Proposal and application of a regional methodology of comparative risk assessment for potentially contaminated sites

References

• van Liedekerke M, Prokop G, Rabl-Berger S, et al. Progress in the management of contaminated sites in Europe. JRC reference report. Ispra: Joint Research Centre of the European Commission; 2014.
   Google Scholar
• LaGrega MD, Buckingham PL, Evans JC. Hazardous waste management. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2001.
   Google Scholar
• Thomas AO, Lester JN. The microbial remediation of former gasworks sites: a review. Environ Technol. 1993;14:1–24. doi: 10.1080/09593339309385261
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Demir A, Köleli N. The sequential use of washing and an electrochemical reduction process for the remediation of lead-contaminated soils. Environ Technol. 2013;34:799–805. doi: 10.1080/09593330.2012.717107
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tatàno F, Felici F, Mangani F. Lab-scale treatability tests for the thermal desorption of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils. Soil Sediment Contam. 2013;22:433–456. doi: 10.1080/15320383.2013.721814
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• D’Aprile L, Tatàno F, Musmeci L. Development of quality objectives for contaminated sites: state of the art and new perspectives. Int J Env Hea. 2007;1:120–141. doi: 10.1504/IJENVH.2007.012228
   Google Scholar
• D’Aprile L, Marella G, Tatàno F. Comparative risk analysis for contaminated sites: Italian regional criteria in comparison with international standards. In: Donati A, Rossi C, Brebbia CA, editors. Brownfield sites II: assessment, rehabilitation and development. Southampton: WIT Press; 2004. p. 53–62.
   Google Scholar
• Vegter JJ. Developments of risk assessment and risk management. In: Consoil ‘98, proceedings of the sixth international FZK/TNO conference on contaminated soil, volume 1; 1998 May 17–21. London: Thomas Telford Publishing; 1998. p. 291–299.
   Google Scholar
• Swartjes FA. Introduction to contaminated site management. In: Swartjes FA, editor. Dealing with contaminated sites: from theory towards practical application. Dordrecht (NL): Springer; 2011. p. 3–89.
   Google Scholar
• Capodaglio A, Callegari A, Torretta V. Comparative application of different risk assessment models and implications on resulting remediation options. Environ Technol. 2014;35:759–765. doi: 10.1080/09593330.2013.848941
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tatàno F, Giavazzi M, Trabucchi R. Procedural steps in human risk assessment for contaminated sites: an Italian case-study application with the ARA-CoSSSLs approach. Hum Ecol Risk Assess. 2011;17:826–855. doi: 10.1080/10807039.2011.588150
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang K, Kluck C, Achari G. A comparative approach for ranking contaminated sites based on the risk assessment paradigm using fuzzy PROMETHEE. Environ Manage. 2009;44:952–967. doi: 10.1007/s00267-009-9368-7
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pizzol L, Critto A, Agostini P, et al. Regional risk assessment for contaminated sites part 2: ranking of potentially contaminated sites. Environ Int. 2011;37:1307–1320. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2011.05.010
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Agostini P, Pizzol L, Critto A, et al. Regional risk assessment for contaminated sites part 3: spatial decision support system. Environ Int. 2012;48:121–132. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2012.07.005
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bergius K, Öberg T. Initial screening of contaminated land: a comparison of US and Swedish methods. Environ Manage. 2007;39:226–234. doi: 10.1007/s00267-006-0005-4
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Troldborg M, Lemming G, Binning PJ, et al. Risk assessment and prioritisation of contaminated sites on the catchment scale. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2008;101:14–28. doi: 10.1016/j.jconhyd.2008.07.006
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Allan M, Ducharme N. Assessing, comparing and prioritizing contaminated sites: application of a multiplicative risk assessment model. In: Remtech 2007, remediation technologies symposium. Proceedings; 2007 Oct 24–27; Canada: ESAA (Environmental Services Association of Alberta); 2007. Available from: http://www.esaa.org/remtech/about-remtech/proceedings/remtech-2007-presentations/
   Google Scholar
• Shatkin JA, Patton CA, Palma-Oliveira JM. A comparative risk assessment methodology for prioritizing risk management policy initiatives: ranking of industrial waste streams in Portugal. In: Linkov I, Palma-Oliveira J, editors. Assessment and management of environmental risks: cost-efficient methods and applications. Dordrecht (NL): Kluwer Academic Publishers; 2001. p. 121–142.
   Google Scholar
• Italian Ministry of Environment. Decree 16/5/1989 on criteria and guidelines for the elaboration of the regional remediation plans. Italian Official Bullettin No. 121, 26.5.1989. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Italian Ministry of Environment. Decree 471/1999 on technical regulation for remediation and environmental rehabilitation of contaminated sites according to article 17 of Law 22/1997. Italian Official Bulletin No. 293, 15.12.1999. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• President of the Italian Republic. Legislative decree 152/2006 on environmental framework regulation. Annex of the Italian Official Bulletin No. 88, 14.4.2006. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Marche Region. Regional remediation plan according to the regional council determination No. 11, 14.9.2010. Ancona; 2010. Italian. Available from: http://www.ambiente.marche.it/Ambiente/SitiContaminati.aspx.
   Google Scholar
• Commission of the European Communities. Thematic strategy for soil protection. COM(2006)231 final. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities; 2006.
   Google Scholar
• SNPA (Italian National System for Environmental Protection). Guidelines for the elaboration of the management plans of diffuse contamination. Manual No. 146/2017. Rome: ISPRA (National Institute for Environmental Protection and Research); 2017. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Gheorghe AV, Mock R, Kröger W. Risk assessment of regional systems. Reliab Eng Syst Safe. 2000;70:141–156. doi: 10.1016/S0951-8320(00)00053-3
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kielenniva N, Antikainen R, Sorvari J. Measuring eco-efficiency of contaminated soil management at the regional level. J. Environ. Manage. 2012;109:179–188. doi: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2011.07.019
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). Soil screening guidance: user’s guide. Publication 9355.4-23. 2nd ed. Washington (DC): Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). Uncontrolled hazardous waste site ranking system – a users manual. OSWER Directive 9355.0-3. Washington (DC): Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; 1984.
   Google Scholar
• USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). Hazard ranking system: final rule. Federal Register, Rules and Regulations. 1990;55:51532–51667.
   Google Scholar
• National Research Council. Ranking hazardous-waste sites for remedial action. Washington (DC): National Academy Press; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• UNICHIM (Italian National Association for Chemicals Standardisation). Contaminated soil and groundwater – site-specific risk analysis – standards and parameters. Manual No. 196/1. Milan: UNICHIM; 2002. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Zakharova T, Tatàno F, Menshikov V. Health cancer risk assessment for arsenic exposure in potentially contaminated areas by fertilizer plants: a possible regulatory approach applied to a case study in Moscow region–Russia. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol. 2002;36:22–33. doi: 10.1006/rtph.2002.1561
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• APAT (Italian Environmental Protection Agency and Technical Services). Methodological criteria for the absolute risk analysis application at contaminated sites. Revised version 2. Rome: APAT; 2008. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). Soil screening guidance: technical background document. EPA/540/R95/128. Washington (DC): Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). Supplemental guidance for developing soil screening levels for Superfund sites. OSWER 9355.4-24. Washington (DC): Office of Emergency and Remedial Response; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• ASTM (American Society for Testing and Materials). Standard guide for risk-based corrective action. E 2081-00(2004)e1. West Conshohocken (PA): ASTM International; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• President of the Italian Republic. Legislative Decree 4/2008 on further integrations of Legislative Decree 152/2006 on environmental framework regulation. Annex of the Italian Official Bulletin No. 24, 29.1.2008. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Anelli S, Bellotti M, Saponaro S, et al. Prioritization of contaminated sites in the Lombardia region (Italy): the development of a relative risk assessment procedure. In: Lekkas TD, editor. CEST 2013, 13th international conference on environmental science and technology. Proceedings; 2013 Sep 5–7. Athens: Global NEST and University of the Aegean; 2013. p. 1–9.
   Google Scholar
• SFT (Norwegian Pollution Control Authority). Guidelines for the risk assessment of contaminated sites. Report 99:06, Section for industry and contaminated sites. Oslo; 1999.
   Google Scholar
• D’Aprile L, Berardi S, Baciocchi R. Development of site-specific target levels for contaminated sites: Italian guidelines. In: ConSoil 2008, 10th international UFZ-Deltares/TNO conference on soil-water systems in cooperation with Provincia di Milano. Proceedings; 2008 Jun 3–6; Leipzig: F&U confirm; 2008. p. A89–A97.
   Google Scholar
• ISS (Italian Health Research Institute), INAIL (Italian National Institute for Insurance against Accidents at Work). Database on chemical-physical and toxicological characteristics of contaminants for health-sanitary risk analysis. Rome: ISS; 2015. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Leeson A, Hinchee RE. Soil bioventing: principles and practices. Boca Raton: Lewis Publishers; 1997.
   Google Scholar
• Boudouch O, Esrael D, Kacem M, et al. Estimation of soil air permeability components at a laboratory-scale pilot. Environ Technol. 2012;33:2223–2228. doi: 10.1080/09593330.2012.696720
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Aelion CM, Kirtland BC. Air sparging, soil vapor extraction, and bioremediation in low-permeability soils. In: Wise DL, Trantolo DJ, Cichon EJ, Inyang HI, Stottmeister U, editors. Remediation engineering of contaminated soils. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc; 2000. p. 261–278.
   Google Scholar
• Falconi M, Quercia F, Schamann M, et al. Towards an EEA Europe-wide assessment of areas under risk for soil contamination – volume III PRA.MS: scoring model and algorithm. Final version. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• Jenny H. Factors of soil formation. A system of quantitative pedology. New York: Dover Publications, Inc; 1994.
   Google Scholar
• USDA (US Department of Agriculture). National agronomy manual. 3rd ed. Washington (DC): Natural Resources Conservation Service; 2002.
   Google Scholar
• Casale C. Guide for the use of the Italian wind atlas. Milan: ENEA – Ricerca sul Sistema Elettrico (ERSE); 2009. Italian.
   Google Scholar
• Aral MM. Environmental modeling and health risk analysis (acts/risk). Dordrecht (NL): Springer; 2010.
   Google Scholar
• Gipe P. Wind power: renewable energy for home, farm, and business. White River Junction: Chelsea Green Publishing Company; 2004.
   Google Scholar
• Hanna SR, Briggs GA, Hosker RP. Handbook on atmospheric diffusion. Springfield: National Technical Information Service, US Department of Commerce; 1982.
   Google Scholar
• Anderson TW, Finn JD. The new statistical analysis of data. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1996.
   Google Scholar
• Giudici P, Figini S. Applied data mining for business and industry. 2nd ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2009.
   Google Scholar
• Hebel JR, McCarter RJ. A study guide to epidemiology and biostatistics. 7th ed. Burlington: Jones & Bartlett Learning; 2012.
   Google Scholar
• Altieri A, Fons J, Jarva J, et al. Towards an EEA Europe-wide assessment of areas under risk for soil contamination – application of the PRA.MS model to selected industrial and mining sites. Final version. Copenhagen: European Environment Agency; 2005.
   Google Scholar
• USEPA (US Environmental Protection Agency). The revised hazard ranking system: background information. Publication 9320.7-03FS. Washington (DC): Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response; 1990.
   Google Scholar
• CCME (Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment). National classification system for contaminated sites: guidance document. PN 1403. Winnipeg: CCME.
   Google Scholar