ely,

physi

cal,

m

enti

oned

in t

he

adja

cent

cell

of

the

table

) ar

e ta

ken

into

acc

ount

to a

n

chem

ical

/bio

-chem

ical

and p

hysi

co-c

hem

ical

. ex

tent,

it

is n

ot

to a

lev

el w

her

e th

ey c

ould

be

put

toget

her

in t

he

form

of

a

Thus,

it

do

es n

ot

dif

fere

nti

ate

bet

wee

n h

azar

d

cate

gori

cal

and s

equen

tial

HA

fra

mew

ork

(B

utt

et

al.,

2008 –

Par

t 2).

In

and r

isk f

or

thes

e th

ree

cate

gori

es.

Som

e su

mm

ary,

the

fact

ors

fro

m 1

to 8

above

are

par

tly c

over

ed t

o d

iffe

rent,

aspec

ts o

f so

me

HA

module

s (s

uch

as

haz

ard

lim

ited

deg

rees

and y

et n

ot

in a

holi

stic

form

at s

pec

ific

ally

for

landfi

ll

iden

tifi

cati

on,

exposu

re a

sses

smen

t an

d

leac

hat

e. F

acto

r 9 h

as n

ot

bee

n a

ddre

ssed

.

haz

ard c

on

centr

atio

n a

sses

smen

t),

are

addre

ssed

to a

n e

xte

nt.

Envir

onm

ent

This

docu

men

t bri

efly

addre

sses

a b

road

and

The

guid

ance

men

tions

that

it

does

not

pro

vid

e al

l th

e det

ail

nee

ded

to

Agen

cy (

2004)

div

erse

ran

ge

of

face

ts o

f la

ndfi

ll r

isk

conduct

ris

k a

nal

ysi

s fo

r a

landfi

ll.

As

the

docu

men

t it

self

sta

tes,

ther

e ar

e

anal

ysi

s al

ong t

he

soci

al,

tech

nic

al,

five

mai

n a

reas

, w

hic

h c

onst

itute

the

mai

n s

cope

of

the

guid

ance

(li

sted

in

envir

onm

enta

l, e

conom

ic,

legis

lati

ve

and

the

left

colu

mn).

Yet

lan

dfi

ll l

each

ate

is n

ot

one

of

them

, th

ough i

t is

man

ager

ial

them

es.

Both

lan

dfi

ll g

as a

nd

addre

ssed

to a

n e

xte

nt.

How

ever

, th

e au

thors

fin

d t

his

guid

ance

the

seco

nd

leac

hat

e ar

e ad

dre

ssed

. T

he

mai

n s

cope

of

close

st t

o w

hat

they

are

att

empti

ng t

o a

chie

ve,

that

is

dev

elop a

more

the

guid

ance

is

lim

ited

to f

ive

area

s of

risk

st

rate

gic

HA

fra

mew

ork

, w

hic

h i

s pre

sente

d e

lsew

her

e (B

utt

et

al.,

in

asse

ssm

ent,

whic

h a

re a

ccid

ents

and t

hei

r pre

ss –

Par

t 2).

How

ever

, th

e re

mit

of

this

publi

cati

on h

as n

ot

bee

n t

o p

repar

e

conse

quen

ces,

hydro

geo

logy,l

andfi

ll g

as,

such

an i

nte

gra

ted H

A p

roce

dure

as

a se

par

ate

enti

ty i

n i

tsel

f, w

hic

h c

ould

par

ticu

late

mat

ter,

and s

tabil

ity.

render

foundat

ion a

nd q

uan

tita

tive

resu

lts

in o

rder

to b

e use

d a

s an

input

to

risk

est

imat

ion.

to c

om

ple

te t

he

pro

cess

of

quan

tita

tive

risk

anal

ysi

s m

ore

holi

stic

ally

. S

om

e ex

ample

s ar

e li

sted

as

foll

ow

s. T

he

exposu

re

quan

tifi

cati

on a

spec

t is

abse

nt.

So

me

of

the

Bas

elin

e S

tudy m

odule

s, l

ike

met

eoro

logy,

hum

an i

nfl

uen

ce a

nd g

eogra

phy,

are

not

addre

ssed

. F

urt

her

det

ails

on t

hes

e ex

ample

s ar

e giv

en e

lsew

her

e (B

utt

et

al.,

2008 –

Par

t 2).



111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8


Publ

icat

ion

Feat

ures

and

ele

men

ts p

rese

ntFe

atur

es a

nd e

lem

ents

abs

ent

DE

TR

et

al.

(2000b)

The

docu

men

t pro

vid

es m

ater

ial,

in g

ener

al,

The

publi

cati

on a

ddre

sses

a r

ange

of

issu

es i

n g

ener

al (

list

ed i

n t

he

left

for

the

dev

elopm

ent

of

risk

anal

ysi

s co

lum

n).

But

the

focu

s is

not

sole

ly l

andfi

lls

or

landfi

ll l

each

ate,

rat

her

a

guid

ance

to a

ssis

t is

sues

lik

e co

nta

min

ated

host

of

envir

onm

enta

l haz

ards.

Ther

efore

it

is i

mm

ense

ly g

ener

al.

The

scope

land,

was

te m

anag

emen

t, a

nd m

ajor

of

this

publi

cati

on i

s not

to d

evel

op a

n i

nte

gra

ted s

tandal

one

HA

fra

mew

ork

acci

den

t h

azar

ds.

that

could

als

o a

ssis

t quan

tita

tive

risk

anal

ysi

s. F

or

inst

ance

, in

-dep

th

Bas

elin

e S

tudy i

n-h

ousi

ng t

he

eight

module

s does

not

fall

into

the

rem

it o

f

this

docu

men

t. C

oncl

usi

vel

y,

all

the

fact

ors

fro

m 1

to 9

above

are

abse

nt

in

the

conte

xt

of

bei

ng s

pec

ific

only

to l

andfi

ll l

each

ate.

Gre

gory

et

al.

(1999)

This

publi

cati

on i

s fo

r th

e ri

sk a

sses

smen

t L

andfi

ll l

each

ate

is n

ot

incl

uded

in t

his

publi

cati

on.

So t

he

fact

ors

1 t

o 9

of

landfi

ll g

as o

nly

. T

ouch

es o

n a

ran

ge

of

(above)

are

abse

nt

from

a l

andfi

ll l

each

ate

per

spec

tive.

risk

anal

ysi

s m

odule

s su

ch a

s gas

gen

erat

ion a

nd h

um

an e

xposu

re.

Red

fear

n e

t al

. T

his

publi

cati

on,

whic

h i

s a

pap

er,

is r

elat

ed

All

the

fact

ors

fro

m 1

to 9

above

are

abse

nt

n t

he

conte

xt

of

landfi

ll l

each

ate.

(2000)

to r

isk a

nal

ysi

s fo

r la

ndfi

ll g

as.C

onsi

der

s i

module

s su

ch a

s ex

posu

re a

sses

smen

t,

toxic

ity a

sses

smen

t an

d r

isk e

stim

atio

n.

Cle

men

t et

al.

T

hes

e tw

o p

aper

s (P

arts

1 a

nd 2

) ar

e on t

he

The

publi

cati

ons

are

not

on H

A a

t al

l. S

o a

ll t

he

fact

ors

1 t

o 9

above

are

(1996,

1997)

haz

ard a

nal

ysi

s of

landfi

ll l

each

ate.

They

ab

sent.

How

ever

, th

e te

chniq

ues

iden

tifi

ed o

n m

easu

ring t

he

toxic

ity o

f

dis

cuss

lea

chat

es f

rom

25 l

andfi

lls

in F

rance

la

ndfi

ll l

each

ate

can b

e use

ful

in e

xposu

re a

sses

smen

t an

d h

azar

d

as c

ase

stu

die

s w

ith a

num

ber

of

met

hods

of

conce

ntr

atio

n a

sses

smen

t m

odule

s of

HA

for

a giv

en l

andfi

ll l

each

ate.

But

det

erm

inin

g l

each

ate

toxic

ity a

nd t

hen

th

ese

pap

ers

stil

l do n

ot

pre

sent

pro

cedure

s holi

stic

ally

for

thes

e tw

o

com

par

ing

the

physi

co-c

hem

ical

m

odule

s as

par

t of

HA

.

char

acte

rist

ics

of

leac

hat

es.




111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8

Publ

icat

ion

Feat

ures

and

ele

men

ts p

rese

ntFe

atur

es a

nd e

lem

ents

abs

ent

EP

D (

1997)

This

publi

cati

on i

s a

guid

elin

e fo

r haz

ard

The

publi

cati

on i

s not

for

landfi

ll l

each

ate.

Even

for

landfi

ll g

as t

he

fact

ors

anal

ysi

s o

f la

ndfi

ll g

as.

It c

over

s var

ious

from

1 t

o 9

are

eit

her

com

ple

tely

abse

nt

or

par

tly c

over

ed t

o a

lim

ited

aspec

ts o

f th

e su

bje

ct s

uch

as

haz

ard

exte

nt

(as

men

tioned

in t

he

adja

cent

cell

of

the

table

). F

rom

the

leac

hat

e poin

t

mit

igat

ion

mea

sure

s an

d

of

vie

w,

fact

ors

1 t

o 9

are

tota

lly a

bse

nt.

sourc

e-pat

hw

ay-t

arget

anal

ysi

s ap

pro

ach.

Bar

dos

et a

l.

Thes

e tw

o a

rtic

les

touch

on s

om

e as

pec

ts o

f A

lthough l

andfi

ll i

s a

type

of

conta

min

ated

lan

d,

thes

e tw

o p

ubli

cati

ons

are

(2003a;

b)

haz

ard a

nd r

isk a

nal

ysi

s fr

om

the

per

spec

tive

not

spec

ific

ally

for

landfi

lls

and a

ll t

he

fact

ors

fro

m 1

to 9

above

are

abse

nt

of

conta

min

ated

lan

d.

from

the

per

spec

tive

of

landfi

ll l

each

ate.

Asa

nte

-Duah

S

om

e old

lit

erat

ure

(ex

ample

s giv

en i

n t

he

Fac

tor

1 i

s to

tall

y a

bse

nt

wher

eas

all

the

oth

er f

acto

rs a

ddre

ssed

to v

ario

us

(1996);

Eis

enbei

s le

ft c

olu

mn)

on l

andfi

ll a

sses

smen

t w

as

level

s in

a p

iece

-mea

l fa

shio

n (

as i

ndic

ated

in t

he

adja

cent

cell

of

the

table

)

et a

l. (

1986);

Jag

gy,

al

so s

tudie

d t

o f

ind o

ut

if t

her

e w

as a

ny

and t

hus

thes

e publi

cati

ons

do n

ot

off

er a

cat

egori

cal

and s

equen

tial

HA

(1996);

Kav

azan

jian

w

ork

done

on H

A i

n t

he

pas

t. T

hey

cover

ed

pro

cedure

in a

n i

nte

gra

ted f

ashio

n f

or

landfi

ll l

each

ate.

et a

l. (

1995)

and

var

ious

risk

anal

ysi

s is

sues

lik

e se

ism

ic

Pie

per

et

al.

(1997)

haz

ard a

nal

ysi

s fo

r la

ndfi

lls,

exposu

re

asse

ssm

ent,

bas

elin

e st

udy,

toxic

ity

asse

ssm

ent,

ris

k e

stim

atio

n,

spec

ific

lan

dfi

ll

type

and n

ature

, an

d s

pec

ific

haz

ards

such

as

poly

chlo

rinat

ed d

iben

zo-p

-dio

xin

s an

d

fura

ns

(PC

DD

/F).

SE

PA

(2002)

This

publi

cati

on r

egar

ds

landfi

ll r

isk

Apar

t fr

om

the

aspec

t of

liner

s an

d d

rain

age

syst

ems,

whic

h f

orm

par

t of

the

asse

ssm

ent

in t

he

conte

xt

of

landfi

llle

achat

e

Sit

e M

anag

emen

t m

odule

of

the

Bas

elin

e S

tudy,

fact

ors

1 t

o 9

(ab

ove)

are

liner

s an

d d

rain

age

syst

ems.

abse

nt.



111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8


Publ

icat

ion

Feat

ures

and

ele

men

ts p

rese

ntFe

atur

es a

nd e

lem

ents

abs

ent

Envir

onm

ent

This

lan

dfi

ll r

isk a

sses

smen

t publi

cati

on i

s T

he

publi

cati

on i

s not

about

landfi

ll l

each

ate

in t

he

firs

t pla

ce.

The

fact

ors

1

Agen

cy (

2003b)

from

the

per

spec

tive

of

issu

es i

ncl

udin

g

to 9

are

abse

nt.

nois

e; o

do

ur;

lit

ter;

bir

ds;

ver

min

and i

nse

cts

and

mud o

n t

he

road

.

Rudla

nd e

t al

. (2

001)

Des

crib

es a

bas

ic f

ram

ework

for

the

risk

A

lthough a

lan

dfi

ll i

s a

kin

d o

f co

nta

min

ated

lan

d,

this

publi

cati

on i

s not

asse

ssm

ent

of

conta

min

ated

lan

d.

spec

ific

ally

for

landfi

lls.

All

the

fact

ors

, fr

om

1 t

o 9

, ab

ove

are

abse

nt

from

the

landfi

ll l

each

ate

per

spec

tive.

Auck

land R

egio

nal

T

his

publi

cati

on,

whic

h i

s a

gover

nm

ent

The

publi

cati

on j

ust

enca

psu

late

s al

l nat

ura

l an

d a

nth

ropogen

ic h

azar

ds

Counci

l (2

002)

docu

men

t fo

r lo

cal

auth

ori

ties

, has

a

wit

hout

pre

senti

ng a

holi

stic

HA

fra

mew

ork

. In

a n

uts

hel

l, a

ll t

he

fact

ors

spec

ial

chap

ter

on H

Iden

but

in a

bro

ad

from

1 t

o 9

(ab

ove)

, ar

e ab

sent,

not

only

for

landfi

lls

but

any h

azar

ds

in

sense

of

haz

ards.

Thes

e in

clude

nat

ura

l gen

eral

.

haz

ards

such

as

torn

ado,

floodin

g,

eart

hquak

e; t

echnolo

gic

al h

azar

ds

like

hig

h

pre

ssure

gas

mai

ns,

com

pute

r sy

stem

s fa

ilure

;

bio

logic

al h

azar

ds

incl

udin

g d

isea

se a

mongst

peo

ple

, an

imal

s or

pla

nts

; an

d

civil

/poli

tica

l haz

ards,

com

pri

sing

terr

ori

sm a

nd c

ivil

unre

st.


A review of relevant literature by the authors led to the conclusion that a comprehensive,

robust, detailed and sound HA methodology, satisfying a range of features and elements

(examples listed below) does not exist. These, though briefly listed below, are discussed

in more detail elsewhere (Butt et al., 2008 – Part 2):

� embedding the individual procedures of the relevant modules and sub-modules such

as hazard identification, exposure quantification, hazard concentration assessment,

and preliminary investigation

� encompassing the various types of landfill systems and their surroundings

� covering all possible characteristics of landfills in terms of allowing, for instance, for

the most likely and worst case scenarios

� baseline study (including geology, hydrology, hydrogeology, meteorology,

geography, topography, site engineering and human influence)

� hazard identification and categorisation into groups such as toxic, non-toxic,

carcinogenic, and non-carcinogenic hazards

� hazard concentration assessment at various links of given pathways, not only at the

landfill pollutant source but also in other pathway links, such as exposure medium

and within boundaries of targets/receptors

� exposure assessment with exposure quantification. Also the consideration of

exposure not only to ground water courses but also other environmental receptors

such as surface waters, land/soil, ecosystems, aquatic and terrestrial flora and fauna,

including humans

� employment of statistical description such as maximum, minimum and mean/most

likely values of various parameters involved in HA process

� encapsulating other features and scenarios such as allowing for toxic, carcinogenic

and non-carcinogenic risks

� consideration of the three landfill phases, which are the pre-operational 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 the HA so that quantitative results are produced

to be used in the quantitative risk analysis.

Thus there are a number of knowledge gaps that have been discovered in the literature

reviewed to date. One of the most common of these knowledge deficiencies is the lack of

integration of a range of HA modules and sub-modules and scenarios under a holistic

umbrella of a hazard assessment framework for landfill leachate. The driving force behind

this research study is to make possible the development of such a computer-aided HA

model, which is comprehensive and yet specific to landfill leachate. The problem is that the

literature on HA is limited and indirect, and is written in a piecemeal manner. Brief remarks

on the review of some of the literature and the characteristics of the knowledge deficiencies

are contained in Table 1. Although various types of literature have been found covering

some of the above-listed aspects of HA to different levels, none of the literature seems to

have attempted to draw all of these features and elements together into astand-alone HA

system. The same is the case with computer models, as discussed below in Section 3.

111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8

3 Computer models

The development of computational methods and the ability to model systems more

precisely, enables hazards to be quantified, their effects to be simulated and risk analysis to

be pursued with greater accuracy, leading to more effective risk management. These

developments are not only important for all areas of human endeavour, but have particular

relevance to environmental issues, where the risks involved are increasingly seen as

substantial. However, the authors did not come across a computer model of hazard and risk

assessment that addressed the knowledge gaps indicated in Section 2 and briefed in Table 1.

It should be noted that in this study a computer model is seen as an electronic representation

of a procedure or methodology. Since a holistic HA procedure does not exist in the first

place, neither is there a corresponding computer model as, for the latter to be designed, the

former has to be developed beforehand. However, still on the basis of some examples

below, some types of software are discussed to establish the state of the art.

An investigation of the various relevant computer models that are recognised to be

closely related to landfills was undertaken, namely,

� LandSim (Environment Agency, 2003c; 2001; 1996)

� HELP – Hydro-geological Evaluation of Landfill Performance (Scientific Software

Group, 1998)

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

� GasSimLite (Environment Agency, 2002b)

� RIP – Repository Integration Programme (Golder Associates, 1998; Landcare

Research, 2003).

The first four computer programmes are specifically designed for landfills, although

features of the RIP were subsequently extended to take landfills into account on a

comparatively large scale. The other software types examined by the authors are not

demonstrably related to landfill hazards and risks, although they could be used to underpin

some of the aspects of hazard assessment for landfills. For instance, the Drill Guide

(Scientific Software Group, 1997/98) is useful in the sense that it can be included in the

geology module of the baseline study of a given landfill, which consequently will help in

the HA process.

As far as the software packages specifically for landfills are concerned, they do not

holistically encapsulate all the factors of HA for landfill leachate. For example, the

LandSim software, which is purely for landfills, probabilistically estimates likely

concentrations of leachate pollutants that can reach a given point in the ground (such as

groundwater abstraction point) in a certain time, in terms of years. It also allows for

temporal and spatial variations. However, it does not include the quantification aspect of

exposure analysis, for instance, what would be the amount of exposure for people (or

livestock) if they were to consume this groundwater. Therefore, the LandSim’s

characteristic of pollutant concentration estimation in an exposure medium such as

groundwater can be taken a step further to quantify exposure (for receptors like livestock,

a fish farm or even an eco-system), which would render the HA more comprehensive and

quantitative for risk analysis. Furthermore, it is a tool mainly focusing on groundwater as

a receptor and not particularly on other environmental receptors such as human

111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253631459_DEVELOPMENT_OF_A_LANDFILL_GAS_RISK_ASSESSMENT_MODEL_GASSIM?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-756a05eb5d58fe97b21137f8fa053a2f-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzgzMTgyNTtBUzoxMDIwOTg2Mjg3NzU5NTFAMTQwMTM1MzYxODY4OQ==


population, livestock or crops in a farm field. Thus, LandSim can be a part of the total HA

but it is not the total HA model itself. Similarly, the HELP programme contains only some

aspects of HA. These are mainly the design features of landfill (such as liners, capping)

and some of the baseline study aspects (like precipitation, surface runoff), with it not

addressing many other HA modules and sub-modules. The software GasSim, although

dealing with some relevant hazard and risk assessment modules (including gas generation,

migration and impact and exposure), as the name GasSim suggests, it is designed for

assessing landfill gas, and not for leachate. The GasSimLite is also developed from the

perspective of landfill gas only and can also only be used in terms of calculating gas

emissions. As with the other models mentioned, both GasSim and GasSimLite are not

holistic HA models in a categorical and algorithmic sense.

On the other hand the RIP, which is an integrated probabilistic simulator for

environmental systems, was not originally developed specifically for the hazard and risk

assessment of landfills. It was designed generally for any potential pollutant source in the

ground, such as a chemical storage tank. So with the RIP, which is a generic software,

users have to adapt it to their specific problems such as landfills. This adaptation is time

consuming and not an easy task for everyone (Miller, 1998). Although RIP can be applied

to landfills for issues such as contaminant release and transport, it does not readily provide

such a straightforward complete HA system for landfill leachate, which a user could

follow in a sequential and systematic fashion. GoldSim is another general-purpose

simulation software to support an even wider variety of applications, most of which fall

into one of the following three categories: environmental systems modelling, business and

economic modelling, and engineered system modelling (GoldSim Technology Group,

2003). Thus it outgrows even the RIP in terms of generics and, in parallel to RIP, users

have to learn how to adapt the GoldSim to their specific problems.

SADA (Spatial Analysis and Decision Assistance) is a software that incorporates tools

from environmental assessment fields into an effective problem solving environment

(TIEM, 2006). These tools include integrated modules for visualisation, geo-spatial

analysis, statistical analysis, human health assessment, ecological assessment, cost/benefit

analysis, sampling design and decision analysis. Out of this wide range of tools or

modules, only two more relevant than the others are selected to describe here as examples.

The Human Health related module provides a full human health assessment and associated

databases from a range of land use scenarios. These include residential, industrial,

agricultural, recreational and excavation, but not specifically landfills. The ecology related

module is another unit of the SADA which allows users to perform benchmark screenings

and gives them the ability to calculate forward impacts to a number of terrestrial and

aquatic receptors that are currently being added. Even after this module has been fully

developed, it may only be helpful to an extent to address only two aspects of landfill

hazard assessments. Firstly, assisting in identifying a whole range of environmental

receptors (both aquatic and terrestrial) and yet for humans as receptors, the user will still

have to consult the former module i.e. Human Health module. Secondly, in establishing

critical concentration levels, which is only a factor of the Concentration Assessment section

of the overall hazard assessment framework presented in Butt et al. (2008 – Part 2). It

seems that SADA is a bunch of many types of software, addressing many different

scenarios. A landfill assessor would have to work on picking the right combinations of

these different types of software each time they are carrying out a landfill hazard analysis

and yet SADA will not provide for each and every facet of the landfill hazard analysis in

111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8

a readily useable format. Moreover, as the title speaks for itself, the focus of the ‘Spatial

Analysis and Decision Assistance’ appears to be more on the spatial than the temporal.

ARAMS (Adaptable Risk Assessment Modelling System), is a computer-based,

modelling and database driven analysis system developed for the US Army for estimating

the human and ecological health impacts associated with military relevant compounds

(MRCs) and other constituents (ERDC, 2006). The ARAMS takes various existing

databases and models for exposure, intake and effects (health impacts) and incorporates

them into conceptual site-models. The user may need to choose which particular model

and/or database to use for each scenario. The heart of ARAMS is the object-orientated

Conceptual Site Model (CSM) but that relies on yet another computer programme called

FRAMES, discussed below. Thus it is not an easy task to adapt ARAMS into a landfill

leachate scenario every time, if a landfill assessor decides to use ARAMS. Moreover,

ARAMS appears to concentrate mostly on the exposure assessment facet, which is just a

part of a total hazard assessment and not the total hazard assessment itself. It does not have

other facilities such as a baseline study section comprising, for instance, geology,

hydrology, hydrogeology, topography, etc., that are necessary in a landfill hazard analysis.

Similarly, MEPAS (Multimedia Environmental Pollutant Assessment System) is another

computer-based programme which is a suite of environmental models developed to assess

contaminated environmental problems for government, industrial and international clients

(PNNL, 2006a). The software integrates transport and exposure pathways for chemical

and radioactive releases, to determine their potential impact on the surrounding

environment, individuals and populations. MEPAS modules have been integrated into the

FRAMES software platform, to allow MEPAS models to be used with other

environmental models to accomplish the desired analysis. In the context of landfills, the

situation with MEPAS is not much different than that of ARAMS. Both the computer

programmes do not and are not to present an overall hazard assessment methodology of

landfill leachate with the intent of holism.

FRAMES (Framework for Risk Analysis Multimedia Environmental Systems) is a

software platform for selecting and implementing environmental software models for risk

assessment and management problems which may even include electronic governance

issues (Evangelidis, 2003). In other words, the purpose of FRAMES is to assist users in

developing environmental scenarios and to provide options for selecting the most

appropriate computer codes to conduct human and environmental management analyses

(PNNL, 2006b). This programme is a flexible and overall approach to understanding how

industrial activities affect humans and the environment. It incorporates models that

integrate across scientific disciplines, allowing for tailored solutions to specific activities,

and it provides meaningful information to business and technical managers. FRAMES is

the key to identifying, analysing and managing potential environmental, safety and health

impacts. It is obvious from this discussion that FRAMES is a hugely generic programme,

and yet it does not contain a software for a landfill leachate scenario which could guide a

landfill assessor to perform a landfill hazard analysis with the wide range of hazard

assessment features listed in Section 2.

The RESRAD is a combination of two words RESidual and RADiation (DMS, 2006),

which is used as an acronym for Residual Radiation environmental analysis (Farlex,

2006). The RESRAD is a family of computer codes to provide a scientifically based

answer to the question ‘how clean is clean’ and to provide useful tools for evaluating

likely impacts on human health from residual contamination (EAD, 2006a). These codes

include (EAD, 2006a,b):

111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8


https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228360194_FRAMES-a_risk_assessment_framework_for_e-services?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-756a05eb5d58fe97b21137f8fa053a2f-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzgzMTgyNTtBUzoxMDIwOTg2Mjg3NzU5NTFAMTQwMTM1MzYxODY4OQ==


� RESRAD, for soil contaminated with radio-nuclides

� RESRADBUILD, for buildings contaminated with radio-nuclides

� RESRAD-CHEM, for soil contaminated with hazardous chemicals

� RESRADBASELINE, for assessments against measured (baseline) concentrations of

both radio-nuclides and chemicals in environmental media

� RESRAD-ECORISK, for ecological assessments

� RESRAD-RECYCLE, for the recycling and reuse of radio-logically contaminated

metals and equipment

� RESRAD-OFFSITE, for an off-site receptor dose.

From the above it is obvious that none of the family members is specifically for landfill

leachate, although addressing a range of various environmental issues and aspects. Even

if these are used in combination, they are not able to address all factors and aspects of the

hazard analysis of landfill leachate, for instance, landfill phases, detailed and categorical

baseline study, etc. Furthermore, to combine these into a landfill leachate context alone

would be a cumbersome task to execute each time a landfill hazard analysis is performed

for different landfill scenarios. However, there is no stopping landfill assessors processing

landfill data sets using any of these seven codes (or any other software) while they carry

out a landfill hazard analysis, following the holistic framework presented in Butt et al.

(2008). For instance, RESRAD-CHEM considers nine exposure pathways including the

inhalation of dust and volatiles, ingestion of plant foods, meat, milk, soil, aquatic food and

water and dermal absorption from soil and water contact. This code may help address

aspects of exposure assessment, which is only one unit of the total hazard analysis process.

However, this code is no longer being updated (EAD, 2006c).

The ConSim programme is a tool for assessing the hazards and risks that are posed to

groundwater quality by pollutants migrating from contaminated land (Whittaker et al.,

2001). The authors find that this has not been specifically designed for use with landfills;

particularly when landfills have a leachate head and/or liners, which is very likely with

modern engineered landfills (Environment Agency, 2003d). The CLEA (Contaminated

Land Exposure Assessment) software considers risks posed by hazards to human health

only and not to other environmental receptors such as plants, animals, buildings and

controlled waters (Environment Agency, 2003e). Pathways are considered only from the

perspective of soil as an exposure medium and not leachate (Environment Agency et al.,

2002). As for ConSim, the CLEA programme has been designed for use with

contaminated land and not specifically for landfills (DEFRA and Environment Agency,

2002a) and once again, neither ConSim nor CLEA offer an overall HA model for landfill

leachate. RISC-HUMAN 3.1, RUM and Vlier-Humaan (Van Hall Instituut of Business

Center, 2000, 2001 and 2002, respectively) are three other software packages relating to

HA and risk analysis with the main emphasis on exposure assessment. However, once

again, they are designed for use with contaminated land and not specifically for landfills.

In summary, in the light of the above investigation the authors establish that there is no

total HA computer model that contains all the HHA modules and sub-modules and

satisfies the other features which are listed in Section 2 and Table 1.

111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/247831777_Hazard_assessment_of_waste_disposal_sites_Part_2_A_holistic_approach_for_landfill_leachates?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-756a05eb5d58fe97b21137f8fa053a2f-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzgzMTgyNTtBUzoxMDIwOTg2Mjg3NzU5NTFAMTQwMTM1MzYxODY4OQ==


4 Concluding remarks

Landfills, even though they have very high potentials to pollute the environment, are

inevitable and currently very necessary. So, hazard assessment and risk analysis are

effective tools to guard the environment against landfills. On the other hand, there is no

integrated landfill risk assessment methodology which could guide the risk analysis

process for a given landfill leachate from the baseline study through hazard identification,

hazards concentration assessment, exposure assessment to the risk quantification. Various

knowledge deficiencies have been found in the literature reviewed to date and a holistic

procedure of Hazard Assessment (HA) is one of them. Another significance is that the HA

provides the foundation for the whole risk analysis structure. It is the HA’s output, which

when combined with Risk Estimation aspects, becomes risk analysis. This is discussed in

more detail elsewhere (Butt et al., 2008). Risk analysis cannot exist without HA, as the

latter is vital for the former. This research assists the authors in recognising the necessity

for, identify knowledge gaps in and establish bases for, developing a more holistic

framework of an algorithmic and quantitative methodology of hazard assessment for

landfill leachate in an integrated manner (Butt et al., 2008).

Acknowledgements

The authors acknowledge the financial support of Dundee City Council in this project. We

are additionally grateful for the discussion and help received from Mr Peter Goldie of the

Environment and Consumer Protection Department, Dundee City Council. The support

from Stephen Washburn (Managing Principal, ENVIRON, New Jersey, USA) and

colleagues from the University of Abertay, Dundee, including Dr Iain Spence, Mr Phillip

Jenkins and Mr Alex Ingles is also much appreciated.

References

Asante-Duah, D.K. (1996) Managing Contaminated Sites: Problem Diagnosis and Development ofSite Restoration, John Wiley and Sons Ltd.

Attenborough, G.M., Hall, D.H., Gregory, R.G. and McGoochan, L. (2002) ‘Development of alandfill gas risk assessment model: GasSim’, in Proceedings for Solid Waste Association ofNorth America, 25th Annual Landfill Gas Symposium, pp.25–28, Monterey, CA, March.

Auckland Regional Council (2002) ‘Hazard identification and risk assessment for local authorities – Hazard Guideline No. 2, Technical Publication No. 106’, Auckland LocalAuthority Hazard Liaison Group, (September).

Bardos, P., Nathanail, P. and Nathanail, J. (2003a) ‘How do you treat contaminated sites?’, WastesManagement, pp.20–23, CIWM (Chartered Institute of Wastes Management), (September).

Bardos, P., Nathanail, P. and Nathanail, J. (2003b) ‘Risk Assessment – Have you got a realproblem?’, Wastes Management, pp.44–46, CIWM (Chartered Institute of WastesManagement), (November).

Brebbia, C.A. (Ed) (2000) Risk Analysis II – Second International Conference on ComputerSimulation in Risk Analysis and Hazard Mitigation, Bologna, Italy, 11–13 Oct, WIT Press.

111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8







https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285840703_How_do_you_treat_contaminated_sites?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-756a05eb5d58fe97b21137f8fa053a2f-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzgzMTgyNTtBUzoxMDIwOTg2Mjg3NzU5NTFAMTQwMTM1MzYxODY4OQ==

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/285840703_How_do_you_treat_contaminated_sites?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-756a05eb5d58fe97b21137f8fa053a2f-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzgzMTgyNTtBUzoxMDIwOTg2Mjg3NzU5NTFAMTQwMTM1MzYxODY4OQ==




Butt, T.E. and Oduyemi, K.O.K. (2000) ‘Significance of baseline study in landfill risk assessment’,Risk Analysis II – Second International Conference on Computer Simulation in Risk Analysisand Hazard Mitigation, Bologna, Italy, pp.93–103, 11–13 Oct, WIT Press.

Butt, T.E. and Oduyemi, K.O.K. (2002) ‘A holistic approach to concentration assessment of hazardsin the risk assessment of landfill leachate’, Environment International, Elsevier Science Ltd.,Vol. 28, No. 7, pp.597–608.

Butt, T.E., Davidson, H.A. and Oduyemi, K.O.K. (2008) ‘Hazard assessment of waste disposal site: Part 2 – a holistic approach for landfill leachates’, Int. J. Risk Assessment andManagement, Vol. 10, Nos.1/2, pp.109–129.

CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and Information Association) (2001) Remedial Engineeringfor Closed Landfill Sites, C 557, CIRIA, London.

CIWEM (the Chartered Institution of Water and Environmental Management) (1999)Environmental Risk, Scottish Annual Symposium, Edinburgh Conference Centre, Organisedby CIWEM Scottish Branch, (Tuesday, 16 November).

Clement, B., Persoone, C., Janssen, C. and Le Dû-Delepierre, A. (1996) ‘Estimation of the hazardof landfills through toxicity testing of leachates – 1. Determination of leachate toxicity with abattery of acute tests’, Chemosphere, Vol. 33, No. 11, pp.2303–2320, Elsevier Science Ltd.

Clement, B., Persoone, C., Janssen, C. and Le Dû-Delepierre, A. (1997) ‘Estimation of the hazardof landfills through toxicity testing of leachates – 2. Comparison of physico-chemicalcharacteristics of landfill leachates with their toxicity determined with a battery of tests’,Chemosphere, Vol. 35, No. 11, pp.2783–2796, Elsevier Science Ltd.

CPPD (Cumberland Plateau Planning District) (2004) Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment(Draft), Dewberry, (24 February).

DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) and Environment Agency (2002)The Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment Model (CLEA): Technical basis and algorithms,R and D Publication CLR 10, Document prepared by the National Groundwater andContaminated Land Centre of the Environment Agency.

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

DETR (Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions) (2000b) Environment Agencyand the Institute for the Environment and Health. Guidelines for Environment Risk Assessmentand Management. The Stationary Office, London.

DMS (Decision Mapping System) (2006) DMS Glossary, nalu.geog.washington.edu/dms/glossary/_content.html, DMS, (Downloaded, 1 November)

EAD (Environmental Assessment Division) (2006a) RESRAD Program, http://www.ead.anl.gov/project/images/pa/20resrad.pdf, Argonne National Laboratory.

EAD (Environmental Assessment Division) (2006b) RESRAD Program, http://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/documents/anlrares.pdf, Argonne National Laboratory.

EAD (Environmental Assessment Division) (2006c) RESRAD-Chem, http://web.ead.anl.gov/resrad/home2/chem.cfm, Argonne National Laboratory, (Downloaded, 1 November).

EC (European Community) (1980) Groundwater Directive, 80/68/EEC.

EC (European Community) (1985) Directive on EIA (Environmental Impact Assessment), (i.e. 85/337/EEC) which came into effect in July 1988.

EC (European Community) (1992) Directive on the Conservation of Natural Habitats and of WildFauna and Flora (the Habitats Directive), 92/43/EEC.

EC (European Community) (1999) Landfill Directive, 99/31/EC.

EC (European Community) (2000) Water Framework Directive, 2000/60/EC.

EHSC (Environment, Health and Safety Committee) (2002) Notes on Risk Assessment at Work,Version 2, RSoC (Royal Society of Chemistry), (June).

111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/10971829_A_holistic_approach_to_Concentration_Assessment_of_hazards_in_the_risk_assessment_of_landfill_leachate?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-756a05eb5d58fe97b21137f8fa053a2f-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzgzMTgyNTtBUzoxMDIwOTg2Mjg3NzU5NTFAMTQwMTM1MzYxODY4OQ==






https://www.researchgate.net/publication/221987029_Estimation_of_the_hazard_of_landfills_through_toxicity_testing_of_leachates-I_Determination_of_leachate_toxicity_with_a_battery_of_acute_tests?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-756a05eb5d58fe97b21137f8fa053a2f-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzgzMTgyNTtBUzoxMDIwOTg2Mjg3NzU5NTFAMTQwMTM1MzYxODY4OQ==



https://www.researchgate.net/publication/223159861_Estimation_of_the_hazard_of_landfills_through_toxicity_testing_of_leachates_II_Comparison_of_physico-chemical_characteristics_of_landfill_leachates_with_their_toxicity_determined_with_a_battery_of_tes?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-756a05eb5d58fe97b21137f8fa053a2f-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzgzMTgyNTtBUzoxMDIwOTg2Mjg3NzU5NTFAMTQwMTM1MzYxODY4OQ==




Eisenbeis, J.J., Montgomery, R.H. and Sanders, T.G. (1986) ‘A risk assessment methodology forhazardous waste landfills’, Geotechnical and Geohydrological Aspects of Waste Management,8th Geohydro Waste Management Symposium, USA (Fort Collins), pp.417–426, (February).

Environment Act (EA) (1995) The Stationary Office, London.

Environment Agency (1996) LandSim Performance Simulation by the Monte Carlo Method (aLandSim Software Manual), Golder Associates Ltd.

Environment Agency (1999) Internal Guidance on the Interpretation and Application of Regulation15 of the Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (The Protection of Groundwater withrespect to Landfill).

Environment Agency (2001) LandSim, Release 2 (V.2.02) – Landfill Performance Simulation byMonte Carlo Method, Environment Agency, RandD Publication 120.

Environment Agency (2002a) DEFRA (Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs) andSEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency), Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment,(CLEA) Model, CLEA 2002 – Version 1.3, User Manual. Environment Agency, DEFRA andSEPA.

Environment Agency (2002b) GasSimLite User Manual, Golder Associates.

Environment Agency (2003a) ‘Hydrogeological risk assessments for landfill and the derivation ofgroundwater control and trigger levels’, Environment Agency.

Environment Agency (2003b) Procedure for identifying risks from landfills, Version 1.2,Environment Agency, (December).

Environment Agency (2003c) LandSim 2.5 – Groundwater risk assessment tool for landfill design.Environment Agency, Bristol.

Environment Agency (2003d) Contaminant iImpact on Groundwater: Simulation by Monte CarloMethod, ConSim Version 2, R and D Publication 132, Golder Associates.

Environment Agency (2003e) Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) http://www.environment?agency.gov.uk/subjects/landquality, Downloaded November.

Environment Agency (2004) Guidance on Assessment of Risks from Landfill Sites, Externalconsultation version 1.0, Environment Agency, Bristol. (May).

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

EPD (Environmental Protection Department) (1997) Hong Kong Government (Waste FacilitiesDevelopment Group), Landfill Gas Hazard Assessment Guidance Note, Report NumberEPD/TR8/97, EPD.

ERDC (Engineer Research and Development Center) (2006) ARAMS, an Adaptable RiskAssessment Modelling System, US Army Corps of Engineers, http://www.erdc.usace.army.mil, (August).

EU (European Union) (1996) adopted a directive (96/61/EU) on Integrated Pollution Prevention andControl (IPPC) in September .

Evangelidis, A. (2003) ‘FRAMES – a risk assessment framework for e-services’, Electronic Journalof e-Government, Vol. 2, No.1, pp.21–30.

Farlex, Inc. (2006) The Free Dictionary, http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/RESRAD, Farlex,(1 November).

Golder Associates (2002) Risk Assessment for Small and Closed Landfills – Small and ClosureCriteria, Application 4176, Golder Associates (NZ) Ltd, (December).

Golder Associates (2003) GasSim – landfill gas risk assessment tool, GasSim Technical Summary(PDF Format), http://www.gassim.co.uk/GasSim_TS_final.pdf, Golder Associates,Downloaded Dec.

Golder Associates (UK) Ltd (1998) RIP (Repository Integration Programme) (IntegratedProbabilistic Simulator for Environmental Systems), http://www.golder.com/rip/intro.htm#What.

111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8




https://www.researchgate.net/publication/281580184_A_risk_assessment_methodology_for_hazardous_waste_landfills_geotechnical_geohydrological_aspects_of_waste_management?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-756a05eb5d58fe97b21137f8fa053a2f-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzgzMTgyNTtBUzoxMDIwOTg2Mjg3NzU5NTFAMTQwMTM1MzYxODY4OQ==




GoldSim Technology Group LLC (2003) GoldSim (Probabilistic User Environment), Version 8.01,User’s Guide, GoldSim Technology Group LLC, (October).

Gregory, R.G., Revans, A.J., Hill, M.D., Meadows, M.P., Paul, L. and Ferguson, C.C. (1999) ‘Aframework to assess risks to human health and the environment from landfill gas’, R and DTechnical Report 271, Under Contract CWM168/98, Environment Agency.

HSE (Health and Safety Executive) (2003) Five Steps to Risk Assessment, HSE, (Revision 1, July).

Jaggy, M. (1996) ‘Risk Analysis of landfills’, in Gheorghe, A.V. (ed.) Integrated Regional Healthand Environmental Risk Assessment and Safety Management, Int. J. of Environment andPollution, Vol. 6, Nos. 4–6, pp.537–545, Inderscience Enterprise Ltd.

Kavazanjian, E. Jr., Bonaparte, R., Johnson, G.W., Martin, G.R. and Matasovic, N. (1995) ‘Hazardanalysis for a large regional landfill’, Proceedings of the Geotechnical Engineering Division ofthe ASCE in Conjunction with the ASCE Convention, San Diego, CA. Oct 23–27. ASCE(American Society of Civil Engineers).

Kent County Council (KCC) (undated) (Designed, Illustrated and Produced by County Visuals,Planning Department, KCC), Environmental Assessment Handbook, published by the PlanningDepartment, Kent County Council.

Landcare Research (Manaaki Whenua Landcare Research – a New Zealand Crown ResearchInstitute), Risk Assessment Model Reviews, http://www.contamsites.landcareresearch.co.nz/risk_assessment_models_reviews.htm, 2003.

Miller, I. (1998) Personal communication, Golder Associates, UK.

Pieper, A., Lorenz, W., Kolb, M. and Bahadir, M. (1997) ‘Determination of PCDD/F(polychlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxins and furans) for hazard assessment in a municipal landfillcontaminated with industrial sewage sludge’, Chemosphere, Vol. 34, No. 1, pp.121–129,Pergamon.

PNNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) (2006a) Introduction to MEPAS (MultimediaEnvironmental Pollutant Assessment System), PNL, http://mepas.pnl.gov/mepas/index/html,(Last updated, 1 September).

PNNL (Pacific Northwest National Laboratory) (2006b) FRAMES (Framework for Risk AnalysisMultimedia Environmental Systems), PNL, http://mepas.pnl.gov/FRAMESV1/, (last updated,24 January).

Redfearn, A., Roberts, R.D. and Dockerty, J.C. (2000) ‘Analysis and application of human healthand ecological risk assessment methodologies for landfills’, Proceedings Waste 2000, WasteManagement at the Dawn of the Third Millennium, pp.455–464, England, (2–3 October).

Rudland, D.J., Lancefield, R.M. and Mayell, P.N. (2001) ‘Contaminated land risk assessment – aguide to good practice’, CIRIA C552, CIRIA (Construction Industry Research and InformationAssociation).

Scientific Software Group (1997/98) Environmental Software and Publications (Catalogue),Washington, DC 20020 3041, http://www.siosoftware.com.

Scientific Software Group (1998) Environmental Software and Publications (Catalogue),Washington, DC 20020 3041, http://www.scisoftware.com/products/visual_help_details/visual_help_details.html, .

SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) (2002) Framework for Risk Assessment forLandfill Sites – The Geological Barrier, Mineral Layer and the Leachate Sealing and DrainageSystem, SEPA, (August).

SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) (2005a) SEPA Technical Guidance Note – Hydrogeological Risk Assessment for Landfills and the Derivation of Control andTrigger Levels, Version 2.12, SEPA, (April).

SEPA (Scottish Environment Protection Agency) (2005b) Guidance: Landfill Directive: Guidanceon Monitoring of Landfill Leachate, Groundwater and Surface Water,http://www.sepa.org.uk/guidance/landfill_directive/monitoring.htm, SEPA.

111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279854274_Hazard_Analysis_for_a_Large_Regional_Landfill?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-756a05eb5d58fe97b21137f8fa053a2f-XXX&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzI0NzgzMTgyNTtBUzoxMDIwOTg2Mjg3NzU5NTFAMTQwMTM1MzYxODY4OQ==




SI (Statutory Instrument) UK 1994 Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, SI No. 1056,Crown Copyright.

SI (Statutory Instrument) (1998) The Groundwater Regulations 1998, SI No. 2746, CrownCopyright.

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

SI (Statutory Instrument) UK (2005) Waste Management Licensing (Amendment and RelatedProvisions) Regulations 2005, SI No. 803.

SSI (Scottish Statuary Instrument) UK (2000) The Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland)Regulations 2000, SSI No. 323, Crown Copyright.

SSI (Scottish Statuary Instrument) UK (2003) Landfill (Scotland) Regulations 2003, SSI No. 235,Crown Copyright.

TIEM (The Institute of Environmental Modelling) (2006) SADA (Spatial Analysis and DecisionAssistance), University of Tennessee Research Corporation, http://www.tiem.utk.edu/?sada/,(Last updated, 12 June.

Van Hall Instituut of Business Center (2000) Software titles: RISC-HUMAN 3.1, Leeuwarden, TheNetherlands, http://www.risc-site.nl.

Van Hall Instituut of Business Center (2001) Software titles: RUM, Leeuwarden, The Netherlands,http://www.risc-site.nl.

Van Hall Instituut of Business Center (2002) Software titles: Vlier-Humaan, Leeuwarden, TheNetherlands, http://www.risc-site.nl.

Whittaker, J.J., Buss, S.R., Herbert, A.W. and Fermor, M. (2001) ‘Benchmarking and guidance onthe comparison of selected groundwater risk assessment models’, NGACLC (NationalGroundwater 7 Contaminated Land Centre) Report NC/00/14, Environment Agency,(December).

111

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

1011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

2011

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

30

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

40

1

2

3

4

5

6

711

8


Hazard assessment of waste disposal sites. Part 1: literature review

Documents

Transcript of Hazard assessment of waste disposal sites. Part 1: literature review