A Conceptual Framework for Classification Management of Contaminated Sites in Guangzhou, China
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Case City: Guangzhou
2.2. Classification Framework
- Develop a site list: As shown in Figure 2, the fundamental requirement for a site list is to collect relevant information. The general information provides the official site name, location, geographic coordinates, owner/operator, years of operation, industrial type and current status (e.g., operational, bankrupt, equipment removed or plants dismantled). The environmental data records soil and groundwater pollution, mass, volume and areal size of sources or volume of spills, waste treatment, storage and disposal activities that occurred both in the past and at present, important resources and environments on or near the site. The site-related records include imported raw material and production lists, facility layout, process flow diagram, underground pipeline map, environmental monitoring data and environmental impact report, etc. The government documents are files released by governmental departments, for instance, the regional environmental protection plan and environmental quality bulletin, which are released by environmental protection department. The natural and social situation describes the topography, soil, hydrology, geology, meteorology, and population density, distribution, sensitive objects, land use, development plan, national and local policies, respectively. As a result of organizing the information mentioned above, a list for each site is developed by verifying its authenticity and integrity.
- Investigate the context of sites: Follow the environmental investigation procedure in Technical Guidelines for Environmental Site Investigation (HJ 25.1-2014), and, based on the information collected in the first step, the general information (including official site name, location, area, industrial type, building, facility, production activities, land use, operator, historical and current pollution (type, mass, volume, extent and range), and sensitive environments on or near sites) should be examined in step 2. To realize this, approaches such as a field survey and interviews are applied, particularly focusing on emission sources and migration paths that have caused or can potentially cause soil or water pollution and result in unacceptable risks. On the one hand, sources can be distinguished through visual and olfactory inspection during site reconnaissance. Aerial photography and records are also useful references to identify current indiscernible sources due to historical changes. On the other hand, by means of face-to-face communication, telephone, email and questionnaire, interviews with key stakeholders such as facility representatives, employees and surrounding residents are extremely helpful to supplement and identify reliable site information. This is a basic step to understand any site, and can provide valuable information for further information management and site classification.
- Establish and manage the archive of potential contaminated sites: At the end of the preliminary investigation, potential contaminated sites with sufficient details covering all pertinent features are identified and recorded. Moreover, the basic context of the site, including its geology, hydrology, hydrogeology, contamination history, point sources, expected contaminants and contaminant levels, spreading pathways and potential receptors, exposure pathways, etc., can be understood in a conceptual site model (CSM). As long as new information is available, the model should be updated either by sampling or regularly monitoring local environmental protection departments within their jurisdiction.
- Classify potential contaminated sites: Based on the investigation results from step 1 to 3 and the site reuse plan, the contaminated sites will be divided into two types considering four factors, namely: site reuse urgency, human health risks, ecological risks and social public attention. The first type focuses on human health risks generated by site remediation and reuse, while the second type is concerned with ecological risks caused by current soil contamination. The methods to weight and score the concerned factors will be specifically explained in the following section.
- Manage potential contaminated sites specifically and respectively: The total score of each site can be calculated following steps 1 to 4, and three levels of contaminated sites will be ranked in high, medium and low priority. Specific actions, including environmental monitoring, further site investigation, site remediation and restricted land reuse, are taken for sites of different ranks. Additionally, suggestions are proposed for sites with different features, specially, for sites in urgent redevelopment, remediating immediately; for sites in high health risks, controlling migration and diffusion of pollutants and preventing human exposure; for sites with high environmental risks, investigating the environment and assessing risks for fragile receptors; and for sites that attract high social attention, communicating with the public in a positive, official and responsible way.
2.3. Classification Factors and Scoring Method
- Site reuse urgency: according to land value, the type of land use, regional development plan and surrounding property value, four scales are defined in terms of redevelopment time as: 0–2 years, 2–5 years, 5–10 years and >10 years. The more pressing the need for reuse, the larger weight to value, and the higher the management priority.
- Human health risks: human health risk is the likelihood that soil pollution may have damaged or will damage the health of individuals who are exposed to contaminated soil, now or in the future. It is the most concerning aspect among the four factors and the main purpose of site management. Three indicators include: cumulate excess multiples (1–10, 10–100, 10–1000 and >1000), exposure pathways (oral intake of soil, skin contact with soil, inhalation of soil particles, intake of gaseous pollutants from soil or groundwater) and ratio of population density in the region affected by characteristic contaminations (<0.1, 0.1–1, 1–10 and >10 times compared with average population density of Guangzhou). They are assigned with different values to quantify potential risks to human health. Contaminated sites with higher cumulate excess multiples, more exposure pathways and greater ratio of population density should be given top priority.
- Ecological risks: contaminated sites which pose potential risks to water conservation areas and water recharge areas, areas located in or nearby areas providing rich surface water and water exchange, areas that contain special protection areas such as cultural relics and historical sites requiring special attention, are quantified by experts on a scale from 0 to 20. The more sensitive the object, the higher the score.
- Social public attention: the contaminated sites, which primarily concern the media, public or other social parties, are suggested to be given prior management. Scores increasing from 0 to 20 indicate the degree of concern varying from low to high.
3. Results and Discussion
- For sites in low management priority, long-term environmental monitoring is preferentially suggested instead of immediate soil sampling and risk assessment, specifically including: (1) develop relevant regulations to limit activities in these sites to reduce human exposure to pollutants; (2) set up monitoring spots to regularly observe the mitigation and transformation of pollutants, especially the downstream direction of groundwater around the site boundary; (3) individuals or organizations who are responsible of the sites should carry out detailed site investigation and risk assessment within 5 years, submit site investigation reports to environmental protection departments for approval and identify whether further actions should be taken and how to take them, if necessarily.
- Sites are grouped in medium management priority in cases if site pollution cannot be identified due to lack of useful environmental information. However, judged by industrial type, professional knowledge and site investigation, the potential risk is not high enough to cause a environmental or health hazard in the short-term. To deal with these sites, regulations restricting human activities and spots monitoring pollutants, preliminary sampling survey and risk assessment are recommended to identify whether further actions should be taken and how to be taken if necessarily.
- The sites neither in the low nor medium level are grouped into the high management priority. They constitute great environment and health risks, social pressure or redevelopment urgency. A remediation directory for highly-prior sites in Guangzhou should firstly be developed to guide a timely and orderly management. Further investigation, evaluation and remediation by responsible parties in a fixed time are necessary to ensure the mitigation of potential risks to sensitive objects.
4. Conclusions
- Considering the realistic context of contaminated sites in Guangzhou, the proposed classification framework is significantly valuable for innovatively considering four assessment factors (site reuse urgency, human health risks, ecological risks and social public concern). These are broken down into secondary indicators, and the qualitative judgment is transformed into quantitative operational scores by weighted sum method combining the Analytic Hierarchy Process (AHP) and the Expert Scoring Method (ESM);
- With the purpose of effectively accelerating land reuse, prioritizing management procedures and allocating human, material and financial resources, the conceptual framework can categorize contaminated sites into three types according to the results of: information, field survey and interview with relative stakeholders (e.g., local experts and industrial managers). Different management strategies including timely site remediation, further soil sampling and regular pollution monitoring were specifically suggested for sites with different priorities or with different features;
- The national classification of contaminated sites is a long-term project, in which case studies and rich practical experiences are necessary for verifying and improving evaluation factors and scoring methods. As one of the leading cities in contaminated site management in China, the features of intensive industrial development, pervasive pollution and high land demand in Guangdong make it typical and representative as a pilot case and successful example in terms of the classification process, the evaluation factors and the quantifying methods, which can all be referred to by other regions in contaminated site classification. In this sense, testing many sites in the long-term, and continuous reliable and practicable improvement of the classification framework will make this work meaningful and applicable to a larger scientific community.
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Bergius, K.; Öberg, T. Initial screening of contaminated land: A comparison of US and Swedish methods. J. Environ. Manag. 2007, 39, 226–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rodrigues, S.M.; Pereira, M.E.; da Silva, E.F.; Hursthouse, A.S.; Duarte, A.C. A review of regulatory decisions for environmental protection: Part I-challenges in the implementation of national soil policies. Environ. Int. 2009, 35, 202–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Bouma, J.; Droogers, P. Translating soil science into environmental policy: A case study on implementing the EU soil protection strategy in The Netherlands. Environ. Sci. Policy 2007, 10, 454–463. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Provoost, J.; Cornelis, C.; Swartjes, F. Comparison of soil clean-up standards for trace elements between countries: Why do they differ? J. Soils Sediments 2006, 6, 173–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tarazona, J.V.; Fernandez, M.D.; Vega, M.M. Regulation of contaminated soils in Spain: A new legal instrument. J. Soils Sediments 2005, 5, 121–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA). 1980. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/oecaagct/lcla.html (accessed on 31 August 2016). [Google Scholar]
- United Kingdom-Department of the Environment (UK DETR). Town and Country Planning Act. 1990. Available online: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/contents (accessed on 31 August 2016). [Google Scholar]
- Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). Recommended Canadian Soil Quality Guidelines. CCME Document #PN1268; Winnipeg, Manitoba, 1997. Available online: http://159.226.240.76/www.ccme.ca/files/Resources/supporting_scientific_documents/pn_1268_e.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2017). [Google Scholar]
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). Hazard Ranking System—Final Rule. NPL Listing Policy Documents. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/npl/hrsres/index.htm#NPL (accessed on 31 August 2016).
- Canadian Council of Ministers of the Environment (CCME). National Classification System for Contaminated Sites: Guidance Document. CCME Document #PN1403; Winnipeg, Manitoba, 2008. Available online: http://159.226.240.76/www.ccme.ca/files/Resources/csm/pn_1403_ncscs_guidance_e.pdf (accessed on 18 January 2017). [Google Scholar]
- French Environment and Energy Management Agency (ADEME). French Approach to Contaminated-Land Management—Revision 1. 2003. Available online: http://www.brgm.fr/result/telechargement/telechargement.jsp?id=RSP-BRGM/RP-52276-FR (accessed on 6 September 2016). [Google Scholar]
- United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA). NPL Site Totals by Status and Milestone. 2015. Available online: http://www.epa.gov/superfund/sites/query/queryhtm/npltotal.htm (accessed on 31 August 2016). [Google Scholar]
- Thiessen, R.J. An Evaluation of the 2008 National Classification System for Contaminated Sites. Master’s Thesis, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada, November 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Thiessen, R.J.; Achari, G. A comparison of 2008 national classification system for contaminated sites scores to preliminary quantitative risk assessment hazard quotients. Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2011, 38, 719–728. [Google Scholar]
- Thiessen, R.J.; Achari, G. Can the National Classification System for Contaminated Sites be used to rank sites? Can. J. Civ. Eng. 2012, 39, 415–431. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boon, K.A.; Ramsey, M.H. Uncertainty of measurement or of mean value for the reliable classification of contaminated land. Sci. Total Environ. 2010, 409, 423–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Ramsey, M.H.; Argyraki, A. Estimation of measurement uncertainty from field sampling: Implications for the classification of contaminated land. Sci. Total Environ. 1997, 198, 243–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Halfon, E. Comparison of an index function and a vectorial approach method for ranking waste disposal sites. Environ. Sci. Technol. 1989, 23, 600–609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jensen, T.S.; Lerche, D.B.; Sorensen, P.B. Ranking contaminated sites using a partial ordering method. Environ. Toxicol. Chem. 2003, 22, 776–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Lehn, K.; Temme, K.H. Fuzzy classification of sites suspected of being contaminated. Ecol. Model. 1996, 85, 51–58. Available online: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0304380095000143 (accessed on 18 January 2017). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liao, X.Y.; Chong, Z.Y.; Yan, X.L.; Zhao, D. Urban industrial contaminated sites: A new issue in the field of environmental remediation in China. Environ. Sci. 2011, 32, 784–793. [Google Scholar]
- Luo, Y.M. Contaminated site remediation in China: Progresses, problems and prospects. Adm. Tech. Environ. Monit. 2011, 23, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Li, X.N.; Jiao, W.T.; Xiao, R.B.; Chen, W.P.; Chang, A.C. Soil pollution and site remediation policies in China: A review. Environ. Rev. 2015, 23, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, Q.F.; Wen, F.; Hou, H.; Lv, L.Q.; Zhou, Y.Y.; Gu, Q.B.; Li, F.S. Overview of classification system for contaminated sites in Developed Countries and the Revelation to China. Environ. Pollut. Control 2010, 32, 78–83. [Google Scholar]
- Zhou, Y.Y.; Yan, Z.G.; Guo, G.L.; Gu, Q.B.; Li, F.S. The national classification framework and method for contaminated sites. Environ. Prot. 2007, 5B, 32–35. [Google Scholar]
- Yi, A.H.; Huang, Q.F.; Zhang, Z.Q.; Zhao, N.N.; Wang, Q. Study on classification and management strategies for POPs contaminated sites in China. Environ. Manag. Sustain. Dev. 2007, 1, 1–3. [Google Scholar]
- Chen, H.; Chen, Y.; Shao, C.Y.; Chen, G.; Liu, Y. Study on Management Mode and Classification Method for Contaminated Land Regeneration of Heavy Metal. China Environ. Prot. 2008, 4, 49–53. [Google Scholar]
- Li, J.M. Suggestions on the Reutilization and Classification Management of Industrial Contaminated Site. Energy Conserv. 2015, 2, 95–96. [Google Scholar]
- Yu, Q.F.; Hou, H.; Bai, Z.K.; Li, F.S. Frame construction of national classification system for contaminated sites in China. Trans. Chin. Soc. Agric. Eng. 2013, 29, 228–234. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, K.M.; Wang, C.K.; Hu, C. Analytic hierarchy process with fuzzy scoring in evaluating multidisciplinary R&D projects in China. IEEE Trans. Eng. Manag. 2005, 52, 119–129. [Google Scholar]
- Li, H.L.; Yu, Y.T. Research on the evaluation of expert scoring method in the competitiveness of high colleges and universities of Jiangxi province. In Proceedings of the 2013 6th International Conference on Information Management, Innovation Management and Industrial Engineering, Xi’an, China, 23–24 November 2013.
- Wang, X.W. The Research about the Relationship between Heavy Metals Contamination and Crops on Farmland Soil in the Goldfield. Master’s Thesis, Chang’an University, Xi’an, China, 28 May 2010. [Google Scholar]
Site | Industrial Type | Pollutant | Contaminated Area | Site Status | Surroundings |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | Food Manufacture | - | - | Creative garden for recreation, most plants remained or are transformed into restaurants and exhibition spaces. | Residential areas, Pearl River |
2 | Agro-food Processing | - | - | Most plants remained, or are rented to transportation and decoration material companies. | Water plant |
3 | Food Manufacture | - | - | Most plants remained and some are in operation. | Residential areas |
4 | Transport, Storage and Postal Service | - | - | Construction land | - |
5 | Food Manufacture | - | Unidentified | Most plants are idle, or rented to advertising and decoration companies. | Hospital, residential areas |
6 | Wholesale and Retail | Incomplete information, unidentified | Residential areas, school | ||
7 | Water Production and Supply | Halogenated hydrocarbons | Unidentified | Idle | - |
8 | Road Transport | Diesel, heavy metals (Pb) | Unidentified | Car rental company | Water plant |
9 | Textile | Kerosene, acid, alkali | Unidentified | Subway station | Residential areas |
10 | Metal Products | Organic compounds (diesel, benzene), heavy metals (Pb, Zn) | Product workshop, diesel repository, oil leakage area | Parking | - |
11 | Printing | Organic compounds (benzene, phenolic resins), heavy metals (Cd, Cr, Pb) | Unidentified | Creative garden, most plants remained or were rebuilt. | Residential areas, hospital |
12 | Rubber Products | Organic compounds (petroleum hydrocarbons, aniline), heavy metals (Pb, Zn) | Unidentified | Most plants are dismantled for recreational purposes. | - |
13 | Metal Products | Organic compounds (petroleum hydrocarbons, benzene), heavy metals (Pb, Zn) | Product workshop, boiler room | Driving school, parking | Pearl River |
Type | I: Risks by Future reuse | II: Risks by Present Pollution | ||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Factor | Site reuse urgency (Year) | Human health risks | Ecological risks | Social public attention | ||||||||||||||||
Cumulate excess multiple of characteristic contamination 1 | Exposure pathways (Quantity) | Ratio of population density | Water source | Surface water | Special protection area | |||||||||||||||
Level | 0–2 | 2–5 | 5–10 | >10 | 1–10 | 10–102 | 102–103 | >103 | 0–1 | 1–3 | 4 | >4 | <10−1 | 10−1–1 | 1–10 | >10 | ||||
Value | 20 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 20 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 20 | 1 | 2 | 5 | 20 | 0–20 | 0–20 | 0–20 | 0–20 |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Li, X.; Xiao, R.; Chen, W.; Chang, C.; Deng, Y.; Xie, T. A Conceptual Framework for Classification Management of Contaminated Sites in Guangzhou, China. Sustainability 2017, 9, 362. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030362
Li X, Xiao R, Chen W, Chang C, Deng Y, Xie T. A Conceptual Framework for Classification Management of Contaminated Sites in Guangzhou, China. Sustainability. 2017; 9(3):362. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030362
Chicago/Turabian StyleLi, Xiaonuo, Rongbo Xiao, Weiping Chen, Chunying Chang, Yirong Deng, and Tian Xie. 2017. "A Conceptual Framework for Classification Management of Contaminated Sites in Guangzhou, China" Sustainability 9, no. 3: 362. https://doi.org/10.3390/su9030362