| Title: |
Derivation methods of soil screening values in Europe. A review and evaluation of national procedures towards harmonisation.
|
| Resource Type: |
document --> technical publication --> report
|
| Country: |
International organisation- network or project
|
| Year: |
2007 |
| Availability: |
Report of the Joint Research Centre, ISPRA, Italy. EUR 22805 EN
|
| Author 1/Producer: |
European Commission JRC ISPRA
|
| Other Authors/Producers: |
Heracles Consortium
|
| Author / Producer Type: |
EC Project
|
| Publisher: |
Office for Official Publications of the European Communities
|
| Publisher City: |
Luxembourg
|
| ISBN: |
978-92-79-05238-5
|
| Report / download web link (=direct link): |
http://www.nicole.org
|
| Format (e.g. PDF): |
PDF
|
| Size: (e.g. 20mb) |
2.45
|
|
EUGRIS Keyword(s): |
Contaminated land-->policy and regulatory
Contaminated land-->Risk assessment-->Exposure pathways
Contaminated land-->Risk assessment-->Models
Contaminated land-->Risk assessment-->Receptor: Buildings
Contaminated land-->Risk assessment-->Receptor: Ecological
Contaminated land-->Risk assessment-->Receptor: Human health
Contaminated land-->Risk assessment-->Receptor: Water
Contaminated land-->Risk assessment-->Risk assessment overview
Contaminated land-->Risk assessment-->Sources
Contaminated land-->Risk assessment-->Tools and procedures
Contaminated land-->Risk assessment-->Toxicological information
|
| Short description: |
The HERACLES Project has recently published its review of derivation methods of soil screening values in Europe .
The review analyses the bases of screening values used in EU Member States and initiated a discussion on the reasons for their differences. Specific objectives of the review were the following:
• to describe the state of the art of SVs derivation methods and their application in Europe,
• to assess commonalities and main differences among national methods,
• to gain a further insight in reasons of differences,
• to identify opportunities for harmonization.
The work focused on soil contamination, but also investigated the relation between
the soil and groundwater SVs.
The survey concerned a representative group of countries, encompassing old andnew EU Member States, i.e. Austria, Belgium (Walloon, Flanders and Brussels), The Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Spain, Finland, France, Italy, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Poland, Slovenia, Sweden and United Kingdom. The analysis was done at the level of the main assumptions, methods and technical elements. A detailed comparison of algorithms and input values could be addressed in a subsequent analysis.
The report argues that there are possibilities for the alignment of derivation methods for soil SVs. This alignment of derivation methods should be approached at the level of building blocks of risk assessment elements.
|
| Long description: |
**EXTRACT** The following conclusions were drawn:
• in most countries, soil SVs are based on the application of exposure and
toxicological modeling. In some countries, mainly new EU Member States,
current SVs are based on the (review of) SVs adopted by other countries;
• main methodological references followed by EU countries are the European
Commission Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment (ECB, 2003),
the procedures developed by RIVM in The Netherlands, methods developed
in United States (e.g. ASTM, 1998), the former Soviet Union procedures and
values (mainly in Central and East European Countries). For the ecological
risk assessment, some countries consider the Canadian Guidelines (CCME,
1999);
• the derivation of soil SVs is far from being a consolidated and fully implemented
process; in fact, the SVs derivation procedures are currently undergoing
further implementation or revision in most of the EU countries; in
many countries ecological risk SVs are under development or revision or
have not been adopted yet;
• the number of substances for which soil SVs are provided widely vary across
Europe, ranging from less than 20 to 234 substances, with about 60 as the
most common substances;
the group of substances for which soil SVs are most commonly generated includes
heavy metals and metalloids (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Pb, Ni, Zn), aromatic
hydrocarbons (e.g., benzene, ethyl benzene, toluene), polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons (e.g., naphthalene, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene,
benzo(ghi)perylene, benzo(a)pyrene), chlorinated aliphatic hydrocarbons
(dichloromethane, trichloroethylene, tetrachloromethane), chlorinated aromatic
hydrocarbons (chlorobenzene, hexachlorobenzene), pesticides
(atrazine, DDT), dioxins and dioxin like PCBs.
Weaknesses and needs for implementation were recognised. Some problems are
related to the regulatory framework, e.g.:
• the lack of legal recognition of SVs,
• the misuse of SVs beyond their significance and intended application,
• the lack of transparency and documentation of the SVs derivation process
(in most of the countries).
Other problems are the large uncertainties of risk assessment, in particular for ecological
receptors, e.g.:
• the adoption of ecological soil SVs is hindered by their conservatism (which
partly reflects lack of knowledge),
• transfer and exposure modeling should be further validated,
• bioavailability and biodegradability are not (properly) considered,
|
|
Submitted By:
|
Professor Paul Bardos WhoDoesWhat?
Last update: 10/12/2008
|
|
|
