1、PUBLISHED DOCUMENTPD CEN/TR 15584:2007Characterisation of sludges Guide to risk assessment especially in relation to use and disposal of sludgesICS 13.030.40; 13.060.30g49g50g3g38g50g51g60g44g49g42g3g58g44g55g43g50g56g55g3g37g54g44g3g51g40g53g48g44g54g54g44g50g49g3g40g59g38g40g51g55g3g36g54g3g51g40g
2、53g48g44g55g55g40g39g3g37g60g3g38g50g51g60g53g44g42g43g55g3g47g36g58PD CEN/TR 15584:2007This Published Document was published under the authority of the Standards Policy and Strategy Committee on 31 January 2008 BSI 2008ISBN 978 0 580 58034 5National forewordThis Published Document is the UK impleme
3、ntation of CEN/TR 15584:2007.The UK participation in its preparation was entrusted to Technical Committee EH/5, Sludge characterization.A list of organizations represented on this committee can be obtained on request to its secretary.This publication does not purport to include all the necessary pro
4、visions of a contract. Users are responsible for its correct application.Amendments issued since publicationAmd. No. Date CommentsTECHNICAL REPORTRAPPORT TECHNIQUETECHNISCHER BERICHTCEN/TR 15584July 2007ICS 13.030.40English VersionCharacterisation of sludges - Guide to risk assessmentespecially in r
5、elation to use and disposal of sludgesCaractrisation des boues - Guide pour lvaluation durisque en relation avec lusage et le mise en dcharge desbouesCharakterisierung von Schlmmen - Anleitung zurRisikobewertung im Besonderen im Bezug auf Nutzung undLagerung von SchlmmenThis Technical Report was app
6、roved by CEN on 3 March 2007. It has been drawn up by the Technical Committee CEN/TC 308.CEN members are the national standards bodies of Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland,France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxemb
7、ourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal,Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and United Kingdom.EUROPEAN COMMITTEE FOR STANDARDIZATIONCOMIT EUROPEN DE NORMALISATIONEUROPISCHES KOMITEE FR NORMUNGManagement Centre: rue de Stassart, 36 B-1050 Brussels 2007 CEN All rights o
8、f exploitation in any form and by any means reservedworldwide for CEN national Members.Ref. No. CEN/TR 15584:2007: E2 Contents Page Foreword3 1 Summary.4 2 Scope 5 3 Normative references 5 4 Terms and definitions .5 5 Introduction7 5.1 Hazard, Risk and Communication9 5.2 Risk Assessment and the Prec
9、autionary Principle9 6 Source Pathway Receptor 10 7 A framework for environmental risk assessment and management12 7.1 Problem formulation13 7.2 Key stages of environmental risk assessment.14 7.3 The social aspects of risk .14 7.4 Risk screening and prioritisation.15 7.5 Quantification and dealing w
10、ith uncertainty.15 7.6 Evaluating the significance of a risk16 7.7 Options appraisal and decision-making .17 7.8 Monitoring 17 7.9 Risk Management 18 8 Examples of published risk assessments for use and disposal of sludges .19 8.1 USEPA risk assessment for the Federal Sewage Sludge Rules, 1992.19 8.
11、2 USEPA risk assessment of dioxin-like substances in sewage sludge use and disposal, 2002 .20 8.3 UKWIR risk assessment of pathogen transmission associated with using sewage sludge on farmland, 2003 21 8.4 Abstracts of published risk assessments for sludges and related subjects 21 Annex A (informati
12、ve) Glossary of acronyms commonly used in risk assessment 30 Annex B (informative) Extended text on risk assessment, communication and management.32 Annex C (informative) Rio Declaration on Environment and Development 71 Annex D (informative) Fault Tree Analysis (FTA).74 Bibliography 76 CEN/TR 15584
13、:20073 Foreword This document (CEN/TR 15584:2007) has been prepared by Technical Committee CEN/TC 308 “Characterisation of sludges”, the secretariat of which is held by AFNOR. CEN/TR 15584:20074 1 Summary This report has been prepared within the framework of CEN/TC 308 on Characterization of Sludges
14、. The Scope includes sludges from treating municipal, industrial and food processing wastewaters, sludge from treating raw water to make it potable, and other residues having similar potential environmental impacts. The objectives of the report are to review the methodology of risk assessment, risk
15、management and risk communication especially as they have been applied to sludges. It includes references to, and reviews of, some major risk assessments and abstracts of others that have been published. Sludge is the inevitable residue of treating raw potable water and municipal and industrial wast
16、ewaters. Treatment of these waters is designed to remove unwanted constituents from the water and concentrate them into a small side-stream - “sludge”. The sludge may also contain surplus biomass cultured during biological treatment processes. The objective of treatment is to avoid adverse impacts o
17、n the environment and human health when the effluent is discharged into the environment or water is supplied for human consumption. The concentration of beneficial constituents and of pollutants in (and health risks associated with) a sludge depends on the initial quality of the wastewater or raw wa
18、ter, and the extent of treatment required to meet quality standards for effluent discharge, and potable water. Where effluent quality standards are raised, in order to reduce pollutant loads on the environment, the quantity of sludge produced inevitably increases. To be consistent, the use or dispos
19、al of the sludge must also be environmentally acceptable, sustainable and cost-effective. Sludge management typically represents about half of the overall costs of wastewater treatment. Its management will become increasingly complex as environmental standards become more stringent, and if outlets f
20、or sludge become more constrained by legislation and public attitudes. EU policy on waste is to promote waste avoidance, minimisation and recycling above disposal. Disposal of sludge to sea ceased at the end of 1998. Disposal of sludges to landfill, which is currently the major outlet for some sludg
21、es in Europe, is widely regarded as unsustainable. Sludge production cannot be avoided (although the quantity can be reduced by treatment). The only remaining significant options are recycling or destruction by combustion. Recycling options include use on land as an organic fertiliser or soil improv
22、er for farming, land restoration, etc. Destruction options include combustion with or without energy recovery, gasification, and using the sludge as a process fuel, with the ash being used or landfilled. Many sludges and residues contain beneficial constituents and properties with positive environme
23、ntal advantages. For example, recycling phosphate and thus reducing the need to extract primary raw material and extending the life of the planets reserves. The EU has decided (CEC, 2000) that environmental policies should be proportionate to risk and non-discriminatory. When there is sufficient inf
24、ormation, there should be risk assessment and, when there is insufficient information, measures should be put in place to fill the information gap and an interim precautionary approach applied. In popular understanding, “safe” can be interpreted as “something we dont have to worry about”. There is a
25、 social factor as well as the numerical factor. Some people talk of the “One-hit” model, especially for carcinogens, which assumes that interaction of a single molecule with DNA could trigger mutation that could replicate as cancer but if this were applied universally it would stop all activity. Doi
26、ng risk assessment lets us understand the aspects that drive the risk and therefore enables us to target the regulation it improves the way we regulate. Risk assessment should inform a decision rather than support a decision that has already been taken, i.e. the science should come first and then th
27、e politics (informed by the science). Equally the performance of risk assessment needs to be adequately resourced (time, money, people, etc.), it needs to be transparent (i.e. the models and assumptions should be published) and stakeholders need to be involved at the earliest stages. The fundamental
28、 question is “risk of what to whom”. Risk communication has emerged as an essential activity. CEN/TR 15584:20075 In order to increase public and stakeholder confidence the views of non-expert audiences may be brought into the risk assessment process and supporting background documents should be publ
29、ished so that the assumptions and models are clearly visible. There is abundant information about the fate and transport of the constituents of sewage sludges, but less information about the other sludges. However, relatively few risk assessments have been published. 2 Scope The Scope of this docume
30、nt includes sludges from treating municipal, industrial and food processing wastewaters, sludge from treating raw water to make it potable, and other residues having similar potential environmental impacts. The purpose of this document is to discuss risk assessment in general and especially as it ha
31、s been applied to sludges for an audience of specialists and non-specialists. The objective is to set risk assessment in the context of policy making and operating sludge use and disposal. 3 Normative references The following referenced documents are indispensable for the application of this documen
32、t. For dated references, only the edition cited applies. For undated references, the latest edition of the referenced document (including any amendments) applies. Not applicable 4 Terms and definitions For the purposes of this report, the following terms and definitions apply: 4.1 harm physical inju
33、ry or damage to the health of people or damage to property or the environment ISO/IEC Guide 51 4.2 hazard potential source of harm ISO/IEC Guide 51 4.3 risk combination of the probability of occurrence of harm and the severity of that harm ISO/IEC Guide 51 4.4 perceived risk sum of risk and “outrage
34、” outrage is what makes people upset CEN/TR 15584:20076 4.5 contaminant substance, material or agent that is unwanted in a sludge CR 13455 : 1999 4.6 pollutant contaminant present in a sludge that due to its properties, amount or concentration causes harm CR 13455 : 1999 4.7 potentially toxic elemen
35、t chemical elements that have a potential to cause toxicity to humans, flora and fauna. Typically, this term refers to “heavy metals” and others such as arsenic, selenium, boron, fluorine that exhibits a typical, dose related, sharp toxicity curve CR 13455 : 1999 4.8 user anybody exposed to the prod
36、uct, including professional and non-professional (amateur) users, and general public exposed not from a user standpoint CR 13455 : 1999 4.9 intended use use of a product, process or service in accordance with information provided by the supplier ISO/IEC Guide 51 4.10 reasonably foreseeable misuse us
37、e of a product, process or service in a way not intended by the supplier, but which may result from readily predictable human behaviour ISO/IEC Guide 51 4.11 safety freedom from unacceptable risk ISO/IEC Guide 51 4.12 protective measure means used to reduce risk ISO/IEC Guide 51 4.13 residual risk r
38、isk remaining after protective measures have been taken ISO/IEC Guide 51 CEN/TR 15584:20077 4.14 tolerable risk risk that is accepted in a given context based on current values of society ISO/IEC Guide 51 4.15 risk analysis systematic use of available information to identify hazards to estimate the
39、risk ISO/IEC Guide 51 4.16 risk evaluation procedure based on the risk analysis to determine whether the tolerable risk has been achieved ISO/IEC Guide 51 4.17 risk assessment overall process comprising a risk analysis and a risk evaluation ISO/IEC Guide 51 4.18 Monte Carlo Analysis (MCA) or Simulat
40、ion process of repeatedly sampling from probability distributions to derive a distribution of outcomes (i.e. risks or hazards) 5 Introduction About 500 years ago, Paracelsus (1493-1541) wrote: “Dosis facit venenum.“ (“The dose makes the poison.“). The relationship between dose and response (effect)
41、is still one of the most fundamental concepts of toxicology (the science of poisons), but when we discuss environmental alarms and chemical health risks it is sometimes forgotten. A logical consequence of the dose concept is that all environmental risk analysis is more or less quantitative in nature
42、. Risk management is at the heart of European policy on the environment as well as other aspects of life. It is also at the heart of many businesses. For example, risk assessment is the foundation of the insurance and pensions industries. In order for there to be a risk 4.3 to a receptor there must
43、be a source of the hazard 4.2 and a pathway by which a sufficient (harmful) dose is delivered to the receptor. In the case of the use or disposal of sludges, the sludge could be a source of chemical or biological hazards, the receptors could be organisms living in soil or water or on the surface of
44、the land, and the pathway could be direct ingestion of the sludge or via air, plants or water. Risk assessment 4.17 is often portrayed incorrectly as being different from the precautionary principle, indeed they are sometimes portrayed as being incompatible. The precautionary principle was first rec
45、ognised at international level in the World Charter for Nature, adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1982. It was enshrined at the United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, meeting at Rio de Janeiro in June 1992 (Annex C principle 15) this and European Commission policy (CEC, 2000)
46、show that they are both part of managing environmental risk. CEN/TR 15584:20078 Risk assessment has established itself as an essential tool for the management of environmental risk and has been widely adopted by businesses, regulators and the financial sector. However, the perception of risks by mem
47、bers of the general public can differ from the quantitative assessments of risks. For example, it was difficult to persuade people to wear seat belts in cars, not to smoke, etc. because members of the general publics perceptions of the risks differed from those calculated by actuaries. The realisati
48、on of this dichotomy led to awareness that “risk communication” is also important. Table 1 gives examples of actuarial risks associated with normal everyday activities to give some context and to put the subject into perspective. Table 1 Examples of risks involved in normal activities (from FWR, 200
49、2) Activity Risk Of Cases per million Travel 1000 miles by air Fatal accident 3 Travel 1000 miles by car Fatal accident 20 Travel 1000 miles by motorcycle Fatal accident 400 Working 10 years in a factory Fatal accident 300 1 glass of wine per day for 10 years Cirrhosis 1000 1 cigarette per day for 10 years Heart attack or lung cancer 2500 Living 1 year at age 30 Death from all causes 1000 Living 1 year at age 55 Death from all causes 10000 Figure 1 gives a representation of the major components of the process of hazard id
