Module 3

Environmental Risk Assessment

Table of contents
1 Introduction ............................................................................................................................... 2

1.1 General .............................................................................................................................. 2

1.2 Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 2

2 Tier 1, 2 and 3 risk assessment ................................................................................................ 3

2.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................................ 3

2.2 What is and when to use a Tier 1 risk assessment? ......................................................... 6

2.3 What is and when to use a Tier 2 risk assessment? ......................................................... 7

2.4 What is and when to use a Tier 3 risk assessment? ......................................................... 7

2.5 What data are needed to perform a Tier 1, 2 and 3 risk assessment? ............................ 10

3 Tier 1 risk assessment ............................................................................................................ 12

3.1 The Initial Conceptual Site Model .................................................................................... 12

3.2 Identification of risks ........................................................................................................ 13

3.3 Tier 1 method................................................................................................................... 15

3.4 Tier 1 results .................................................................................................................... 17

4 Tier 2 Risk assessment ........................................................................................................... 21

4.1 The Conceptual Site Model ............................................................................................. 21

4.2 Tier 2 method................................................................................................................... 21

4.3 Tier 2 results .................................................................................................................... 23

5 Tier 3 Risk assessment ........................................................................................................... 26

5.1 When is a Tier 3 needed?................................................................................................ 26

5.2 The detailed CSM ............................................................................................................ 26

5.3 Use of Tier 3 risk assessment models ............................................................................. 28

5.3.1 RBCA toolkit ............................................................................................................................29

5.3.2 Risk Integrated Software for Clean-ups (RISC5) .....................................................................31

5.4 Contact media sampling .................................................................................................. 32

5.5 Advanced research methods for assessing adverse human health effects..................... 33

5.6 Tier 3 ecological risk assessment .................................................................................... 33

6 References .............................................................................................................................. 37
 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

1. Introduction
1.1 General
Persistent Organic Pollutants, known as POPs, are chemical substances which are extremely
stable (Persistent), are known to accumulate in biological tissue (Bioaccumulate) and are Toxic. Because
of these PBT properties, these substances thereby pose a risk of adverse effects to human health and the
environment. Many of the characteristics that make POPs ideal for agricultural and industrial applications
create problems when they are released into the environment. The negative effects on humans primarily
follow long-term (chronic) exposure although acute effects can also occur because of high-level exposures.
Ecological impacts are known to include food web contamination and reproductive disorders (Turrio-
Baldassarri et al. 2007; Malisch et al.1999; Holmes et al. 1994; Weber et al. 2008).

1.2 Objectives
The scope of the guidelines is to describe the Best Available Techniques (BAT) and Best Environmental
Practice (BEP) hereafter on the management of POPs contaminated sites. This module focuses on
capacity building of environmental management professionals. This module describes the best practice of
risk assessment Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 as part of the sustainable management of contaminated sites. In
this context a contaminated site is a site with any type of contaminant including POPs in soil and/ or
contaminated groundwater and/ or bottom sediments. This module should build the capacity in the above-
mentioned professionals on risk assessment for the sustainable management of contaminated sites by
answering the following questions:
• What is a Tier 1, 2 and 3 risk assessment? (see Chapter 2)
• When do you perform a Tier 1, 2 and 3 risk assessment? (see Chapter 2)
• What are the objectives of a Tier 1, 2 and 3 risk assessment? (see Chapter 2)
• What data are needed to perform a Tier 1, 2 and 3 risk assessment? (see Chapters 3-5)
• How are Tier 1, 2 and 3 risk assessments carried out? (see Chapters 3-5)
• What models are available for a Tier 3 risk assessment? (see Chapter 5)
• What is the most appropriated Tier 3 risk assessment model to be used? (see Chapter 5)

2 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

2. Tier 1, 2 and 3 risk assessment

2.1 Introduction
In general, a risk is an unwanted event, which may or may not have a negative effect. A risk in this module
is defined as the likelihood that a hazardous substance or substances, when released into the environment,
will cause an adverse effect in exposed humans and/ or other exposed living organisms (ecosystem), and/
or will migrate (away from the original sources through erosion, leaching down gradient in the soil towards
the groundwater and through groundwater flow, etc.).
These risks can be considered/assessed separately, but are more commonly assessed together, as the
human health, ecological risks and the migration risks are linked. Human health risk, risk for the ecosystem
and the risk for contaminant migration are hereafter referred to as environmental risks.

According to common practice, a risk assessment for a contaminated site should include:
1. Human health risk (using generic land use specific exposure scenarios) Examples of such generic
exposure scenarios are:
a. Residential
b. Industrial
c. Recreational
d. Agricultural
2. Ecological risk. This typically includes one or more of the following aspects:
a. Direct ecotoxicological effects (adverse effects for individual species)
b. Bioaccumulation/biomagnification (secondary poisoning) in food webs
c. Effects on nutrient cycling function
3. Contaminant migration risk. Mostly related to groundwater migration.

An environmental risk assessment is defined as an estimation (qualitatively) or a calculation (quantitatively)

of a risk. The risks are related to:
• Human receptors – human health risk
• Ecological receptors (Individual organisms, (sub)-population of or entire food web) – ecological risk
• The contaminant migration in the environment in relation to environmental receptors (human and
ecological) – migration risk

When considering a risk, the following three components must be present:

1. The contaminant source
2. The source – receptor pathways (complete exposure pathway(s))
3. The receptors

An environmental risk assessment is used to estimate or calculate the impact on humans and the
ecosystem by soil and/ or groundwater and/ or soil gas contamination and the contaminant’s potential
migration in the soil and/ or groundwater and/ or vapor intrusion in buildings and ambient air emission. This
is called forward mode risk assessment or baseline risk calculation.

An environmental risk assessment can also be used to determine the desired clean up target levels
(RBTL 1/ SSTL 2) in soil, groundwater and freshwater sediments that are protective for human health and the
0F 1F

receptors of the ecosystem. This is called backward mode risk assessment or clean up level calculation.

1
RBTL: Risk Based Target Level. Usually this involves generic target levels for certain land-use scenarios for instance
residential and commercial/industrial land use
2
SSTL: Site-Specific Target Level. This level is derived for site specific land use and the exposure parameters are tailored to
the site-specific land use

3 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

The principles of forward-mode and backward mode risk assessment are illustrated in the following Figure
2.1 (adapted from GSI Environmental, 2007).

Figure 2.1 Difference between forward and backward mode risk modelling (adjusted from GSI Environmental, 2007)

Below the same content as Figure 2.1 taken from the Guidance Document of the Interstate Technology and
Regulatory Council (see https://itrcweb.org/risk-3/Content/Resources/ITRC2015RISK-3.pdf).

Internationally it is best practice to perform the risk assessment as a Tiered approach. An example of a
widely used Tiered approach is the Risk Based Corrective Action (RBCA) methodology, which originates
from the United States. This RBCA approach is described in detail in American Society for Testing and
Materials (ASTM) standard guides E2081 3 & E1739 4.
2F 3F

3
Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action, ASTM E2081, 2015
4
Risk-Based Corrective Action applied at Petroleum Release Sites, ASTM E17393F, 2015

4 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

Generally, three levels or ‘Tiers’ of risk assessment are used to sustainably manage sites with
contaminated soil and/ or groundwater and/ or bottom sediments, hereafter referred to as contaminated
sites. These three levels are:
• Tier 1 - A qualitative or preliminary environmental risk assessment based on general site assessment
information
• Tier 2 - A semi-quantitative environmental risk assessment based on more site-specific data
• Tier 3 - A quantitative environmental risk assessment based on numerical or highly detailed Fate and
Transport (F&T) and/ or exposure models and site-specific conditions

Internationally the terminology of the Tiers differs. Tier 1 for instance can be fully qualitative (multicriteria
analysis based on expert judgement) or semi-quantitative risk screening using generic screening levels.
Tier 2 varies from semi-quantitative risk screening using generic screening levels to exposure calculation
with risk models using generic exposure parameters. Tier 3 involves the most site specific and quantitative
risk calculation. Figure 2.2 and 2.3 show two example specific applications of the RBCA approach.

Figure 2.2 Example of a three Tier RBCA approach (Naval Facilities Engineering Service Centre, 1998)

5 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

Figure 2.3 Example of a three Tier RBCA approach (Israel Risk-Based Corrective Action abbreviated as IRBCA, 2020)

In this guidance, a specific elaboration of the Tiers in the risk assessment process for POPs is proposed.
This approach focuses on the application of Tier 1 risk assessment, which first requires limited information
of the site-specific contamination situation and exposure parameters. Therefore, this approach is well
suited to quickly prioritize and select contaminated sites for further site assessment including a Tier 2 and
possibly a Tier 3 risk assessment. Parties with limited resources can conduct Tier 1 assessments across
their inventory of suspected and confirmed contaminated sites to prioritise those that present the highest
immediate risk. Limited resources can then be most efficiently deployed to conduct Tier 2 and 3
assessments on those high-risk sites.

2.2 What is and when to use a Tier 1 risk assessment?

A Tier 1 risk assessment is a method to obtain a site risk profile with limited site data. Tier 1 can be
performed even limited soil and/ or groundwater data and site information are available. Carrying out such
an assessment, especially with limited data, requires expert knowledge on site assessment. The objectives
of a Tier 1 risk assessment are, to get an idea of the magnitude of environmental site risks, to prioritize the
on-site risks and to prioritize contaminated sites based on the potential risks for human health, the
ecosystem and contaminant migration in an early stage of the sustainable management of contaminated
sites. A risk-based prioritization allows for allocation of limited resources for soil and groundwater
remediation within a specific site or on site(s) with the highest priority due to adverse effects that:
• Are already occurring causing serious damage to humans and the ecosystem and/ or contaminants are
migrating
• Are likely to occur, causing serious damage to humans and the ecosystem and/ or contaminants likely
migrate

A Tier 1 risk assessment is executed when the results of a preliminary site assessment are available and
the decision to stop or to enter to the next phase of site assessment needs to be taken.

6 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

2.3 What is and when to use a Tier 2 risk assessment?

A Tier 2 risk assessment is based on comparison of measured contaminant concentrations in soil
groundwater and sediments with a set of existing reference values (generic screening levels or RBTL 5 for4F

certain land-use scenarios).

The objective of a Tier 2 risk assessment is to establish if the measured contaminant concentrations are
less than or exceeding the reference values for the specific land-use such as residential, industrial etc. If
the measured contaminant concentrations are less, the site should be suitable for the current/ nominated
land-use. However, if the reference values are exceeded, the Tier 2 risk assessment indicates potential for
significant risks related to the land-use. The results of a Tier 2 risk assessment, a semi-quantitative
analysis, is enough for most cases of site assessment, which are implemented in the scope of the
sustainable management of contaminated sites.
Tier 2 risk assessment is used when the results of a detailed site assessment are available and one or
several of the following decisions need to be taken:
• accept the current situation
• future survey the site
• perform a Tier 3 risk assessment
• start preparing the implementation of risk reduction measures

2.4 What is and when to use a Tier 3 risk assessment?

A Tier 3 risk assessment is a detailed, site-specific quantitative risk assessment. A Tier 3 risk assessment
is needed when the results of a Tier 2 risk assessment indicate that mitigation measures demand major
investments and/ or the results are not conclusive. Also, in the following situations a Tier 3 risk assessment
may be useful/ necessary:
• High stakeholder and/ or public concern
• Cost-benefit analysis of mitigation measures is needed
• Regional environmental policy demands legal basis for mitigation measures (for instance for protected
nature reserves)

The objective of a Tier 3 risk assessment is to provide more justification for major investments and/ or to
focus mitigation measures on the most critical risks (cost-benefit analysis). In this Tier the risk assessment
can be based on (a combination of):

Human health:
• Measured contamination concentration in soil/ groundwater and expert human health modelling
• Direct contact media sampling (crops, drinking water, surface water, dust, soil gas/indoor air) and
comparison with human health-based guidance values (HBGV)

Ecology:
• Ecological risk modelling (for instance Potential Affected Fraction and/or food web modelling)
• Qualitative observations or measuring/monitoring of fate and transport:
o Ecological surveying
o Biota monitoring (for instance fish)/Bioaccumulation/biomagnification testing
• Quantitative methods to assess adverse ecological effects for ecological impact of POPs
o Ecotoxicological lab testing
o In-vivo/In-vitro bioassays such as BDS DR CALUX® bioassay (Besselink H
2004) of dioxin-like activity in eggs etc.

5
RBTL: Risk Based Target Levels

7 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

For executing the quantitative Tier 3 risk assessment, various expert (human or ecological) exposure/ risk
models exist. It is mentioned that a human health and an ecological risk assessment are separate
exercises, using different models.

As previously stated, the Risk Based Corrective Action or RBCA Risk Assessment methodology of the US
ASTM (ASTM E2081) is one of the most widely used methods. This methodology is implemented in several
expert models, which can be used such as:
• RBCA Toolkit for Chemical Releases (Provider: GSI Environmental)
• RISC (Risk Implemented Software for site Clean-up)-model (provider: GroundwaterSoftware.com)

Background information on various quantitative risk assessment guidelines/tools can be consulted on the
websites of the United States -Environmental Protection Agency (US EPA and US EPA CLU-IN, Interstate
Technology Regulatory Council (ITRC):

General overview
o https://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-tools-and-databases

Human health:
o https://www.epa.gov/risk/human-health-risk-assessment
o https://www.epa.gov/risk/guidelines-human-exposure-assessment
o https://www.epa.gov/risk/superfund-risk-assessment-human-health-topics
o https://itrcweb.org/risk-3/Content/Resources/ITRC2015RISK-3.pdf

Ecological risks:
o https://www.epa.gov/risk/ecological-risk-assessment
o https://www.epa.gov/risk/superfund-risk-assessment-ecological-risk-topics

Sediments:
o https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-contaminated-sediments-guidance-and-technical-support
o https://clu-in.org/issues/default.focus/sec/Sediments/cat/Risk_Assessment/

In a Tier 3 risk assessment, a detailed exposure assessment is carried out in which receptors and
exposure pathways and parameters are identified in detail in accordance with reference manuals from for
example US EPA (see Figure 2.3). An experienced risk assessor should be involved in this exposure
assessment.

8 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

Figure 2.3 Three steps of the Exposure assessment process (USEPA, 1989a) of a Tier 3 risk assessment

The quantified human exposure (usually in mg/kg bodyweight/day) is then compared to a toxicological
threshold value 6. There are two types of toxicological thresholds:
5F

• Safe threshold levels 7 for non-carcinogenic compounds (threshold substances)

6F

• Acceptable risk levels 8 for carcinogenic compounds (non-threshold substances)

7F

Usually, these toxicological threshold values are derived by expert organizations such as the World Health
Organisation (WHO), environmental protection agencies (such as US-EPA), Food Safety Authorities (such
as European Food Safety Authority - EFSA) and/ or national public health organizations, such as the Dutch
National Institute for Public Health and the Environment (RIVM). The derivation requires expert
toxicological knowledge (an experienced human health toxicologist), an extensive dataset with human
toxicological test results (for several endpoints), thorough quality assurance procedures according to
international best practices and peer review. Once toxicological threshold values for the COC are available
the comparison of the calculated exposure with the toxicological threshold values can be performed by
experienced risk assessors using quantitative risk models.

It should be mentioned that these derived toxicological threshold values and related screening levels,
although derived by well respected organizations like US EPA should always be used carefully since they
might be specifically derived/suited for national populations with significantly different physiological
properties (such as bodyweight) and or intake rates since these are often closely related to cultural
differences in diets.

A Tier 3 risk assessment requires physical and chemical data for the present COC, the soils, underlying
rock, and ground- and surface waters. In addition, detailed information on the land-use and the related
receptors and exposure parameters is required. In other words, the CSM must be completed.

In cases where site-specific data is not available for all parameters, generic values from books, the internet
or other reference documents such as the US-EPA Exposure factors Handbook (USEPA, 2011 and see

6
These values are internationally also referred to as Health Based Guidance Values (HBGV)
7
Usually a Tolerable Daily Intake (TDI value) or Reference Dose: RfD
8
For these substances there are no safe levels (without risk levels) every exposure level can result in adverse effects.
Therefore, an acceptable risk levels is chosen. Usually, an accepted excess lifetime cancer risk is used
(for instance, 1 in 100 000 of 1 in 1 000 000)

9 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

specifically the EPA Expobox website9) might be used. When choosing data, the most conservative values
(the most protective of the environment) should be used or the data needs to be verified with specific
sampling/ measuring (for instance contact media sampling). The parameters that have the greatest impact
on the results of the risk assessment should be chosen very carefully. To identify the impact of these
parameters, a sensitivity analysis10 can be conducted.

2.5 What data are needed to perform a Tier 1, 2 and 3 risk assessment?
To perform any of the different Tiers of an environmental risk assessment the source of the contamination,
the source- receptor pathway (exposure pathway) for the contamination and the receptor of the
contaminants should be known. The receptor can be human, sensitive sub-groups of humans (e.g.,
children), highly exposed groups such as site workers or different types of biota (fish, birds, mammals or
even plants) or a combination of all of these. The type and sensitivity of the receptor to specific POPs can
influence the Safe Threshold level or Acceptable Risk Threshold determinations in the final assessment.
The understanding and the reporting of the source of the contamination, the source- receptor pathway for
the contaminants and the receptor of the contaminants together are the Conceptual site Model or CSM.
Figure 2.4 (TAUW 2018) gives an example of a CSM. The CSM is a necessary gateway to perform an
environmental risk assessment.

Figure 2.4 Example Conceptual Site Model with source, source- receptor pathways, potential risks, and receptors
presented 11
8F

A CSM typically is developed from the start of the process of the sustainable management of a
contaminated site. The CSM is refined and updated throughout each phase of the sustainable
management of a contaminated site. The phases to be recognized in the process of the sustainable
management of contaminated site are:
1. The preliminary site assessment
2. The detailed site assessment
3. The site remediation assessment
4. The site remediation management
5. The site monitoring and after care

9
https://www.epa.gov/expobox/about-exposure-factors-handbook
10
An analysis of the amount of error an output holds when it is generated from other data that may also have errors or
inaccurate data.
11
In situ soil and groundwater remediation: theory and practice TAUW 2018

10 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

The updating and refining of the CSM must take place in each phase of the sustainable management of
contaminated sites. The first two phases are known as the site assessment phases and have the objective
to construct a complete CSM. Presenting the full understanding of the source(s) of contamination, the
source-receptor pathway(s) and the receptor(s).

A completed CSM is the precondition for the next phase, the site remediation assessment including, the
selection and design of the best remedial option based on risk reduction, the environmental merits, and the
costs. Also, in this phase and the last two phases of the site management (the site remediation
management and the site monitoring and after care) the CSM should be updated.

Table 2.1 provides a summary of the role a CSM has in the sustainable management of contaminated
sites.

Table 2.1The CSM role in the sustainable management of contaminated sites

Status of the
Phase Data input
CSM

Site assessment
1 Preliminary site Initial Limited data such as data from a site walkover, interviews, a photo report,
assessment sketches, and possible limited analyses
2 Site assessment Completed Detailed data on the contaminants including soil description, analytical
data and exposure and migration assessment
Site remediation
3 Site remediation Detailed Detailed data needed for remediation such as a hydrological model
assessment
4 Site remediation Updated Results of the carried-out remediation such as the replaced contaminated
management soil by clean soil
Site monitoring and after care
5 Site monitoring and Updated Results of the monitoring and aftercare such as the analytical date of the
after care groundwater

11 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

3. Tier 1 risk assessment

This chapter gives the input for a Tier 1 risk assessment in the first section. The second section
describes the risk identification. The third section proposes method of a Tier 1 risk assessment.
The fourth section gives examples of Tier 1 risk assessment results. The last section summarises
the most important aspects of a Tier 1 risk assessment.

3.1 The Initial Conceptual Site Model

The preliminary site assessment aims to gather enough information to estimate the likelihood of
contamination being present at the site. All data and site information gathered during this phase will be
used to make an Initial Conceptual site Model or ICSM. An ICSM is a system diagram identifying
contaminant source(s), source-receptor pathway(s) and receptor(s) potentially affected by the
contaminant(s) migrating through this/ those pathway(s). The ICSM should be the input for the Tier 1 risk
assessment and a further site investigation when needed. The ICSM is based on limited information gained
during a desktop study, a site visit, a photo report, interviews and when necessary limited sampling and
sample analyses.

Figure 3.1 and 3.2 are examples12 of illustrations belonging to the ICSM of a DDT contaminated site in Viet
Nam. This example is the same as used in Module 2 Site Investigation, Assessment and Conceptual Site
Model. This section summarizes the results of the ICSM and the results of the Tier 1 Risk Assessment. For
details on the ICSM and the Tier 1 risk assessment results refer to Appendix 1.

Based on the information collected during preliminary site assessment it is concluded that remains of DDT
are present at nine spots. The total quantity of pure DDT is estimates to be around 40 tons. Because of the
years of exposure to rain and rainwater run-off the soil at and surrounding of these hot spots is expected to
be impacted by the DDT. The total estimated amount of DDT impacted soil is around 50 tons. The example
of this ICSM is made with limited site information but based on expert judgement. The objective of the
ICSM is to clearly illustrate the known/ potential soil and groundwater contamination situation in relation to
former and current site-use without extensive (costly) site survey. The ICSM provides an overview:
• Of the potential source area(s) for the soil and groundwater contamination
• Of the potential source-receptor pathway(s) for the soil and groundwater contamination
• Of the potential receptor(s) for the contaminants (current and future)

The ICSM should give an instant overview of the suspected contamination situation, then identify all likely
source(s), source-receptor pathway(s), and receptor(s). The preliminary site assessment results, reported
in an ICSM, are the input for a Tier 1 risk assessment. The objective of a Tier 1 risk assessment is to obtain
a site risk profile with the limited available site data collected during a preliminary site assessment.

12
Environmental Management Plan Lâm Hoá site, Viet Nam PHASE 1 The Preliminary Site Assessment Lâm Hoá commune,
Tuyên Hoá district, Quang Binh province Draft, 26 October 2015. UNDP, GEF and MONRE (TAUW Reference R008-
1217441BFF-beb-V01-NL see Appendix 1)

12 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

Figure 3.1 Site layout map as a part of an ICSM (example)

Figure 3.2 Representative cross section as a part of an ICSM (example)

3.2 Identification of risks

Based on an ICSM, potential risks for the concerned site can be identified and preliminarily assessed. As
an example, Table 3.1 gives the identified environmental risks of the contaminated site pictured in the
ICSM of Figure 3.1 and 3.2. For each identified risk, the source, the source -receptor pathway (pathways),
and receptor, are provided in this table.

Table 3.1 Identified environmental risks based on the ICSM presented in Figure 3.2 and 3.3 (example)
No. Environmental risks Sources Pathways Receptors

1.1 human exposure to pure remains of DDT in the direct contact farmers collecting bat manure in
DDT present in the cave cave cave

13 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

No. Environmental risks Sources Pathways Receptors

1.2 ecosystem exposed to pure direct contact ecosystem inside the cave
DDT in the cave
1.3 migration of pure DDT percolating rainwater ecosystem inside and outside in
present in the cave to the run-off front of the cave
surrounding
1.4 migration of pure DDT percolating rainwater groundwater
present in the cave in rock in cave bottom
bottom
2.1 human exposure to DDT DDT contaminated soil Direct contact farmers collecting bat manure in
contaminated soil present in in the cave cave
the cave
2.2 ecosystem exposed to DDT Direct contact ecosystem inside the cave
contaminated soil present in
the cave
2.3 migration of DDT Percolated rainwater ecosystem inside and outside in
contaminated soil present in run-off front of the cave
the cave to the surrounding
2.4 migration of DDT Percolating rainwater groundwater
contaminated soil present in cave bottom
the cave in the cave rock
bottom
3.1 human exposure to pure Remains of DDT Direct contact villagers (including women &
DDT present at varies spots outside the cave children) hunting, collecting
outside fruits and leaves
3.2 ecosystem exposed to pure Direct contact surrounding spots with
DDT present at varies spots DDT
outside
3.3 migration of pure DDT Rainwater run-off surrounding spots with
present at varies spots DDT
outside to the surrounding
3.4 migration of pure DDT Percolating rainwater Groundwater
present at varies spots
outside in the soil/
groundwater
4.1 human exposure to DDT DDT contaminated soil Direct contact villagers (including women &
contaminated soil present at outside the cave children) hunting, collecting
varies spots outside fruits and leaves
4.2 ecosystem exposed to DDT Direct contact ecosystem surrounding spots
contaminated soil present at with DDT contaminated soil
varies spots outside
4.4 migration of DDT Rainwater run-off ecosystem surrounding spots
contaminated soil present at with DDT contaminated soil
varies spots outside to the
surrounding
4.4 migration of DDT Percolating rainwater groundwater
contaminated soil present at

14 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

No. Environmental risks Sources Pathways Receptors

varies spots outside in the

soil/ groundwater
5.1 human exposure to DDT DDT contaminated drinking and using villagers
contaminated groundwater groundwater groundwater
5.2 human exposure by watering animal with consumers animal products
consumption of DDT groundwater
contaminated animal
products
5.3 human exposure by irrigation of crops with consumers agricultural products
consumption of DDT groundwater
contaminated crops
5.4 ecosystem exposed to DDT Groundwater flow to ecosystem surface water bodies
contaminated groundwater surface water (creek)
5.4 migration of DDT plants uptake of ecosystem
contaminated groundwater contaminated
groundwater

3.3 Tier 1 method

The method of the Tier 1 risk assessment is the categorization of the identified potential risks for human
health, ecosystem, and contaminant migration. The categorization is based on the likelihood of exposure to
contaminants and the expected magnitude of impacts. For the proposed method, the following four
potential risk categories are defined:
1. Direct risks having a high likelihood and if occurring, may have a high impact:
• Humans having direct contact with the contaminants through the food web and in their daily lives,
and this may severely impact their health
• The ecosystem is in direct contact with the contaminants, and this may have a negative effect on
the ecosystem
• Contaminants are migrating and this may have a negative effect on the site surroundings
2. Potential risks having low to medium likelihood and if occurring, may have a high impact:
• Humans have no direct contact with the contaminants, but if the situation is not actively maintained,
it can change to a situation where there is direct contact, and this may severely impact their health.
• The ecosystem is not in direct contact with the contaminants, but if the situation is not actively
maintained, it can change to a situation that there is direct contact, and this may have a negative
effect on the ecosystem
•
Contaminants are not migrating, but if the situation is not actively maintained, it can change to a
situation where contaminants migrate, and this may have a negative effect on the site surroundings
3. Probable risks having a high likelihood and if occurring, may have a low to medium impact:
• Humans having direct contact with the contaminants in their daily lives, and this may slightly impact
their health
• The ecosystem is in direct contact with the contaminants, and this may have minor impact to the
ecosystem
• Contaminants are migrating and this may have some impact on the surroundings.
4. Latent risks having a low to medium likelihood and if occurring, may have a low to medium to
high impact:
• Humans have no direct contact with the contaminants, but if the situation is not actively maintained,
it can change to a situation where there is direct contact, and this may slightly impact their health.

15 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

• The ecosystem is not in direct contact with the contaminants, but if the situation is not actively
maintained, it can change to a situation where there is direct contact, and this may have minor
impact to the ecosystem
• Contaminants are not migrating, but if the situation is not actively maintained, it can change to a
situation where contaminants migrate, and this may have some impact on the surroundings

To evaluate the potential environmental risks in a structured way, the identified risks are evaluated by
giving for each identified risk a score for the likelihood and a score for the expected impact. The five
classes of Tier 1 risk assessment with the scores are given in Table 3.2.

Table 3.2 The five classes for the likelihood and impact to be used for the Tier 1 Risk Assessment
Classes Likelihood Score Classes Impact Score

1 Not likely >0-<2 1 Very small >0-<2

2 Possible >2-<3 2 Small >2-<3
3 Likely >3-<4 3 Reasonable >3-<4
4 Probably >4-<5 4 Large >4-<5
5 Very likely >5-<6 5 Very large >5-<6

These scores are given for each identified risk, regarding human health, ecosystem, and migration of the
contaminants, as shown in the example of Table 3.3. The sixteen risks given in Table 3.1 related to the
ICSM from Figure 3.1 and 3.2 are listed in the first column of Table 3.3. In the other columns, the scores
from Table 3.2 for the likelihood and impact are given to assess these risks.

Table 3.3 The risks scores given for the identified risks (example)
Human exposure
exposure Ecosystem Migration
13 14
No Risk L I10 L I L I

Risks related to the remains of DDT in the cave

1.1 human exposure to pure DDT present in the cave 4.0 4.0
1.2 ecosystem exposed to pure DDT in the cave 5.0 5.0
1.3 migration of pure DDT present in the cave to the surrounding 1.5 4.0
1.4 migration of pure DDT present in the cave in rock bottom 1.0 4.0
Risks related to the DDT contaminated soil in the cave
2.1 human exposure to DDT contaminated soil present in the cave 1.0 2.5
ecosystem exposed to DDT contaminated soil present in the
2.2 4.0 3.0
cave
migration of DDT contaminated soil present in the cave to the
2.3 1.0 3.0
surrounding
migration of DDT contaminated soil present in the cave in the
2.4 0.5 1.0
cave rock bottom
Risks related to the remains of DDT outside the cave
3.1 human exposure to pure DDT present at varies spots outside 5.0 4.0
ecosystem exposed to pure DDT present at varies spots
3.2 6.0 6.0
outside
migration of pure DDT present at varies spots outside to the
3.3 6.0 4.0
surrounding
migration of pure DDT present at varies spots outside in the
3.4 1.0 1.0
soil/ groundwater
Risks related to the DDT contaminated soil outside the cave

13
L: likelihood score
14
I: Impact score

16 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

Human exposure
exposure Ecosystem Migration
13 14
No Risk L I10 L I L I
human exposure to DDT contaminated soil present at varies
4.1 2.0 2.5
spots outside
ecosystem exposed to DDT contaminated soil present at
4.2 6.0 3.0
varies spots outside
migration of DDT contaminated soil present at varies spots
4.3 6.0 2.0
outside to the surrounding
migration of DDT contaminated soil present at varies spots
4.4 1.0 1.0
outside in the soil/ groundwater
Risks related to the DDT contaminated groundwater
5.1 human exposure to DDT contaminated groundwater 1.0 2.0
human exposure by consumption of DDT contaminated animal
5.2 1.0 4.0
products
5.3 human exposure by consumption of DDT contaminated crops 1.0 2.0
5.4 ecosystem exposed to DDT contaminated groundwater 1.0 1.0
5.5 migration of DDT contaminated groundwater 1.0 1.0

3.4 Tier 1 results

Once each risk has been assessed and scored as in Table 3.3, the total risk scores for a site can be
calculated. The score for a specific risk is the likelihood score multiplied by the impact score, which is
calculated for the risk to human health, the risk for the ecosystem and the risk of migration, as presented in
Table 3.4. A total score for a specific risk is the sum of human risk score, the ecological risk score, and the
migration risk score. The total risk score of the whole site is the sum of all the total scores of the specific
risks, shown in the lower right corner of the Table 3.4. Calculating the total score of a specific risk
(presented on the rightmost column of the table) makes it possible to prioritize the site risks and therefore
the remediation measures of the site and only focus on the ones with the highest risk score. When
assessing the same risks for different sites the total risk scores of the different sites allow prioritization of
contaminated sites based on the potential risks. The Tier 1 is completed when the total risk scores are
calculated as presented in Table 3.4. The results can also be presented as in Table 3.5 and or in graphs
like Figure 3.3 (human health risks), Figure 3.4 (ecological risks) and Figure 3.5 (Migration risks).

Table 3.4 Calculating the Total Risk Score and Total Site Risk Score for the identified risks (example)
Human health Ecosystem Migration
No L I L I L I Total Risk Score

1.1 4.0 x 4.0 16

1.2 5.0 x 5.0 25
1.3 1.5 x 4 6
1.4 1 x 4 4
Total risk score of the remains of DDT in the cave 51
2.1 1.0 x 2.5 2.5
2.2 4.0 x 3.0 12
2.3 1.0 x 3.0 3
2.4 0.5 x 1.0 0.5
Total risk score of the DDT contaminated soil in the cave 18
3.1 5.0 x 4.0 20
3.2 6.0 x 6.0 36
3.3 6.0 x 4.0 24
3.4 1.0 x 1.0 1
Total risk score of the remains of DDT outside the cave 81

17 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

Human health Ecosystem Migration

No L I L I L I Total Risk Score

4.1 5.0 x 3.0 15

4.2 6.0 x 3.0 18
4.3 6.0 x 2.0 12
4.4 0.5 x 0.5 0.25
Total risk score of the DDT contaminated soil outside the cave 45.25
5.1 1.0 x 2.0 2
5.2 1.0 x 4.0 4
5.3 1.0 x 2.0 2
5.4 1.0 x 1.0 1
5.5 0.25 x 0.5 0.125
Total risk score for the DDT contaminated groundwater 8.125
Total risk score for the whole site 203

Table 3.5 Tier 1 Risk Assessment results example

No Risk Direct Probable Potential Latent

1.1 human exposure to pure DDT present in the cave x

1.2 ecosystem exposed to pure DDT in the cave x
1.3 migration of pure DDT present in the cave to the surrounding x
1.4 migration of pure DDT present in the cave in rock bottom x
2.1 human exposure to DDT contaminated soil present in the cave x
2.2 ecosystem exposed to DDT contaminated soil present in the cave x
migration of DDT contaminated soil present in the cave to the
2.3 x
surrounding
migration of DDT contaminated soil present in the cave in the
2.4 x
cave rock bottom
3.1 human exposure to pure DDT present at varies spots outside x
3.2 ecosystem exposed to pure DDT present at varies spots outside x
migration of pure DDT present at varies spots outside to the
3.3 x
surrounding
migration of pure DDT present at varies spots outside in the soil/
3.4 x
groundwater
human exposure to DDT contaminated soil present at varies spots
4.1 x
outside
ecosystem exposed to DDT contaminated soil present at varies
4.2 x
spots outside
migration of DDT contaminated soil present at varies spots outside
4.3 x
to the surrounding
migration of DDT contaminated soil present at varies spots outside
4.4 x
in the soil/ groundwater
5.1 human exposure to DDT contaminated groundwater x
human exposure by consumption of DDT contaminated animal
5.2 x
products
5.3 human exposure by consumption of DDT contaminated crops x
5.4 ecosystem exposed to DDT contaminated groundwater x
5.5 migration of DDT groundwater x

18 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

Figure 3.3 Tier 1 Risk Assessment results: human health risks example site

Figure 3.4 Tier 1 Risk assessment results: ecological risks example site

19 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

Figure 3.5 Tier 1 Risk assessment results: migration risks example

20 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

4. Tier 2 Risk assessment

This chapter gives the needed input for a Tier 2 risk assessment in the first section. The second
section describes the method of the Tier 2 risk assessment. The third section discusses evaluation
of the results of a Tier 2 risk assessment.

4.1 The Conceptual Site Model

Tier 2 risk assessment allows the most significant risks for human health, ecosystem, and contaminant
migration to be identified and quantified. To carry out a Tier 2 risk assessment the following tasks must be
performed:
• Gap analysis of (our understanding of the contamination situation) the ICSM
• Design a site sampling and analyses plan for a detailed soil and groundwater survey to bridge the
gaps in the ICSM
• Carry out a detailed soil and groundwater survey in line with site sampling and analyses plan
• Evaluate the results of the detailed soil and groundwater survey
• Update the ICSM to an improved or completed CSM. The completion of a CSM is often an iterative
process, it may require several sampling and analysis campaigns

The updated or completed CSM confirms or rejects the identified potential risks of the Tier 1 risk
assessment by establishing the presence or non-presence of the source, the source- receptor pathway(s)
and the receptor(s). When present the CSM gives the extent and the magnitude (concentration) of the
Contaminants of Concern (hereafter referred as COC) of the source(s) and the extent and magnitude of the
source-receptor pathway(s) using the mapping results and the results of the sample analyses. Finally, the
updated or completed CSM also describes the receptor(s). When all three, source, pathway(s) and the
receptor(s) are there, the risk is real.

4.2 Tier 2 method

A Tier 2 risk assessment involves the comparison of the concentrations of the COC measured in soil and
groundwater samples and other media such as sediment, vapours, pore water, wild foods, etc. taken from
the source(s) and pathway(s), with environmental pollutant reference values from (inter)national standards/
technical regulations. Usually, these values are referred to as screening or target values.

These reference values are mostly underpinned by an environmental risk study and apply to individual
COC or groups of contaminants, for instance, DDT/DDE/DDD (sum), Per- and polyfluoroalkyl substances
(PFAS), Hexachlorocyclohexane (HCH), or Polychlorobiphenyls (PCB).

These soil target values for the various substances are in several countries related to national or regional
background concentrations. The groundwater target values provide an indication of the benchmark for
environmental quality if there are negligible risks for the ecosystem in the long term. For parameters like
metals, a distinction is often made between deep and shallow groundwater. This is because deep and
shallow groundwater contain different background concentrations. For instance, in the Netherland an
arbitrary limit of 10 meters has been adopted to define ‘deep’ groundwater15.

The intervention values indicate when human, plants and animals using the soil and/ or groundwater are
(potentially) seriously impacted by the contaminants in the soil and/ or groundwater. They are
representative of the level of soil and groundwater contamination above which a serious case of soil and/ or
groundwater contamination is deemed to exist. A serious case has concentrations above which risks are

15
https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/680721005.pdf

21 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

expected for long-term (chronic) exposures to the contaminant. Besides the concentration, a volume
criterion is also often applied. A serious environmental contamination is defined when, for instance, more
than 25 m³ of soil and/ or when more than 100 m³ groundwater is contaminated above one of the
intervention values. In some countries, the target values are soil specific so are in the Dutch system the
target values for soil adjusted for the organic matter (humus) content and the soil fraction with a particle
seize smaller than 0.2 µm, as this part of the soil has the capacity to absorb the contaminants.

The analytical results of the sampling evaluated against the reference values are the first input for the Tier
2 risk assessment. In addition, the CSM providing other site assessment information, such as the land-use
status, groundwater, and soil characteristics, should be used for the Tier 2 risk assessment. In case of a
complex contaminant situation (e.g., unexpected contaminants present on the site), consultation from an
experienced toxicologist or another qualified expert is strongly recommended to assess if there are any
significant risks.

Important note on use of international reference values

Each country/ agency/ jurisdiction develops their values with assumptions and parameters that they
consider relevant to their populations/ environment. Most use a similar approach and often Reference
values s are similar across multiple jurisdictions. When screening levels/ reference values from other
countries are used the following aspects should be kept in mind since they (can) have a significant impact
on the concentration of the risk-based target levels and therefore the suitability:
• Risk based target levels or reference values based on background concentrations are strongly
dependent on local geological context, the pedology and historic anthropogenic activities
• Climatic differences such as temperature and rainfall have a significant impact on the Fate and
Transport (F&T) of COC, especially (semi) volatile contaminants
• Complete exposure routes and exposure parameters are dependent on local or site-specific conditions
(for instance individual drinking water wells versus public drinking water wells, crop consumption from
vegetable gardens, etc.)
• Assumptions and default parameters can be highly specific to the region, ecology, and economy of a
region. When possible, the user should try to identify how well these represent their local situation to
select the most appropriate values. (Examples include exposure estimates, water treatment capacity,
body weights, etc.)

The risks assessed during a Tier 2 can also be categorized into the same four categories used in the Tier 1
(see Section 3.3). Now, the ‘likelihood’ is established by the completed CSM and the ‘impact’ is assessed
by the evaluation of concentrations measured. The definitions of the four (4) Tier 2 risk categories are now:
1. Direct risks having a high likelihood and a high impact as the concentration is above the
intervention value:
• Humans having direct contact with the contaminant through the food chain and in their daily lives,
which severely impact their health
• Ecosystem is in direct contact with the contaminants and has a direct negative effect on the
ecosystem
• Contaminants migrating and have a direct negative effect on the site surroundings
2. Potential risks having a low to medium likelihood and a high impact as the concentration is
above the intervention value:
• Humans have no direct contact with the contaminants, but if the situation is not actively maintained,
it can change to a situation that there is direct contact, and this will severely impact their health.
• The ecosystem is not in direct contact with the contaminants, but if the situation is not actively
maintained, it can change to a situation that there is direct contact, and this will have a negative
effect on the ecosystem.

22 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

• Contaminants are not migrating, but if the situation is not actively maintained, it can change to a
situation where contaminants migrate, and this will have a negative effect on the site surroundings
3. Probable risks having a high likelihood and a low to medium impact as the concentration is
below the intervention value but above the background value:
• Humans having direct contact with the contaminants in their daily lives, and this has an impact on
their health
• The ecosystem is in direct contact with the contaminants, and this has some impact to the
ecosystem
• Contaminants are migrating and this has some impact on the surroundings.
4. Latent risks having a low to medium likelihood and a low to medium impact as the
concentration is below the intervention value but above the background value:
• Humans have no direct contact with the contaminants, but if the situation is not actively maintained,
it can change to a situation that there is direct contact and will impact their health
• The ecosystem is not in direct contact with the contaminants, but if the situation is not actively
maintained, it can change to a situation that there is direct contact, and this will have some impact
to the ecosystem is expected
• Contaminants are not migrating, but if the situation is not actively maintained, it can change to a
situation where contaminants migrate, and this will have some impact on the surroundings

4.3 Tier 2 results

The Tier 2 risk assessment should be finalized with drafting conclusions for each identified risk. The
conclusions are based on the analytical results and the CSM. Any remediation at this stage would be to the
reference values.

Below the same example as presented in Figure 3.3 and 3.4 is used as an example of the Tier 2 risk
assessment.
Now more information is available from the detailed site assessment, Phase 2 of the sustainable
management of this contaminated site. The results of the detailed site assessment are reported in the
Phase 2 report16. An example of a Phase 2 report is the Phase 2 report of the Lâm Hoá site, in Viet Nam
provided Module 9 of these guidelines.

It should be mentioned that this Tier 2 risk assessment is not assessing the risks related to the remains of
the pure DDT. Based on the Tier 1 risk assessment results, all DDT remaining outside and inside the cave
(including the contaminated soil inside the cave) was removed before the Phase 2 (soil mapping and
sampling) was carried out. The risks related to the potentially contaminated groundwater are based on the
soil type (loamy clay), the observations made during the Phase 2 fieldwork (very low infiltration rate and
most of the rainwater runs off) are considered not to be present. Instead, the sediment in the creek
receiving the sediments from the run-off is sampled from five places. All sediment samples had DDT levels
below the detection limit and therefor the run-off pathway and the potential risks related to ground and
surface water are not confirmed.

The Tier 2 risk assessment for contaminated soil applied a project-specific reference frame that is based on
the Vietnamese limit values for land-use as provided in Table 4.1.

16
Phase 2 - Detailed Site Assessment Report Lâm Hoá site, Viet Nam, Viet Nam POPs and Sound Harmful
Chemicals Management (Project ID 91381) August 16, 2018. UNDP, GEF and MONRE (TAUW Reference R003-1260864BFF-
V02-ihu-NL see Appendix 2)

23 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

Table 4.1 Vietnamese limit values (mg/kg dw)** for DDT in soil
Limit value
Class 2
Background Class 1 Perennial Class 3 Class 4
Contaminant of Concern limit value* Agriculture agriculture Public Industrial

DDT/DDE/DDD (sum) 0.01 1.10 16.50 4.70 50.00

*QCVN 15:2008 /BTNMT #QCVN 54:2013/BTNMT

dw is dry weight

The used project specific reference frame for the DDT/DDE/DDD (sum) concentration in soil (in milligram
per kilogram dry matter referred to as mg/kg dw) is as follows:
• < 0.002 (detection limit) - 0.01 mg/kg dw - No restriction on land use
• 0.01 - 1.10 mg/kg dw Class 1 - Limit value for agricultural land
• 1.10 - 16.5 mg/kg dw Class 2 - Limit value perennial crops
• > 16.5 mg/kg dw - Restricted for any use

The results of the Tier 2 risk assessment for the soil at the Lâm Hoá site are summarized in Table 4.2
below. For the details on the CSM and the Tier 2 risk assessment results refer to Module 9 . The risks are
discussed based on the layout of the sites. For this site, the two following parts of the site are used to
describe the site:
1. The Northern part of the Lâm Hoá site
2. The Southern part of the Lâm Hoá site

Table 4.2 Amounts of DDT contaminated soil for each hotspot

> 16.,50 mg/kg dw* 1.10 - 16.50 mg/kg dw
2 2 3
Hotspot Total m m m m2 m3

Northern part

1 251 35.00 5.25 216.00 54.00

1a 124 37.00 9.25 124.00 29.20

2 108 54.00 9.20 66.00 16.55

3 20 10.00 1.50 10.00 2.40

4 & 4a 94 21.00 3.15 73.00 15.80

Subtotal 597 157.00 28.35 489.00 117.95

Southern part

6 21 21.00 3.15 10.00 1.50

7 15 15.00 3.30 0.00 0.00

9 60 19.00 2.85 41.00 6.20

10 76 20.00 9.00 76.00 14.40

Subtotal 172 75.00 18.30 127.00 22.10

*dry weight

1. Northern part
A small portion (157 m2) of the Northern part, spread over the five different hotspots, is based on the
analytical results for DDT, is not suitable for agricultural and perennial crops such as Eucalyptus and
Acacias. Based on the analytical results for DDT a larger part (489 m2) of the Northern part is not suitable
for agricultural use. Since the Northern part is the habitat for the scarce wildlife and villagers hunt and

24 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

collect forest products to supplement their diet, the contaminated soil above the land-use Class 1
(agricultural use) for DDT, are not suitable for the current land-use. Humans having direct contact with the
contaminant through the food web and in their daily lives and will could severely impact their health. The
Ecosystem is in direct contact with the contaminants and has a direct negative effect on the ecosystem.
Contaminants are migrating and have a direct negative effect on the site surroundings. Risk reduction/
mitigations measures at the five different hotspots should be taken to minimize the current environmental
risks related to the land-use.

2. Southern part
A small portion (75 m2) of the Southern part, spread over the four hotspots, is based on the analytical
results for DDT, is not suitable for agricultural and perennial crops such as Eucalyptus and Acacias. Based
on the analytical results for DDT, a larger part (164 m2) of the Southern part is not suitable for agricultural
use. As the Southern part is the habitat for the scarce wildlife and villagers hunt and collect forest products
to supplement their diet, the contaminated soil above the land-use Class 1 (agricultural use) for DDT, is not
suitable for this land-use type. One hotspot, hotspot 10, is located outside the strip of secondary forest but
is in an agricultural field. The soil in this hotspot is not suitable for agricultural use. Also, here humans
having direct contact with the contaminant through the food web and in their daily lives and could severely
impact their health. The ecosystem is in direct contact with the contaminants and has a direct negative
effect on the ecosystem. Contaminants are migrating and have a direct negative effect on the site
surroundings. Risk reduction/ mitigations measures at the three of these hotspots should be taken to
minimize the current environmental risks and at hotspot 10, risk reduction/ mitigations measures should be
taken to minimize the current environmental risks relate to the agricultural use.

Based on this Tier 2 risk assessment the following can be concluded:

• Risk reduction/mitigations measures at the hotspot in the Northern and Southern part should be taken
to minimize the current environmental risks related to the land-use
• The Lâm Hoá site is sufficiently surveyed, and the results of the Phase 2 can be used to select the
most cost-effective site remediation and design the mid- and long-term remediation measures to
mitigate the environmental risks in remediation assessment, Phase 3 of the sustainable management
of the Lâm Hoá site

Based on this Tier 2 risk assessment the following is recommended:

• To carry out Phase 3, the remediation assessment, to select the most cost-effective site remediation
and design the mid and long-term remediation measures to mitigate the environmental risks for the
Lâm Hoá site
• To carry out Phase 4, the mid and long-term remediation measures to remediate/ contain the DDT
contaminated soil at the Lâm Hoá site after Phase3 is successfully completed
• To implement Phase 5 the monitoring and aftercare to sustain the remedial results at the Lâm Hoá site
by involving the community of Lâm Hoá in these future activities after Phase 4 is successfully
completed.

25 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

5. Tier 3 Risk assessment

This chapter discusses when a Tier 3 risk assessment is required in the first section. The second
section describes what information is essential for Tier 3. The third section provides the various
models and other available tools to carry out Tier 3 risk assessments.

5.1 When is a Tier 3 needed?

A Tier 3 risk assessment is only likely to be required in a very small number of contaminated sites
management cases, particularly where there is or are significant human health risk(s), ecological impact
and/ or extensive off-site migration of contaminants expected and remedial actions are either very difficult
or not possible, too expensive, or could themselves result in unacceptable impacts. Therefore, a Tier 3 risk
assessment is only applied as part of the Phase 3 of the sustainable management of contaminated sites,
the remediation assessment. The outcome of a Tier 3 supports, motivates, and justifies implementing the
selected mitigation measures that have serious consequences. These measures can vary between or are a
combination of no action; monitoring the natural attenuation; restrict land-use; intensive in-situ operation
and/ or large ex-situ (excavation and on or off-site treatment) works.

5.2 The detailed CSM

When it is decided to carry out a Tier 3 risk assessment additional survey is often needed to detail the
CSM. Such details should provide/ address the following site-specific aspects.

Human health risks

Human receptors on and off-site, complete exposure routes, exposure duration and other exposure
parameters (such soil ingestion rate, amount of inhalation of dust, dermal exposure, etc.) need to be
assessed in detail. In risk models, there are usually different generic exposure scenarios available such as
residential use, commercial use, vegetable gardens, etc. The exposure parameters (exposure factors) in
the applied model need to be adjusted as much as possible to reflect realistic (average) site-specific
conditions.

There are detailed international guidelines available with exposure factors, for instance, the extensive
documents from the US-EPA Also, other sources like the International Programme on Chemical Safety
1F .

(IPCS) from the World Health Organisation (WHO) and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease
Registry (ATSDR) can provide useful information regarding relevant exposure pathways and parameters.
Table 5.1 provides a selection of guidance on assessing and managing human health risks from
contaminated sites.

Table 5.1 A selection of available guidance on assessing and managing risk from contaminated sites
Country/ and Title (Year) Website link Language
organisation
International organisations

WHO Guidelines for drinking • https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789 English/French/Sp

water 4th Edition (2017) 241549950 anish
FAO/WHO (JECFA) Food additives/ • https://apps.who.int/food-additives- English
contaminants database contaminants-jecfa-database/search.aspx#
FAO/WHO (JECFA) JECFA toxicological • https://www.who.int/foodsafety/publications/ English
monographs monographs/en/
WHO-IARC IARC monographs and list • https://monographs.iarc.who.int/monograph English/French
of carcinogenic s-available/
classification
• https://monographs.iarc.who.int/list-of-
classifications
TERA International Toxicity • https://www.tera.org/iter/ English
Estimates for Risk

26 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

Country/ and Title (Year) Website link Language

organisation
Assessment (ITER)
database
Individual countries

US EPA Risk Assessment • https://www.epa.gov/risk/risk-assessment- English

Guidance for Superfund guidance-superfund-rags-part
(RAGS) Part A to F.
(1989-2007)
US-EPA Superfund Risk • https://www.epa.gov/risk/superfund-risk- English
Assessment: Human assessment-human-health-topics
Health Topics
US-EPA Superfund Risk • https://www.epa.gov/risk/superfund-risk- English
Assessment: Ecological assessment-ecological-risk-topics
Risk Topics

US-EPA Superfund contaminated • https://www.epa.gov/superfund/superfund-

sediments: Guidance and contaminated-sediments-guidance-and-
Technical support technical-support
US EPA Framework For Assessing • https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay. English
Health Risk of cfm?deid=158363
Environmental Exposures
To Children (2006)
US-EPA Exposure Factors • https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay. English
Handbook: 2011 Edition, cfm?deid=236252
US EPA (EPA/600/R-
• https://www.epa.gov/expobox
09/052F)
US-EPA Integrated Risk • https://www.epa.gov/iris English
Information System (IRIS)
database
US-EPA Provisional Peer- • https://www.epa.gov/pprtv English
Reviewed Toxicity Values
(PPRTVs) database
US-EPA Regional screening levels • https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional- English
(RSLs) database and screening-levels-rsls
calculator
US-EPA Regional Removal • https://www.epa.gov/risk/regional-removal- English
Management Levels management-levels-chemicals-rmls
(RMLs) database
US-ATSDR Toxicological profiles • https://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxprofiledocs/ind English
database ex.html
US-ATSDR Minimal Risk Levels • https://wwwn.cdc.gov/TSP/MRLS/mrlsListin English
(MRLs) database g.aspx
US-ITRC Decision making at • https://itrcweb.org/risk-3/ English
contaminated sites –
Issues and options in
human health risk
assessment (2015)
Israel (MoEP) Israel Risk Based • https://www.gov.il/he/departments/guides/ir English/Hebrew
Corrective Action (IRBCA) bca?chapterIndex=2
Guideline & model
Canada (Health • Guidance documents – • https://www.canada.ca/en/health- English/French
Canada) Contaminated sites – canada/services/environmental-workplace-
Environmental and health/contaminated-sites/guidance-
workplace health documents.html
((Health Canada) • https://www.canada.ca/en/health-
• Canadian soil quality canada/services/environmental-workplace-
guidelines (CCME) health/reports-publications/contaminated-
sites.html
• https://ccme.ca/en/current-
activities/canadian-environmental-quality-
guidelines
Australia (government • Contaminated sites • https://www.der.wa.gov.au/your- English
of Western Australia) guidelines environment/contaminated-sites
• Guidance document: • https://www.der.wa.gov.au/your-
The use of risk environment/contaminated-sites/61-
assessment in contaminated-sites-guidelines
contaminated site
assessment and
management
Australia (enHealth) Environmental health risk • https://www.eh.org.au/documents/item/916 English
assessment: Guidelines

27 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

Country/ and Title (Year) Website link Language

organisation
for assessing human
health risks from
environmental hazards
(2012)
France Guidelines on • http://ssp-infoterre.brgm.fr/ French
contaminated site/soil
• http://ssp-infoterre.brgm.fr/methodes-et-
management
outils
United Kingdom Technical guidance land • https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/l English
contamination and CLEA and-contamination-technical-guidance
risk model
The Netherlands Soil protection/remediation • https://rwsenvironment.eu/subjects/soil/legis English/Dutch
guidelines lation-and/
CSOIL risk model
• https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/20
20-0165.pdf
Japan (MoE) Guidelines and quality • https://www.env.go.jp/en/water/index.html Japanese/English
standards for soil,
groundwater. and surface
water
Brazil (Sao Paulo Soil and groundwater • https://cetesb.sp.gov.br/areas- Portuguese
state) policy and quality contaminadas/
standards
• https://cetesb.sp.gov.br/areas-
contaminadas/documentacao/manual-de-
gerenciamento-de-areas-
contaminadas/informacoes-
gerais/apresentacao/
Mexico Guidelines contaminated • https://www.gob.mx/semarnat Spanish
site management

Ecology risks
Ecological criteria need to be established through an extensive review of existing ecotoxicological data
including, if necessary, specific ecotoxicity testing and/ or ecological observations of the site in question
(and surrounding habitat) by an experienced ecologist can be applied. During Tier 3, you will need to have
determined that the receptor is present and have undertaken an extensive review and field survey to
assess its habitat conditions, behaviour, sensitive life stages and its diet.

Having determined how the receptor might be exposed (e.g., dermal, inhalation, ingestion, etc.), the
exposure assessment should focus on the predicted level of exposure. For example, where diet is the
primary pathway for exposure, the potential body burden of a sensitive life stage (e.g., juvenile fish) will be
determined based on the likely number/ weight of prey (e.g., aquatic insect larvae) it is likely to eat, and the
amount of contaminant present in the prey.

For ecological risks, a distinction needs to be made between direct ecological effects and the potency of
indirect ecological effects via bioaccumulation/ biomagnification 17. To assess whether these indirect
12F

ecological effects are relevant a thorough understanding of the present ecological receptors which are
directly exposed (for instance earthworms) in the contaminated area in relation to the surrounding habitat
and the food web is needed. Since modelling of site-specific bioaccumulation is complex, sampling of
potential bio accumulative contaminants in higher organisms such as predator birds, fish, mammals can be
a more practical and conclusive way to assess this complex aspect. For POPs, this is an especially
important step due to the persistent and bioaccumulate nature of these chemicals.

5.3 Use of Tier 3 risk assessment models

A Tier 3 assessment usually involves modelling the F&T of contaminants, quantifying the exposure and
comparison of toxicity threshold values to quantify and simulate current and future risks to populations,

17
Bioaccumulation refers to the accumulation of substances, such as pesticides, or other chemicals in an organism.
Biomagnification is the increasing concentration of a substance, such as a toxic chemical, in the tissues of organisms at
successively higher levels in a food chain

28 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

communities and/ or ecosystems from contaminants. This may also include estimates of effects associated
with a range of control options from no mitigation (i.e., no action) to maximum control (e.g., complete clean
up). It is mentioned that the F&T of PFAS, including PFOS and PFOA, are very complex and unusual,
compared to most substances normally found at contaminated sites. Therefore, the applicability of these
models to PFAS should not be assumed at this point. At this time, a good reference is the ITRC
(https://pfas-1.itrcweb.org/), as they have dedicated resources to update this information. Several risk
models18 are already specifically updated for PFAS.

For a Tier 3 risk assessment various models are available. Two widely used models are listed below and
shortly presented in this section:
• Risk-Based Corrective Action Toolkit (RBCA Toolkit): for detailed info see https:/ / www.gsi-net.com/
en/ software/ rbca-software-tool-kit-for-chemical-releases-version-2-6.html
• Risk Integrated Software for Clean-ups (RISC): for detailed info see http:/ /
www.groundwatersoftware.com/ risc5.htm

5.3.1 RBCA toolkit

This excel-based human health model from environmental engineering firm GSI Environmental Inc. is
based on the Risk-Based Corrective Action approach (ASTM Standard Guide E2081).
The human health risk model can be used for Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3 RBCA evaluations. The software
combines contaminant transport models and risk assessment tools to calculate baseline risk levels and
derive risk-based clean-up standards (SSTL) for a full array of soil, groundwater, surface water, and air
exposure pathways. The model contains an extensive physical/ chemical and toxicological database with
hundreds of substances including many POPs. The software includes the following:
• Exposure Pathway Evaluation: Risk-based evaluation of groundwater, surface water, surface soil,
outdoor air, and indoor air exposure pathways, for residential, commercial, and user-defined receptors:
− Groundwater ingestion
− Surface water recreational contact and fish consumption
− Combined direct contact with surface soils (incidental ingestion, dermal absorption, inhalation of
vapours and particulates, and consumption of home-grown vegetables)
− Outdoor and indoor inhalation of vapours emanating from soil or groundwater sources.

In Figure 5.1, an example of a site-specific exposure pathway flowchart is presented.

18
For instance the Belgian (Flanders) S-Risk model (https://www.s-risk.be/) and CSOIL2020 model from Dutch RIVM.

29 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

Figure 5.1 Example of exposure pathway flowchart (GSI Environmental Inc., 2007)

• F&T Models: F&T models for all exposure pathways address a wide array of chemicals, including
petroleum hydrocarbons, including Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons (TPH), metals, chlorinated solvents,
pesticides including POPs, and more. Multiple Points Of Exposure (POEs) allow analysis of actual
versus potential points of exposure in the same run. An array of default transport parameters is
provided for various soil types. F&T models include:
− Soil and groundwater source depletion
− ASTM and USEPA (SSG) outdoor air volatilization
− Johnson & Ettinger and Groundwater Mass Flux indoor air models
− ASTM soil leaching model, with decay options
− Dual-equilibrium desorption
− Point-source air dispersion
− Domenico groundwater solute transport, with decay options

The modelling results, in the (forward mode) calculation of the baseline risk (see Figure 5.2), are tested
against:
• Non carcinogenic risk indexes
• Carcinogenic risk levels

30 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

Figure 5.2 Example of baseline risk summary (GSI Environmental Inc., 2007

The backward calculation of site-specific clean-up levels (target levels) can also be performed (see Figure
5.3).

Figure 5.3 Example of calculated clean up levels (GSI Environmental Inc., 2007)

5.3.2 Risk Integrated Software for Clean-ups (RISC5)

This is a software package19 for performing F&T modelling as well as human health and ecological risk
assessments for contaminated sites. RISC5’s can be used to perform backward risk calculations in addition
to conventional forward risk calculations. Backward risk calculation in RISC5 computes a clean-up level for
an input risk value.

• Human health risk assessment: RISC5 includes the following nine exposure pathways to estimate the
potential for adverse human health impacts:

19
http://www.groundwatersoftware.com/risc5.htm#RISC5

31 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

1. Ingestion of soil
2. Dermal contact with soil
3. Ingestion of groundwater
4. Dermal contact with groundwater
5. Inhalation in the shower
6. Inhalation of outdoor air
7. Inhalation of indoor air
8. Ingestion of surface water
9. Dermal contact with surface water

RISC5 offers F&T models to estimate receptor point concentrations in both air and groundwater. The model
can be used for soil and groundwater contamination and surface water and sediment contamination from
impacted groundwater and direct comparison with relevant national standards for these media. The
modelling, such as with the RBCA toolkit, results in the calculation of the baseline risk (forward mode):
• Non carcinogenic risk indexes and
• Carcinogenic risk levels

Additionally, site specific clean-up levels (target levels) can be calculated using backward calculation.

• Ecological risk assessment: The model includes:

− Food web screening models for terrestrial and aquatic ecological risk assessments
− Databases with:
▪ Ecological receptors and receptor-specific information
▪ Mammalian and avian toxicity values
▪ Worm and plant toxicity values
▪ Soil and plant screening values

5.4 Contact media sampling

Instead of or in addition to risk modelling besides soil, groundwater and sediment other contact media
sampling or specific field measurements can be useful to derive representative and robust input
parameters for the modelling or can be used to verify critical F&T calculation results (for instance air or
water concentrations). These concentrations in contact media need to be accurate because they represent
the actual concentrations to which the receptors are exposed. The most common and critical contact media
that could be useful to sample are:
• Indoor/ outdoor/ crawlspace air (in case of volatile contaminants)
• House dust
• Food (edible parts of vegetables/ fruit, milk, meat, eggs, etc.)
• Drinking/ irrigation/ surface water

The sampling and or measurements require experienced field technicians and specific sampling/
measuring protocols (including robust verification protocols and quality assurance/ control procedures since
often guidelines from the International Organization for Standardization (ISO guidelines) are lacking).

To obtain the concentration of contaminants in the sampled contact media often specific laboratory
analyses are needed. For air sampling, several mobile measuring techniques are available and can be
applied. Such as with the field sampling, the analyses require specialized laboratories, specific analytical
guidelines, and equipment. Also, the detection and quantification limits of the chemical analysis are
important to obtain useful and reliable results that can be used in the risk calculation. An extensive

32 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

guideline 20 on environmental characterization techniques was published by the Canadian Council of

13F

Ministers of the Environment recently.

5.5 Advanced research methods for assessing adverse human health effects
In complex situations where risk modelling, in combination with contact media sampling, does not lead to
conclusive results because the exposure assessment or the human health criteria (health-based guidance
values) have a high degree of uncertainty (for instance when high uncertainty factors are applied to
calculate the health-based guidance values) more advanced methods can be applied to assess the amount
of exposure of receptors or actual adverse human health effects.

Examples of methods that can be applied are:

1. Human epidemiological studies21: these studies are conducted using human populations to evaluate
whether there is a correlation or causal relationship between exposure to a substance and adverse
health effects (for example, assessment of the cancer risk in a specific population living in a
contaminated area compared to other reference population)
2. Biological monitoring: for instance, measuring of contaminants in human blood (serum), and urine
3. Use of human bio-indicators and biomarkers: for instance, measuring of contaminants in nails/ teeth or
measuring of certain proteins or enzymes in serum

Some of these methods can also be applied to monitor the exposure of receptors over time or to monitor
the actual effect of mitigation measures to reduce the exposure of contaminants. In vitro or in vivo bio-
indicators and biomarkers (bioassays) can also be used to assess potential ecological risks in detail.

5.6 Tier 3 ecological risk assessment

Detailed information regarding Ecological Risks Assessment (ERA) can be found in ISO guideline
19204:201722 or guidelines from the Dutch RIVM23, Canadian CCME24, UK Environment Agency25, British
Columbia26 or several guidelines from US EPA27,28. Internationally, the best practice for a Tier 3 ecological
risk assessment is to follow the Triad approach. This method involves three lines of evidence as illustrated
in Figure 5.4 and elaborated in the list below.

20
GUIDANCE MANUAL FOR ENVIRONMENTAL SITE CHARACTERIZATION IN SUPPORT OF ENVIRONMENTAL AND
HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT - VOLUME 1 GUIDANCE MANUAL, CCME, 2016 See:
https://www.ccme.ca/en/files/Resources/csm/Volume%201-Guidance%20Manual-
Environmental%20Site%20Characterization_e%20PN%201551.pdf
21
Epidemiology is the study of the distribution of diseases and other health-related conditions in populations, and the
application of this study to control health problems. The purpose of epidemiology is to understand what risk factors are
associated with a specific disease, and how disease can be prevented in groups of individuals; due to the observational nature
of epidemiology, it cannot provide answers to what caused a disease to a specific individual. Epidemiologic studies can be
used for many reasons, commonly to estimate the frequency of a disease and find associations suggesting potential causes of
a disease. (Source: National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine)
22
ISO 19204:2017 Soil quality -- Procedure for site-specific ecological risk assessment of soil contamination (soil quality TRIAD
approach)
23
https://www.rivm.nl/bibliotheek/rapporten/711701047.html
24
Ecological risk assessment guidance document, CCME (2020) see https://ccme.ca/en/res/eraguidance_e.pdf
25
An ecological risk assessment framework for contaminants in soil UK Environment Agency (2008) see
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/964467/An-Ecological-Risk-
Assessment-Framework-for-contaminants-in-soil.pdf
26
British Columbia Guidance documents for ecological risk assessment Ecological Risk Assessment. Several documents see:
https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/environment/air-land-water/site-remediation/guidance-resources/risk-
assessment/guidance-for-risk-assessment
27
Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk Assessments Interim Final EPA 540-R-97-
006 June 1997 (USEPA, 1997a) See: https://www.epa.gov/risk/ecological-risk-assessment-guidance-superfund-process-
designing-and-conducting-ecological-risk
28
Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. USEPA/630/R-95/002F. April 1998 (USEPA, 1998). See:
https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-11/documents/eco_risk_assessment1998.pdf

33 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

Figure 5.4 Schematic presentation of the integration of three (3) fields of research according to a Triad (RIVM, 2006)

1. Chemistry: The concentration of contaminants in the environment (totals, bioavailable), accumulated

in biota, or modelled via food webs is used for calculation of risks based on toxicity data from the
literature
2. Toxicology: Bioassays with species across genera are carried out to measure the actual toxicity
present in environmental samples from the site
3. Ecology: Field ecological observations at the contaminated site are compared to a reference site.
Deviations from the reference site, which can be plausibly attributed to the contamination levels, are
included in the Triad

For each of the lines of evidence several tools can be used to gather specific information regarding risks/
adverse effects. There are dozens of tools that can be applied to assess certain effects for certain species.
For each contaminated site, a selection of applicable tools must be made. Often the applicability of a tool
depends on the land-use (and associated ecosystem) and the constituents of concern. Table 5.2 presents
an overview of tools that can be used and the suitability for certain land-uses.

Table 5.2 Overview of applicability of tools for ecological risk assessment (RIVM, 2006)
Indicator Tier* Nature Agricultural Parks Garden- Garden Industrial
(instrument) etc. food
Chemistry
Site-Specific benchmarks 1 • •• •• •• ••• •••
Toxic pressure, combi-PAF 1 •• •• •• •• ••• •••
Toxic pressure, multi-substance 1-2 •• •• •• •• •• •••
PAF
Toxic pressure, specific target 1-2 ••• •• •• •• • •
species PAF
Toxic pressure, specific soil 1-2 ••• ••• •• ••• •• •
functions PAF
Modelling bioavailability 3-4 ••• •• •• ••• • •
Modelling bioaccumulation 3-4 ••• •• • ••• • •
Modelling effects on populations 4 ••• •• • • • •
Bioaccumulation measurements 4 ••• ••• • ••• • •
Toxicology
Microtox (elutriate) 1 •• •• ••• •• ••• •••
Rotoxkit (elutriate) 1 •• •• ••• •• ••• •••
PAM-algae test (elutriate) 1 •• •• ••• •• ••• •••
Emergence test with plant seeds 2 • • • • • ••
Earthworm: avoidance test, 2 •• ••• ••• ••• ••• •••
acute toxicity test
Plant growth test 3-4 ••• ••• •• ••• ••• ••
Nematodes: survival, growth, 3-4 ••• ••• •• •• •• •
reproduction

34 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

Indicator Tier* Nature Agricultural Parks Garden- Garden Industrial

(instrument) etc. food
Enchytraeids: growth, 3-4 ••• ••• •• •• • •
reproduction
Earthworms: growth, 3-4 ••• ••• •• •• •• •
reproduction
Snails: reproduction 3-4 •• •• •• •• • •
Isopods: survival, growth, and 3-4 ••• •• •• •• • •
reproduction
Springtails: survival and 3-4 ••• •• •• •• • •
reproduction
Mites: survival, growth, and 3-4 ••• •• •• •• • •
reproduction
Ecology
Floristic survey 1-4 ••• •• •• •• • •
Micro-organism: C- and N- 2 ••• ••• •• •• •• ••
mineralisation
Bait-lamina: feeding activity 2 •• •• •• •• •• •••
Substrate Induced Respiration 2 • • •• •• •• •••
(SIR) test
Nematodes survey 3-4 ••• ••• •• •• • •
Micro-organisms: number and 3-4 ••• ••• •• •• •• ••
biomass
Micro-organisms: Specific 3-4 ••• ••• • • • •
syntheses rate
Earthworm’s survey 3-4 ••• ••• ••• ••• ••
Fauna: survey (butterflies, birds, 3-4 •• •• •• •• •
mammals)
Micro-organisms: genetic 3-4 ••• ••• •• • • •
diversity
Micro-organisms: metabolic 3-4 ••• •• •• • • •
diversity (Biolog)
Enchytraeids: survey 3-4 ••• •• •• •• • •
Microarthropods survey 3-4 ••• • •• •• •• •
Decomposition (litterbag 2-3 •• •• • • • •
method)
Decomposition (wheat straw 2-3 •• •• • • • •
method)
Decomposition (cotton strip 2-3 •• • • • • •
method)
PICT micro-organisms 3-4 •• •• •• •• •• ••

••• Highly applicable; •• Reasonably applicable; • Moderately applicable.

*Tier 1 = Simple screening; Tier 2 = Refined screening; Tier 3 = Detailed assessment; Tier 4 = Final assessment.

To compare the results of the different tests and lines of evidence the results for each line are scaled and
added in a decision matrix. Figure 5.6 is an example of such a decision matrix.
Table 5.3 is an example of a triad decision matrix used for a site in Denmark.

Table 5.3 Example of Triad decision matrix of the Skagen site in Denmark (RIVM, 2006)
Tier 1

Chemistry Skagen M Skagen H

Sum TP soil (C1) 0.94 1.00
Toxicology
Microtox solid phase (T1) 0.05 0.05
Ecology
Plant community analyses (E3) 0.17 0.34
Integrated risk number 0.64 0.60

35 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

Tier 2 + 3
Chemistry Skagen M Skagen H
Sum TP soil (C1) 0.94 1.00
TP porewater (SPME) (C3) 0.06 0.66
Risk number 0.76 0.98
Toxicology
Microtox solid phase (T1) 0.05 0.05
Ostracodtoxkit mortality (T1) 0.14 0,86
Springtail reproduction test (T3) 0.18 0.37
Daphnia survival (T3) 0.43 0.43
Risk number 0.21 0.53
Ecology
Microarthropods (E3) 0.13 0.30
Plant community analyses (E3) 0.17 0.34
Biolog (CLPP) (E3) 0.19 0.18
Risk number 0.16 0.28
Final assessment
Risk number - Chemistry 0.76 0.98
Risk number - Toxicology 0.21 0.53
Risk number - Ecology 0.16 0.28
Integrated risk number 0.46 0.82
Deviation 0.58 0.62
Risk Indicators: 0.00 < IR < 0.20 no risk
(IR = Integrated Risk) 0.21 < IR < 0.50 low risk
0.51 < IR < 0.75 moderate risk
0.76 < IR < 1.00 high risk

36 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

6. References
ASTM standard guide E2081 (2015) Standard Guide for Risk-Based Corrective Action
2

ASTM standard guide E1739 (2015) Risk-Based Corrective Action applied at Petroleum Release Sites

Besselink H, J. A., Pijnappels M, Swinkels A, Brouwer B (2004). "Validation of extraction, clean-up and DR
CALUX® bioanalysis. Part II: foodstuff." Organohalog Compd 66: 677-681.

CCME (2020) Ecological risk assessment guidance document. Available online:

https://ccme.ca/en/res/eraguidance_e.pdf

GSI Environmental (2007) Software Guidance Manual RBCA Tool Kit for Chemical Releases, Risk Based
Corrective Action Tool Kit version 2

Holmes SJ, Green N, Lohmann R, Jones KC (1998) Concentrations of PCDD/PCDFs in soil around a point
source. Organohalog Compd 39:257–260

Israel Risk-Based Corrective Action (IRBCA, 2020). Technical Guidance Version 2. Available online:
https://www.gov.il/BlobFolder/guide/irbca/he/contaminated_soil_documents_irbca_guidance.pdf

ITRC (2015) Decision making at contaminated sites – Issues and options in human health risk assessment.
Available online: https://itrcweb.org/risk-3/

Malisch R, Gleadle A, Wright C (1999) PCDD/F in meat samples from domestic farm animals and game.
Organohalog Compd 43:265–268

Naval Facilities Engineering Service Center (NFESC) (1998) Risk-Based Corrective Action (RBCA) A cost
effective and practical strategy to manage site clean-up. Available online :
https://www.navfac.navy.mil/content/dam/navfac/Specialty%20Centers/Engineering%20and%20Expedition
ary%20Warfare%20Center/Environmental/Restoration/er_pdfs/r/navfacesc-ev-bro-rbca-199809.pdf

RIVM (2006) J, Jensen, M. Mesman Ecological risk assessment of contaminated land – Decision support
for site specific investigations ISBN 90-6960-138-9, RIVM report 711701047 (available online: https:/ /
www.rivm.nl/ bibliotheek/ rapporten/ 711701047.pdf

Turrio-Baldassarri L, Abate V, Alivernini S, Battistelli CL, Carasi S, Casella M, Iacovella N, Iamiceli AL,
Indelicato L, Scarcella C, La Rocca C (2007) A study on PCB, PCDD/PCDF industrial contamination in a
mixed urban-agricultural area significantly affecting the food chain and the human exposure. Part I: soil and
feed. Chemosphere 67:1822–1830

UK Environment Agency (2008) An ecological risk assessment framework for contaminants in soil UK
Environment Agency. Available online :
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/964467/
An-Ecological-Risk-Assessment-Framework-for-contaminants-in-soil.pdf

USEPA. 1989a. Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (RAGS), (Part A) Volume I, Human Health
Evaluation Manual. EPA/540/1-89/002. Washington, D.C.: United States Environmental Protection Agency,

37 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021

 BAT/BEP Guidance for POPs contaminated sites

Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. http://www2.epa.gov/risk/risk-assessment-guidance-

superfund-rags-part.

USEPA (1997) Guidance for Superfund: Process for Designing and Conducting Ecological Risk
Assessments Interim Final EPA 540-R-97-006 June 1997 Available online:
https://www.epa.gov/risk/ecological-risk-assessment-guidance-superfund-process-designing-and-
conducting-ecological-risk

USEPA (1998) Guidelines for Ecological Risk Assessment. USEPA/630/R-95/002F. April 1998. Available
online: https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2014-11/documents/eco_risk_assessment1998.pdf

USEPA. 2011. Exposure Factors Handbook 2011 Edition (Final Report). U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency, Washington, DC, EPA/600/R-09/052F, 2011. Available online:
https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/recordisplay.cfm?deid=236252

Weber, R., Gaus, C., Tysklind, M., Johnston, P., Forter, M., Hollert, H., Heinisch, E., Holoubek, I., Lloyd-
Smith, M., Masunaga, S., Moccarelli, P., Santillo, D., Seike, N., Symons, R., Torres, J., Verta, M.,
Varbelow, G., Vijgen, J., Watson, A., Costner, P., Woelz, J., Wycisk, P. and Zennegg, M. (2008) Dioxin-
and POP-contaminated sites—contemporary and future relevance and challenges. Overview on
background, aims and scope of the series. Environ Sci Pollut Res (2008) 15:363–393
DOI 10.1007/s11356-008-0024-1

38 BAT/BEP Group of Experts, 2021