Risk-based prioritization methodology for the classification of groundwater pollution sources.

Water management is one of the EU environmental priorities and it is one of the most serious challenges that today's major cities are facing. The main European regulation for the protection of water resources is represented by the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the Groundwater Directive (2006/118/EC) which require the identification, risk-based ranking and management of sources of pollution and the identification of those contamination sources that threaten the achievement of groundwater's good quality status. The aim of this paper is to present a new risk-based prioritization methodology to support the determination of a management strategy for the achievement of the good quality status of groundwater. The proposed methodology encompasses the following steps: 1) hazard analysis, 2) pathway analysis, 3) receptor vulnerability analysis and 4) relative risk estimation. Moreover, by integrating GIS functionalities and Multi Criteria Decision Analysis (MCDA) techniques, it allows to: i) deal with several sources and multiple impacted receptors within the area of concern; ii) identify different receptors' vulnerability levels according to specific groundwater uses; iii) assess the risks posed by all contamination sources in the area; and iv) provide a risk-based ranking of the contamination sources that can threaten the achievement of the groundwater good quality status. The application of the proposed framework to a well-known industrialized area located in the surroundings of Milan (Italy) is illustrated in order to demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed framework in supporting the identification of intervention priorities. Among the 32 sources analyzed in the case study, three sources received the highest relevance score, due to the medium-high relative risks estimated for Chromium (VI) and Perchloroethylene. The case study application showed that the developed methodology is flexible and easy to adapt to different contexts, thanks to the possibility to introduce specific relevant parameters identified according to expert judgment and data availability.

[1]  Fritz Stauffer,et al.  Uncertainty Estimation of Pathlines in Ground Water Models , 2005, Ground water.

[2]  Rida Al-Adamat,et al.  Groundwater vulnerability and risk mapping for the Basaltic aquifer of the Azraq basin of Jordan using GIS, Remote sensing and DRASTIC , 2003 .

[3]  Dennis R. Helsel,et al.  Assessing ground-water vulnerability to contamination: Providing scientifically defensible information for decision makers , 2002 .

[4]  S. Giove,et al.  Regional risk assessment for contaminated sites part 1: vulnerability assessment by multicriteria decision analysis. , 2011, Environment international.

[5]  Andrea Critto,et al.  Decision Support Systems for Risk-Based Management of Contaminated Sites , 2009 .

[6]  Hans-Martin Füssel,et al.  Vulnerability: A generally applicable conceptual framework for climate change research , 2007 .

[7]  Ronald R. Yager,et al.  The use of ordered weighted averaging method for decision making under uncertainty , 2014, Int. Trans. Oper. Res..

[8]  B. Nolan,et al.  Vulnerability of shallow groundwater and drinking-water wells to nitrate in the United States. , 2006, Environmental science & technology.

[9]  Antonio Marcomini,et al.  Regional risk assessment for contaminated sites part 3: spatial decision support system. , 2012, Environment international.

[10]  Ronald R. Yager,et al.  On ordered weighted averaging aggregation operators in multicriteria decisionmaking , 1988, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..

[11]  C. T. Hunsaker,et al.  Ecological Risk Assessment at The Regional Scale Author ( s ) : , 2010 .

[12]  B. Ruddy,et al.  Probability of nitrate contamination of recently recharged groundwaters in the conterminous United States. , 2002, Environmental science & technology.

[13]  Murray D. Einarson,et al.  Peer Reviewed: Predicting Impacts of Groundwater Contamination , 2001 .

[14]  G. Ravikumar,et al.  Vulnerability Assessment of Seawater Intrusion and Effect of Artificial Recharge in Pondicherry Coastal Region Using GIS , 2008 .

[15]  David R. Williams,et al.  Vulnerability as a Function of Individual and Group Resources in Cumulative Risk Assessment , 2007, Environmental health perspectives.

[16]  Ali Emrouznejad,et al.  Ordered Weighted Averaging Operators 1988–2014: A Citation‐Based Literature Survey , 2014, Int. J. Intell. Syst..

[17]  Antonio Marcomini,et al.  Regional risk assessment for contaminated sites part 2: ranking of potentially contaminated sites. , 2011, Environment international.

[18]  Philip J Binning,et al.  Risk assessment and prioritisation of contaminated sites on the catchment scale. , 2008, Journal of contaminant hydrology.

[19]  Tetsuya Hiyama,et al.  A GIS-based DRASTIC model for assessing aquifer vulnerability in Kakamigahara Heights, Gifu Prefecture, central Japan. , 2005, The Science of the total environment.

[20]  Bernard T. Nolan,et al.  Regression model for aquifer vulnerability assessment of nitrate pollution in the Osona region (NE Spain) , 2013 .

[21]  Richard S. J. Tol,et al.  A Methodology for Modeling Coastal Space for Global Assessment , 2007 .

[22]  R. O'Neill,et al.  Assessing ecological risk on a regional scale , 1990 .

[23]  F. Voss,et al.  Predicting the Probability of Elevated Nitrate Concentrations in the Puget Sound Basin: Implications for Aquifer Susceptibility and Vulnerability , 1997 .

[24]  J. Lough,et al.  Vulnerability to Climate Change of Australia's Coastal Zone: Analysis of gaps in methods, data and system thresholds , 2006 .

[25]  Long,et al.  Setting Risk Priorities: A Formal Model , 2000, Risk analysis : an official publication of the Society for Risk Analysis.