Risk management of chemicals and contaminated land – from planning to verification - Environmental Deterioration and Contamination: Problems and their Management - page 234

Verification is a subsequent measure which follows the application of the manage-
ment measure or the RR technology. It means proving, based on measured data, that the
applied option, i.e., the selected measure/technology has fulfilled the expected target.
The verification covers technological efficiency, environmental efficiency (from local
to global scales), cost-benefit and social efficiency assessment (CEA, CBA and SEA).
Thorough monitoring is needed during the implementation of the management option
and risk reduction technology in order to obtain good quality data for the verification.
Planning of monitoring assumes the identification of the data needed for verifica-
tion. Verification and monitoring datasets are supposed to be the same. Technological
efficiency calculations require the measurement of the concentrations and fluxes as
well as the product quality. Environmental efficiency characterization requires emis-
sion monitoring and measurement of residual concentrations or adverse effects in
the local environment over the short and long term, and the global impact indica-
tors (greenhouse gas emission, carbon footprint, resource depletion, etc.). Economic
“monitoring'' is well developed and includes the normal function of an enterprise
(bookkeeping, etc.). Social monitoring is not applied as a systematic tool; risk com-
munication is generally used during implementation of an environmental measure and
a retrospective social impact assessment may be part of the verification system.
Verification may be a simple check of routinely applied technologies, but in the
case of innovative technologies or of the first field application/demonstration of a new
technology, it is a complex and exhaustive assessment and evaluation procedure (see
also Sections 8.1 and 8.2).
The results of qualitative and quantitative ERA and SEA can be used in a prospec-
tive way for supporting decision making and, in a retrospective way, for verifying the
results achieved by the management measure. In the screening phase, evaluation of the
risks and selection of the RR alternatives need comparative evaluations. Verification
of a measure/technology requires quantitative evaluation and quantitative results to
prove its efficiency in terms of absolute values. Qualitative evaluation provides relative
results suitable for comparison during the option selection phase. A relative scale is
advisable to be used only for the purpose of aggregation of different types of indicators.
The selected indicator should be as quantitative as possible before its value is assigned
to the relative scale. Thus, one can aggregate quantitative values with different units
of measurement such as measured environmental concentration (e.g. 5 mg/kg) and
calculated quantity of risk (e.g. RCR

=

2.6) posed by a contaminating chemical sub-
stance with the number of exposed employees (e.g. 20 persons), or the specific energy
price (monetary value) and the value of the real estate in an endangered area (monetary
value), etc. Characteristics such as the non-measurable well-being of the residents, their
opinion and feeling about the impact of the environmental management measure, or, in
general terms, public services, and some cultural and aesthetic issues cannot be quan-
tified but can be evaluated by scores or marks, for instance, 1

= worse than previously,

2 excellent.

Qualitative and quantitative characteristics arranged on relative scales can be
aggregated with each other. The experts should determine the proper weighting of the
individual components of the environmental and socio-economic impacts to ensure
that the final results are correct. However, even the most proper weighting cannot be
considered as absolutely correct because it is influenced by the available knowledge,
the value system, and the evaluators' own interest.

= the same as previously, 3 = slightly better, 4 = much better, 5 =