Главная > Документ

Сохрани ссылку в одной из сетей:

EU risk assessment - Lead metal and lead compounds title

European Union Risk Assessment Report

Lead metal

CAS No: 7439-92-1

EINECS No: [click here to insert EINECS No.]

Lead oxide

CAS No: 1317-36-8

EINECS No: [click here to insert EINECS No.]

Lead tetroxide

CAS No: 1314-41-6

EINECS No: [click here to insert EINECS No.]

Lead stabiliser compounds

Dibasic lead phthalate (CAS No: 69011-06-9)

Basic lead sulphate (CAS No: 12036-76-9)

Tribasic lead sulphate (CAS No: 12202-17-4)

Tetrabasic lead sulphate (CAS No: 12065-90-6)

Neutral lead stearate (CAS No: 1072-35-1)

Dibasic lead stearate (CAS No: 12578-12-0)

Dibasic lead phosphite (CAS No: 12141-20-7)

Polybasic lead fumarate (CAS No: 90268-59-0)

Basic lead carbonate (CAS No: 1319-46-6)

Basic lead sulphite (CAS No: 62229-08-7)

EINECS No: [click here to insert EINECS No.]

VOLUNTARY Risk Assessment

Lead Development Association International

Lead metal

CAS No: 7439-92-1

lead oxide

CAS No: 1317-36-8

Lead tetroxide

CAS No: 1314-41-6

lead stabiliser compounds

Dibasic lead phthalate (CAS No: 69011-06-9)

Basic lead sulphate (CAS No: 12036-76-9)

Tribasic lead sulphate (CAS No: 12202-17-4)

Tetrabasic lead sulphate (CAS No: 12065-90-6)

Neutral lead stearate (CAS No: 1072-35-1)

Dibasic lead stearate (CAS No: 12578-12-0)

Dibasic lead phosphite (CAS No: 12141-20-7)

Polybasic lead fumarate (CAS No: 90268-59-0)

Basic lead carbonate (CAS No: 1319-46-6)

Basic lead sulphite (CAS No: 62229-08-7)

EINECS No: [click here to insert EINECS No.]

Environmental Risk Assessment

Appendices to the Exposure assessment

Draft of April 2008

This report has been prepared by EURAS, ECOLAS and KUL under contract to the LDAI Lead Risk Assessment Working Group.


In response to a request from the European Commission to “start preparing the initial

assessments for substances on the EU working list as these were considered as Community priorities in the context of the industry voluntary initiatives for high production volume chemicals” the lead industry committed to undertake a Voluntary Risk Assessment (VRA) for lead metal, lead monoxide, lead tetraoxide, poly-basic lead fumerate, basic lead sulphate, basic lead carbonate, tetrabasic lead sulphate, dibasic lead phosphite, dibasic lead stearate, neutral lead stearate, dibasic lead phthalate, tetrabasic lead sulphate and basic lead sulphite. This initiative was endorsed by the EU Competent Authorities in 2001. Yearly summaries on progress were presented at the CA meetings.

This comprehensive VRA dossier took four years to draft before being submitted to the EU’s Technical Committee on New and Existing Substances (TCNES) for review, with the whole process managed by the Lead Development Association International. It was compiled in co-operation with expert consultants from EBRC and the International Lead Zinc Research Orgainisation for human health and from EURAS, ECOLAS and the Catholic University if Leuven for the environment. It is based on the principles of Regulation 793/93, 1488/94 and the detailed methodology laid down in the revised Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment for New and Existing Substances. Methodological experiences gained through other metal Risk Assessments were incorporated as appropriate. Additional up to date scientific information was integrated into the assessment where scientifically relevant. A broad cross section of the European lead industry and its downstream users were fully involved in the process and submitted a significant amount of proprietary data.

To ensure the transparency and quality of the dossier submitted to TCNES, the initial draft RA reports were refined by incorporating inputs from the Reviewing Country (Netherlands) and the independent peer review panels.

A single dossier covers the assessments for lead metal and the lead compounds, with

substance specific aspects provided where relevant. For the base data compilation, extensive literature searches were performed for each substance. Data gaps were filled with analogous data, where relevant, or by additional testing where possible. Where the information was either unnecessary for the lead risk assessment, or impossible to obtain, waiving for testing and/or justification to support derogation is discussed. Some remaining data gaps were identified and will be tackled as a follow-up to this report.

The draft risk assessment report was reviewed by TCNES between 2005 and 2008 and, based on the comments received, the report was significantly amended. Separate TCNES Opinions on the health and environmental parts of the report were prepared by the ECB and endorsed by TCNES. These Opinions summarise the views of TCNES on this report.

This Draft Risk Assessment Report and its appendices (the “Report”) is the property of the member companies of the Lead Reach Consortium companies. A full list of those companies is available upon request from the Lead Development Association International.

This Report is protected by the laws of copyrights in England and Wales, European Community Law, the Berne Convention the Universal Copyright Convention and other relevant international copyright.

Industries/companies or any other legal entity wishing to use all or any part of this Report and/or their appendices, for any purpose (including without limitation any regulatory purpose such as for EU REACH registrations) MAY NOT DO SO without having previously contacted the Lead Development Association International (acting as secretariat for the Lead Reach Consortium) and agreed in writing appropriate terms of access and paid the appropriate licence fee.

In order to avoid possible misinterpretations or misuse of the findings in this draft, anyone wishing to cite or quote any part of this report, or use its related appendices, is advised to contact Lead Development Association International beforehand.

Contact details of the responsible:

Dr Andy Bush, Lead Development Association International, 17a Welbeck Way, London, W1G 9YJ, United Kingdom. Tel +44 (0) 207 499 8422, email bush@


European Union Risk Assessment Report 1

Lead metal 1

Lead oxide 1

Lead tetroxide 1

Lead stabiliser compounds 1

VOLUNTARY Risk Assessment 1

Lead metal 2

lead oxide 2

Lead tetroxide 2

lead stabiliser compounds 2

Environmental Risk Assessment 2

1. Introduction 15

2. Use pattern 17

3. Exposure assessment 25

4. Effects assessment 92

5. Risk Characterisation 116

6. Conclusions 122

7. References 123

Appendix C Background report – Pb emission inventory – draft 02/2007 - ECOLAS 131




List of acronyms and abbreviations 135

1. Methodology 136

2. Critical evaluation of available emission data in the EU-15 and selection of EU region 141

3. Assessment of appropriate regional emission quantification methods 143

4. Selection of methodology to quantify total EU-15 emissions 198

Quantification of regional and total EU-15 releases 222

References 239

Annexes 246

Appendix f Added risk approach. Derivation of local exposure values 277

Appendix g Use of measured agricultural soil concentrations for different European countries as regional background for PEClocal soil determination 289

Additional scenario next to the use of forest soil concentrations (natural soil) as regional background 289

APPENDIX A Targeted risk assessment of lead in ammunition

November 2007

This report has been prepared by EURAS, ECOLAS and D Peddicord under contract to AFEMS

Principal authors:

Kortrijksesteenweg 302

B-9000 Gent, Belgium

E-mail: Patrick.VanSprang@euras.be

Phone: 32 9 241 77 50

Fax: 32 9 241 77 02


Kortrijksesteenweg 302

B-9000 Gent, Belgium

Scientific expertise:

Frederik Verdonck, Marleen Vandenbroele, Patrick Van Sprang

EURAS bvba

Kortrijksesteenweg 302

B-9000 Gent


Tel.: ++32 9 241 77 45

Fax: ++32 9 241 77 02


Annick Van Hyfte & Karen Callebaut


Kortrijksesteenweg 302

B-9000 Gent


Tel: ++ 32 9 241 77 28

Fax: ++ 32 9 241 77 01


Richard K. "Dick" Peddicord
Dick Peddicord & Company, Inc.
1115 Cooper's Landing Road
Heathsville VA 22473

Tel: +1 804 580-3320    

Fax: +1 804 580-3360


© Lead Development Association International

All rights reserved. No part of this document may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, or any information storage or retrieval system without prior permission from the author. This copyright is protected under the law of England and Wales, European Community Law, the Berne Copyright Convention, the Universal Copyright Convention and other relevant international copyright law.

Table of contents

List of figures

List of tables

  1. Introduction

The environmental risk assessment of metals in Europe is embedded in the European Council adopted Council Regulation (EEC) 793/93 that complements the already existing rules governed by Council Directive 67/548/EEC for "new" chemical substances1. Substances that have been identified as a priority substance should embark into a full risk assessment following the guidelines as outlined in the Technical Guidance Document on Risk Assessment for New and Existing Substances (TGD, 1996/2003). Typically, an EU Member State volunteers or is appointed to act as rapporteur for that specific substance on the priority list and is responsible to perform an in-depth risk assessment covering both human health and environmental issues. During the process the quality and status of the risk assessment is scrutinized at the so called Technical Committees New and Existing Substances (TC-NES)2 composed of EU Member States and observers from industry, consumer organizations, trade unions, environmental organizations and certain international organizations (e.g. OECD, WHO). The Rapporteur’s final-draft Risk Assessment Report agreed at the Member State level is then submitted to the Scientific Committee on Toxicity, Ecotoxicity and the Environment (SCTEE) which advices the European Commission on the quality of the Risk Assessment Report (RAR) and its adherence to general scientific principles.

In simple terms risk assessment involves the identification of a hazard and the level of exposure at which it occurs, coupled with measurement of actual exposure levels of people and ecosystems. The combination of hazard and exposure data enables risks to be identified and appropriate risk management measures to be adopted. Emissions and consequently the environmental impacts have to be evaluated at each stage of the life-cycle of a chemical, from production, through processing, formulation and use, to recycling and disposal. Protection goals for the environment include aquatic organisms, sediment dwelling organisms, soil-dwelling organisms, micro-organisms in waste water treatment plants, and mammals and birds exposed via accumulation up the food chain.

This risk assessment focuses specifically on the issues related to the environmental part. The purpose of an environmental risk assessment is to determine the potential risk posed by a chemical or a chemical product to the ecosystem. Three phases can be distinguished in the assessment of the risks of a chemical: exposure assessment, effects assessment and risk characterization. The reader is referred to the EU Technical Guidance Documents for more detailed information (TGD, 1996/2003).

The international Lead Development Association (LDAI) has initiated voluntary risk assessments on the production and use of their materials across the EU that would allow them to comply in an anticipative way with the forthcoming legislative obligations. These voluntary risk assessments (VRAR) are carried out by the industry itself in cooperation with the appropriate authorities, within the EU and the Member States that are joining the process to ensure that the outcome of the risk assessment appropriately reflects any relevant risks that may be identified. This exercise consists of an in-depth assessment of both the effects, aiming at deriving thresholds that are protective for the ecosystem, and the exposure, aiming at reflecting the concentrations in the different compartments to which target organisms are exposed to, in accordance with the stipulations laid down in the Commission Regulation No. 1488/94 on risk assessment of existing substances.

In 2004, an initial draft of the regional exposure assessment was finalised in which emissions of diffuse environmental sources of lead (compounds) were quantified (ECOLAS, draft 2004). In this preliminary analysis shooting (as a sport or recreative activity) and hunting activities were identified as potential important lead sources for the soil compartment. Lead ammunition accounted for 30% of the total Pb-emissions to soil in the European Union (see Figure 1). As a result, it was deemed appropriate to initiate a more detailed study (targeted risk assessment) on the emissions due to the use of lead ammunition in order to assess the potential impact of shooting and hunting.

Figure 1: Pb emission sources to water air and soil (From ECOLAS, draft March 2004)

This targeted study will primarily focus on the following issues:

  • Refinement/development of the methodologies used for the assessment of regional and continental emissions of lead associated with the use of lead ammunition and bullets for hunting and sport shooting. This includes a detailed literature study on the different types of activities involved, use of lead ammunition, the types of ammunition, corrosion rates of lead ammunition, management techniques for shooting ranges, measured environmental concentrations in the surrounding of shooting ranges etc.

  • Development of generic regional and local exposure scenarios representative for hunting/shooting ranges in Europe (including future emissions from historic deposition).

  • Regional and local risk characterisation

  1. Use pattern

In this section, several scenarios on the use of lead ammunition are described. Lead ammunition is covering lead shot, lead pellets and bullets.

For the release estimation of substances according to the TGD (1996, 2003), a distinction is usually made between substances that are emitted through point sources at specific locations and substances that enter the environment over a wider area through diffuse releases. Point source releases have a major impact on the environmental concentration on a local scale (PEClocal) but also contribute to the environmental concentrations on a larger scale (PECregional) (EC, 1996). Local sites are considered as technical areas with no ecological value. Only ecologically relevant compartments receiving Pb emissions and surrounding the technical area are assessed. In a regional scenario, no technical area is defined and Pb emissions are spread out over a large area. Consequently, every ecological relevant compartment is assessed. For each of the scenarios discussed below, it is indicated whether a local and/or regional assessment is performed (overview is given in Table 1). The scenarios with a mark between brackets are only qualitatively assessed since there is insufficient TGD guidance to conduct a quantitative assessment (see further).

Table 1: Overview of considered scenarios in a local and/or regional assessment




Outdoor pistol/rifle range


Outdoor pistol/rifle area


Clay target shooting range (trap and skeet)



Clay target shooting area (trap and skeet)


Sporting clay range


Hunting area


Sorvari et al. (2006) made an extensive inventory of Finnish shooting ranges collected using questionnaires. Regional environment Centres, local hunting associations, communal environmental authorities and the armed forces assisted with data collection. According to their survey, in Finland rifle ranges form the most common shooting range type, representing ca. 40% of the total number. The proportion of shotgun areas is ca. 30% and of pistol ranges ca. 20%.

A clear distinction should be made between shooting ranges and shooting areas:

  • A shooting range is defined as “an area designed and operated specifically for recreational shooting”. The owner/operator of the site complies with environmental regulations and it is assumed there will be remediation upon closure. The range has a clearly defined boundary and it is assumed that lead ammunition is not allowed to exceed the boundary of the range. A shooting range can therefore be considered as technical area under the EU New and Existing Substances directive. Consequently, environmental risk for soil within the site is not considered because the drop fall zone of Pb shot is considered to be within the shooting range perimeters and the soil risk of local industrial sites is not considered in the TGD (1996; 2003).

  • Shooting areas are “areas not specifically designed and operated for shooting but where shooting activities can take place”. These ranges do not comply with best practise guidelines and may not be subject to, or comply with, relevant environmental regulations. The definition of a shooting area clearly differs among the EU member states. For example in the Flemish environmental legislation (Belgium), shooting areas are defined as “shooting contests organised maximum twice per year on the same piece of land with a maximum duration of 4 consecutive days”. Shooting areas are exempted from the Flemish soil pollution regulation and can therefore not be considered as technical areas.

National environmental or other laws or ordinances vary in the extent to which deposition of lead shot outside the perimeter of the shooting range is permitted and in the extent to which remediation is required upon closure. The general trend is towards increasing restrictions on ammunition falling outside the range boundary. In addition to regulatory trends, industry promotes voluntary actions by range operators to avoid any Pb shot deposition outside the range perimeters. AFEMS (2002) recommends avoiding shooting over arable land and spent shot from clay target shooting should not fall into wetlands. In Europe, the shot fall zone is typically owned by a private person or company. Lead shot may also be restricted from falling outside the clay target range perimeters for human safety reasons alone (AFEMS, personal communication). In Finland, most shooting ranges are open and accessible (Sorvari et al., 2006). However according to Industry, shooting ranges are typically fenced areas in Europe. The concept is that clay target shooting ranges are increasingly becoming accessible only to the operators and shooters. In most countries today, remediation to an appropriate level is forced by law when closing a clay target shooting range.

Additional (legislative) information from three European regions/countries (Finland, Flanders (Belgium) and Germany) was collected to illustrate the definition of shooting range:

  • In Finland, ownership is an important factor when remedial actions are needed. Finnish environmental legislation follows the polluter pays principle, which places the liability on the polluter (Sorvari et al., 2006). The Environmental Protection Act states that: "Any party whose activities have caused the pollution of soil or groundwater is required to restore said soil or groundwater to a condition that will not cause harm to health or the environment or represent a hazard to the environment”. In the case of recreational shooting activities, the polluters are individuals belonging to a non-profit-making club, a circumstance hardly likely to be proven liability for the adverse environmental consequences of their activities. According to the current legislation, if the polluter is indigent, liability can be transferred to the landowner and thence to the municipalities and finally to the state. According to Sorvari’s (2006) survey, Finnish shooting ranges are mainly privately owned (40%). Very often the landowner is a private person or a shooting or hunting club. Communally owned ranges represent 13%, and state owned ranges 10%, of the total number. Ownership data were unavailable for one-third of all ranges.

  • In Flanders (Belgium), shooting ranges for fire arms (excluding paintball shooting) are subject to a preliminary and descriptive soil examination when land is transferred from ownership or every 20 years (Heyman & Smout, 2005; VLAREBO; 1996). A preliminary soil investigation provides indications on the degree of soil pollution. Remediation depends on the degree of pollution and the time it has been established (recently or long ago). The first step in the process of remediation is a descriptive soil study which tries to find out about the dispersion of the pollution and its future evolution. Moreover, the risks of the pollution are evaluated. If pollution limits are exceeded, a soil remediation project is worked out.

  • According to the knowledge of Prof. Crössman (personal communication), there are no agricultural used sites within the boundaries of the ranges (shot fall zone) in Germany. There are often agreements (with financial compensation) between the operator and the farmer not to use these sites. In many cases the operator would like to buy the sites (Prof. Crössman, personal communication).

Although the picture may vary considerably from country to country within the EU, the trend is increasing towards containing the lead shot within the range perimeter. Indeed agricultural activities are either forbidden by law in many countries or discouraged in all the rest (AFEMS, personal communication).

Based on the information above, one can conclude that many clay target ranges throughout the EU can be considered as technical areas to be assessed in a local scenario. In this local assessment, it is assumed that clay target shooting ranges are properly managed according to several guidelines found in literature (ISS – Rules and Regulations; AFEMS 2002).

Following scenarios were excluded from this targeted risk assessment:

  • A scenario covering use of lead ammunition for military or police purposes. Information on this use pattern is very hard to collect and military use is likely to be subject to a different legislative framework.

  • Indoor shooting ranges. Well-managed indoor ranges are considered to be closed systems with no or negligible emissions to nearby water (direct or through runoff), with no leaching to groundwater and with recycling programmes. The amount of airborne lead released when a bullet is fired is small. However, repeated firing in an enclosed area can raise concentrations to harm levels (AFEMS, 2002). A separate human health assessment for indoor shooting is being assessed.

2.1. Outdoor pistol/rifle ranges

Target shooting involves the use of rifles and pistols to shoot at stationary, bulls-eye type targets. A main priority is to contain fired bullets for safety reasons but this, in turn, helps the control of the spent lead (AFEMS, 2002). Only direct emission to soil is considered because the line of fire is highly restricted and the trajectory of bullets is, effectively, horizontal. It is therefore unlikely that direct emissions to water will occur.

The bullets can be trapped after hitting the target and individual shooting ranges or the complex as a whole can be contained within earth berms. Periodically, as lead accumulates in the backstop berms it should be removed. This involves the excavation of the face of the berm, to up to 1.5 m, depending on the types of rifle/pistol being used. The soil is screened to remove lead bullets and fragments, and replaced onto the berm (AFEMS, 2002). It is assumed that 70% of rimfire, centerfire and pistol/revolver lead is collectable/collected and recycled (AFEMS, personal communication).

Outdoor pistol/rifle ranges are assessed as local sites. Consequently, environmental risk for soil within the site is not considered because the drop fall zone of Pb shot is within the range perimeters and the soil risk of local industrial sites is not considered in the TGD (1996; 2003). Only emissions to the surrounding environment are considered.

Figure 2: Pistol/rifle range (picture from AFEMS, 2002)

2.2. Clay target shooting ranges (trap and skeet)

Clay target shooting is an outdoor recreational and competitive sport which involves participants firing shotguns using cartridges of spherical pellets of Pb to break flying clay targets launched into the air (see Figure 3). Clay target shooting involves many variations of the sport in the way that targets are presented to the shooters, such as changes in the height and speed of the target, the direction of flight, and the locations of stations where shooters stand. The more common disciplines are trap, skeet and sporting clays.

Figure 3: Principle of clay target shooting (picture from AFEMS, 2002)

Trap shooting, also referred to as ‘down the line’ shooting, involves targets launched from a machine put in a pit, everyone within a horizontal spread of approximately 90°. The shooters shoot at the launched target from different positions in five lanes. The five shooting stations must be arranged on a straight line at a distance 15 m behind the pit (ISSF – Rules and Regulations). The Pb shot appears to be deposited directly in front of the trap for a distance of some 210 m (AFEMS 2002).

Skeet shooting, also referred to as ‘across the line’ shooting, involves shooting two clay targets launched from two separate traps in towers located about 40 m apart. The targets are released alternately or simultaneously along intersecting flight paths and shooters stand in a series of 8 shooting stations (see Figure 4) (ISSF – Rules and Regulations).

Figure 4: Diagrammatic layout of a skeet shooting field (from Rooney, 2002)

Pb shot is more and more recovered and recycled on clay target shooting ranges. Recovery typically means scraping off the top soil layers and screening pellets out of the non-lead material, which is returned to the ground. The separated pellets are collected and removed off-site. This can be conducted by hand raking and sifting, mechanical removal and professional removal (AFEMS, 2002). An obvious option to limit the dispersion of shot is by physically confining it to where the clay targets are shot. The further the pellets travel beyond that area the wider their environmental impact. Figure 5 schematically shows the use of berms (about 20m high) being used to combine trap, skeet and other layouts in Germany. However berms of such a size are likely to be much less common in other Member States. It is assumed that across the EU 5% of lead shot is collected and recycled (AFEMS, personal communication) although collection rates may vary considerably from country to country.

Figure 5: Design of shooting range Garlstorf, near Hamburg, Germany, opened in October 2000 (not to scale) (made by SUG Germany in cooperation with BVS) (picture published in AFEMS, 2002)

2.3. Outdoor pistol/rifle and clay target areas (trap and skeet)

Outdoor pistol/rifle and clay target (trap and skeet) areas may to a large extent be similar to the respective shooting ranges. However, they are not specifically designed and operated for shooting. These areas do typically not comply with best practise guidelines. These areas are not subject to, or comply with, relevant environmental regulations. For example, shooting areas are defined in the Flemish environmental legislation as “shooting contests organised maximum twice per year on the same piece of land with a maximum duration of 4 consecutive days”. Shooting areas are exempted from the Flemish soil pollution regulation and can therefore not be considered as technical areas. However, it is important to note that the definition of a shooting area varies between the national legislations of the EU Member States. For example, in other countries, these shooting areas can be located in the middle of the forest or arable land where wildlife can freely pass through the areas and forage on plants and invertebrates.

Given the difficulties and time constraints faced in building a generic scenario for such a widely varying practise, this scenario was not assessed quantitatively in the current risk assessment.

2.4. Sporting clay ranges

Sporting clays is a relatively new discipline which simulates actual field hunting by combining different target flight speeds and angles and different target sizes. The target might be crossing, climbing, incoming, outgoing, streaking high overhead, flying low, or any combination of the above (Rooney, 2002).

There are two types of sporting clays. In the first type, the shooters are staying on a fixed shooting position (similar to clay target shooting as in 2.2). The second type has a much wider surface area. Therefore, the area of Pb shot deposition from sporting clays is less well-defined and a predictable pattern of deposition is unlikely due to the use of mobile traps and target flight variations (see Figure 6). Sporting clays shooting typically takes place over 40-100 ha of land and the continually changing layout of the course means that heavy loadings of shot occur over a much wider area than for skeet and trap shooting (Rooney, 2002).

Figure 6: Example of sporting clay parcours (from Crössman and Paetz, 2004)

Although there are a number of these sporting clay sites throughout Europe (see Table 16), the first type of sporting clay was not further considered as a local scenario because clay target shooting is considered to be an equivalent scenario to sporting clay shooting. After all, the deposition zone of Pb shot in clay target shooting (1-4 ha) is much smaller compared to the deposition zone for sporting clay (Pb concentrations are smaller if Pb shot is dispersed over a wider area). However Pb shot emission due to sporting clay may vary from Pb shot emission due to clay target shooting, depending on the frequency of use of sporting clay ranges. The second type of sporting was also not assessed in a local scenario because of its wide-spread emission character.

For the second type of sporting clays, a regional assessment, in which wide-spread (local) target shooting ranges are emitting lead to the environment (surface water and agricultural soil), is assessed as a worst-case consideration because of the lack of available, reliable statistics and more detailed information whether Pb shot emission to agricultural soil can occur.

Since Pb emissions due to sporting clay could not unambiguously be separated from Pb emissions due to clay target shooting, and also because it cannot be guaranteed that shot from clay target shooting ranges will always fall within the boundary of the range, a regional scenario was assessed for both sporting clay and clay target shooting. This represents an unrealistic worst-case assumption since shot from clay target shooting can fall within the boundary of the range. Nevertheless, this worst case assumption is used here as a first tier approach. In case of potential risk, refinement of the assessment is recommended.

Note that clay target shooting will be used in this report as an umbrella term for trap and skeet (described in section 2.2) and sporting clays (section 2.4).

2.5. Hunting areas

Over 7 million Europeans take part in the hunting activities, which are for most species restricted to a specific season. Hunting is a recreational activity and a tool for wildlife management common to all European Union countries. The hunters vary from 0.2 to 6%, as a percentage of population in the various EU countries, most of them in rural areas. Hunting can be divided essentially in two main types: small game (mainly use of shotgun cartridges) and big game (mainly use of rifle cartridges). Note that in several countries (e.g. Sweden, Denmark, Switzerland), Roe deer are shot with shotgun-pellets and rifle bullets are also used for bird hunting.

Hunting is not an activity which is often repeated on the same area year after year. The hunting areas change continuously for a variety of reasons (e.g. wildlife presence, climate,…) and hunting is exercised over large areas (5 – 150 ha; Booij et al., 1993; Zentralstelle Österreichischer Landesjagdverbände, 2002). Hunting can also be exercised over more well defined (smaller) areas. Hunting can be exercised on dry areas such as agricultural land, grassland, forests and on wetlands such as lakes, ponds, marshes, rivers (inland waters) and estuaries, seashores (coastal waters) or a combination of both. A regional scenario was performed for hunting because hunting is exercised on a large area and the Pb shot emission is diffuse.

It must also be recognised however that in some countries hunting may take place over well defined but reasonably large areas of land, e.g. in the case of managed hunting areas. It is recognised that a local hunting scenario needs to be further developed. It is however not straightforward to develop such scenario as it is not clear how such areas should be assessed as they neither represent a true local scenario nor a true regional scenario and as TGD guidance is lacking. Monitoring data in hunting areas are scarce and a modelling exercise would require several assumptions on the size of a hunting area, spatial density of lead shot deposition loads, the fraction emitted to water and fraction emitted to soil and a reasonable lifetime for the area. Hence no quantitative assessment of such areas has been made in this report.

Скачать документ

Похожие документы:

  1. Risk assessment and risk management plan for dir 091 commercial release of cotton genetically modified for insect resistance (widestrike tm insect protection cotton)

    ... lead to an identified risk that required further assessment (Refer to Chapters 3 and ... riskassessment regarding the production of toxic compounds ... to either: 3-methyl-phosphinico-propionic acid ... gmo-safety.eu/pdf/biosafenet ... note the title is erroneous. ...
  2. Risk Assessment and Risk Management Plan for DIR 116 Limited and controlled release of genetically modified live viral vaccines against prostate cancer Applicant

    ... The title of the ... toxic compounds in the ... risk The riskassessment begins with postulation of potential pathways that might lead ... risk analysis, including riskassessment, risk management andrisk communication. Both dimensions of risk (consequence and ...
  3. European union risk assessment report tris(2-chloro-1-methylethyl) phosphate (tcpp)

    ... euriskassessment – TCPP cas 13674-84-5 European Union RiskAssessment ... RiskAssessment May 2008 Ireland (lead) and United Kingdom Rapporteur for the riskassessment ... andcompounding stages ... title ... RiskAssessment – Cadmium oxide and cadmium metal ...
  4. European union risk assessment report amines tallow alkyl

    EUriskassessment - Primary Alkyl Amines title European Union RiskAssessment ... RiskAssessment at Community level are laid ... the compounds. Two compounds, i.e. coco alkylamines and octadecenylamines ... Scenarios andModel Describing Fate and Transport of ...
  5. 检 索 数据库:美国《Ei Compendex Web》(EI)数据库

    ... 2010 检索结果:用上述检索式对美国《Ei Compendex Web》(EI)数 据库的检索结果表明,截止到2011 ... - Profitability - Riskassessment - Supply chain ... Source title:Journal of Alloys andCompounds Abbreviated source title:J ... and implements this model in a problem forecasting hourly cooling load ...

Другие похожие документы..