EIC’s Generic Assessment Criteria: What are the numbers and what are the implications?
Download
1 / 19

EIC’s Generic Assessment Criteria: What are the numbers and what are the implications? Rob Reuter - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 103 Views
  • Uploaded on

EIC’s Generic Assessment Criteria: What are the numbers and what are the implications? Rob Reuter. Overview. Project Inception and Aspirations Collation of Physical Chemical and Toxicological Data Parameter Selection and Peer Review Process GAC Value and Report Production

loader
I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
capcha
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about ' EIC’s Generic Assessment Criteria: What are the numbers and what are the implications? Rob Reuter' - alaqua


An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

EIC’s Generic Assessment Criteria: What are the numbers and what are the implications?

Rob Reuter


Overview and what are the implications?

  • Project Inception and Aspirations

  • Collation of Physical Chemical and Toxicological Data

  • Parameter Selection and Peer Review Process

  • GAC Value and Report Production

  • Uses and Limitations


Motivation and what are the implications?

  • Limited production of SGVs prior to “Way Forward”

  • Lack of Soil Guideline Values and/or Generic Assessment Criteria post “Way Forward” outcome

    • EA programme only for limited number of SGVs

    • Uncertainty about LQM/CIEH producing updated GAC

  • Use collective Knowledge and in-house resources of EIC members to produce set of industry approved parameters/GAC


Aspirations and what are the implications?

  • Derive a database of industry agreed parameter values

  • Work on as many substances as possible not being covered by EA or LQM/CIEH

  • Derive industry agreed GAC for those substances with sufficient available data

  • Present researched property values and GAC in a fully transparent manner

  • Get volunteers to take part based on an assumed commitment of 5 days per volunteer to attend workshops and undertake research/work


Volunteering Organisations and what are the implications?

  • AMEC

  • Atkins

  • BuroHappold

  • Delta Simons

  • DTS Raeburn

  • Ecologia

  • Entec

  • Enviros

  • ERM

  • ESI

  • Faber Maunsell

  • Firth Consultants

  • Golder Associates

  • Grontmij

  • Halcrow

  • Hyder

  • Hydrock

  • Jacobs

  • Opus Joynes Pike

  • Parsons Brinckerhoff

  • Sirius

  • URS

  • Wardell Armstrong

  • WD Environmental

  • WorleyParsons

  • WSP


Phasing and what are the implications?

  • Project can be divided into 3 General phases:

  • Phase 1 – Project Scoping

  • Phase 2 – Data Compilation and Peer Review

  • Phase 3 – Review Panel and GAC Derivation


Phase 1 – Project Scoping and what are the implications?

  • Collect information on substances held by volunteers on in-house databases

  • Consult with EA and LQM/CIEH regarding substances they were planning on deriving SGV/GAC values for

  • Prepare detailed proformas to be used by volunteers to record data

  • Conduct workshop in February 2009 to:

    • Finalise priority list

    • Agree procedures for collecting data

    • Finalise proformas

    • Agree the review process

    • Allocate tasks and finalise the project schedule


Phase 2 – Data Compilation & Peer Review and what are the implications?

  • Each volunteering organisation assigned 3 - 6 substances for compilation of physico-chemical and toxicological input data required in CLEA model

    • Peer review partners assigned for each volunteering organisation

    • Book sharing days were arranged at various locations to enable access to all of the references for physico-chemical data in SR7

    • Physico-chemical and toxicity proformas compiled independently

  • Proformas exchanged between partners for peer review

    • Discussion between partners encouraged during process

  • Second Workshop held in May 2009 where:

    • Resolved problems with data collection/property value selection

    • Agreed way forward with entire group

    • Finalised volunteers for final review panels, GAC production and report writing


Phase 3 – Review Panel & GAC Derivation and what are the implications?

  • Volunteers asked to perform final review on their proformas in line with protocol agreed in second workshop

  • CLEA model populated and preliminary GAC values produced

  • Two review panels convened from volunteers to undertake final review on all proformas and harmonise selection process

    • 7 member toxicological review panel

    • 5 member physico-chemical review panel


Toxicological Data / Review Process and what are the implications?

  • Collation and choice of HCV and MDI data followed guidance in SR2 as closely as reasonably practical

    • All 33 sources listed in Appendix A of SR2 consulted

    • 5 additional sources consulted for substances with insufficient data including USEPA PPRTVs obtained directly from USEPA

  • TDI or ID recommended dependent on behaviour of chemical as either threshold or non-threshold substance.

    • International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) classification preferred as indication of human carcinogenicity


Toxicological Selection Criteria and what are the implications?

  • Route-to-route extrapolation not used to derive HCV

  • HCV only recommended where sufficient supporting evidence contained in source

  • Sources labelled “do not cite or quote” not used to derive HCV

  • Uncertainty factors, other than those used by original authors, not applied

  • OEL data not considered appropriate to derive HCVs, quoted for information only

  • Note where additivity should be considered

  • MDI set to zero if no data available and literature suggests it would be negligible

  • Available relevant background data used to recommend MDI

  • Where data was available that was inappropriate to the UK using the 50% rule was considered conservative



Physico-Chemical Data / Review Process inserting text

  • Collation and selection of physico-chemical data undertaken in general accordance with methods and procedures in SR7

    • All nine primary reference sources listed in Table 1.3 of SR7 consulted

    • Selection process described in Table 1.4 of SR7 followed

    • All property values from each source listed on proforma

  • Values from studies closest to ambient soil temperature preferred

  • Where property values not available in literature they were estimated using methods recommended in SR7

  • Kaw estimated by direct calculation method from solubility data if available for ambient soil temperature instead of Clapeyron relationship from Henry’s Law

  • All proformas checked for consistency of approach



Outcome inserting text

  • 44 substances researched – 36 GAC to be derived


External Review inserting text

  • Association of Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Specialists - AGS

  • Contaminated Land Applications in Real Environments - CL:AIRE

  • Environmental Industries Commission - EIC

  • Chartered Institute of Environmental Health - CIEH

  • Department of Environment, Northern Ireland - DOENI

  • Environment Agency - EA

  • Environmental Protection UK - EPUK

  • Health Protection Agency - HPA

  • Soil and Groundwater Technology Association - SAGTA

  • Scottish Environment Protection Agency - SEPA

  • Scotland & Northern Ireland Forum For Environmental Research - SNIFFER


Report Format inserting text

  • CL:AIRE style front cover

  • Content intended to be fully transparent

  • Acknowledgements

  • 8 – 12 pages of text detailing how GAC Derived and how they should be used

  • Tables of GAC

  • Tables of parameter values

  • Toxicological, background and physico-chemical proformas

  • CLEA model outputs

  • Excel spreadsheet with parameter values in CLEA format

  • All outputs will be freely available for all to download


Uses and Limitations inserting text

  • GAC values derived in accordance with appropriate UK guidance

  • GAC intended to be trigger values – similar to SGVs

  • GAC are generally conservative and should not be used as remediation criteria

  • GAC exceedence alone does not indicate SPOSH

  • GAC do not take account of potential acute exposure

  • GAC have been produced based on standard soil types and standard conceptual site models – do not use if your site does not fit the CSM


Thank You For Your Time inserting text

[email protected]

www.wardell-armstrong.com


ad