518 Assessing risks to groundwater from contaminated soils

Soil Use and Management (2006) 21, 518–526 DOI: 10.1079/SUM2005344

Assessing risks to groundwater from contaminated soils

J.W.N. Smith

Abstract. The regulatory regime for contaminated soils and groundwater in the UK is risk based. Indeed,
the definition of contaminated land in UK law requires the presence, or likelihood, of significant pollution or
harm before affected land meets the statutory test of being contaminated land. In dealing with contamination,
a risk management approach is used that also requires the consideration of wider land-use planning priorities,
the costs and benefits of remedial action, and the goal of achieving sustainable development. A parallel risk-
based framework is adopted for polluted groundwater. The risk assessment process adopted for contaminated
groundwater in the UK follows a tiered structure. A simple conceptual model is developed from desk study
and site reconnaissance. This model is then used as the basis for designing a site investigation programme,
the sampling being undertaken to test assumptions within the model as well as to develop it further. The
Environment Agency (England & Wales) has developed a package of tools to aid this tiered approach. This
paper describes the integrated risk assessment and risk management processes for contaminated groundwater
in the UK, with emphasis on the tools and methods developed. It explains the importance of a conceptual
understanding (or model) to all tiers of risk assessment and subsequent risk management.

Keywords: Risk assessment, groundwater, contaminated soils

I N T RO D U C T I O N site reconnaissance information. This model is then used

as the basis for designing a site investigation pro-
T he Environment Agency (England & Wales) has duties
to protect controlled waters (including groundwater)
and to ensure that its actions contribute to the goal of
gramme, for which the sampling is done to test assump-
tions within the model as well as to develop it further.
It is essential that the assessor is clear why the risk
achieving sustainable development. The Scottish Environ-
assessment is being undertaken, that is to say, which
ment Protection Agency (SEPA) has similar responsibilities
questions the assessment must answer. The data and
for Scotland. With respect to contaminated groundwater,
information collected should aim to reduce uncertainty
the Environment Agency has adopted a risk-based
in those aspects to which the particular decision is most
approach to its assessment and management, in line with
sensitive. Consequently, the model should be built-up by
government recommendations (DETR et al. 2000; Kearney
collecting information on the processes and conditions
2003; DEFRA & Environment Agency 2004).
that most affect the fate and behaviour of hazardous
The key to making good decisions in relation to assessing
substances within each as part of the source – pathway –
and then managing risks from polluted groundwater is a
receptor linkage.
sound understanding of the site, aquifer and the physical,
The Environment Agency has developed a package of
chemical and biological processes occurring therein. This
risk assessment tools to aid this tiered approach. They
understanding is termed a conceptual model and is the cor-
include screening level groundwater vulnerability maps
nerstone upon which risks are assessed and a risk manage-
(National Rivers Authority 1995a) and source protection
ment strategy developed. The development of a conceptual
zones (National Rivers Authority 1995b), a framework for
model – which draws together details about the site, scien-
evaluating risks to groundwater (the remedial targets
tific understanding on relevant processes in the subsurface,
methodology; Environment Agency 1999) and simple ana-
and public/private priorities and objectives for land and
lytical models using deterministic and probabilistic com-
water-use planning – is an essential tool for understanding
puter models of pollutant fate and behaviour, such as
the problem in the widest context.
CON SIM (Environment Agency 2003). Finally, where
The risk assessment process adopted for contaminated
necessary, complex risk assessment methods are used and
groundwater follows a tiered structure. A simple concep-
the Agency has developed a new code to better simulate
tual model is initially developed from desk study and
conditions commonly found in UK aquifers, that is, their
variable conductivity and storage with depth throughout
Environment Agency, Science Group, Olton Court, 10 Warwick Road,
Olton, Solihull B92 7HX, UK. Tel: þ44 (0)121 708 4753. Fax: þ 44
(Environment Agency 2002; Environment Agency &
(0)121 708 4637. E-mail: jonathan.smith@environment-agency.gov.uk British Geological Survey 2002).
 J.W.N. Smith
Alongside methods for groundwater, techniques for
assessing the risks to human health from chronic and acute
exposure to contaminants, risks to ecosystems and property
have been developed. The Contaminated Land Exposure
Assessment (CLEA) model, for example, is the recently
launched approach for assessing chronic risks to human
health from contaminated soil, which should be integrated
into whole-site decisions (DEFRA & Environment Agency
2002; Martin et al. 2003).
The objectives of remediation are to manage unacceptable
risks to health or the environment. Effectiveness, durability
and practicability, the likely costs and benefits, and contri-
bution to achieving sustainable development, are all con-
sidered in selecting a remedial option. Methods for
assessing the likely costs and benefits of groundwater reme-
diation have been developed (Environment Agency 1999,
2000c) which take account of societal (external) costs rather
than just the private costs to a developer or landowner.
Using these approaches in tandem it is possible to find an
optimal level of remediation and thus the best ‘environmen-
tal balance’ that is achievable using remedial techniques.
This paper describes the integrated risk assessment and
risk management processes for contaminated groundwater
Problem formulation:
develop conceptual
model
Tiered risk assessment
Tier 1: Risk
Risk prioritization
screening
Tier 2: Generic
quantitative risk
assessment
Tier 3: Detailed
quantitative risk
assessment
Options appraisal
Economics Technology
Social issues Management
Risk management
Collect data, iterate processes and monitor
Figure 1. A framework for environmental risk assessment and management. (Based on DETR Environment Agency & Institute for Environment and
Health 2000).
519
in the UK, with emphasis on the tools and methods devel-
oped. It explains the importance of a conceptual under-
standing (or model) to all tiers of risk assessment and
subsequent risk management.
R I S K A S S E S S M E N T F R A M E WO R K
The UK framework for environmental risk assessment and
management is shown in Figure 1. The main stages within
each tier of risk assessment are as follows.
. Hazard identification, which is identification of contami-
nant sources, pathways and receptors, taking into
account the actual or intended use of the site and its
environmental setting.
. Consequence assessment, which incorporates the three
stages of identifying possible consequences, and assessing
the likely magnitude and likelihood of those conse-
quences. This process requires consideration of the
plausibility of source –pathway –receptor linkages and
determination of the potential for adverse impacts.
. Risk estimation, which assesses the significance of any
risk(s) of adverse effects that identified receptor(s) will
Review / revise conceptual
model as data is collected and
system uncertainties reduced
Stages within each
tier of risk assessment
Hazard
identification
identification of
consequences
Magnitude of
consequences
Probability of
consequences
Significance of
this Risk
520 Assessing risks to groundwater from contaminated soils
suffer if they come into contact with, or are otherwise
affected by, contaminant sources under defined conditions.
Risk estimation takes account of information on the likeli-
hood, nature and extent of exposure (or of other hazardous
conditions) in making a judgement on the significance of
any adverse consequences that could occur. Note that the
expression of risk may be in qualitative (i.e. the likelihood
of serious pollution is low or high) or (more rarely) quanti-
tative terms. Following the assessment of risk the results
are taken forward to decide whether risk management
(remedial) actions are necessary to reduce any unaccepta-
ble risks by whatever method is considered best.
. Risk management concerns evaluation of the need for risk
management action (i.e. risk reduction or control
measures) and takes into account the nature and scale of
risk estimates, any uncertainties associated with the
assessment process and, where further action is required,
the objectives and attendant broad costs and benefits.
The first three processes take place within each of the
tiers shown (Figure 1). However, the level of resource and
effort expended at each tier increases in response to the
significance of the risk or uncertainty in the decision.
Where only insignificant risks are identified, or the out-
come of a particular occurrence can be predicted with a
high level of certainty, a robust decision may be made with
minimal data at tier 1. As the severity of possible pollution
or harm increases, or the prediction is increasingly uncer-
tain, the assessment process moves to higher tiers, which
also necessitates additional data collection and analyses.
The following sections describe the methods and tools
used at different risk assessment tiers to test and refine the
conceptual model of the site and its surroundings, and to
understand the key processes that influence the ultimate
decision on the significance of risks of water pollution.
Tier 1 – risk screening
The initial tier (risk screening) largely relies on desk-based
study and an initial site reconnaissance visit, without
detailed sampling or intrusive investigation to establish
whether there are conditions or circumstances on a site that
could give rise to unacceptable risks. Its aim is to allow the
assessor to develop an initial understanding, or conceptual
model, of the site and its surroundings, which will provide
the basis for subsequent stages of assessment. It is essentially
qualitative in terms of both information collation and impact
prediction. Where risk screening indicates that there are
very unlikely to be unacceptable risks (e.g. because there are
no identified receptors in the vicinity of a contaminated
site), then risk screening facilitates prioritization of further
action, both in terms of its urgency and its detail.
The development and continued refinement of a concep-
tual model is fundamental to the successful and robust
assessment of risks (Environment Agency 2001). The
model should allow the assessor to visualize the site, any
contamination and the mechanisms by which a pollutant
might migrate, or receptors be exposed. The model should
evolve throughout the risk assessment and management
process. It should never be developed and then ‘left on a
shelf ’ unchanged, despite the gathering of additional data
and information. The process is iterative and at each stage
of the assessment the model should be revisited to test
whether previous assumptions remain valid and whether
the collection of new information supports, or requires
amendment of, the model.
For assessment of risks to groundwater, the greatest risks
are normally associated with contamination that is in a
mobile or leachable form. Chemical analysis of potentially
contaminated soils often focuses on the concentration of
contaminant as a ‘total contaminant concentration’ (i.e. the
total mass of contaminant within a soil sample). There are
instances where this is important information for the con-
sideration of risks to water quality, such as during assess-
ment of material on riverbanks, in flood plains, or in highly
fissured aquifers. However, in most instances it is more
important to assess the fraction of contamination that is
soluble in water, and have regard to the fact that some con-
tamination may have by-passed the soil that has been
sampled. At this early stage, consideration should be given
to the potential for pollution of water, by considering the
physical and chemical properties of those contaminants that
are most likely to be present, given the previous uses of the
site. By considering these issues early, it is possible to focus
the site characterization and analytical testing on the areas
and substances most likely to be significant.
The key tools used for screening risks to groundwater
from polluted sites are set out in the Policy and practice for
the protection of groundwater (Environment Agency 1998). It
introduces concepts of groundwater vulnerability and
source zone protection as a basis for prioritizing both pro-
tective and remedial actions for groundwater. Geological
strata in England and Wales have been divided into three
classes: major aquifers, minor aquifers, and non-aquifers
on the basis of their hydrogeological properties. The classi-
fication essentially reflects the strategic water resource
value of different geological formations, but should be sub-
ject to local hydrogeological conditions.
Major aquifers are described as ‘highly permeable for-
mations usually with the known or probable presence of
significant fracturing. They may be highly productive
strata of regional importance, often used for large potable
abstractions’.
Minor aquifers are defined as strata with high intergra-
nular permeability, or are variably porous/permeable but
without significant fracturing. They generally only support
locally important abstractions, or baseflow to watercourses.
Non-aquifers are formations with negligible per-
meability that are generally regarded as not containing
groundwater in exploitable quantities.
Superimposed over the aquifer classification are data on
soil and drift geology, which take account of the leaching
potential of the soils. Where an aquifer is overlain by a
thick clay soil, the potential for contaminants to reach the
groundwater is reduced. Combined, these produce seven
classes of aquifer vulnerability, which have been presented
on 53 maps at 1:100 000 scale covering England and Wales.
If it is found, for example, that the hydrogeology around
a contaminated site is such that the contaminants do not
pose a significant risk to the water environment, then
resources would be directed towards more sensitive sites.
 J.W.N. Smith
This could be, for example, because the formation is of low
permeability with no water resource value (a non-aquifer)
and there are no dependent surface waters or ecosystems
locally. However, where the site is identified as underlain
by a sensitive aquifer, it would be prioritized for further
investigation and assessment .
A similar approach can be taken for screening potential
sources of contamination. Rather than investigate all con-
taminant sources with equal priority, emphasis is placed on
those sites that are known (or suspected) to have been used
for activities that involved highly polluting and mobile sub-
stances, or sites where operations are known to have been
polluting or poorly controlled. Site characterization should
be focused on particular areas of concern, taking account of
the historic use and layout of each site.
The second basis for assessing the sensitivity of ground-
water is the proximity of the site to an abstraction point,
typically a borehole, well or spring. The catchments of
about 2000 public water supply abstractions and other large
or sensitive sources (e.g. brewery abstractions) have been
modelled and had source protection zones published.
Three zones are produced for each abstraction: inner (SPZ
I), outer (SPZ II), and total catchment (SPZ III) zones (see
Figure 2).
Modelled source protection zones are based on the pre-
dicted travel time of groundwater within the saturated
aquifer to an abstraction point. The SPZ I is based on a
50-day travel time and is a small zone immediately around
the borehole. The 50-day period is selected to allow for
degradation of typical microbiological contaminants in
groundwater, such as those in discharges of sewage effluent.
The SPZ II is based on a 400-day travel time and is
designed to provide protection of the borehole from reason-
ably degradable chemicals. The entire catchment of the
abstraction (SPZ III) indicates the extent of the aquifer
that contributes water to the abstraction.
Tier 2 – generic quantitative risk assessment
The second tier uses generic risk assessment criteria to
establish whether, on the basis of conservative assumptions,
Figure 2. Schematic illustration of source protection zones (SPZs I, II
and III) and abstraction point (†). (Reproduced courtesy of UK Ground-
water Forum.)
521
there is an unacceptable risk. In the case of contaminated
groundwater this normally relies on direct comparison of
groundwater monitoring data or soil leachability testing
with relevant water quality standards and guidelines.
Direct comparison of measured water chemistry or soil
leachability with water quality standards assumes there is
no dilution, attenuation or retardation of contaminant con-
centrations between the source (soluble/mobile soil con-
taminants) and the receiving water body. This fails to
recognize any attenuation processes between the contami-
nant source and the point at which the standard strictly
applies (e.g. a drinking water standard applies at the point
of supply – the tap – not the aquifer from which it was
abstracted). As a result, direct comparison is invariably
the most conservative of the available assessment
approaches. Subject to the sufficiency of the data, provided
the concentrations of soluble/mobile contaminants do not
exceed the relevant generic assessment criteria, it can be
concluded that the substances pose no significant risks to
the receiving water body, or users of that water. Where the
concentrations of soluble/mobile contaminants exceed the
relevant criteria, further action, either risk remediation or
more complex risk assessment that more accurately rep-
resents the conceptual model, is warranted. Generic assess-
ment criteria typically used in the UK are listed in Table 1.
To reach a judgement at tier 2, data are needed on the
concentration of pollutants in the affected groundwater,
and on the local use of the groundwater for human abstrac-
tion, or support of other environmental systems. This
requires refinement of the initial model through more
detailed site characterization and assessment, usually on the
basis of further desk-based research and limited exploratory
site investigation.
Methods of assessing contaminant leaching character-
istics, such as the recent British Standard (British Stan-
dards Institute 2004) and European Standard (European
Committee for Standardization CEN) and sorption charac-
teristics (Environment Agency 2000a, 2004) are valuable for
understanding the likely mobility of contaminants. These
methods aid in deciding whether substances with hazardous
properties also pose a possible risk to receptors, because
they are able to migrate to a point at which exposure of
those receptors could occur.
Tier 3 – detailed quantitative risk assessment
At tier 3 more complex tools are used to represent or simu-
late the conceptual model, so that site-specific risks are
quantified. This requires more data collection to reduce
uncertainties and refine the conceptual model. Figure 3
presents illustrative models of pollutant processes and the
surrounding hydrogeologic environment.
This phase should address the nature, likely location and
behaviour of contaminants and possible interactions with
defined receptors, with the aim of establishing quantitat-
ively the nature of a linkage between potential sources – path-
ways–receptors. A preliminary indication of the potential
for chronic and short-term risks to health and the
environment can also be formed, assuming information is
available on the nature, concentration and location of
contaminants.
522 Assessing risks to groundwater from contaminated soils
Table 1. Possible generic assessment criteria for use in groundwater risk assessment.
Contaminant property Technical issues
to consider
Poisonous Potential to cause harm to
living organisms
(including humans) by exposure
to toxins. Implies requirement
to consider relevant dose
Noxious Potential to cause nuisance
or harm, e.g. by taste,
odour or discoloration
Polluting Potential to cause environmental
detriment (to water quality and ecosystems)
Solid waste matter Amenity and aesthetic detriment
or harm to aquatic organisms
(e.g. by attrition of fish gills or
reduced light to aquatic flora)
EU ¼ European Union; WHO ¼ World Health Organization.
Risk estimation approaches, such as the remedial targets
methodology (Environment Agency 1999) and relatively
simple models including CON SIM (Environment Agency
2003), may be used to predict the impact of a contaminant
source on the receptor. A variety of different outputs can
be obtained depending on the techniques used.
The remedial targets methodology describes a staged
approach to the quantification of risks to the water environ-
ment that fits within the generic and detailed quantitative
risk assessments depicted in Figure 1. The initial assess-
ment relies solely on comparison of measured groundwater
quality or soil leachability results with generic standards as
described previously. Subsequent work may take account of
dilution of contaminants at the water table and of attenu-
ation processes within both the unsaturated and saturated
zones (Figure 4). In order to progress through this struc-
ture, additional data are required and, as the conceptual
model is refined, more complex risk analysis can be justi-
fied. The overall level of acceptable risk (i.e. the environ-
mental objective set for each receptor) remains constant
through this process. However, as confidence in the model
increases, steps may be taken to better assess the likely
impacts on receptors, and therefore the necessity for risk
management action.
Simple models provide some scope for varying input
values according to known or assumed site conditions,
thereby avoiding some of the inherent conservatism associ-
ated with the direct comparison approach. For example,
they permit dilution and attenuation effects to be taken
into account in establishing the concentration of contami-
nants likely to be present at a receptor located at some dis-
tance from the contaminant source. If the output of these
models indicates that the whole or part of the site is likely
to pose unacceptable risks to the water environment, asses-
sors again have the option of further refining risk estimates
using more complex models or evaluating the best form of
remedial action. Simple models and analytical tools often
only provide a ‘snapshot’ of the system and do not provide
predictions over time or assessment of time-variable factors.
Relevant generic assessment
criteria (water quality standards)
EU/UK Drinking Water Standards; WHO
(health) guideline values; EU/UK
Environmental Quality Standards
WHO (appearance, taste & odour)
guideline values; taste and odour
threshold data
Environmental Quality Standards;
presence of solid waste
Suspended solid threshold limits
To include this in an assessment, more complex tools are
normally required.
Complex models are used to describe the fate and trans-
port of contaminants in the environment, particularly
where predictions are needed in both space and time. This
approach allows for a high degree of site specificity, since a
large number of the input values can be varied to reflect
actual or likely site conditions. However, it requires special-
ist expertise and extensive data on the characteristics of the
source, pathway and receptor.
Noting the complexity of hydrogeological systems in the
UK, the Environment Agency has developed a code to
allow better representation of the aquifer conditions.
Recent work (Environment Agency 2002; Environment
Agency & British Geological Survey 2002) allows simu-
lation of vertical variation in hydraulic conductivity
through an aquifer for modelling of regional applications.
Assessors should select a model or analytical technique
that is capable of producing usable results which are suffi-
ciently accurate to allow necessary decisions to be made,
and is appropriate to the scale of the problem and the qual-
ity of the available data. Assessment techniques may vary
from simple comparison, through deterministic and prob-
abilistic methods based on analytical solutions, to complex
numerical hydrogeological models.
R I S K M A NAG E M E N T
Having established that the presence of contamination is
such that it causes an unacceptable risk to health or the
environment, it is necessary to undertake some form of
remedial action to mitigate these risks. Within the UK’s
risk-based framework, the goals of remediation are to
remove unacceptable risks, and consequently the terms
remediation and risk management are directly interchange-
able. Remediation includes any action that leads to
reduction or control of risk, not simply traditional
engineering or process-based technologies that ‘clean-up’
contaminated media.
 J.W.N. Smith 523

.0

.5
20 .0

19
19 .5
SITE 18 .0
18
19.75
BHA
20
19.4
TANK BHB

19.8
BHC

17.5
19.7 19.35 18.9 Water supply
borehole

19.1

Flow direction

18.25

18.25 Groundwater level in metres AOD

Groundwater level contour in metres AOD

STORAGE
TANK
BHA BHB
MADE GROUND BHC

1 Receptor
SAND & GRAVEL

4 3
Vapour
Groundwater 4 water table
Flow 2
4 5

SANDSTONE AQUIFER 5
Floating product
(LNAPL) Dissolved
contaminant

CLAY-AQUITARD

Processes
1 Sorption of contaminant onto sand and gravel

2 Dissolution of NAPL into groundwater

3 Volatilisation

4 Degradation-anaerobic at centre of plume

-aerobic at edge of plume
5 Dispersion (spreading of plume)

Figure 3. Illustrative conceptual model in plan (upper) and cross-sectional (lower) views of contaminated site and selected pollutant fate and behaviour
processes. AOD ¼ above ordnance datum; BH ¼ borehole; LNAPL ¼ light non-aqueous phase liquid. (Based on Environment Agency 2001.)

The conceptual model developed previously for risk
assessment purposes is equally valuable in developing a risk
management strategy, since information on site-specific
conditions and any natural contaminant flux-reducing
processes are also necessary when selecting the best
remediation method. This approach is illustrated by gui-
dance on monitored natural attenuation (Environment
Agency 2000b), which aims to create a seamless decision-
making process from initial identification of contamination
problems, to selection of the optimal remedial approach.
524 Assessing risks to groundwater from contaminated soils

Recharge

In practice the "receptor"

Receptor can be a surrogate borehole
Soil zone source
or other agreed compliance

Leaching of contaminants point

Predicted plume

I: Compliance point - soil zone

Concentration

Remedial target concentration = CT

Target concentration (CT)

Distance down gradient from source

II: Compliance point - groundwater below site

Site This will usually be required

where there is no existing
groundwater pollution

Remedial target concentration = DF x CT

Concentration

effect of dilution
Dilution

Target concentration (CT)

Distance down gradient from source

III: Compliance point - down gradient of site

Site
Remedial target concentration = DF x AF x CT

Dilution
effect of dilution
Concentration

Attenuation line describing decrease in

contaminant concentrations due to
Attenuation degradation, sorption, dispersion

Target concentration (CT)

Distance down gradient from source

Figure 4. Tiered approach to risk estimation for groundwater. (After Environment Agency 1999.)

Desk study, develop initial conceptual model, undertake site investigation
Confirm source – pathway – receptor linkages, test and revise
Human health
Human toxicological data
Soil guideline
values and site-
specific CLEA
model
Provisional remedial objective
Comparison of remedial target for each S-P-R linkage, taking into account likely
costs and benefits, sustainability, technological limitations and mitigating factors
Figure 5. Integration of assessment for all receptors is key to whole-site decision-making.
Within the UK framework a number of aspects must be
considered during selection of remedial options:
– effectiveness of remedial action
– durability of action
– practicability of action
– likely costs and benefits
– other management and social issues.
Within the three central decision processes indicated in
Figure 5 (for human health, water quality and other recep-
tors), a tiered approach is taken so that the level of resource
and complexity of decision-making used is proportionate to
the broad level of risk associated with each hazard. The
tiered structure shown in Figure 1 could be shown within
each of these three steps.
Identifying the best environmental balance is key to
ensuring that remedial works contribute to sustainable
development. For example, in some jurisdictions, attain-
ment of maximum concentration limits similar to drinking
water standards across aquifers (including the source areas
within contaminated sites) is a mandated goal, regardless of
the risk reduction this brings, or the environmental damage
that may be caused by undertaking a long, energy intensive
remediation. It is often stated of remediation that 80% of
the benefit can be achieved with 20% of the financial costs,
and the remaining 20% benefit can only be realized by
spending 80% of the cost. The same argument can be
made with respect to environmental costs of remediation,
caused, for example by burning fossil fuels to operate gen-
erators or to undertake thermal treatments. Is it ‘worth’
running a diesel generator for a pump-and-treat scheme to
reduce pollutant concentrations from, say, 50 mg L21 to a
maximum concentration limit of, say, 10 mg L21 if that
means releasing carbon dioxide and other pollutants into
the atmosphere over a number of years, with consequent
impacts on the local and global atmosphere?
While the problem-holder may be principally con-
cerned with minimizing private financial costs, the
J.W.N. Smith 525
Water quality Air quality, buildings,
ecology etc.
Environmental standard Relevant standard
Remedial targets
method and
ConSim
Other remedial targets
based on risk to air quality,
plants, buildings etc.
Remedial target
Whole-site remedial objective(s)
Environment Agency’s goal is to maximize societal ben-
efits, which implicitly includes minimizing environmental
damage, both from the original groundwater pollution,
and from any remedial works proposed (Environment
Agency 2000c).
C O N C LU S I O N S
This paper describes the approach and tools applied in the
UK for assessing and managing risks to the water environ-
ment from contaminated soils. It emphasizes the objective
of attaining risk-based remedial solutions that balance the
environmental benefits achieved with their costs; with the
ultimate goal of selecting a sustainable solution to the pro-
blems of polluted groundwater.
The recommended approach follows a continuous pro-
cess that, at its core, relies on understanding the site and
processes acting on contaminants, as described and docu-
mented. This understanding should be challenged and
tested as knowledge and data increase through the risk
assessment process. It is key that any assumptions are
reviewed as new information comes available, so that
decisions are made on the basis of best knowledge.
REFERENCES
British Standards Institute 2004. BS ISO 15175:2004. Soil quality –
characterization of soil related to groundwater protection. Available:
www.bsonline.bsi-global.com [2005, 30 June].
DETR Environment Agency & Institute for Environment and Health
2000. Guidelines for environmental risk assessment and management.
The Stationery Office London.
DEFRA & Environment Agency 2002. Assessment of risks to human
health from land contamination: an overview of the development of soil
guidelines values and related research. Environment Agency R & D
publication CLR 7. Available: www.defra.gov.uk [2005, 30 June].
526 Assessing risks to groundwater from contaminated soils
DEFRA & Environment Agency 2004. Model procedures for the manage-
ment of land contamination. Environment Agency R & D
publication CLR 11. Environment Agency Bristol. Also available at
http://www.environment-agency.gov.uk/subjects/landquality/113813/
881475/?lang ¼ e [2005, 30 June].
Environment Agency 1998. Policy and practice for protection of ground-
water, 2nd edn. The Stationery Office London.
Environment Agency 1999. Methodology for the derivation of remedial tar-
gets for soil and groundwater to protect water resources. Environment
Agency R & D Publication 20, Bristol. Available: http://publications.
environment-agency.gov.uk/epages/eapublications.storefront [2005, 30
June].
Environment Agency 2000a. CEC and Kd determination in landfill perform-
ance evaluation. A review of methodologies and preparation of standard
materials for laboratory analysis. Environment Agency R & D Technical
Report P340, Bristol. Available: http://publications.environment-agency.
gov.uk/epages/eapublications.storefront [2005, 30 June].
Environment Agency 2000b. Guidance on the assessment and monitoring
of natural attenuation of contaminants in groundwater. Environment
Agency R & D Publication 95, Bristol. Available: http://publications.
environment-agency.gov.uk/epages/eapublications.storefront [2005, 30
June].
Environment Agency 2000c. Costs and benefits associated with
remediation of contaminated groundwater: a framework for assessment.
Environment Agency R & D Technical Report P279, Bristol. Available:
http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/epages/eapublications.
storefront [2005, 30 June].
Environment Agency 2001. Guide to good practice for the development of
conceptual models and the selection and application of mathematical
models of contaminant transport processes in the subsurface. National
Groundwater & Contaminated Land Centre report NC/99/38/2, Soli-
hull UK. Available: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/
epages/eapublications.storefront [2005, 30 June].
Environment Agency 2002. Enhancement to MODFLOW: variations in
hydraulic conductivity and storage with depth. National Groundwater &
Contaminated Land Centre report NC/00/23. Environment Agency
Solihull UK.
Environment Agency 2003. CON SIM release 2: Contamination impact on
groundwater. Simulation by Monte Carlo method. Environment Agency
R & D Publication 132, Golder Associates Stanton on the
Wolds Nottinghamshire UK. Available: www.consim.co.uk [2005, 30
June].
Environment Agency 2004. Development of the partition co-efficient (Kd)
test method. Environment Agency R & D Technical Report P1-500/4/
TR, Bristol. Available: http://publications.environment-agency.gov.uk/
epages/eapublications.storefront [2005, 30 June].
Environment Agency & British Geological Survey 2002. Steady-state par-
ticle tracking in the object-orientated regional groundwater model
ZOOMQ3D. NGWCLC report NC/01/38/2. Environment Agency
Solihull UK.
Kearney TE 2003. Management of land contamination: The UK frame-
work. ConSoil 2003, 8th International FZK/TNO conference on con-
taminated soil, Ghent.
Martin ID Duarte-Davidson R Barraclough D Woolgar P & Earl N 2003.
Assessing risks to health from land contamination from a UK perspec-
tive. ConSoil 2003, 8th International FZK/TNO conference on con-
taminated soil, Ghent.
National Rivers Authority 1995a. Guide to groundwater vulnerability
mapping in England and Wales. NRA (now Environment Agency). The
Stationery Office London.
National Rivers Authority 1995b. Guide to groundwater protection zones
in England and Wales. NRA (now Environment Agency). The Station-
ery Office London.
q British Society of Soil Science 2005