Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land

Transcription

C718
These are likely to be experienced more frequently as a consequence of the effects of
climate change, especially sea level rise, and likely to become a more common challenge
to coastal managers and those responsible for coastal sites in the future.
To date there has been limited experience of dealing with such problems from
identification through to solution. This guide has been produced to help the increasing
number of professionals who will come across such problems for the first time.
The guide is split into four parts:
Part 1 Guidance framework: presents the core framework of the guide, which starts with
a background context and then sets out the steps involved in identifying and managing
the risks presented.
Part 2 Perspectives: gives a suite of perspectives recognising that individuals or
organisations may have different standpoints and responsibilities in relation to the subject
of this guide. Each of the chapters in this section provides a specific topic identified by
stakeholders during development of the guide.
Part 3 Themes: addresses themes that can have an overarching overall effect on the
approach or can significantly influence the success (or otherwise) of an outcome.
Part 4 Case studies: three case studies are included in this section that illustrate
practical application of differing aspects of the guidance.
9 780860 177210
CIRIA
C718
Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines
Over the years, processes of coastal erosion and sea flooding have resulted in waste from
some sites being deposited on the foreshore or seeping into the coastal and marine
environment, potentially resulting in a range of issues such as adverse effects on public
health and safety or undesired physical, chemical and biological effects on the natural
environment.
Guidance on the management of
landfill sites and land contamination
on eroding or low-lying coastlines
CIRIA C718
London, 2012
Guidance on the
management of
landfill sites and land
contamination on
eroding or low-lying
coastlines
N J Cooper, G Bower, R Tyson, J J Flikweert,
S Rayner and A Hallas of Royal Haskoning DHV
Classic House, 174–180 Old Street, London EC1V 9BP
Tel: 020 7549 3300
Fax: 020 7253 0523
Email: [email protected]
Website: www.ciria.org
Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying
coastlines
Cooper, N J, Bower, G, Tyson, R, Flikweert, J J, Rayner, S, Hallas, A
CIRIA
C718
© CIRIA 2012
RP963
ISBN: 978-0-86017-721-0
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data
A catalogue record is available for this book from the British Library
Keywords
Contaminated land, environmental good practice, remediation, risk mitigation, vapour intrusion, vapour
migration, remediation verification, gas
Reader interest
Classification
This guidance is intended for anyone involved in:
AvailabilityUnrestricted

management of sea flooding and coastal erosion risks
ContentAdvice/guidance

land use or spatial planning at, or near, the coast
StatusCommittee-guided

owning, operating or regulating a landfill site or area of land
contamination at, or near, the coast.
UserLand owners, developers
(commercial and
residential), professional
advisors/consultants
(both engineering
and environmental),
builders and contractors,
regulators (EA, SEPA,
NIEA, local authority and
building control) and other
professional and nonspecialist stakeholders
This includes (but is not restricted to) flood and coastal
managers, land use planning and development control officers,
contaminated land officers, waste regulators, site managers
from local authorities, Environment Agency, Environment Agency
Wales (until April 2013), Natural Resources Body for Wales (from
April 2013), Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, Northern
Ireland Environment Agency, Department for Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs (Defra), Scottish Government, Welsh Government,
Northern Ireland Assembly, Department of Agriculture and Rural
Development (DARDNI), Marine Management Organisation (MMO),
Marine Scotland, Natural England, Centre for Environment,
Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (Cefas), Single Environmental
Body Wales (from April 2013), Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH),
Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Landfill site operators,
Landowners (eg The National Trust, Ministry of Defence, private
individuals, Coal Authority, The Crown Estate).
Published by CIRIA, Classic House, 174–180 Old Street, London, EC1V 9BP, UK
This publication is designed to provide accurate and authoritative information on the subject matter covered. It is sold and/
or distributed with the understanding that neither the authors nor the publisher is thereby engaged in rendering a specific
legal or any other professional service. While every effort has been made to ensure the accuracy and completeness of the
publication, no warranty or fitness is provided or implied, and the authors and publisher shall have neither liability nor
responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage arising from its use.
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, including
photocopying and recording, without the written permission of the copyright holder, application for which should be
addressed to the publisher. Such written permission must also be obtained before any part of this publication is stored in a
retrieval system of any nature.
If you would like to reproduce any of the figures, text or technical information from this or any other CIRIA publication for
use in other documents or publications, please contact the Publishing Department for more details on copyright terms and
charges at: [email protected] Tel: 020 7549 3300.
Front cover photo: an historic landfill located at the coastal margin in north east England, where erosion results in
the release of waste onto the foreshore. A scheme has since been completed to manage the risks from the coastal
erosion (courtesy Nick Cooper, Royal Haskoning DHV)
ii
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
Summary
This publication provides guidance on the management of landfill sites and areas of land
contamination located on eroding or low-lying coastlines.
These are likely to be experienced more frequently as a consequence of the effects of climate
change, especially sea level rise. This issue is likely to become a more common challenge to coastal
managers and those responsible for coastal sites in the future.
part 1
Over the years, processes of coastal erosion and sea flooding have resulted in waste from some
sites being deposited on the foreshore or seeping into the coastal and marine environment,
potentially resulting in a range of issues such as adverse effects on public health and safety or
undesired physical, chemical and biological effects on the natural environment.
This is an emerging issue and to date there has been limited experience of dealing with such
problems from identification through to solution. This guide has been produced to help the
increasing number of professionals who will come across such problems for the first time.
part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Guidance on the management of landfill sites and
land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines
iii
Introduction to the guide
This publication is aimed at the interface between the well-established industries of waste
management, pollution prevention and control, and flood and coastal erosion risk management.
Chapter 1 explains its relationship with existing guidance from those sectors and where this
guidance addresses a unique area of overlap.
Part 1 Guidance framework
Part 1 of the guide presents the core guidance framework, which starts with a background
context and then sets out the steps involved in identifying and managing the risks presented.
Chapter 2: background context provides an introduction to the main relevant legislative and
regulatory instruments that may apply to sites covered in this guide. A route map is provided to
help define roles and responsibilities of different stakeholders.
Chapter 3: identifying sites provides advice on how to determine whether known landfill sites
or areas of land contamination are at risk of coastal erosion or sea flooding in the short- or longterm. Also, it provides advice on the steps to be taken should a formerly unidentified historic
landfill or a previously unknown area of land contamination be identified by a third party.
Chapter 4: characterising site history and setting provides guidance on the desk studies and site visits
that may be needed to understand a site’s history, present-day characteristics and potential hazards
and receptors.
Chapter 5: assessing the risk describes the process of risk assessment as a means of quantifying
the hazards presented by the release of material from a site. This assessment process is based
upon consideration of both the likelihood and the consequence(s) of a release occurring. The
conceptual site model (CSM) is introduced, which identifies the source of a risk, receptors that
could be affected if they come into contact with that source, and the pathways that may link the
two. With a “source–pathway–receptor” CSM defined, quantification of the risk(s) can then be
undertaken to inform the management approaches that need to be developed and delivered.
Chapter 6: appraising the options provides advice on the options that are available to manage
the risks presented by erosion or sea flooding of sites and the approaches for assessing the
relative technical, economic and environmental merits of each within the context of an “options
appraisal”.
Chapter 7: delivering the solution provides guidance on important aspects to consider during
both the design and approvals stage and the construction stage of those options previously
introduced in Chapter 6, which involve construction works. This includes consideration of health
and safety, and material handling, reuse and disposal.
Chapter 8: evaluating performance provides advice on the development and delivery of a
monitoring plan to enable the performance of a scheme to be evaluated and its potential wider
scale effects (both positive and adverse) to be assessed. Should the monitoring reveal that the risks
are not adequately being addressed by the scheme, then guidance is provided to enable residual
risks to be assessed and fed back into the management process.
Part 2 Perspectives
Part 2 of the guide presents a suite of perspectives recognising that individuals or organisations
iv
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
may have different standpoints and responsibilities in relation to the subject of this guide. Each
chapter in Part 2 provides a specific topic identified by stakeholders during development of the
guide. These cover:
Chapter 9: strategic coastal management planning.
Chapter 10: landfill site managers.
Chapter 11: very long-term erosion.
Chapter 12: future sites or site extensions.
part 1
Chapter 13: rivers.
Part 3 Themes
Part 3 of the guidance addresses overarching themes which apply to several Chapters.
These themes could become outdated due to changes in statute, government policy etc. It is
recommended that the reader obtains further advice from the appropriate government bodies at
the relevant time. The themes cover the following topics:
part 2
Chapter 14: legislative and regulatory context.
Chapter 15: funding.
Chapter 16: approval mechanisms.
Chapter 17: stakeholders and their engagement.
Part 4 Case studies
Chapter 18: Trow Quarry, Tyne & Wear, covering erosion of an historic landfill located directly at
the coastal margin.
Part 3
Part 4 of the guide presents the following three case studies that illustrate practical application of
differing aspects of the guidance:
Chapter 19: Spittles Lane, West Dorset, describing how a major landslip caused large quantities of
waste to be released down the cliff face from an historic landfill located on the cliff top.
Chapter 20: Shoreline Management Plan, Essex, identifying how the presence of landfill sites and
areas of land contamination behind existing defences and the presence of waste materials within
the core of defences has affected selection of strategic coastal management policy along areas of
low-lying shoreline within Essex.
Part 4
Further reading
A further reading section is provided at the end of the guide. This gives information sources
in relation to relevant UK legislation and existing industry guidance in flood and coastal
management, environmental protection, contaminated land, and waste management.
Throughout the guide, mini case studies and other boxes are used to highlight particular points.
v
Acknowledgements
Authors
Nick Cooper BEng (Hons) PhD CEng FICE
Nick is a chartered civil engineer with around 20 years’ experience in the management of coasts
and estuaries. He has been involved with the development of Shoreline Management Plans,
coastal strategies and coastal defence schemes around the UK.
Gary Bower BSc (Hons) MCIWM
Gary is a chartered waste manager with over 20 years’ experience and has detailed knowledge
of European Directives and Regulations and UK waste legislation. He has worked on the
implementation of domestic waste legislation, and has acted as expert witness and provided
expert reports in waste management prosecutions.
Ruth Tyson BSc (Hons) FGS
Ruth is an environmental consultant, specialising in contaminated land assessment, including the
development of conceptual site models and detailed quantitative risk assessment. She has a wealth
of site investigation experience covering landfill sites and areas of land contamination, including
sites affected by coastal erosion.
Jaap Flikweert MSc
Jaap is a civil engineer with around 20 years’ experience in flood and erosion risk management.
He has worked with relevant authorities to develop Shoreline Management Plans for the lowlying East Anglian coast and is heavily involved in policy work and operational research and
development on management of flood and coastal defence assets.
Steven Rayner BSc (Hons), AIEMA
Steven is an environmental consultant, specialising in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA).
He has working knowledge of the consents and permissions that are likely to be required to allow
delivery of schemes, in addition to significant experience in contaminated land investigation and
management at sites including historic landfills.
Alison Hallas MChem MRSC
Alison is an environmental consultant with experience in site investigation, appraisal and delivery
of remedial options. She has completed landfill assessment and permitting projects including
integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) permit applications, landfill gas modelling,
nuisance risk assessments and landfill environmental monitoring.
vi
CIRIA, C718
Natural England
Anne Jones
DEFRA
Mark Langabeer
Veolia Environmental Services (UK) plc
Andrew Nicholas
SITA
Pete Roberts
Environment Agency
John Shevelan
LLWR Ltd
Robin Siddle
Scarborough Borough Council
Owen Tarrant
Environment Agency
Richard Thomas (chair)
Independent Consultant
Gary Thompson
The Crown Estate
Emma Thomson
Environment Agency
Jim Wilkinson
Environment Agency
part 1
Siobhan Browne
Introduction
Project steering group
Corresponding members
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA)
Nick Dolan
The National Trust
Tony Flux
The National Trust
Jeanette Guy
West Dorset District Council
Tony Hanson
South Tyneside Council
Brendan McLean
Belfast City Council
Paul Robinson
Environment Agency
Shaun Robinson
Environment Agency
part 2
Matthew Clark
Other consultees
CIRIA would like to thank the following for contributions to specific aspects or sections of the
guide:
University of Southampton
Niall Benson
Durham Heritage Coast
Mark Blair
Magnox
Amy Boucher
Pell Frischmann
Andrew Brown
Essex County Council
Peter Clarricoats
Cory Environmental
Beth Clayton
SITA
Anne Coles
Aberdeenshire Council
Paul Dale
Scottish Environmental Protection Agency
Rowan Devlin
East Riding of Yorkshire Council
Mark Donoghue
Royal Haskoning
Peter Elliott
Environment Agency
Charles Foreman
Environment Agency
Mark Glennerster
CH2M Hill
Rebecca Glos Williams
Sniffer
Sue Goodman
Environment Agency
Gary Graveling
Buro Happold
Carol Hall
Environment Agency
Gavin Johnson
Scottish Natural Heritage
Part 4
Richard Beaven
Part 3
Toni Archer
vii
Kirsty Klepacz
Havant Borough Council
Sue Lawrence
Darren Legge
Environment Agency
Emmer Litt
Countryside Council for Wales
Louise Merritt
Environment Agency
Andrew Miller-Varey
BAM Nuttall
Cedric Moon
Welsh Government
Paul Morrison
Kathy Mylrea
Cameron McKenna
Paul Nathanail
University of Nottingham
Robert Nichols University of Southampton
Andy Parsons
CH2M Hill
David Porter
Northern Ireland Rivers Agency
Paul Robinson
Environment Agency
Alex Pritchard
Alistair Rennie
Lesley Row, Patricia Rowley
North Ayrshire Council
Wendy Shakespear
Fareham Borough Council
Abigail Singleton
Environment Agency
Edward Taylor
Naue Geosynthetics
Caroline Timlett
Havant Borough Council
Mark Toner
Mike Walkden
Royal Haskoning
Neil Watson
Environment Agency
James Wilson
WPA Consultants
Steve Woolard
Christchurch and East Dorset Council
A total of 119 individuals from a range of regulators, advisors, landowners, government
departments, landfill operators, consultancies and academia provided responses to an online
questionnaire throughout November and December 2011, during the scoping phase of this guide.
CIRIA project managers
Owen Jenkins, Gillian Wadams and Lee Kelly.
Project funders
Environment Agency
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA)
CIRIA Core members
viii
CIRIA, C718
Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Introduction to the guide . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iv
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Introduction
Contents
Boxes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii
Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv
part 1
Case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xii
Glossary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv
Abbreviations/acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xx
1Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Scope and purpose of the guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3
Relationship with existing guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.4
Core principles of this guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.5
Target readership . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
1.6
How to use the guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
part 2
1.2
Part I Guidance framework . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
2
Guidance framework: background context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.1Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Regulatory and legislative setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.3
Route map to defining roles and responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3
Guidance framework: identifying sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Part 3
2.2
3.1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.2
Known sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
3.3
Legacy sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4
Guidance framework: characterising site history and setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.2
Desk study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.3
Site visit and limited sampling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
4.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5
Guidance framework: assessing the risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
5.2
Potential sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
5.3
Potential pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
5.4
Potential receptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
ix
Part 4
4.1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
5.5
Risk assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
5.6References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
6
Guidance framework: appraising the options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
6.1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
6.2
Management options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
6.3
Appraisal process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
6.4
Preferred option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
6.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
7
Guidance framework: delivering the solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
7.1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
7.2
Health and safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
7.3
Scheme design and assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
7.4
Procurement of contractors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
7.5
Construction supervision . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
7.6
Maintaining records . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
7.7References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
8
Guidance framework: evaluating performance and effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
8.1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
8.2
Monitoring plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80
8.3
Performance of scheme . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
8.4
Potential wider effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
8.5Evaluation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
Part 2Perspectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87
9
Perspective: strategic coastal management planning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
9.1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88
9.2
anaging the risks of sea flooding or coastal erosion to landfill sites and areas
M
of land contamination within a strategic coastal management plan area . . . . . 96
9.3
Effect of landfills or areas of contaminated land on management policy . . . . . . . . . . 91
9.4
ider implications of management policy on landfill sites or areas of contaminated
W
land in nearby areas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92
9.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 94
10
Perspective: landfill site managers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
10.1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
10.2
Reactive issues – dealing with events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
10.3
Proactive issues – protecting against future risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
10.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
11
Perspective: very long-term erosion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 100
11.1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
11.2
Past coastal evolution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
11.3
Contemporary coastal processes and climate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
11.4
Future projections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
11.5
Managing uncertainties . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 103
11.6References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
x
CIRIA, C718
Perspective: future sites or site extensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
12.1Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
12.2
Operators and regulators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
12.3
Local planning authorities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106
12.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
13
Perspective: rivers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
13.1
Differences in physical processes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109
13.2
Differences in roles and responsibilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
13.3
Differences in the process for managing landfills and contaminated land . . . . . . . . 110
Part 3Themes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113
14
Theme: legislative and regulatory context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
part 1
13.4References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Introduction
12
14.1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
14.2
Landfill sites and areas of contaminated land . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
14.3
Pollution prevention and control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118
14.4
Coastal erosion and flood risk management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
14.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
Theme: funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
15.1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
16
15.2
Legal responsibilities for funding remediation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
15.3
Alternative mechanisms for funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124
15.4
Further references . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
part 2
15
Theme: approval mechanisms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
16.1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
Intrusive site investigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130
16.3
Planning/design and construction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
16.4
Relevant legislation during production of the ES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
16.5
Further consent/licence requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
16.6
Emergency works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 140
Part 3
16.2
16.7References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 142
17
Theme: stakeholders and their engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
17.1Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
Potential engagement aspects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 145
17.3
Identifying potential stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
17.4
Planning and delivering a stakeholder engagement approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149
17.5References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
Part 4: Case studies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
18
Case study: Trow Quarry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
18.1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
18.2
The problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
18.3
Options appraisal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
18.4
Uncertainties and adaptability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
xi
Part 4
17.2
19
18.5
Environmental issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
18.6
Construction phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159
18.7
Post-scheme monitoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
Case study: Spittles Lane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
19.1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
20
19.2
Landslip event and immediate response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162
19.3
Management plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
19.4
Management options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
19.5
Preferred management option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
Case study: Shoreline Management Plan, Essex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
20.1Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
20.2
Contaminated sites on the Essex coast . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166
20.3
Effect on policy development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
20.4
Actions and plans following the SMP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
20.5
Lessons learnt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
Further reading . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170
Boxes
Box 2.1
Scale of the problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Box 5.1
Source, pathway, receptor terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Box 5.2
Asbestos risks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Box 11.1
Climate change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
Box 17.1
Key considerations of effective engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
Box 17.2
Ten building blocks of effective engagement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
Case studies
Case study 4.1 Identifying historic sites in Christchurch Harbour, Dorset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Case study 4.2 Trow Quarry site visits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Case study 5.1 Radiation sampling in Dalgety Bay, Fife . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Case study 5.2 Site investigations at Shoreham Gasworks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Case study 5.3 Historic landfill in Pagham Harbour, West Sussex . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Case study 5.3 Halliwell Banks, Tyne & Wear . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Case study 5.4 Colliery spoil, County Durham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Case study 6.1 West Sands, St. Andrews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Case study 6.2 Spittles Lane monitoring and clean-up . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Case study 6.3 Blackdog Burn channel diversion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
Case study 6.4 Trow Quarry economic appraisal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66
Case study 6.5 Hunterston, North Ayrshire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Case study 6.6 Brodick Beach, Isle of Arran . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Case study 8.1 Trow Quarry monitoring plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Case study 9.1 Greatham Creek slag bank . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
Case study 9.2 North-West Shoreline Management Plan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Case study 11.1 Dounreay shaft . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
Case study 11.2 Low Level Waste Repository, Cumbria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104
xii
CIRIA, C718
Figure 1.1Waste released onto the foreshore following a landslip in coastal cliffs in
west Dorset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Figure 1.2Domestic waste spilled onto the onto the foreshore at the eroding margin of an
estuary in south-west England . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Elements included within the scope of this guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Figure 1.4
Relationship with existing guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 1.5
Cyclic management approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Figure 1.6
Structure of the guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 2.1
L egislative responsibilities for management of risks landfill sites or land
contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 3.1
Erosion zones affecting a site in around 50 years . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Figure 3.2
Flood zones affecting a site under different sea flooding events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 4.1Wash out of waste in north-east England during particularly high sea states and
wave run up events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Conceptual site model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure 5.2
Hand augering . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Figure 5.3
Cable percussive drilling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Figure 5.4
Waste directly exposed at undefended shore margin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure 5.5
Waste at or near cliff top or estuary bank released due to erosion or landslip . . . . . . 37
Figure 5.6
Waste set back from eroding (undefended) shore margin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Figure 5.7Waste retained behind a coastal defence structure (sea wall) (may be land reclaimed
from the sea) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
part 2
Figure 5.1 part 1
Figure 1.3
Introduction
Figures
Figure 5.8 Waste retained behind a coastal defence structure (embankment) (may be land
reclaimed from the sea) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 5.9Waste retained behind a coastal defence structure (revetment) (may be land
reclaimed from the sea) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Figure 5.11
Removal or breaching of flood embankment (or other coastal defence) . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Figure 5.12
Eroding sea cliffs at Halliwell Banks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Figure 5.13
Landfill behind a limestone ridge at Halliwell Banks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
Figure 6.1
Removing the source of the risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Figure 6.2
Removing the waste or contaminated material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Figure 6.3
On-site treatment of waste or contaminated material . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Figure 6.4
Breaking the pathway between source and receptor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Figure 6.5
Cover systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Figure 6.6
Seawall creating a barrier between source and receptor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Figure 6.7
Rock revetment creating a barrier between source and receptor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Figure 6.8
oastal defence structures providing a barrier at the coastal margin. Stone-filled
C
gabion baskets (a), clay embankment (b), concrete sea wall (c), blockwork revetment
(d), rock revetment (e) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Figure 6.9
Removing the receptor to avoid contact with the source . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Figure 6.10
Signage used at Trow Quarry to reduce risks to human health . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Figure 6.11
Warning signage to prevent receptor coming into contact with a source . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Figure 6.12
Sand-filled geotextile bags being lifted into position . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Figure 6.13
Sand-filled geotextile bags being layered to encapsulate the site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70
Figure 11.1
Successive responses of cross-shore profiles over a very long time . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
xiii
Part 4
Waste contained within a coastal defence or quay wall structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
Part 3
Figure 5.10
Figure 16.1Summary of likely process to be followed during planning/design phase under the
relevant legislation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
Figure 18.1
Trow Quarry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
Figure 18.2
Coastal erosion at Trow Quarry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 157
Figure 18.3
Completed scheme at Trow Quarry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
Figure 19.1
Spittles Lane landslip . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
Figure 20.1
ites of contaminated land at flood risk within the Essex and South Suffolk Shoreline
S
Management Plan area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
Figure 20.2
election of contaminated sites identified within the Essex Shoreline Management
S
Plan area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168
Tables
Table 4.1
Historical setting – potential further guidance/data sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 4.2
Present day setting – potential data sources/further guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.1
Sites requiring specialist advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.2
Potential receptors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.3
Generic risk categorisation (from Rudland et al, 2001) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.4
eneric criteria for assessing the risk to the identified receptor from non-permitted
G
sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 5.5
Likely risk assessments for a sample of potential cases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 6.1
Indicative comparative cost ranges for coastal defence options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 6.2
Considerations when selecting a preferred option . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 8.1
Available approaches to monitoring of scheme performance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 16.1Summary of potential consents and permissions that may be required before each
phase of a potential scheme (note that this list is not intended to be exhaustive) . . . . . Table 17.1
Typical stakeholder engagement for managing ongoing or imminent issues . . . . . . . . . Table 17.2
Key potential external stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 17.3
Understanding what can and cannot be influenced by stakeholders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 17.4
Making engagement programmes stakeholder friendly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Table 18.1
Effects and mitigation measures at Trow Quarry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiv
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
Glossary
Advance the lineAdvancing the line of existing defence by building new defences
on the seaward side of the original defences.
Aquifer A geological formation containing or conducting groundwater.
Class A appropriate person
A polluter who can be traced.
part 1
Class B appropriate personBy default, this would be the landowner, where the Class A
appropriate person cannot be traced.
Closed landfillsLandfill sites that are closed to accepting waste, but are going
through aftercare and monitoring as part of the permit
surrender process.
Coastal defenceA composite term comprising “coastal protection” and “sea
defence”. A structure built to protect the land from erosion or
flooding by the sea.
Coastal erosion risk mappingMaps published by the Environment Agency/Natural Resource
Body Wales that can be used to identify coastal erosion risks.
part 2
Coast protection authorityAn authority that has powers to perform duties in connection
with the protection of land in their area under the Coast
Protection Act 1949.
Coast protection
Works to protect the coastline against erosion by the sea.
Conceptual site modelA representation, either graphical or textual, which sets out
pollutant linkages between sources and receptors.
1Significant harm is being caused or there is a significant
possibility of such harm being caused.
2Pollution of controlled waters is being or is likely to be caused.
Part 3
Contaminated landLand which meets the Part IIA/Part III definition of
contaminated, being: Any land that appears to the local authority
in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition by reason of
substances in, on or under the land, that:
Controlled wasteControlled waste as is defined in Section 75 (4) of the EPA 1990,
meaning household, industrial and commercial waste or any such
waste.
Controlled watersWaters defined and protected under Section 104 of the Water
Resources Act 1991. Waters include coastal waters, inland fresh
waters and groundwaters.
Part 4
DefraThe Department for Environment, Food and Rural affairs,
which is responsible for flood and coastal management policy
in England and Wales. Incorporates the former Ministry of
Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
Dilute and disperseLandfill sites where no basal lining is present, constructed in line
with the “dilute and disperse” principle, using local rock strata
as a suitable means of attenuating landfill leachate. Widely used
before c1980, phase out following the introduction by the (then)
National Rivers Authority of the Groundwater Protection Policy
in 1992.
xv
Duty of careA legal obligation imposed on an individual or organisation
requiring that they adhere to a standard of reasonable care in
situations where their acts or omissions could foreseeably harm
others.
Enforcing authorityIn relation to contaminated land other than a “special site”, the
local authority in whose area the land is situated is the enforcing
authority.
Environmental clerk of worksA person who has responsibility to check, oversee and advise on
works undertaken on site.
Environmental Impact
Assessment
An analytical process that examines the potential environmental
consequences of a project.
Environmental Management
Site-specific plans developed to ensure that all necessary
Planmitigation measures are identified and carried out to protect the
natural environment and comply with environmental legislation.
Environmental StatementThe output from the Environmental Impact Assessment process,
which is submitted alongside an application for planning
permission.
EU Habitats Directive
(92/43EEC)
European legislation on the conservation of habitats.
European Waste CatalogueA list providing a six-digit code and waste description for
individual waste streams according to what they are and how they
were produced.
Flood zone mapsMaps published by the Environment Agency/Natural Resource
Body Wales, which can be used to identify sea flooding risks.
ForeshoreThe zone between the high water and low water marks, also
known as the inter-tidal zone.
Free productA substance that is present in the environment as a separate
liquid phase, which is relatively immiscible with water.
FuturecoastA major research and development study commissioned by Defra
to provide projections of future coastal evolution in England and
Wales to inform the development of the second generation of
Shoreline Management Plans.
Groundwater source
The Environment Agency has defined several groundwater
protection zonesource protection zones for 2000 groundwater sources such as
wells, boreholes and springs used for public water supply. The
zones show the risk of contamination from any activities that
might cause pollution in the area.
HazardIn the context of this guidance, a hazard is defined as a substance
in or under the land that has potential to be hazardous to human
health or the environment.
Hazardous wasteWaste that is harmful to human health or the environment,
either immediately or over an extended period of time.
Hazardous wastes are identified with an asterisk on the List of
Wastes (known as the European Waste Catalogue).
Historic landfill
A landfill site closed before 1994.
Inert
A sub-set of non-hazardous waste. Waste is considered inert if:
1It does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or
biological transformations.
xvi
CIRIA, C718
3Its total leachability and pollutant content and the ecotoxicity
of its leachate are insignificant and, in particular, do not
endanger the quality of any surface water or groundwater.
Hold the lineMaintaining or changing the standard of protection to hold the
existing defence line.
Landfill Directive 1999The aim of the directive is to prevent or reduce as far as possible
negative effects on the environment. In particular the pollution
of surface water, groundwater, soil and air, and on the global
environment, as well as any risk to human health from the
landfilling of waste, during the whole lifecycle of the landfill.
Landfill operator
part 1
Land contaminationThis term can cover a wide range of situations where land is in
some way contaminated. Where certain criteria are met, a site
may be determined as “contaminated land”, which has a specific
legal definition under Part IIA of the EPA 1990.
Introduction
2It does not dissolve, burn or otherwise physically or
chemically react, biodegrade or adversely affect other
matter that it comes into contact with in a way likely to cause
environmental pollution or harm to human health.
The person who has control over the operation of the landfill.
Landfill taxA tax on the disposal of waste at a landfill site that covered by
a licence or permit under specific environmental legislation. It
aims to encourage waste producers to produce less waste, recover
more value from waste and to use more environmentally friendly
methods of waste disposal.
part 2
Landfill regulatorThe authority on whom functions are conferred by the Landfill
Directive 1999.
LeachateA solution, which is the result of the leaching process. The
solution can contain soluble contaminants picked up when
percolating or draining through waste.
Monitoring planA plan designed to incorporate an appropriate suite of approaches
that will specifically address issues that are pertinent to the nature
of the site and the type of solution under consideration.
No active intervention
Part 3
Managed realignmentAllowing the shoreline to move backwards or forwards, with
management to control or limit movement.
No investment in coastal defences or operations.
Non-hazardous wasteWaste that is considered to be not harmful. Non-hazardous waste
is identified without an asterisk on the List of Wastes (known as
the European Waste Catalogue).
A landfill site that is accepting waste.
Orphaned linkage/
An orphan linkage may arise where the significant contaminated
orphaned sitelinkage relates solely to the significant pollution of controlled
waters (and not to significant harm) and no Class A appropriate
person can be found, where no Class A or Class B appropriate
person can be found, or where those who would otherwise be
liable are exempted by one of the relevant statutory provisions.
OvertoppingA process of water overflowing or overspilling the crest of coastal
defences, which could result in tidal flooding.
Part IIAPart IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended)
xvii
Part 4
Operational landfills
(England, Wales, Scotland) which establishes a legal framework
for dealing with contaminated land.
Part IIIPart III of the Waste and Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland)
Order 1997 establishes a specific contaminated land power,
including a definition of contaminated land and a procedure for
securing remediation when such land is identified.
PathwayWith regard to this guidance, a route by which a receptor is, or
might be, affected by the waste or contamination.
Permitted landfillA landfill that is permitted to accept waste (operational landfill)
or that is closed but has yet to surrender its permit.
Pollutant pathway/linkage
The linkage connecting a contaminant source with a receptor.
Polluter
The party responsible for causing pollution.
ProportionalityEnsuring at each stage that the processes adopted and levels of
investigation or assessment undertaken and management options
selected are proportionate to the best available understanding of
the risks (or the residual risks) that are presented.
Ramsar siteDesignated under the Ramsar Convention 1971. The objective of
this designation is to prevent the progressive encroachment into,
and the loss of, wetlands.
ReceptorWith regard to this guidance, a receptor is something (ie humans,
organisms, ecosystems, property, or controlled waters) that could
be adversely affected by the waste or land contamination.
Remediation strategyA document that details all relevant pollutant linkages, release
scenarios and the strategy for delivery of any remedial work or
monitoring that is required to demonstrate that any pollutant
linkages previously identified are adequately addressed.
Responsible person/bodyPerson(s) legal responsibly for the site or site activities (landowner,
local authority, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority)
Risk assessmentThe formal process of identifying, assessing and evaluating the
health and environmental risks that may be associated with a
hazard.
Sea defenceStructure, either natural or man-made, which protects the land
against flooding by the sea.
Site of Special
A statutory designation under the Wildlife and Countryside Act
Scientific Interest (WCA) 1981. Notified by Natural England (formerly English
Nature), representing some of the best examples of Britain’s
natural features including flora, fauna, and geology.
Site operator
The operator of a landfill site.
SourceWith regard to this guidance, a source is a substance that
is in, on, or under the land, and that has the potential to
cause significant harm to a relevant receptor, or to cause
significant pollution of controlled waters (ie the solids, liquids
or gases contained within the waste or resulting from the land
contamination).
Special Area of ConservationA designation aimed to protect habitats or species of European
importance and can include marine areas. SAC designated sites
are designated under the EU Habitats Directive (92/43EEC) and
will form part of the Natura 2000 site network. All SAC sites are
xviii
CIRIA, C718
Special Protection AreaA statutory designation for internationally important sites, set
up to establish a network of protected areas for birds. Special
Protection Areas are designated under the EU Birds Directive
(79/409/EEC). All SPAs are also protected as Sites of Special
Scientific Interest.
StakeholderA person, group or organisation who affects or can be affected by
an organisation’s actions.
Stakeholder analysisThe process of identifying the stakeholders that are likely to
affect or be affected by a proposed action, and sorting them
according to their effect on the action and the affect the action
will have on them.
Storm surgeA change in predicted tidal level due to meteorological effects,
such as atmospheric pressure or wave set-up. In the context
of this guide, positive storm surges during periods of low
atmospheric pressure could lead to increased risk of sea flooding
at sites.
part 2
Stakeholder engagementThe process(es) that an organisation takes to involve stakeholders
in dialogue to find out what social and environmental issues
surrounding an action matter most to them so as to improve
decision making and accountability.
part 1
Special SiteA special site is any contaminated land which has been designated
as such by virtue of Section 78C(7) or Section 78D(6) of the EPA
1990, and whose designation as such has not been terminated by
the appropriate Agency under Section 78Q(4) of the EPA 1990.
Introduction
also protected as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, except those
in the marine environment below mean low water.
Surrendered landfillsWhere the environmental regulator has accepted that the closed
landfill no longer forms a risk and as a consequence has accepted
that the permit is formally surrendered.
Waste acceptance criteriaThe criteria to be met before waste is accepted at a landfill site.
Part 3
Tree Preservation OrdersA Tree Preservation Order is made by a Local Planning Authority
to protect specific trees, a particular area or woodland from
deliberate damage and/or destruction.
Waste Framework
An EU Directive that provides a general framework for waste
Directive 2008/98/ECmanagement requirements and sets the basic waste management
definitions for the EU.
xix
Part 4
Water Framework
A EU Directive that aims to establish a framework for the
Directive 2000/60/ECprotection of inland surface waters (rivers and lakes), transitional
waters (estuaries), coastal waters and groundwater. Its primary
focus is preventing deterioration and improving chemical and
ecological water quality.
Abbreviations/acronyms
AA
Appropriate assessment
ABD
Areas benefiting from defences
AONB
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty
AQAP
Air quality action plan
AQMA
Air quality management area
ATL
Advance the line
BAP
Biodiversity action plan
BAT
Best available technique
BCR
Benefit cost ratio
BGS
British Geological Survey
BS
British Standard
CARControlled Activity Regulations (The Water Environment (Controlled Activities)
(Scotland) Regulations 2011
CFMP
Catchment Flood Management Plan
CDM
Construction design and management
CL:AIRE
Contaminated Land: Applications in Real Environments
CLEA
Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment
CoP
Code of practice
COPA
Control of Pollution Act 1974
COSHH
Control of Substances Hazardous to Health
CQA
Construction quality assurance
CSM
Conceptual site model
DCC
Dorset County Council
DCLG
Department for Communities and Local Government
Defra
Department for Food, Environment and Rural Affairs
DOE
Department of Environment
DWS
Drinking Water Standards
EA
Environment Agency
ECoW
Environmental clerk of works
EIA
Environmental impact assessment
EMP
Environmental management plan
EPA
Environmental Protection Act 1990
EPS
European protected species
EQO
Environmental quality objectives
EQS
Environmental quality standards
ER
Environment report
ERA
Ecological risk assessment
ES
Environmental statement
ESC
Environmental safety case
ESID
Environmental setting and installation design report
EU
European Union
xx
CIRIA, C718
Flood and coastal management
FDGiA
Flood defence grant in aid
GAC
Generic assessment criteria
GI
Ground investigation
GSI
Geographical information system
HMSO
Her Majesty’s Stationery Office
HSE
Health and Safety Executive
HTL
Hold the line
LCF
Landfill Communities Fund
LFD
Landfill Directive
LLFA
Local lead flood authority
LLWR
Low level waste repository
LPA
Local planning authority
LRTC
Lyme Regis Town Council
LWM
Low water mark
MAFF
Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food
MCAA
Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009
MCU
Marine consents unit
MHW
Mean high water
MHWS
Mean high water springs
MLW
Mean low water
MLWM
Mean low water mark
MLWS
Mean low water spring
MMO
Marine Management Organisation
MoD
Ministry of Defence
MR
Managed realignment
NAI
No active intervention
NDA
Nuclear Decommissioning Authority
NIEA
Northern Ireland Environment Agency
ODPM
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister
PNEC
Predicted no effect concentrations
PPC
Pollution prevention and control
PPDO
Public path diversion order
PPE
Personal protective equipment
PPG
Planning Policy Guidance
PPS
Planning Policy Statement
PRoW
Public right of way
QMUL
Queen Mary University of London
RSPB
Royal Society for the Protection of Birds
rWFD
Revised Waste Framework Directive
SAC
Special Area of Conservation
SCAPE
Soft cliff and platform erosion
SEA
Strategic environmental assessment
Part 4
FCM
Part 3
Flood and coastal erosion risk management
part 2
FCERM
part 1
European Waste Catalogue
Introduction
EWC
xxi
SEPA
SGV
Soil guideline value
SI
Site investigation
SMP
Shoreline Management Plan
SNH
SPA
Special Protection Area
SRDP
Scottish Rural Development Programme
SSSI
Site of Special Scientific Interest
UKAEAUK Atomic Energy Authority
UNESCO
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
UXO
Unexploded ordnance
VOC
Volatile organic compound
WAC
Waste Acceptance Criteria
WCA
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981
WEWS
Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003
WDDC
WFD
Water Framework Directive
WPA
Waste planning authorities
xxii
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
1Introduction
part 1
1.1
Background
There are hundreds of known landfill, industrial and other waste sites around the coasts and
estuaries of the UK. Many are disused, often re-landscaped and underlying land that is accessible
to the public. Over the years, the effects of coastal erosion and sea flooding have resulted in waste
from some of these sites being deposited on the foreshore (see Figures 1.1 and 1.2) and seeping
into the coastal and marine environment.
These releases are likely to become more frequent as a consequence of climate change, especially
sea level rise, and this issue will become a more common management challenge in the future.
part 2
The release of such waste and other contaminated material can result in a range of issues on
public health and safety, and cause adverse physical, chemical and biological effects on the natural
environment.
The adoption of strategic coastal management plans such as Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs)
and coastal strategies around England, Wales and parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland has
brought this issue into sharper focus in recent years. Also, it has identified further sites that are
now at risk from erosion or sea flooding, or may become so in the future.
Part 3
While such instances are expected to increase, there is limited experience to date of dealing with
these problems from identification to solution in coastal and estuarine environments. This guide
has been produced to help the increasing number of professionals who will come across such
problems for the first time.
Development of this guidance involved industry-wide consultation through a questionnaire survey
and a stakeholders’ workshop. This process emphasised several of points that have been reflected
in the way the guide has been structured and written:
the issue spans several disciplines – most notably waste management, pollution prevention
and control, flood and coastal management, and spatial planning
Part 4
as well as having a technical focus, environmental, economic and social issues have an
influence on the option adopted
potentially, a wide range of stakeholders can be involved with differing regulatory, land
ownership, environmental, commercial and other perspectives
the process is not linear and often a local issue can be influenced by the broader regional
objectives such as strategic coastal management plans and budget allocations. This can
result in complex and iterative decision making
the approaches taken to investigation, management or remediation should be proportionate
to the risks that are presented.
1
Figure 1.1 Waste released onto the foreshore following a landslip in coastal
cliffs in west Dorset (courtesy Jim Wilkinson, Environment Agency)
Figure 1.2 Domestic waste spilled onto the onto the foreshore at the eroding
margin of an estuary in south-west England (courtesy Lesley Row)
1.2
Scope and purpose of the guidance
This guide provides good practice in addressing these issues in coastal, estuarine and harbour
settings. Its intent is to inform coastal managers about issues associated with the release of waste
from sites and to inform site managers about the risks posed by erosion and sea flooding.
The sites covered include:
operational landfills– permitted sites that are accepting waste
closed landfills – permitted sites that are closed to accepting waste, but are undergoing
aftercare and monitoring as part of the permit surrender process
surrendered landfills – formerly permitted sites where the environmental regulator has
accepted that the closed landfill no longer forms a risk and as a consequence has accepted
that the permit is formally surrendered
2
CIRIA, C718
other areas of land contamination – including sites formally determined as “contaminated
land” under Part IIA of the Environment Protection Act 1990 in England, Scotland and
Wales or Part III of the Waste and Contaminated Land Order 1997 in Northern Ireland.
Also extending to other (non-determined) areas of legacy industrial activity, including areas
of reclaimed land within port and harbour areas or flood embankments or coastal defences
with waste buried in them.
The scope of the document is illustrated schematically in Figure 1.3. This figure shows the
elements and physical processes operating within fluvial, estuary and coastal systems that are
included () or excluded () from the scope of this guide.
Introduction
historic landfills – legacy sites, many that pre-date environmental regulation
part 1
part 2
Figure 1.3 Elements included within the scope of this guidance
Relationship with existing guidance
Part 3
1.3
There already exists a considerable volume of guidance of direct relevance to the waste
management and pollution prevention and control (PPC) sectors, covering both the management
of waste sites and the management of areas of land contamination.
There is further considerable guidance available directly to the flood and coastal management
(FCM) sector on the management of risks from sea flooding and coastal erosion, including the
appraisal of scheme options and the development of strategic coastal management plans, such as
SMPs and coastal strategies.
Part 4
This publication focuses on the unique area of overlap between these sectors (Figure 1.4),
signposting to existing guidance and other reference material as appropriate. Also it recognises
the environmental, economic and stakeholder perspectives that need to be considered.
3
Figure 1.4 Relationship with existing guidance
1.4Core principles of this guidance
The core of this guide is a framework based on a cyclic management approach involving the main
stages presented in Figure 1.5.
Figure 1.5 Cyclic management approach
The framework is founded on the principles of risk management throughout. These principles
are already well known to both the waste and contaminated land industries and to the flood and
coastal management industry. Linking strongly to this risk based approach, the framework also
incorporates principles of proportionality, which ensures at each stage that the processes adopted
and levels of investigation or assessment undertaken are proportionate to the best available
understanding of the risks (or the residual risks) that are presented.
1.5Target readership
This guidance is primarily aimed at those people with responsibilities for managing risks from
coastal erosion and sea flooding affecting landfill sites or areas of land contamination, including:
coastal managers who deliver their functions in relation to the rules set out in the
Coast Protection Act 1949 for management of the risks posed by erosion of land and
encroachment by the sea
4
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
flood risk managers who deliver their functions in relation to the rules set out in the Water
Resources Act 1991, Land Drainage Act 1991 and Flood and Water Management Act 2010
landfill site operators and regulators who undertake or control the functions of operational
and closed landfill sites in accordance with environmental permits
contaminated land officers and environmental health officers who manage the risks
presented by sites in accordance with their functions under various contaminated land
regulations (covering solids, liquids, gases, and radioactive materials) and various pollution
prevention and control legislation (covering water quality, air quality, noise and odour)
landowners who may have inherited historic or surrendered-license landfill sites or areas of
legacy land contamination
spatial planners responsible for development control and land use planning under the Town
and County Planning Act 1990.
part 1
scientific advisors to government who ensure compliance of activities and developments
within the context of various environmental directives and regulations, especially those
relating to nature conservation within the marine and coastal environment
This guide is intended to provide practical advice to assist with the management of “on the
ground” operational issues that may be faced now and in the future. It should be read alongside
complementary advice on high-level and strategic planning of longer term issues addressed
through strategic coastal management plans, such as SMPs and coastal strategies, waste
management strategies and local development plans.
part 2
Given the unique nature of the problems covered in this guidance, it contains a wide range of
different topics. Some readers may find it of value to read the entire guide, while others who
already possess knowledge of a specific topic area may instead wish to refer to particular sections
or subsections. For this reason the guidance has been structured to provide several different
“entry points” depending on the needs of the user.
1.6
How to use the guidance
In the specific case where erosion or sea flooding of a previously unknown or unidentified site is
reported, the immediate steps to be taken by a coastal manager are provided in Section 3.3.
Part 3
The core of the guide is presented in Part 1. This describes the processes to be followed from
identification of a problem, through characterising the site and assessing the risks, onto appraisal
of options and delivery of a solution. It concludes with advice on the importance of evaluating
performance and assessing residual risks on an ongoing basis.
This core framework is supported by many other elements, which highlight potential “entry
points” to the guidance. The way these inter-relate is shown in Figure 1.6.
Part 3 provides a suite of themes, which collectively cover important cross-cutting issues that
can have an overall influence on the approach taken or can significantly affect the success (or
otherwise) of an outcome.
Part 4 presents three main case studies that illustrate practical application of some of the main
elements of the guidance.
The guidance concludes with a further reading section of useful guidance documents, online
guides and relevant existing legislation.
5
Part 4
Given the wide range of potential stakeholders, Part 2 presents a perspectives section, which
recognises that individuals will experience the issue from differing viewpoints and responsibilities
and provides specific guidance from these perspectives.
Boxes are used throughout the guide to illustrate practical application of various processes
within the framework through reference to a series of mini case studies. In addition, boxes
and references listed within each chapter are used to direct the reader towards other literature
sources for relevant legislation, existing complementary (more detailed) guidance documents and
other useful information.
Figure 1.6 Structure of the guidance
6
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
part 1
Part I
Guidance framework
part 2
Part 3
Part 4
7
2 Guidance framework:
background context
2.1Introduction
This chapter briefly describes the principal legislative and regulatory arrangements that may
be relevant in the management of sites covered in this guide. Further detail on these issues is
provided in Chapter 14, covering topics of landfill sites and areas of land contamination, pollution
prevention and control, and coastal erosion and flood risk management. The importance of
engaging with stakeholders within this context cannot be underestimated and detailed guidance
on this topic is given in Chapter 17.
A number of legislative and regulatory arrangements need to be considered when looking at
landfill sites and areas of land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines. This is due to the
range of particular sites under consideration in this guide, the unique setting of the sites at the
interface between land and sea, and the potentially hazardous nature of the materials that have
the potential to be released into the wider environment.
The specific legislative and regulatory arrangements that apply to a site will depend on its
particular nature, the activities that are carried out there and its setting. A route map has been
developed to show the most likely regulatory and legislative provisions that may apply, dependent
on site category. This helps to define roles and responsibilities of different bodies, including
polluters, landowners or land occupiers, enforcing authorities, coast protection authorities and
flood risk management authorities, in undertaking management of any erosion or sea flooding
issues at a site.
2.2Regulatory and legislative setting
Different regulatory and legislative settings will apply depending on whether a site is categorised as:
a permitted landfill site (either operational or closed)
an area formally determined (or in the process of being assessed) as contaminated land
an area of other (non-determined) land contamination.
Definitions of these categories are given in the Glossary and in Table 2.1 (also refer to Chapter 14
for further details).
A surrendered-licence landfill site or pre-regulated historic landfill site may fall into either of the
latter two categories.
8
CIRIA, C718
Many people involved with managing the coastline will be dealing with the types of issues covered
in this guide for the first time. As such, appropriate expert assistance should be sought from
relevant internal or external persons to assist the process of defining legal responsibilities and
regulatory routes on a site-by-site basis.
part 1
For the purposes of this guidance, a general indicative route map (Figure 2.1) has been defined
to assist a user in developing a broad understanding of the relevant legislative and regulatory
contexts and the different roles and responsibilities involved.
Introduction
2.3Route map to defining roles and
responsibilities
This route map explicitly identifies a series of key questions (yellow boxes), definitions that
arise from answers to the questions (blue boxes) and responsibilities or actions that arise from
answers to the questions (green boxes). It should be viewed in conjunction with the following
explanatory text.
Table 2.1 Principal waste and contaminated land legislation, regulation and
responsibilities for different categories of site (to be read alongside Chapter 14)
Site categorisation
Operating conditions defined by a landfill
environmental permit, as required by the:
Environmental
Environmental
Permitting (England and Wales)
Regulations 2010
Landfill Directive 1999 (for sites that are
permitted and closed after 16 July 2001)
Contaminated land
Sites formally determined as contaminated land
(may include historic under:
and surrendered
Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act
landfill sites)
(EPA) 1990 (England, Wales, Scotland)
Part III of the Waste and Contaminated Land
Order (Northern Ireland) 1997.
Regulator required to undertake
periodic inspections.
Operator responsible for measures
to prevent release of waste from
the permitted areas and to comply
with the requirements of any closure
notice until the permit is formally
surrendered.
Regulator required to undertake
periodic inspections.
Causer, knowing permitter or
landowner potentially responsible
for measures to manage risks posed
by release of contamination and/or
clean-up any contamination.
Enforcing authority to undertake
periodic inspections and risk
assessments, identify party
responsible for remediation (if
voluntary action has not been carried
out) and maintain a register of
determined sites.
Polluter or landowner responsible for
measures to manage risks posed by
release of waste and/or clean-up any
environmental damage.
Permissive powers for action by the
coast protection authority or flood
risk management authority (FCERM
purpose only).
9
Part 4
Land contamination Sites not formally determined as contaminated
(may include historic land under Part IIA and Part III:
and surrendered
The Environmental Damage (Prevention and
landfill sites)
Remediation) Regulations 2009
The Environmental Liability (Scotland)
Regulations 2009
The Environmental Liability (Prevention and
Remediation) Regulations (Northern Ireland)
2009
Coast Protection Act 1949 (permissive powers)
Water Resources Act 1991
Flood and Water Management Act 2010
Operator responsible for measures
to prevent release of waste from the
permitted areas.
Part 3
Permitted landfill
Closed landfill
Permitting (England and Wales)
Regulations 2010
Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland)
Regulations (2000)
Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations
(Northern Ireland) 2003
Closure process as defined in:
Responsibilities
part 2
Operational
landfill
Principal Legislation/Regulation
10
CIRIA, C718
Figure 2.1 Legislative responsibilities for
management of risks landfill sites or land
contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines
If the site is considered to be at risk of coastal erosion or sea flooding, Q2 relates to whether or
not the site is a permitted landfill (either operational or closed but yet to formally surrender its
permit). If so, then the landfill site operator has responsibility for management of the site under
the conditions of their environmental permit for the landfill.
If a site is not formally determined as contaminated land, Q4 is applied to determine whether
further investigations need to be undertaken to formally determine whether or not it should
be. If so, these assessments should be undertaken and fed back into the determination of status
by repeating Q3. If further investigations are not required, or if after further investigations
the site still is not determined as being contaminated land, then the “non-determined route” is
followed. Through the route map however if the site is determined as contaminated land then the
“determined route” is followed.
part 2
Under the “determined route”, Q5 investigates whether or not the polluter can be traced. It
should be noted that each significant contaminant is generally treated separately, which may
identify several different polluters over a considerable length of time. For surrendered landfill
sites this investigation should be possible since good records will exist with the enforcing
authority, in which case the polluter may be identified as a Class A appropriate person. For
historic landfill sites and other areas of historic land contamination tracing a polluter will depend
on the availability and quality of historic records.
part 1
If the site is not a permitted landfill, then Q3 is applied, which identifies whether or not the site
is formally determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection
Act in England, Wales and Scotland, or Part III of the Waste and Contaminated Land Order
in Northern Ireland. The process of determining this is discussed in Chapter 14, with further
guidance also available for England (Defra, 2012), Wales (Welsh Government, 2012), Scotland
(Scottish Executive, 2006) and Northern Ireland (Department of the Environment, 2006).
Introduction
In the route map Q1 relates to whether or not the landfill site or area of land contamination is, or will
become, at risk from coastal erosion and/or sea flooding. If not, then this guidance does not apply.
If the polluter cannot be traced, then Q6 is asked to investigate whether or not the landowner can
be traced. If this is possible then the landowner becomes identified as a Class B appropriate person.
Part 3
In these steps, the tracing of polluters and/or landowners will require a forensic approach
to source and investigate historic records. Where appropriate this should be assisted by the
involvement of specialist legal support.
If tracing of a polluter and/or landowner is not possible, then the risks presented by the site are
considered to have “orphan linkages” and the responsibility for their management rests with the
enforcing authority under Part IIA of the Environment Protection Act 1990 in England, Wales
and Scotland, and Part III of the Waste and Contaminated Land Order in Northern Ireland.
Under the “non-determined route”, Q8 gives consideration to whether or not the release of waste
from the site by of coastal erosion or sea flooding presents a risk that needs to be managed.
The materials released will vary from site to site and could range from hazardous waste to
inert materials. Any of these may, if released from a site, present hazards (eg safety to beach
users or pollution of the environment) or detract from the amenity value of an area. If no risk
11
Part 4
If a Class A or Class B appropriate person can be identified, then Q7 places an onus on the
enforcing authority to prove responsibility for the creation or continued existence of the
contaminated land classification by those parties. If this can be proven, then under Part IIA and
Part III the polluter or landowner may be responsible for management. If this cannot be proven,
then the risks presented by the site are considered to have “orphan linkages” through a process
called exemption, and the responsibility for their management rests with the enforcing authority
under Part IIA and Part III.
is identified, then it is advisable for a “responsible person” (landowner or local authority) to
continue monitoring the site and periodically re-evaluate whether the risk assessment is in need
of updating (ie if erosion rates or sea flooding incidences increase or different material types start
to become exposed from the site).
If a risk is identified, then Q9 should be applied to determine whether or not the polluter or
landowner can be traced. If pollution has occurred and the polluter or landowner can be traced
then the “polluter pays principal” may be enforced by the appropriate enforcement authorities
depending on the extent of the damage caused, in order to remedy damage, or if needs be,
prevent further damage.
If the polluter or landowner cannot be traced, then Q10 is applied to determine whether the
cause of the risk is through either coastal erosion or sea flooding. If the former, then the coast
protection authority may elect to exercise its permissive powers under the Coast Protection Act
1949 in relation to sites affected by coastal erosion. If the latter then the flood risk management
authority may elect to exercise its permissive powers under the Flood and Water Management
Act 2010 in relation to sites affected by sea flooding. It should be noted, that depending on the
risk, “do nothing” may be an outcome from this process (see Chapter 6 for further details on
appraising management options).
Once the legal responsibilities and legislative context has been defined in this manner in
accordance with the principles shown in the route map (but supported by specialist legal advice
on a case by case basis), it is important to understand the timelines that need to be followed.
For operational issues, where erosion or sea flooding is either already occurring or is expected
over the short-term, then activities need to be progressed within an appropriate time limit in
accordance with the guidance framework presented in Part 1 of this publication to reflect the
urgency of the challenge.
Where the issue is of a medium- or long-term nature, then it needs to feed into longer term
planning arrangements already in existence. These include cycles of developing strategic coastal
management plans (eg SMPs or coastal strategies, see Chapter 9), or land use development
plans throughout the UK. This will ensure that suitable long-term management policies are set
to address these risks at appropriate future intervals and ensure that other land uses are not
promoted in the interim that will constrain options or worsen risks in the future.
In either an operational situation or as a strategic long-term planning consideration, partnership
working between organisations will enable a better outcome. Further guidance on engaging with
stakeholders is provided in Chapter 17.
2.4References
DEFRA (2012) Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part IIA Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance,
The Stationery Office, London. Go to: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/land/
DOE NI (2006) Contaminated Land Implementation of Part III of the Waste and Contaminated
Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997 A Consultation Paper on Proposals for the Contaminated Land
Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 and Statutory Guidance, Department of the Environment
Northern Ireland, Belfast. Go to: www.eugris.info/displayresource.aspx?r=6845
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2006) Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part IIA Contaminated Land
– Statutory Guidance: Edition 2, Paper SE/2006/44, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh (ISBN:0-75596097-1). Go to: www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/127825/0030600.pdf
WELSH GOVERNMENT (2012) Guidance document. Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance – 2012,
Number: WG15450, Welsh Government, Cardiff (ISBN: 978-0-75047-410-8).
Go to: http://wales.gov.uk/docs/desh/publications/120417contaminatedlandguideen.pdf
12
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
Statutes
Acts
Coast Protection Act 1949 (c. 74) (Regnal. 12_13_and_14_Geo_6)
Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (England, Wales, Scotland)
Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (c. 29)
Regulations
The Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (No. 323)
The Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2009 (No. 153) (England
and Wales)
The Environmental Liability (Scotland) Regulations 2009 (No. 266)
part 1
The Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 (No. 46)
The Environmental Liability (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009
(No. 252)
The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (No. 675)
Orders
part 2
Part III of the Waste and Contaminated Land Order (Northern Ireland) 1997
Directives
Landfill Directive 1999
Part 3
Part 4
13
identifying sites
3.1
Background
This chapter presents advice on how sites can be identified as being at risk from erosion or sea
flooding using existing available datasets and processes. Also, it advises on the approaches to
be taken should a previously unknown or unexpected issue emerge due to ongoing processes of
erosion or sea flooding at a previously unidentified legacy site. Further details of the scale of this
problem are presented in Box 2.1 (page 15).
3.2
Known sites
Site locations
The location of all permitted landfill sites, both operational and closed, that are situated at, or
near, the coastline or estuarine shores will already be known to landfill site regulators across the
UK through environmental permitting procedures (see Chapter 14 for further details).
Also, the location of many historic landfill sites or areas of land contamination will also be known
through the formal Part IIA and Part III contaminated land designations (see Chapter 14 for
further details). These sites will be inspected by the enforcing authorities at intervals appropriate
to the risks posed. This enables the anticipation or onset of problems associated with erosion or
sea flooding to be highlighted to the appropriate landowner or site occupier at an early stage.
Information from these sources should be readily available in registers maintained by the landfill
site regulators and Part IIA and Part III enforcing authorities. However, these registers are not
necessarily routinely viewed by coastal protection authorities within the context of identifying
risks to these sites from coastal erosion or sea flooding. Further guidance on better achieving this
is provided in Chapter 9 as part of long-term strategic coastal management planning.
Information regarding the location of known historic and authorised landfills in England and
Wales can be found on the What’s in your backyard section of the Environment Agency website
(see Further information box). However, this information will not provide a complete picture. The
relevant local authorities are responsible for keeping records regarding historic landfills that they
are aware of and they should be contacted for detailed local information.
Further information from the Environment Agency
What’s in your backyard: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37793.aspx
Landfill sites: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37823.aspx
Historic landfill: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37829.aspx
14
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
Box 2.1 Scale of the problem
Historic landfills
part 1
There are known to be around 20 000 historic landfill sites recorded
in Environment Agency records across England and Wales (Wilkinson,
2011). Some 1500 of these are located within low-lying coastal or
estuarine areas that, in the absence of defences, are at risk of sea
flooding under a 1 in 200 year return period event (defined as an event
with an average annual probability of occurrence of 0.5 per cent in each
and every year). However, many of these sites are currently protected by
sea defences. Around 100 other historic landfill sites are known to be
located in more elevated coastal areas that, in the absence of defences,
are at risk of erosion and/or slope instability over the next 100 years
(Environment Agency, 2010). Most of these are presently undefended by
coastal protection structures and are vulnerable to ongoing processes
of erosion. The total number of historic landfill sites around the UK is
likely to be greater than stated here because records of historic landfill
are known to be incomplete. The quoted values cover only England and
Wales (many more sites are expected to be located in Scotland and
Northern Ireland) and are largely post environmental regulations coming
into force from around the 1970s onwards. At unrecorded “legacy” sites
unknown problems can emerge as coastal change occurs, often driven
by climate change factors such as sea level rise.
Permitted landfills (open and closed)
part 2
There are known to be over 2000 landfills permitted in England
and Wales since formation of the Environment Agency in 1995,
with many other sites located in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Around 500 of these permitted landfills in England and Wales are
presently operational, with around 1670 closed before or during the
implementation of the Landfill Directive 1999 (Wilkinson, 2009). Around
184 of these permitted landfills in England and Wales are located
within low-lying coastal areas that, in the absence of defences, are at
risk of sea flooding under a 1 in 200 year return period event, although
many of these sites are currently protected by sea defences (Wilkinson,
2009). Several other permitted landfills in England and Wales are
known to be located in more elevated coastal areas that, in the absence
of defences, are at risk of erosion and/or slope instability over the next
100 years (Environment Agency, 2010).
Other sites of land contamination
Part 3
In addition to historic and permitted landfill sites, there are other areas
of land contamination at, or near, the coast that could become affected
by coastal erosion or sea flooding. This includes areas reclaimed from
the sea, areas of fly-tipping, industrial spoil or ship ballast, sea defences
containing waste in their core, sites regulated for the disposal of very
low level and low level radioactive waste, and graveyards with buried
human remains.
Coastal erosion risks
15
Part 4
Coastal erosion risks can be relatively readily identified in England and Wales and parts of
Scotland and Northern Ireland using information from strategic coastal management plans, such
as SMPs or coastal strategies. In some cases, SMPs in particular will have maps showing erosion
zones over future decades, usually presented across three epochs (the principles of which are
shown schematically in Figure 3.1).
Figure 3.1 Erosion zones affecting
a site in around 50 years
Also, coastal erosion risk maps have now been published across England and Wales by the
Environment Agency/Natural Resource Body Wales (Environment Agency, 2012). This web-based
product is available to technical officers from the Environment Agency and coast protection
authorities and presents erosion predictions over future epochs, up to 100 years, from a base date
of 2010. The erosion prediction takes into consideration issues such as the geology of the shoreline
(ie its relative resistance to erosion) and the presence and condition of existing coastal defence
structures. Outputs are available to the public via the Environment Agency/Natural Resource
Body Wales website and are intended to be updated at future intervals (see Further information
box). Outputs mainly focus on coastal environments and so in most areas estuarine shores are not
included. However, in these locations the risk to sites located at, or near, the shore is more likely
to be associated with sea flooding than coastal erosion.
Further information
Environment Agency Coastal erosion maps:
www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/134808.aspx
In some situations, for example where sites are set back from the coastal margin, consideration of
erosion over a very long time (centuries to millennia) may be required. Further advice on this is
provided in Chapter 11.
Sea flooding risks
Sea flooding risks can be relatively readily identified in England and Wales using flood risk maps
that are published and routinely updated by the Environment Agency/Natural Resource Body
Wales (see Further references). This product (which covers flooding from both the sea and rivers)
is available to technical officers from the Environment Agency and coast protection authorities in
a mapped format. It presents “zones” of land that would become inundated by the sea during a
flood event with a return period of 1 in 200 years and a more extreme flood event with a return
period of 1 in 1000 years (Figure 3.2 shows the principles). Outputs are available to the wider
public through the Environment Agency/Natural Resource Body Wales website (see Further
references box). Similar flood risk maps are in development by SEPA for parts of Scotland.
Further references
Environment Agency Flood risk maps:
16
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
part 1
Figure 3.2 Flood zones affecting a site
under different sea flooding events
The flood zones do not presently illustrate all areas protected by sea defences, however the
maps are being updated to take into consideration the residual risk from sea flooding when the
existence of sea defences is included. This will result from the ongoing work by the Environment
Agency as part of its Areas Benefiting from Defences (ABD) project.
Information from the registers regarding the locations of known sites should be studied alongside
existing information on coastal erosion and sea flooding risks to identify those sites which may be,
or may become, susceptible to these risks.
SMP and coastal strategy documents inherently incorporate assessments (under various
management scenarios) of erosion risks over the next 20, 50 and 100 years and sea flooding risks
during 1 in 200 year return period events. In developing or updating these strategic coastal
management plans registers of known landfill sites and areas of known land contamination may
have been incorporated alongside the information on erosion and sea flooding risk. However, this
has not always been the case to date (see Chapter 9).
Coastal managers should already be aware (or be becoming increasingly aware) of the location
of many landfill sites and areas of land contamination at, or near, the coastline. This enables
17
Part 4
Also, there remain areas of coastline that are not covered by a SMP or coastal strategy (including
many estuarine shores), and for coastal areas in Scotland and Northern Ireland there is not yet
available published information on coastal erosion or sea flooding risk. However, the skills of a
coastal geomorphologist/coastal engineer can be used at a particular site to provide an assessment
of potential risk from erosion or sea flooding based on their understanding of site levels, tidal
levels, wave processes, sea level rise, coastal geology, marine sediment mobility, the location and
condition of coastal defence structures, and past coastal recession (Rogers et al, 2010). Specifically
in estuaries, changes in inter-tidal mudflat or saltmarsh widths and the alignment of channels
and creeks are also factors that can indicate erosion or sea flooding risk.
Part 3
As part of present day forward-looking and long-term strategic approaches to coastal
management, SMPs and coastal strategies have been developed (and are updated at appropriate
times) across England and Wales and parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland. These documents
are intended to identify and assess the risks to people and the developed, natural and historic
environments from both coastal erosion and sea flooding over the next 100 years and establish a
suite of shoreline management policies or delivery options to address these risks in a sustainable
manner.
part 2
Combining datasets
them to incorporate such knowledge into their operational management activities, such as
regular foreshore walkover inspections along coasts and estuaries, and the long-term strategic
management plans of their authorities (see Chapter 9 for further guidance).
Uncertainty: erosion and sea flooding risk
Assessing both future coastal erosion rates and sea
flooding risk is not an exact science. Often, these
uncertainties are presented as lines or zones on maps,
which can engender a false sense of certainty. So it is
important that climate change science is understood and
coastal monitoring is undertaken and assessments are
updated at appropriate times to reflect latest data and
information as reliably as possible.
Erosion lines/bands presented on maps suggest linear
erosion processes. However, some coastline types remain
stable for many years, but then suffer major recession
during episodic events (eg areas susceptible to major
landslips). When assessing erosion rates, it is important
that the nature of the coastline and its geological and
sedimentological composition are considered. Also, it
is important to note that coastlines can contain local
geological weaknesses/changes in material that can
become preferentially exploited by wave and tidal action.
Flood risk is usually presented in a probabilistic manner. A
sea flooding event with a 1 in 200 year return period has
an average annual probability of occurrence of 0.5 per cent
in each and every year. These “return period” event values
should be checked as new data becomes available.
3.3
Legacy sites
In addition to known sites, other legacy sites may be unknown initially and only come to light as:
processes of erosion or sea flooding occur and release materials into the environment
monitoring results or databases become newly available
site investigations are undertaken at particular locations, often associated with proposed
coastal defence schemes, port expansions or land developments.
The first time that a coastal manager (or other relevant officer, specialist or individual) may
hear about a particular problem associated with erosion or sea flooding at a previously unknown
landfill could be through a telephone call from:
a member of the public who has encountered waste material on the foreshore
a landowner who has witnessed the effect of an erosion or sea flooding event
a surveyor or contractor working at a particular site.
It is important to obtain as much detail as possible from the person about the site, the nature of
the material, the mechanisms of its release into the environment, and the contact details of the
caller in case of need for follow-up.
Upon receipt of information about an incident from an external third party, it is important that
it is quickly reported internally to an appropriate level of management so that suitable action
can be advised. This is likely to involve reporting across departments so that the required range
of skills is available to address the problem. Depending on the nature of the reported incident
it may also require the involvement of external bodies, such as regulators or specialist advisors
(see Chapter 17).
18
CIRIA, C718
3.4References
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2010) Coastal landfill assessment. Landfill locations, Halcrow Group
Limited, UK
WILKINSON, J (2009) Climate change and the control of coastal landfill sites. MSc thesis, Department
of Chemical Engineering, University of Bath, UK
WILKINSON, J (2011) “Flooding and eroding coastal landfills: institutions working together for
solutions”. In: Proc ICE Coastal Management conference, Belfast, 15–16 November 2011, A Schofield,
(ed) Innovative coastal zone management: sustainable engineering for a dynamic coast, ICE Publishing,
London (ISBN: 978-0-7277-5749-4) pp 201–210
part 1
ROGERS, J, HAMER, B, BRAMPTON, A et al (2010) Beach management manual (second edition),
C685, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-682-4). Go to: www.ciria.org
Introduction
Local Resilience Forums, under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, can plan for major incidents for
the highest risks that they anticipate. At worst, a major incident can be declared by the relevant
authorities and a co-ordinated emergency planning response procedures can deal with any major
incident and recovery.
Statutes
part 2
Acts
Civil Contingencies Act 2004 (c. 36)
Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (England, Wales, Scotland)
Orders
Part III of the Waste and Contaminated Land Order (Northern Ireland) 1997)
Directives
Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (the Landfill Directive)
Part 3
Part 4
19
characterising site
history and setting
4.1
Background
If a risk from erosion or sea flooding has been identified at a site, then the next step will be to
characterise the history and the physical and environmental setting of the site.
This chapter provides guidance on the first steps to characterising a site, including production
of a desk study and undertaking a site visit. During a site visit there may be the opportunity to
undertake some limited sampling, which can further assist in characterising a site.
Where possible, the desk study and site visit should be mutually informing. For example it may
be prudent to examine historical maps before visiting the site, so any pertinent features shown
on the maps can be examined or confirmed (if still present). This process also helps ensure that
health and safety risks associated with a site visit are identified and understood.
4.2Desk study
One of the first steps in characterising a site should be the production of a desk study including
a preliminary risk assessment. The approach for producing a preliminary risk assessment is
presented within Environment Agency guidance, specifically CLR 11 (Environment Agency,
2004). The review of available data and information carried out to inform this should aim to
answer the following questions in relation to the site’s history and setting:
1
Where is the site located?
2
Who owns or who is responsible for the site?
3
Who is responsible for regulating the site?
4
Who is responsible for managing the shoreline?
5
What is the site’s history?
6
What material may be present in the site?
7
What is the risk to the site from erosion or sea flooding?
8
If there are costal defences already present who is responsible for managing them?
9
Is there a history of problems at the site, and if so, what has been done in the past about
such problems?
Site history
Information about the history of a site is required to determine:
changes in landownership
historic waste operational and landfilling practices
20
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
historic industrial activities of a potentially contaminative nature (eg slag, spoil or ballast
disposal)
changes in land use, including whether the site has previously been reclaimed from sea
when and how coastal defence structures were constructed (if present)
historic rates of coastal erosion or incidences of sea flooding
historic incidences of material release into the environment, with associated consequences
and management responses.
For permitted or surrendered landfill sites, relevant information on the site’s history should be
readily available in the form of:
part 1
The ownership and land use history of the site is particularly important in establishing the
parties who may have a legal responsibility for any remedial actions necessary (see Chapters 2 and
3), noting that more than one party may be responsible due to various activities over different
timelines.
site operator records (waste returns, landfill engineering design and construction quality
assurance (CQA) documents, pollution inventory reporting)
existing site permits and supporting assessments and documentation
regulatory records (inspection notes, records of any pollution incidents and/or enforcement
action).
part 2
However, for legacy sites a more forensic approach will be required as records may be in disparate
sources, or not available at all, in which case informed assumption should be made from those
documents that are available, with all assumptions and uncertainties being documented for future
reference. This forensic approach can be informed by many data sources (see Table 4.1).
Part 3
Part 4
21
Table 4.1 Historical setting – potential further guidance/data sources
Type of data
Information provided
Further guidance/data source
Historic maps, seabed
charts
Successive historic maps can show changes in
land-use, including if a site has been reclaimed
by the sea, and locations and rates of erosion.
Successive Admiralty charts can show how the
seabed and shoreline has changed over time,
which may influence exposure of the site to
processes of erosion or sea flooding
Local museums and archives
Historic photographs
and artwork
Historic photographs and artwork can show
erosion of coastlines and the construction or
presence/absence of the main features
Local museums and archives
Anecdotal evidence
Changes in land use, pollution or erosion/flooding Coastal managers, landowners or the
incidences, historic industrial activities
general public
General development
planning order maps
Held by the local authority/district council these
maps may provide information on landfill gas
searches
Local authority/district council
Bomb damage maps
These may provide an indication of the risk of
unexploded ordnance (UXO) at the site. However,
a UXO specialist also should be consulted.
If there is a risk of UXO on a site, further
investigation including a surface geophysical
survey may be required. If the geophysical survey
identifies anomalies (ie possible UXO) at a site
the next stage would be to expose and identify
these anomalies. If live ordnance are identified
the military will be deployed to dispose of the
devices via detonation
Stone et al (2009)
Web-based historical maps
Admiralty charts, available from the
United Kingdom Hydrographic Office
website: www.ukho.gov.uk
McInnes and Stubbings (2010)
Web-based UXO risk maps
Several UXO specialists and
consultants operate in the UK
Records of coal mining The Coal Authority retains records of coal mining
activity
activity. A report may be obtained from the Coal
Authority detailing the records of mining activity
on, or close to, the site, such as redundant mine
shafts, together with information on whether these
have been capped or stabilised in any manner
For further guidance, mining reports
and property search services, see the
Coal Authority section of the DECC
website: http://coal.decc.gov.uk/
Records of
underground oil
storage tanks
Underground storage tanks may be a source of
contamination
The local authority/district council
contaminated land officer should be
contacted to confirm whether these
features are present on, or close to,
the site
Private groundwater
abstraction boreholes
Private groundwater abstractions boreholes
should be identified as these may be sensitive
receptors to pollution
Environment Agency
Industry profiles
Potentially contaminative industrial activities
associated with generic industry sectors
Property/land deeds
Ownership status and transfers
Specific legal advice should be sought
on a site-specific basis
Recorded pollution
incidents
Pollution incidents maybe a source of
contamination
Environment Agency (2012) What’s in
your backyard:
www.environment-agency.gov.uk/
homeandleisure/37793.aspx
Ottaway et al (RP940) Abandoned
mine workings manual (in press)
Local authority/district council
Site setting
The physical and environmental setting of a site is important to establish the vulnerability of
the site to erosion and/or sea flooding, and the presence of receptors that may be sensitive to
the release of material from the site. For example, the geology underlying the site will define its
relative resistance to erosion while its topography relative to the tidal levels will determine its
vulnerability to sea flooding.
22
CIRIA, C718
Information on the site’s setting can be determined from many data and information sources, as
described in Table 4.2.
Desk study reporting
Case study 4.1 Identifying historic sites in Christchurch Harbour, Dorset
Christchurch Borough Council undertook a review of paper records, dating from the 1980s, retained by its
Engineering Services Department to identify several sites within its borough that historically have been used for
the dumping of refuse.
The locations of these historic landfill sites were plotted within a geographical information system (GIS) and
estimates of the types and volumes of material tipped were made through interpretation of the paper records.
Specifically for the Stanpit Marsh site, the issue of potential erosion and sea flooding of the site had previously
been identified in the late 1990s when the first Shoreline Management Plan was being prepared. This, together
with its status as a Local Nature Reserve, prompted an intensive investigation, both on the site and on the
adjacent inter-tidal marsh.
part 2
Identified sites included some that are located around the margins of Christchurch Harbour, such as Stanpit
Marsh, Mudeford Quay, Avon Beach and Christchurch Quay. At these locations, tipping largely occurred preregulation and consequently little or no engineering was undertaken at some of the sites. Instead waste was
tipped directly onto unprepared surfaces of salt marshes that were then later reclaimed. This direct connectivity
creates a high potential for it to contaminate coastal waters and sediments. As the harbour has relatively low
river flow and a narrow entrance that limits flushing, elevated concentrations of contaminants could, potentially,
build-up over time.
part 1
The information obtained should be collated and presented in a desk study report. Geographic
information systems (GIS) can be can be used as a means of storing/overlaying some of the various
information sources.
Introduction
Similarly, the location of the site to local communities or areas of importance for heritage,
geological, geomorphological or nature conservation reasons will influence the consequences
from any release of material.
Part 3
Part 4
23
Table 4.2 Present day setting – potential data sources/further guidance
Type of data
Information provided
Data source/further guidance
Site location and description
Ordnance Survey
maps, site/aerial
photographs
These will highlight the current uses of the site and Ordnance Survey maps are available
establish whether current practices may be giving from the website:
rise to pollution (eg industrial use or fly tipping)
www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk
or may be highly sensitive to contamination (eg
housing or a school)
Physical environment
Geological and
hydrogeological maps,
geological memoirs,
borehole logs, and
published papers
These provide information on the geology beneath
the site and whether this is likely to allow the
migration of contamination from the site either
laterally or vertically. For example, if the site lies
on sandstone, mobile contaminants may be able
to permeate deep into the rock through its pore
spaces and/or fractures. If the site lies on a thick
layer of clay, this may hinder migration and the
contamination may remain localised and close to
the surface. Geological maps may also provide
information on local geological features, such as
faults, which can provide pathways for contaminant
migration or barriers to it. Historical borehole
logs can give more detailed and site-specific
information on the geology and the presence and
levels of groundwater
Geological and hydrogeological maps
and borehole records are available
from the British Geological Survey
(BGS) website: www.bgs.ac.uk/
Admiralty charts and
tide tables
These can provide the heights of high and low
tides to give an indication of how much the coastal
frontage of the site might be inundated by the tide.
This can affect how much sea water permeates
into the site (which may mobilise contaminants)
Admiralty charts are available from
the United Kingdom Hydrographic
Office website (see References)
Tide tables are available from the
BBC website:
www.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast_
and_sea/tide_tables
Aquifer, groundwater
vulnerability and
source protection zone
maps
These maps establish whether the site is on
highly sensitive water bearing geology. If the site
lies within a groundwater source protection zone,
this indicates that groundwater beneath the site
is currently being used to provide public drinking
water and the quality of this water should be
safeguarded in order to protect public health
Maps are available from the
Environment Agency website:
Topographic surveys,
Lidar data
Topographic surveys can be used to develop a
topographic ground model of the site so that it can
be assessed in relation to water levels, gradients
(eg to inform potential release pathways) and
adjacent land levels
There are many companies
operating within the UK that provide
topographical survey services and
Lidar data
Water level, wind and
wave climate data
and information on
coastline dynamics
Providing information and data on physical
processes operating at or near to the site and
coastal dynamics (sediment erosion, transport and
deposition). Information available from published
literature, including Admiralty Tide Tables,
academic papers and other literature, such as
consultancy reports, in-house reports etc including
SMPs, coastal strategy studies, and Futurecoast in
England and Wales (Defra, 2001)
For information on SMPs and
Futurecoast (covering England and
Wales):
Erosion maps provide information on erosion zones
and where coastal erosion is occurring. Flood maps
identify areas that could be affected by flooding.
Available from national coastal erosion risk maps
(in England and Wales), Shoreline Management
Plans (in England, Wales and parts of Scotland
and Northern Ireland), Environment Agency Flood
Zone Maps (in England and Wales) or expert advice
from Environment Agency, Natural Resource Body
Wales, SEPA, Northern Ireland Environment Agency
(as previously discussed in Chapter 2)
Erosion and flood risk
maps
24
research/planning/104939.aspx
www.defra.gov.uk
SMPs available from relevant local
authority or Environment Agency
region
CIRIA, C718
Ordnance survey and
definitive maps
These maps give further information on which
human receptors may be present (public access
points, public rights of way, recreational features
etc) and how they are likely to come into contact
with contamination (footpaths, picnicking etc)
Ordnance Survey maps are available
from the website:
www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk
Definitive maps are available on
individual local authority websites
If site investigation, ground investigations or
geophysical survey information is available, these
sources may provide additional site specific
information, such as below ground structures and
levels of contamination
BGS website GEOINDEX:
www.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/
Utilities and services
data
Providing information on locations of any major
buried pipelines or overhead cables etc
Utility information can either be
sourced for the individual service
provides alternatively there are
many companies operating within
the UK who provide a utility search
services
Coastal defence
databases
Providing information of the presence and
Information available from the EA
condition of existing coastal defences.
and local authority, district council
Environment Agency’s National Flood and Coastal and landowners
Defence Database (or its imminent replacement)
cover England and Wales and can be made
available to technical officers. Local authority
records and aerial photographs or site visits may
also be useful in determining the location, type and
condition of coastal defences
part 2
Authorised and historic Providing information of the location of authorised
landfill maps
and historic landfill sites. Dates of when waste
was received and the type of waste deposited may
be included where available. Locations of known
historic landfills can be obtained from the regulator
(EA, local authority or district council).
part 1
Site investigation
Introduction
Human and Built Environment
Natural environment
Environmental
These data bases provide information on location
designation databases and details of vulnerable environmental receptors
(eg designated nature conservation sites)
Maps are available from the Natural
England website:
www.natureonthemap.
naturalengland.org.uk
http://magic.defra.gov.uk/
Part 3
4.3
Site visit and limited sampling
Site visit
A site visit should be undertaken to gain a comprehensive understanding of the site, its direct
setting, and the adjacent environs, especially including the adjacent inter-tidal foreshore area
(although special safety care needs to be taken visiting estuaries dominated by soft tidal flats).
Before undertaking a site visit, consultation with the landowner should be undertaken in order
to arrange a suitable date and time to access the land. It would be useful to contact the relevant
agencies to inform them of the proposed date of the site visit, these agencies could include
enforcing authorities, and regulators such as nature conservation bodies. Such early consultation
would present the opportunity to invite agency representatives to the site visit, which could prove
beneficial in terms of gaining local site knowledge and advice at an early stage in the project. For
guidance on identifying and engaging with stakeholders, see Chapter 17.
25
Part 4
This site visit is the opportunity for a coastal manager and/or specialist to make important
observations that give evidence of waste type or release mechanisms that may not otherwise be
possible solely via desk-based assessment. For example releases from, or seepages through, a cliff
face and the presence of waste on the foreshore.
Case study 4.2 Trow Quarry site visits
At Trow Quarry, a series of site visits undertaken at different states of the tide and on days experiencing
different weather conditions helped to identify the mechanism for the release of waste from the coastal margin
onto the foreshore. In this case, the coastal margin containing historic landfill waste was set at an elevation
beyond the limit of normal tidal action (including above high tide levels on a spring tide). However, when storm
effects were superimposed on high tide conditions, waves tended to run up the foreshore slope beyond the
normal limit of the tide and interact with the toe of the waste-filled coastal slope (see Figure 4.1). This process
triggered the instantaneous washout of the finest waste materials from the coastal margin, such as ash
particles, which were immediately suspended in the water. Over the succession of a small number of wave
run-up events, over-steepened conditions developed in the coastal slope and the coarser waste materials,
such as brickwork and blockwork construction rubble (including some “hotspots” containing asbestos and
soils contaminated with heavy metals), fell to the foreshore, where it remained covering an area of importance
for both amenity use and nature conservation (the foreshore was a designated nature conservation site).
This waste release mechanism was captured on video camera during one site visit and helped to inform the
assessment of risks posed by release of materials from the site and identify an approach to manage them.
Figure 4.1 Wash out of waste in north-east England during
particularly high sea states and wave run up events
(courtesy Nick Cooper, Royal Haskoning)
A health and safety risk assessment should be undertaken associated with any site visit
and sampling activities. This should cover the risks presented by the materials that may
be encountered (including inhalation of potentially dangerous odours or fibres and direct
contact with contaminated materials), and risks specifically presented by working at coastal or
estuarine sites, (including working in a tidal, and often remote, environment). Workers need
to be appropriately trained, experienced and provided with any necessary personal protective
equipment (PPE).
Particular attention is drawn to the requirements of the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974, the
Control of Substances Hazardous to Health (COSHH) Regulations 2002 and the Construction
(Design and Management) (CDM) Regulations. Specific guidance on health and safety during
site investigations on land potentially affected by contamination is provided in BS ISO 103813:2001. Consultation with operators, landowners and regulators will usually be required before
any sampling activities are undertaken. This consultation can also usefully inform the site-specific
risk assessment with local knowledge and detail that may otherwise not be available.
The site visit should serve the dual purpose of understanding the potential contamination present
at the site and coastal processes which may cause pollution pathways to form. However it may not
always be possible to identify all the potential pollution pathways during the site visit, there may
be a requirement to undertake a site investigation to fully understand/identify all pathways.
The site visit may help confirm whether:
the site is operational or surrendered/historic landfill or some other area of land contamination
26
CIRIA, C718
access is impeded by fences, hedges, gates and signs prohibiting entry.
This information can then be collated to gain an understanding of possible further surveys that
may be required and build a picture of the release scenarios that have potentially become active
and the potential risks and hazards associated with them. Information may be gained on a variety
of aspects of the site including the presence of trees (which may have Tree Preservation Orders),
potentially protected ecological receptors (such as the presence of badger sets) and features of
archaeological significance. Specialist advice and surveys may then be obtained to establish how
these features may affect or constrain further investigation or remediation of the site.
Introduction
the site is regularly accessed (for example by noting vehicle or pedestrian access tracks worn
in grass)
part 1
Detailed observations should be made, during the site visit, of anything that may give further
understanding of the site and potential pollutant linkages or other issues relevant to the
investigation and remediation of the site. These may include:
evidence of contamination:

evidence of flooding and erosion processes:

current site use and layout:

27
Part 4

existing buildings and structures on site, including foundations of historic structures
and retaining walls
overhead and underground services. These may constrain where intrusive investigation
and earthworks can take place on the site and underground services may act as
pathways for contaminant migration, including pipelines that may outfall on the
foreshore or in the sea
neighbouring site land uses to gain further information on contaminants that may enter
the site from nearby land and sensitive receptors that may be present on neighbouring
sites. Neighbouring sites may not be accessible during the site visit and it may only be
possible to make general observations on their use and condition
on operational sites, details of the plant and equipment being used, substances present
(eg drums of feed chemicals or lubricating oils) and processes being undertaken.
These observations can be invaluable in understanding the source and distribution of
contamination
access into and around the site (including roads, footpaths, boundary fences, hedges,
walls, gates)
any evidence of previous intrusive site investigations (eg existing boreholes with ground
gas or groundwater monitoring wells installed)
measurements of relevant features of the site (eg widths of access gates, which may
constrain the plant that can be brought onto the site for an intrusive investigation).
Part 3

new material deposited on the foreshore, fissures at the top of coastal cliffs that may
lead to toppling failures or rock falls, caves forming at the base of coastal cliffs, shallow
or deep-seated slumps in coastal cliffs or slopes, cut-back at the toe of dunes, lowering of
foreshore levels to expose underlying strata or foundations of marine structures
specifically in estuaries, salt marsh die back and erosion of channel or creek margins
and at the toe of flood embankments
flotsam and jetsam, surface erosion to capping or pavements, ponding of surface waters.
part 2

visible waste materials either on the surface of the site or on the foreshore – these should
be described as fully as possible (eg bricks and rubble, glass, clinker, ash, suspected
asbestos-containing materials)
staining or odours or other indications of the presence of contamination (eg vegetation
stress or die-back, dead fish in water bodies)
any obvious problems at the site that might be contributing to an active pollutant
linkage (eg flood wall failures or damage, subsidence of embankments, broken or
leaking pipework, breach of landfill liner or cap).
Following an initial site visit, subsequent site visits should be undertaken during different tidal
states (eg high water, low water, spring tide, neap tide, storm conditions, calm conditions), so as
to view the site within a wider physical setting and understand the physical processes of erosion,
landslip or flooding leading to potential material release. For example, seepages of contaminated
water through the coastal frontage or waste debris deposited on the foreshore may only be
apparent at low tide. For example, over a two week period, a good range of tidal levels, sea states
and weather conditions are likely to be experienced.
Photographs of pertinent features should be taken, so that on repeat visits evidence of locations
and rates of change can be documented.
Limited sampling
Some limited sampling at the time of a field visit may assist in characterising the nature of the
material within the site. However this limited sampling is unlikely to negate the need for a robust
ground investigation. Regulatory bodies should be contacted to determine whether any specific
consents, permissions or approvals would be needed (see Chapter 16 for further details).
Due to the variability of waste components or areas of contamination, it may be difficult to obtain
fully representative samples. Results should be used for indication purposes only.
Limited sampling may provide important initial measurements of contaminant concentrations
without entailing excessive cost or significant disturbance of the site. Examples of limited
sampling include:
gas or groundwater levels – where existing ground gas or groundwater wells are still
functioning, concentrations of ground gases may be measured using a portable gas analyser
and groundwater levels may be measured using a dip meter
free product – if it is suspected that contamination, such as oils, may be resting on the top of
the groundwater (free product) within a groundwater installation, the thickness of the free
product may be measured using an interface probe
groundwater/surface water quality – where contamination of groundwater or surface water
is suspected or if there is visual or olfactory evidence of contamination, samples may be
recovered for chemical analysis
waste and/or contaminated materials – where evident at the surface of the site or on the
foreshore, it may be practicable to recover a sample of the material for analysis (eg materials
can be analysed to confirm asbestos content).
4.4References
OTTAWAY, J et al (not yet published) Abandoned mine workings manual, RP940, CIRIA, London.
Go to: www.ciria.org
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2004) Model Procedures for the Management of Land Contamination,
Contaminated Land Report 11, Environment Agency, Bristol (ISBN: 1-844322-955-0.
Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho0804bibr-e-e.pdf
MCINNES, R and STUBBINGS, H (2010) A coastal historical resources guide for England. Marine
estate research project, The Crown Estate, London (ISBN: 978-1-906410-19-3). Go to:
www.thecrownestate.co.uk/media/206975/coastal_historical_resources_guide_for_england.pdf
STONE, K, MURRAY, A, COOKE, S, FORAN, J and GOODERHAM, L (2009) Unexploded
ordnance (UXO), A Guide for the construction industry, C681, CIRIA, London (ISBN 978-0-86017681-7. Go to: www.ciria.org
28
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
Statutes
Acts
Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (c.37)
British Standards
BS ISO 10381-3:2001 Soil quality – Sampling. Part 3: Guidance on safety
Regulations
The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (No 2677)
part 1
The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (No 320)
Websites
BBC Tide tables: www.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast_and_sea/tide_tables
British Geological Survey (BGS): http://shop.bgs.ac.uk/Bookshop/
DECC Coal Authority: http://coal.decc.gov.uk/
DEFRA (2001) Futurecoast: www.coastalwiki.org/coastalwiki/FUTURECOAST_project,_UK
part 2
Environment Agency: Shoreline Management Plans:
www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/104939.aspx
Environment Agency: What’s in your backyard:
GEOINDEX: www.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/
MAGIC: http://magic.defra.gov.uk/
Nature on the Map: www.natureonthemap.naturalengland.org.uk
Ordnance Survey maps: www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk
United Kingdom Hydrographic Office: www.ukho.gov.uk
Part 3
Further references
Several guidance documents are available detailing techniques for these elements of
fieldwork, including:
BS10175:2011 Investigation of potentially contaminated sites – code of practice
BS5930 1999 + A2 2010 Code of practice for site investigations
BS6068-6.18:2001/ISO 5667-18:2001 Water quality – sampling. Part 18: Guidance on
Sampling of groundwater at contaminated sites
Part 4
29
assessing the risk
5.1
Background
Having characterised the site, the next step is to assess the potential risks. Risk assessment
includes both the likelihood and the consequences of the risk(s).
Primary issues to be considered include risks to public health, ecology and controlled waters.
However, often there will be other issues that in some circumstances are pertinent, potentially
due to public complaints on largely aesthetic grounds or due to other local pressures. Also,
sometimes concerns may be based on perceived risk rather than actual risk and in these situations
communication with a wider audience is advisable both during and later on in the process (see
Chapter 17).
For a receptor to be at risk, there needs to be a linkage (pathway) between it and the source of the
risk. The risk assessment requires a conceptual site model (CSM). This identifies possible linkages
between sources (eg waste and contaminated land) and receptors via several potential pathways
(see Figure 5.1).
Figure 5.1 Conceptual site model
For the purpose of this guidance:
a “source” is a substance that is in, on, or under the land, and that has the potential to
cause significant harm to a relevant receptor, or to cause significant pollution of controlled
waters (ie the solids, liquids or gases contained within the waste or resulting from the land
contamination)
a “pathway” is a route by which a receptor is, or might be, affected by the waste or
contamination
a “receptor” is something (ie humans, organisms, ecosystems, property, or controlled waters)
that could be adversely affected by the waste or land contamination.
30
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
Box 5.1 Source, pathway, receptor terminology
The terminology in Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part IIA,
Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance by Defra, 2012, with respect
to the CSM refers to a “contaminant” instead of a source and a
“contaminant linkage” in place of a pollutant linkage. Due to the
nature of this guidance and the wider range of issues it covers than
solely contaminated land it is considered more appropriate to adopt
the term “source” in this guidance. This term can be considered to
include contaminants in the formal Part IIA and Part III sense, but also
includes bulk release scenarios of inert waste that may still present a
management issue that needs addressing.
part 1
The following sections describe the potential sources, pathways and receptors that may be
pertinent at sites subject to coastal erosion or sea flooding. Guidance on how to combine these
three components within the context of a risk assessment is then presented.
5.2Potential sources
The following land uses (current and historic) may lead to potential sources of waste and/or
contamination on a site:
landfill sites (permitted, surrendered and historic “legacy” sites)
part 2
industrial sites including those used for the storage and distribution of petroleum
hydrocarbons, gasworks etc
industrial spoil heaps or areas of land where ship ballast was formerly tipped
areas reclaimed from the sea, including port and harbour land-side areas
coastal defences containing waste in their core
areas subjected to spillages, dumping and/or fly-tipped materials
sites regulated for the disposal of low level and very low level radioactive waste
graveyards and other sites containing human or animal remains.
The waste and/or contamination may be solid (including dust), liquid or gas (including vapours).
Solids include domestic waste, which historically contains a wide variety of mixed wastes including
plastic, household goods (batteries, televisions, fridges etc) or construction wastes including bricks,
concrete, asbestos-containing materials (eg cement bonded asbestos products) or asbestos fibres.
Also, the historical practice of diluting and dispersing small sources of low level radiation (eg from
universities, smoke detectors, agricultural uses) occurs throughout UK landfills. Solids may be
present due to historic industrial land uses, for example colliery spoil, ash, clinker, syringes and
glass. Some of these materials are biodegradable.
Liquids such as oil and tar products may be present due to their deposition or disposal within
landfill sites (solids and liquids were often disposed of at the same sites until 2005). Free product
(a substance that is present in the environment as a separate liquid phase, which is relatively
immiscible with water) also may be present at the groundwater interface because of leaking
storage tanks (above or below ground), or from spillages or leakages from machinery.
Liquids may be present in the form of leachate, which is a by-product of landfilling and the
biodegradation of putrescible wastes. Leachates can be harmful to human health or the natural
environment.
31
Part 4
Liquids
Part 3
Solids
Hazardous gases and vapours
Hazardous gases and vapours including landfill gas, soil gas, hydrocarbon and other organic
vapours may require investigation, control and management. They can occur naturally, due to the
presence of organic material/peat deposits, alluvium, underlying coal measures or carbonate rich
strata.
Hazardous gases from anthropogenic sources including landfill sites and burial grounds and the
later degradation of organic matter also may be found. Hydrocarbon and organic vapours are
typically associated with sites with an industrial legacy, because of storage, spills and leakages.
Classification of waste and material sources
In general terms, wastes and materials may be classified as “non-hazardous” (including those
that meet the Landfill Directive 1999 definition of inert), “hazardous” or “other contaminants
requiring specialist advice and provision” (eg radioactive wastes). A waste classification assessment
is required to make this determination. It is important to understand what types of waste and
materials are present on a site as this may have implications of how the waste and/or materials can
be treated, managed and potential disposal options.
Non-hazardous waste is a waste that is identified without an asterisk on the List of Wastes (known
as the European Waste Catalogue, or EWC) on the basis that it does not possess any of the 15
hazardous properties identified in Annex III of the revised Waste Framework Directive (rWFD)
2008.
Inert waste is a sub-set of non-hazardous waste. Waste is considered inert if:
it does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations
it does not dissolve, burn or otherwise physically or chemically react, biodegrade or
adversely affect other matter that it comes into contact with in a way that is likely to lead to
environmental pollution or harm to human health
its total leachability and pollutant content and the ecotoxicity of its leachate are insignificant
and, in particular, do not endanger the quality of any surface water or groundwater.
Hazardous wastes and materials have a potential to pose a risk to human health or the
environment. Hazardous waste is a waste that is identified with an asterisk on the List of Wastes
(EWC) and in Annex III of the rWFD 2008.
If the classification assessment of the material determines that any contaminants present are at
concentrations below hazardous waste thresholds, the waste will be classified as “non-hazardous”,
but the material may still present a risk to human health and/or the natural environment. In
this case further risk assessment may be required, especially if any proposed developments or
remediation options include reuse or re-grading of materials.
Sites requiring specialist advice
Certain wastes and historical land uses have unique characteristics, due to either the nature of the
contamination, its mobility or the severity of the risk posed. If the coastline subject to erosion or
sea flooding falls in to one of the categories outlined in the Table 5.1 then specialist advice should
be sought.
32
CIRIA, C718
Sites and/or hazard
Specialist advice/further guidance
Land contaminated by biological hazards (eg
anthrax). Sites may include:
Specialist advice
cemeteries
and burial grounds (human
and animal)
product processing works
docks, warehouses and places where
animal product may have been handled
buildings where animal products have
been used in construction.
animal
Further guidance
DETR, 1995d
Turnball, 1996
Specialist advice
As above
The Radon Council also maintains a list of contractors and
consultants offering advice and services involving remedial works
for radon gas: www.radoncouncil.org
Further guidance
part 1
Radioactive hazards – radioactive hazards
may be man-made (eg resulting from the
burial of radioactive sources because
of airborne deposition of materials from
machining of depleted uranium or from
diffuse ground contamination in the areas
that non-nuclear industry radioactive
materials were manufactured, stored or
processed) or naturally derived radioactivity,
for example radon gas
Specialist advice should be sought from appropriately
experienced and qualified consultants. The ENDS directory
provides an online directory where appropriately experienced and
qualified consultants can be identified: www.endsdirectory.com
Introduction
Table 5.1 Sites requiring specialist advice
DETR, 1998
Environment Agency, 2000
Miles et al, 1993a and 1993b
Munitions and explosives – MoD sites,
Specialist advice
chemical/biological weapons sites or
As above
explosive manufacturing and processing sites
Further guidance
Sites containing asbestos
part 2
DETR, 1995a and 1995b
Specialist advice
As above
Further guidance
DETR, 1995c
ICRCL, 1990
DoE (1979)
Box 5.2 Asbestos risks
Part 3
Asbestos is a commonly identified contaminant in the UK particularly
in historical landfills, on land that has been subject to fly-tipping or land
used for industrial purposes. Asbestos may be present as asbestos
lagging, asbestos-containing materials (eg cement bonded asbestos
products) or as free asbestos fibres. Asbestos may be a particular risk
at former MoD sites where it was extensively used, and disposed of via
burial on site.
In solid form (where the asbestos is bound in a matrix) it may not pose
significant risk. However, if the material is broken up, loose asbestos
fibres can be released and present a risk to human health via inhalation.
Part 4
Site investigation
If more detailed characterisation of the waste or materials is needed to assess the potential risk,
then detailed sampling or intrusive site investigation should be undertaken. This is likely to
require consents, licences and approvals, as described in Chapter 16.
Intrusive investigations can be relatively costly and so their scale and intensity should be
proportionate to the risks presented and the purpose of the investigation. An approach should
be designed to define the composition, concentrations, spatial distribution (location), burial
depths or thicknesses and types of any hazardous materials, and ensure that sampling is fully
representative of the waste or contaminated material.
33
As described in Chapter 4, there are inherent risks associated when undertaking sampling and
ground disturbance activities and the guidance cited in Chapter 4 should be referred to.
The recovery of soil samples may include trial pits (either by hand or using a mechanical
excavator) and boreholes. For example, Figure 5.2 shows hand-augering to retrieve shallow
samples of waste or potentially contaminated soils for later laboratory analysis. Figure 5.3 shows
cable percussive drilling. This can be used to obtain samples (over a range of depths) of waste
or contaminated soils for later laboratory analysis, to determine the depth of the source and to
enable the installation of monitoring wells (gas and groundwater).
Gas and/or groundwater wells can give useful information on ground gas concentrations and/
or groundwater levels and quality. Following the installation of wells, monitoring visits may be
needed, potentially over an extended period, to gain representative gas and groundwater data
under a variety of hydrological, tidal and meteorological conditions.
Figure 5.2 Hand augering (courtesy Ruth Tyson and Nick Cooper, Royal Haskoning DHV)
Figure 5.3 Cable percussive drilling (courtesy Ruth Tyson
and Nick Cooper, Royal Haskoning DHV)
34
CIRIA, C718
The heterogeneity of a source may be a significant constraint when assessing remedial options,
which are discussed further in Chapter 5. So it is vital that not only the composition of the source
but also its spatial distribution (vertically and horizontally) is thoroughly assessed.
part 1
The content of a source is likely to vary significantly with the historic land uses previously
discussed. For example, if an area has been backfilled by industrial spoil/colliery spoil, the
chemical composition of the contaminants are likely to be relatively uniform. However, if the area
has been landfilled the materials present may be wide ranging.
Introduction
Phased site investigation can maximise cost effectiveness. More phases of site investigation may be
necessary where the risks or contamination are complex. The phases may comprise exploratory,
main, and supplementary investigations (BSI, 2011). These are, broadly, intended to provide
the initial identification, detailed investigation and delineation of areas of contamination, such
that any areas of the site requiring remediation are characterised sufficiently for design of the
remediation measures.
Also different parts of the site may have been used for different purposes. The site investigation
may need to be targeted on particular areas of concern, or the site may need to be zoned and
the investigation designed based on the previous land-use or potential contamination of concern
within each zone.
Case study 5.1 Radiation sampling in Dalgety Bay, Fife
part 2
Depending on the site location, extent of the site investigation and potential risk, it may be
necessary to notify users of the site and/or nearby land users of when any works will be happening
and any related access or other restrictions. Further information on communication with
stakeholders is included in Chapter 17.
Dalgety Bay is a site of a former MoD facility that used to refurbish aircraft, which included luminising of
instruments with Ra-226. Radium from scrapped instrumentation and luminising works, eg dials, and paint is
thought to have been incinerated along with other waste, and then dumped on the coast reclaiming some of the
foreshore.
Part 3
Radiation was first discovered by accident on the beach in 1990 via a routine monitoring programme
undertaken by the MoD and SEPA. Since 1990 many monitoring and recovery programmes have been
undertaken to recover sources that continue to re-populate the beach following each clearance campaign.
The total number of sources present on the beach at any time is unknown, although to date several thousand
sources have been recovered. In September 2011, SEPA undertook a check of the MoD’s contractors
monitoring, which found that many hundreds of sources had been apparently missed including multi-mega
Becquerel sources that could cause deterministic effects in very short exposure times. This finding resulted
in the regulator fencing off an area of the beach where these extremely high activity sources had been found
and considering designation of part of the beach as radioactive contaminated land, which would have been
the first such area in the UK. However, following a requirement from SEPA for the MoD to commit to both a
full investigation of the site and appropriate monthly monitoring, this action was avoided. The case has a
high public profile and a perception of risk exists among the public and media. There is an absence of robust
information on the hazards and the likelihood of encountering them, and as such a precise assessment of risk
is not possible. However, as the area where the extremely high activity sources were recovered remains closed
to the public, coupled with the presence of signs and a monthly monitoring programme, it is considered that at
present these actions afford the public an appropriate level of protection.
Further information: www.sepa.org.uk/radioactive_substances/publications/dalgety_bay_reports.aspx
Part 4
35
Case study 5.2 Site investigations at Shoreham Gasworks
The Shoreham gasworks was formerly located on a narrow stretch of land between Shoreham harbour and
the English Channel. It was operational between the 1890s and the 1970s. A wide range of wastes, including
clinker, “blue billy” cyanide, other spent oxides, coal tar and ammonia-rich liquors, was disposed of both
on the site and on surrounding land. Since the gasworks closed, the site has been re-developed for various
industrial and port uses. Most of the site is hard covered and now used by the Port Authority for storage of
bulk materials. However, beach pollution from the site has been an ongoing concern and signs were erected
by the local authority warning the public against consuming mussels from the beach. Evidence was also
found of tar oil having contaminated groundwater. To further characterise these concerns and assess the
risks that they posed, the Environment Agency funded a desk study and site investigation (SI). The desk study
identified potential risks to site workers, beach visitors and local residents and controlled coastal waters,
shallow groundwaters and deep groundwaters. The SI was then targeted on providing information from soil and
water sampling using trial pits, boreholes and beach grab samples with accompanying laboratory testing to
address these concerns. Results identified a significant potential linkage between leachates and the shallow
groundwaters, directly underlying the site, but no significant risks to human health or the deep groundwaters.
Case study 5.3 Historic landfill in Pagham Harbour, West Sussex
Land containing an historic landfill in Pagham Harbour is now under the ownership of the Environment Agency.
The site took predominantly household waste in the 1960s and 1970s but being of a “dilute and disperse” type
it had limited capping material. Since closure the site has been developed into a Nature Reserve that, due to
the high environmental value of its harbour setting, has been designated as a Site of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSI) a Ramsar Site and a Special Protection Area (SPA).
Development plans to construct a visitor centre to the Nature Reserve raised the issue of possible
contamination from both leachate and landfill gas. Potential receptors at risk from release of contaminants
were nearby residents and site visitors as well as the natural environment.
A collaborative approach was adopted between the Environment Agency as landowner, the Regional
Development Agency (now abolished) as funder, the county council and the RSPB to undertake a desk study
(see Chapter 4). The site investigation (SI) that helped to characterise the sources of risk and enabled the
Environment Agency as landowner to assess the potential for the development to create any new pollutant
linkages (eg by disturbing soils during construction). The desk study helped to define the scope of two phases of
the SI, the first using boreholes to monitor groundwater and landfill gas and the second to provide information
used for geotechnical design of the foundations for the building. The low levels of leachate and methane that
were identified as being emitted across the site were addressed using 350 mm thick soil capping (with venting)
and a leachate diversion drain.
5.3
Potential pathways
The main mechanisms that lead to wastes or materials being released from a site due to erosion or
sea flooding are described in the following scenarios.
Scenario 1: material release on undefended shoreline
Wave or tidal action may directly affect the shore, causing erosion and landward recession. Along
coastlines, this is most likely to be caused by waves breaking on the shore during storm events
or during particularly high tides. In estuaries, breaking waves are likely to be less significant,
but local wind-generated waves or ship wake may cause erosion. Also, erosion may be caused by
changes in the alignment of the estuary channel or by loss of fringing salt marshes or tidal flats.
Where waste material is exposed directly at the shore (see Figure 5.4) this can readily be released
to the foreshore by erosion. Chapter 18 provides a case study of this type of occurrence from Trow
Quarry in Tyne & Wear.
36
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
Problems can also occur where the waste is initially not exposed, but is located on or near the cliff
top or estuary bank (see Figure 5.4). Erosion can cause material to be released and fall down the
face. The rate of release will then depend on the erodibility of the shore, and its exposure to wave
and tidal conditions.
part 2
Some open coasts are well known to be susceptible to landslips. Cliffs can appear stable for many
years, or even decades, but then suffer a major landslide (see Figure 5.5). This can potentially
move the cliff top landward by several tens or, in extreme cases, hundreds of metres, disturbing
material that may have appeared set back some “safe” distance from the cliff edge. So it is crucial
to understand not only the rate of erosion, but the mechanisms of erosion that occur, through
the assistance of a coastal engineer or coastal geomorphologist. The area flood and coastal
risk manager, from the Environment Agency, should be able to help in this regard. Chapter 19
provides a case study of this type of material release from Spittles Lane in West Dorset. Further
information can be found in McInnes and Moore (2011).
part 1
Figure 5.4 Waste directly exposed at undefended shore margin
Part 3
Figure 5.5 Waste at or near cliff top or estuary bank released due to erosion or landslip
Some sites may be set back significant distances from the eroding coast (Figure 5.6) but the site
should still be considered as potentially at risk with respect to long-term strategic planning.
Part 4
37
Figure 5.6 Waste set back from eroding (undefended) shore margin
Scenario 2: material release on defended shoreline
Where coastal defences are present material would only be released if the defence fails to perform
as designed, if the design conditions are exceeded, or the defence is poorly maintained.
Often, coastal defences are designed to limit overtopping by waves or surges up to their design
standard. If these are exceeded water may well overtop or overflow the crest of the structure.
This may lead to erosion of material at the crest. Some materials may be soluble in water and
others readily transported by flowing water, and flooding by the sea could potentially transport
materials a considerable distance inshore.
In addition, in extreme events, flood banks can potentially breach. Good maintenance can greatly
reduce the risk of breaches. Once breached, material behind the defences can become released,
leading to washout of material from around and behind the defence (rather than directly through
it). Figures 5.7 to 5.9 show these scenarios for a sea wall, flood embankment and rock revetment,
respectively.
Clay banks can lose their structural integrity over time. Build-up of water behind the defence,
perhaps due to overtopping or surface water can lead to defence failure due to pressure from
the landward side. This occurred in 2008 at the Kingston Fossil Plant (a coal-fired power plant)
in Tennessee, USA when a containment bank breached and over four million m3 of coal fly ash
slurry was spilled into the Clinch River from where it was transported into the Emory River and
wider Swan Pond embayment.
Figure 5.7 Waste retained behind a coastal defence structure (sea wall) (may be land reclaimed from the sea)
38
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
part 1
Figure 5.8 Waste retained behind a coastal defence structure
(embankment) (may be land reclaimed from the sea)
Scenario 3: material release from coastal defence
part 2
Figure 5.9 Waste retained behind a coastal defence structure (revetment) (may be land reclaimed from the sea)
Some coastal defences contain a core of waste material, with other construction materials forming
an outer “shell”. This is most common where land has been reclaimed from the sea, such as
in estuaries, harbours and ports, where local waste material has been used “beneficially” for
construction of the defences. Several examples have been identified where waste is contained
within the core of clay flood embankments (see Chapter 20 and Figure 5.10) or has become
encased in concrete or retained by sheet piles along sections of quay walls.
Part 3
Part 4
Figure 5.10 Waste contained within a coastal defence or quay wall structure
If these defences have not been suitably maintained, are at the end of their design life, or have
become damaged during storm events, then waste material may be released from the core.
Chapter 20 provides a case study of how this type of material release mechanism has been
identified at three sites in Essex during development of an SMP.
Scenario 4: material constraining management options
The security of waste that is landward of defences may be threatened in the long-term when
the preferred management approach in the future includes removal or breaching. These may
39
be to either create inter-tidal habitat, relieve flood or erosion pressure along nearby frontages,
or to avoid managing an unsustainable defence in perpetuity. Following removal or breach of
the defence, the land behind would become vulnerable to exposure by tides and waves, possibly
leading to release of the waste (Figure 5.11). Chapter 20 provides a case study of how this issue has
been identified at several sites in Essex during development of a SMP.
Figure 5.11 Removal or breaching of flood embankment (or other coastal defence)
It may be necessary to undertake site investigation to assess the risk and consequence of release
adequately. Examples are geotechnical assessment of slope stability or a geophysical survey to assess
the remaining thickness of rock at a coastal margin, ie distance to the waste (see Case study 5.3).
5.4Potential receptors
The receptors in Table 5.2 should be considered in the CSM.
As discussed earlier, although primary focus should be on risks to public health, ecology and
controlled waters, there may be effects on beach amenity, aesthetics and other factors that may
be of local importance. These should be considered when assessing the potential receptors. Site
surveys may be needed (counting site use and users, businesses present, recreational activities etc)
to fully define the receptors and potential effects.
Early consultation with the appropriate authority, eg regulatory authorities and their scientific
advisors, is often useful where sensitive receptors are identified (see Chapter 17 for advice on
engagement techniques).
40
CIRIA, C718
The Environment Agency undertook an investigation at Halliwell Banks in Ryhope, Sunderland to assess the
risk of cliff erosion releasing material from a former landfill site. The site currently consists of farm land and
rough grassland, bound to the north and south by natural surface water denes (valleys). The site is fronted
by 30 m high near vertical cliffs comprised of the Roker Formation (formally known as the Upper Magnesian
Limestone) overlain by sands, gravels and clays and capped by sandy clay topsoil. The site was formerly subject
to quarrying for aggregates before being backfilled between the 1930s and the early 1970s by various wastes
of unknown composition. During quarrying, a ridge of natural limestone was left at the coastal margin to prevent
inundation of the quarry by the North Sea. However, processes of coastal erosion have cut the cliff edge back to
within around 20 m of where the waste was thought to be present.
Introduction
Case study 5.3 Halliwell Banks, Tyne & Wear
To determine the risk from coastal erosion, there was a need to investigate two aspects:
define the position of the landfill within the cliff top, including its closest boundary to the cliff edge and the
depth of material burial

assess the likely erosion rates at the site.
part 2
A geophysical survey was
undertaken to provide a high
resolution dataset without unduly
increasing the risk of exposing
any potentially hazardous waste
to the wider environment. This
involved the use of electrical
resistivity tomography, which
measures the electrical resistivity
(potential difference) between a
series of points along a survey line.
The properties of the underlying
material can be interpreted based
on reference lithologies and
differences in resistivity, both
spatially across the section and
spatially with depth through the
ground surface. This identified that
at its closest boundary, the waste
was only 18 m from the cliff edge
at Halliwell Banks, although with
progression further south across
the site the distance increased to
Figure 5.12 Eroding sea cliffs at Halliwell Banks
40 m. Also, the profiles through
(courtesy Nick Cooper, Royal Haskoning)
depth indicated that the edge of
the Limestone ridge sloped landwards, meaning that the distance to the fill at the base of the cliffs, where cave
formation was occurring, was considerably greater.
part 1

Part 3
Due to the concern identified at the site relating to coastal erosion and the potential release of waste material
into the wider environment, the local authority initiated a programme of monthly measurements along the top of
the cliffs at Halliwell Banks from a series marker stakes spaced at 15 m centres along a fixed bearing to the cliff
edge. These surveys revealed that erosion rates were of the order of several metres per year, indicating that
the fill could start to become released into the wider environment in the foreseeable future. The Environment
Agency is continuing to monitor the rate of erosion in this area while progressing further works to deal with the
wider issue.
41
Part 4
Figure 5.13 Landfill behind a limestone ridge at Halliwell Banks (courtesy Royal Haskoning)
Table 5.2 Potential receptors
Receptor
Definition of receptor
Examples
Humans
Residents, site users/visitors, schools, hospitals,
construction workers, maintenance workers and
neighbouring land users.
Public safety: cuts on broken glass or
accidents with syringes, trips or slips on
foreshore debris.
Public health: short- or long-term
illnesses due to physical contact with, or
ingestion of, materials.
Environment Any ecological systems, or living organisms forming part Ecological decline: toxicological decline
in water quality, leading to, for example,
of such a system including a SAC, Ramsar Site, a SPA
fish deaths.
for birds or a European site (as defined under the WCA
1981 and the Conservations of Habitats and Species
Habitat depletion: smothering,
Regulations 2010), SSSI, a National or Local Nature
destruction of habitats.
Reserve, a Marine Nature Reserve or locally designated
Physical effects: increased turbidity of
site.
the water column.
Any habitat or site afforded policy protection under
Bio-accumulation and bioParagraph 6 of PPS 9 (CLG, 2005) on nature
magnification: contaminants entering
conservation (ie candidate SAC, potential SPAs and
the food chain via the first organism can
listed Ramsar Sites).
“build-up” in organisms further up the
Any nature reserve established under Section 21 of the food chain via consumption or increase
National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949.
in concentration from one organism to
another. Mercury is a contaminant known
In addition areas defined as Heritage Coasts and
to be a persistent bio-accumulative
Marine Conservation Zones (to be designated in the
toxin meaning it does not break down or
future) should be included as possible environmental
disappear.
receptors where applicable.
Destruction of building: migration of
Property
Buildings and infrastructure – the structure and
landfill gas into cellars or foundations
fabric of buildings, building materials and foundations
including Scheduled Monuments. Note that in the
causing gas build-up and later explosion.
context of this guidance this should also include
Destruction of buildings: risk to
buried services, such as telecommunications, gas and
property may arise because of the
electricity.
release of gas (due to erosion) that could
Controlled
waters
Crops – produce grown domestically or on allotments
for consumption, livestock, other owned or
domesticated animals, wild animals that are subject to
shooting or fishing rights.
Surface waters (ie lakes, rivers, canals), groundwater,
and coastal waters.
affect the building construction.
Water quality: decline/deterioration
in chemical and ecological status,
preventing the water body meeting
objectives with respect to the Water
Framework Directive.
5.5Risk assessment
Guidance documents and methods for assessing risk are well established in the UK (see Table 5.4).
When assessing risk firstly a “pollutant linkage” should be present at an identified site and then
the risk presented by that linkage needs to be assessed.
It is vital to recognise from the start that the risk profile may change over time due to various
factors. So suitable monitoring (Chapter 8) and later updating/re-evaluation of the risk is needed
at appropriate time intervals. The factors that may alter the risk profile over time include:
stabilisation or degradation of waste or materials within a site
long-term climate change, particularly sea level rise and changes in wave or surge conditions
natural phases of coastal erosion or accretion at a site
deterioration or improvement in the condition of existing defence structures or remedial
works (where already present).
The need for re-evaluation of the risk at future intervals in time is especially relevant at sites
suffering very long-term coastal erosion (Chapter 11) where some uncertainty exists in the
forecasts of coastal evolution and projections of climate change.
42
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
Uncertainty: sources, pathways and receptors
Many factors will determine how well the source (contaminant) can be defined.
It may be defined through inspection of historic records, site visits, sampling,
surveys and detailed ground investigations. However the older the site the
poorer the records are likely to be and, as such, a higher level of uncertainty
will be present when defining the source. On well researched and recorded
sites it may be possible to obtain a significant amount of information, reducing
the uncertainty. Over time, the source may also stabilise, decay or decompose,
which could alter the type and nature of the risks presented.
Receptors to the risk can be defined through collation of available maps
and datasets pertaining to site users and the built, natural and historic
environments.
part 1
It is probable that there will be greatest uncertainty in defining the pathway(s)
by which a source may come into contact with a receptor. For this reason, a
forensic approach may be required to the investigations. This will require the
collation and analysis of as much information as possible about the following
aspects:

historic erosion and/or sea flooding events

waves and water levels affecting a site under different types of storm event

the geology and sediments at a site

cliff type and failure mechanisms

coastal defence type, performance, condition and maintenance record.
part 2
The level of uncertainty associated with defining the “pollutant linkages” at
a site will influence the levels of precaution that need to be adopted when
undertaking the risk assessment. The level of uncertainty may also encourage
the need for further site investigation, further risk assessment and the overall
management strategy.
The level of uncertainty is also likely to be higher when assessing future risk
as there are more variables and unknowns with respect to defining potential
“pollutant linkages”. Unknowns and/or variables may include how a source will
alter over time, for example waste may stabilise over time or degrade causing
the release of leachate and/or hazardous gases, flood and coastal defences
may be upgraded, maintained or left to fail in-line with shoreline management
plan policy and natural accretion or erosion may occur.
The risks presented by each pollutant linkage need to be assessed. This should consider both the
probability (likelihood) and consequence (magnitude) of the risk becoming manifest.
Table 5.3 Generic risk categorisation (from Rudland et al, 2001)
Part 3
Within the UK, the generic contamination risk categorisation (Rudland et al, 2001) is widely used
for this purpose (Table 5.3). The process of assessment involves the classification of the following:
Severe
Medium
Mild
Minor
High Likelihood
Very high risk
High risk
Moderate risk
Moderate/low risk
Likely
High risk
Moderate risk
Moderate/low risk
Low risk
Low Likelihood
Moderate risk
Moderate/low risk
Low risk
Very low risk
Unlikely
Moderate/low risk
Low risk
Very low risk
Very low risk
Part 4
Probability
Consequence
Notes
Probability is the chance of the waste being released, the chance of the pathway functioning, and the chance of the receptor being
affected
Consequence is the measure of severity of the hazard and the sensitivity of the receptor
43
Many organisations will have their own risk assessment protocols that follow this generic
structure, and this should form the basis of site-specific risk assessments.
To assist with assessing the consequence of the risk, Table 5.4 lists the generic criteria developed
across the industry for specific receptors, including humans (public health), the natural
environment (ecological systems), property, and controlled waters. The table also states where
further guidance is available in relation to each of these topics.
However, in addition to these primary technical issues, it may be necessary to consider the risks
to factors such as amenity, aesthetics and corporate reputation. Case study 5.4 is an example of a
project that was undertaken not because the site had not been determined as contaminated land,
but to deliver aesthetic and environmental improvements in an area of former colliery tipping on
the beaches.
Case study 5.4 Colliery spoil, County Durham
The beaches along the County Durham coastline have experienced a long history (>100 years) of tipping of
colliery spoil. At the height of coal production, about 2.4 million tonnes of colliery spoil was tipped onto the
shores each year. Giant overhead conveyors transported spoil over the beaches and into the sea where it was
generally washed back ashore to form raised spoil beaches in front of the sea cliffs.
Following closure of the collieries, a partnership of 16 organisations came together to deliver environmental
improvements to the coastline under the auspices of the Turning the Tide project. Between July 1997 and
March 2002 a £10.5m programme was adopted to deliver these improvements, working in close association
with local communities.
Part of the project involved consideration of the spoil beaches. It was clear that such a volume of spoil could
not be relocated from the foreshore to landfill. Instead, two cliff side spoil heaps were relocated as part of the
colliery site reclamation with natural processes allowed to progressively erode the remaining spoil. In addition a
regular regime of beach cleaning was instigated to remove litter and larger debris.
Further information:
www.durhamheritagecoast.org/DHC/usp.nsf/pws/Durham+Heritage+Coast+-+The+Coast+-+History
For permitted sites (eg landfill sites, burial sites) specific guidance is available outlining the likely
risk assessment that will be required in support of the permit application. Risk assessments that
are likely to be submitted in support of a permit application may include a stability assessment, a
controlled waters risk assessment and noise and dust assessments. Table 5.4 outlines the generic
criteria applicable when assessing the risk at non-permitted sites.
44
CIRIA, C718
Receptor
Generic criterion
Further guidance
Humans (public
health)
Risks from contaminants in soil
Environment Agency Soil Guideline
Value reports are available from the
Environment Agency website (see
References)
Introduction
Table 5.4 Generic criteria for assessing the risk to the identified receptor from non-permitted sites
The Environment Agency has published Soil
Guideline Values (SGVs) for a few commonly found
contaminants. Also, Generic Assessment Criteria
Hosford, 2009
(GACs) have been published by industry bodies
(including the Chartered Institute for Environmental
Jeffries and Martin (2009)
Health and the Environmental Industries Commission)
Jeffries, 2009
along with several commercial organisations. GACs
may be derived using UK compliant models, such as
CLEA
part 1
GAC/SGVs represent generic values, based on
conservative assumptions and typical land use
scenarios and as such are a cautious estimate
of levels of contaminants in soil at which there is
considered to be negligible risk or minimal risk to
health. They are appropriate when undertaking
an initial assessment. They should not be used to
determine if a site is “contaminated” under Part IIA/
Part III or be used as generic remediation targets
Risks from contaminants in air
Published ambient air quality criteria is available
within country specific air quality regulations and
occupational exposure limits are available from the
Health and Safety Executive
part 2
Depending on the risks identified it may be
appropriate to develop site specific assessment
criteria to aid in the risk assessment process. In
developing site specific assessment criteria, site
specific parameters will be incorporated into a risk
assessment model such as CLEA
Air Quality Regulations (see
References)
Health and Safety Executive (2011)
EH/40 Workplace exposure limits
O’Riordan and Milloy, 1995
Baker et al, 2009
Risks from contaminants in water
Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations and Surface
Water Regulations include published concentrations
and values that can be used for the assessment of risk
in relation to drinking waters/drinking water supply
General Water Supply and Surface
Water Regulations including The Water
Supply (Water Quality) Regulations
2010 (see Reference)
Smith, 2002
Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA)
Ashton et al, 2008
The Environmental Agency has published ecological
guideline values and benchmarks (eg Predicted No
Effect Concentrations (PNECs)
Fishwick, 2004
Property
Risks from hazardous gases
Wilson et al, 2007
Wilson et al (2007) provides guidance on gas risk
assessment, development of gas screening values
based on site specific data (concentrations and flow
rates) and protection measures provided. Due to the
coastal setting of the sites cover by this document it is
important to assess the gas risk over a full tidal cycle
ODPM, 2002
Part 3
Environment
(Ecological
systems)
Paul, 1994
Garvin et al, 2000
BRE, 2003
Risks from substance hazardous to buildings,
construction materials and services
Part 4
BRE guidance provides assessment criteria, utilising
site specific information to determine appropriate
construction materials or mitigation measures
45
Controlled
waters
Controlled waters risk assessment (not including risks Defra, 2010
to human health)
Carey, et al (2006)
Dissolved phase contaminant concentrations should
SEPA, 2011
be compared to appropriate Environmental Quality
Standards (EQS). EQS should be selected depending
on the nature of the sensitive receptors present (ie
inland fresh waters or coastal waters)
The framework for assessing risk from contaminated
land to controlled waters in England and Wales is
set out in Carey et al (2006). Equivalent guidance for
Scotland is provided in SEPA (2011)
These documents provides the framework for
controlled waters risk assessment and can be used
to develop remedial targets for contaminated soil and
groundwater, with respect to risks posed to controlled
waters. Also, these document outlines the use of
compliance or assessment points for monitoring
purposes
As stated previously specialist advice should be sought for special cases involving assessing
the risks presented by the release or exposure of either asbestos or radioactive materials from
appropriately experienced and qualified staff.
Table 5.5 gives examples of likely scenarios relevant to identified sites on eroding or low-lying
coastlines, and indicates how the consequence and likelihood of an event occurring are assessed.
Table 5.5 Likely risk assessments for a sample of potential cases
Source
Pathway
Receptor Consequences
Likelihood
Risk
Category
Construction
materials, bricks,
concrete
Physical contact on
the foreshore, trip
hazard
Site
visitors
Minor
Likely
Low risk
(non-permanent
health effects)
(an event is not
inevitable, but possible
in the short-term and
likely in the long-term)
Construction
materials, bricks,
concrete
Physical contact,
SSSI
smothering of habitat
via bulk release of
material
Medium
High likelihood
(death of member(s)
of a species within
a designated nature
reserve)
(an event appears very
likely in short-term or
inevitable in the longterm)
Elevated
concentrations of
metals in made
ground present
behind a sea wall
Ingestion of or
contact with soil/
contaminants which
are present at or
near the surface
Site
visitors
Medium
Likely
(exceedence of
generic assessment
criteria)
Moderate
risk
(an event is not
Elevated leachable
concentrations of
metals in made
ground present
behind a sea wall
Migration of
contaminants
through saturated
zone
Coastal
waters
Medium
Likely
Moderate
risk
Asbestos fibres
present in
foreshore debris
Inhalation of dust
and fibres
Site
visitors
Severe
Likely
High risk
(permanent health
effects)
(an event is not
High risk
(exceedence of water
quality standards)
Note
This table is only for explanation. Specific sites will always require site specific risk assessments.
Assessing the probability and consequence of the risk occurring for each pollutant linkage will
allow risks to be categorised (very high, high, moderate, low and very low). This will enable
prioritisation and allow attention to be focused on the most severe and urgent risks.
46
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
The options appraisal process (Chapter 6) can then be taken forward with the aim of managing
the identified risks. It may be neither practicable nor necessary to define a solution for all
pollutant linkages. In some cases, the highest risks will be managed while moderate or low risks
may be accepted.
However, for immediate risks that include risks to public health and safety, as soon as possible
after the risk has been reported the manager should decide whether short-term mitigation
measures need to be delivered, for example by closing a site or restricting access, while
investigations into options are undertaken.
ASHTON, D, BENSTEAD, R, BRADFORD, P and WHITEHOUSE, P (2008) An ecological risk
assessment framework for contaminants in soil, Science Report SC070009/SR1, Environment Agency,
Bristol (ISBN: 978-1-84432-939-7).
Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho0908booz-e-e.pdf
part 1
5.6References
BAKER, K, HAYWARD, H, POTTER, L, BRADLEY, D and MACLEOD, C (2009) The VOCs
Handbook. Investigating, assessing and managing risks from inhalation of VOCs at land affected by
contamination, C682, CIRIA, London (978-0-86017-685-5). Go to: www.ciria.org
CAREY, M A, MARSLAND, P A and SMITH, J W N (2006) Remedial targets methodology.
hydrogeological risk assessment for land contamination, GEHO0706BLEQ-E-E, Environment Agency,
Bristol. Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/geho0706bleq-e-e.pdf
part 2
BRE (2003) Concrete in aggressive ground, Special Digest 1, BRE Press, Building Research
Establishment, London
CLG (2005) Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and geological conservation, Communities and
Local Government, London (ISBN: 978-0-11753-954-9).
Go to: www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/planningandbuilding/pps9
DEFRA (2010) River Basin Districts Typology, Standards and Groundwater Threshold Values (Water
Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Direction 2010, Department for the Environment, Food
and Rural Affairs, London (ISBN: 978-0-85521-192-9)
DETR (1995a) Industry profile. Chemical works: explosives, propellants and pyrotechnics manufacturing works,
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London (ISBN: 978-1-85112-237-0)
Part 3
DEFRA (2012) Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance,
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.
Go to: www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13735cont-land-guidance.pdf
DETR (1995b) Industry profile. Engineering works: mechanical engineering and ordnance works,
Department of the Environment, London (ISBN: 978-1-85112-233-2)
DETR (1995c) Industry profile. Asbestos manufacturing work, Department of the Environment,
Transport and the Regions, London
Part 4
DETR (1995d) Industry profile. Animals and animal product processing works, Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions, London
DETR (1998) Control and remediation of radioactively contaminated land: a consultation paper,
Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, London
DOE (1979) Asbestos wastes – a technical memorandum on arisings and disposal including a code of
practice, Waste management Paper No 18, Department of the Environment, HMSO, London
(ISBN: 978-0-11751-384-6)
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2000) Technical support materials for the regulation of radioactively
contaminated land, R&D Technical Report P307 (P3-055), prepared by Entec UK Ltd and National
Radiological Protection Board. Environment Agency, Bristol
47
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2003) Ecological risk assessment. A public consultation on a framework and
methods for assessing harm to ecosystems from contaminants in soil, R&D Technical Report P5-091/TR,
Environment Agency, Bristol. Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho0608bofb-e-e.pdf
FISHWICK, S (2004) Soil screening values for use in UK ecological risk assessment, Environment Agency,
Bristol (ISBN: 1-84432-129-0). Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/sp5-091-tr-e-e.pdf
GARVIN, S, HARTLESS, R, SMITH, M, MANCHESTER, S and TEDD, P (2000) Risks of
contaminated land to buildings, building materials and services. A literature review, R&D Technical
Report P331, Environment Agency, Bristol (ISBN: 1-85705-247-1)
HOSFORD, M (2009) Human health toxicological assessment of contaminants in soil, Science Report
SC050021/SR2, Environment Agency, Bristol (ISBN: ISBN: 978-1-84432-858-1). Go to: www.
environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/TOX_guidance_report_-_final.pdf
HSE (2011) EH40/2005 Workplace exposure limits. Containing the list of workplace exposure limits for use
with the Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (as amended), Health and Safety
executive, London (ISBN: 978-0-71766-446-7). Go to: www.hse.gov.uk/pubns/priced/eh40.pdf
ICRCL (1990) ICRCL Paper 64/85 Asbestos on contaminated sites, second edition, Interdepartmental
Committee on the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land, UK
JEFFRIES, J (2009) CLEA Software (Version 1.05) Handbook, Better Regulation Science Programme,
Science report SC050021/SR4, Environment Agency, Bristol (ISBN: 978-1-84911-105-8).
Go to: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/clea_software_v1.05.pdf
JEFFRIES, J and MARTIN, I (2009) Updated technical background to the CLEA model, Science
Report SC050021/SR3, Environment Agency, Bristol (ISBN: 978-1-84432-856-7).
Go to: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/CLEA_Report_-_final.pdf
MCINNES, R G and MOORE, R (2011) Cliff instability and erosion management in Great Britain – a
good practice guide, Halcrow Group Limited, Birmingham
MILES, J C H, GREEN, B M R and LOMA, P R (1993a) Radon affected areas: England and Wales,
NRPB 7, No 2, Documents of the NRPB, National Radiological Protection Board, Didcot, UK
(ISBN: 978-0-85951-396-8)
MILES, J C H, GREEN, B M R and LOMA, P R (1993b) Radon affected areas: Scotland and Northern
Ireland, NRPB 4, No 6, Documents of the NRPB, National Radiological Protection Board, Didcot,
UK (ISBN: 978-0-85951-367-8)
ODPM (2002) The Building Regulations. Approved Document C – Site preparation and resistance to
contaminates and moisture, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, London (ISBN: 978-1-85946-2027). Go to: www.planningportal.gov.uk/uploads/br/BR_PDFs_ADC_2004.pdf
O’RIORDAN, N J and MILLOY, C J (1995) Risk assessment for methane and other gases from the
ground, R152, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-434-9). Go to: www.ciria.org
PAUL, V (1994) Performance of building materials in contaminated land, BRE Report 255, BRE Press,
Building Research Establishment, London (ISBN: 978-0-85125-624-5)
RUDLAND, D J, LANCEFIELD, R M and MAYELL, P N (2001) Contaminated land risk assessment.
A guide to good practice, C552 CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-552-0). Go to: www.ciria.org
SEPA (2011) Position Statement WAT-PS-10-01, Assigning groundwater assessment criteria for pollutant
inputs, Scottish Environment Protection Agency
SMITH, J (2002) Environment Agency Technical advice to third parties on pollution of controlled waters
for Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, Environment Agency, Bristol.
Go to: www.environment-agency.gov.uk
TURNBALL, P (1996) “Guidance on environments known to be or suspected of being
contaminated with anthrax spores”, Land Contamination and Reclamation, EPP Publications, UK,
vol 4, pp 37–45
48
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
WILSON, S, OLIVER, S, MALLETT, H HUTCHINGS, H and CARD, G (2007) Assessing risks
posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings (revised), C665, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017665-7). Go to: www.ciria.org
Statutes
Acts
Environment Protection Act 1990 Part IIA
National Parks and Access to Countryside Act 1949 (c. 97) (Regnal. 12_13_and_14_Geo_6)
Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (c. 69)
part 1
Regulations
The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 (No. 1001)
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (No.490)
The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2010 (No. 994) (W. 99)
The Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations 2010 (No. 994) (W. 99)
British Standards
BS 10175:2011 Investigation of potentially contaminated sites. code of practice
part 2
European Directives
Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November 2008 on
Waste and Repealing Certain Directives (Waste Framework Directive)
Council Directive 76/464/EEC of 4 May 1976 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances
discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (Dangerous Substances Directive)
The Ramsar Convention 1971
Websites
Part 3
Environment Agency: Soil Guideline Value reports:
ENDS directory: www.endsdirectory.com
Part 4
49
appraising the options
6.1
Background
This chapter provides an overview of the management options that may be considered at a
particular site, the principles of the options appraisal process and guidance on the selection of
a preferred option. It also describes the importance of considering both the sustainability of the
management option selected and its proportionality to the risks presented.
It is often appropriate to communicate with stakeholders during the options appraisal process.
Further guidance on this is provided in Chapter 17.
The methods for appraising suitable management options presented in this section are applicable
to short-term operations as well as long-term strategic coastal management planning, although
times will differ.
This chapter considers five main options for managing the risks:
1
Do nothing.
2
Inspection and surveillance.
3
Remove the source of the risk.
4
Break the pathway between the source and the receptor.
5
Remove the receptor to the risk.
In practice one of these options is likely to represent the “business as usual” scenario.
When assessing the merits of each option at a particular site a range of technical, environmental
and economic factors need to be considered and these are described in more detail in Sections 6.3
and 6.4, covering the options appraisal process and selecting the preferred option. Some readers
may find it useful to read these sections first because they may help provide an initial indication
as to which of the management options are likely to be feasible and acceptable for a particular site.
6.2
Management options
1Do nothing
Usually, it is necessary to assess the consequences of a do nothing option as it provides a base case
that other options can be compared against. In some situations, a do nothing approach may be
a valid management approach, but in most cases where a risk is identified it is unlikely to be an
acceptable solution. In certain cases, particularly those involving a permitted landfill, the landfill
operator will be compelled by law to do something to remediate the problem.
50
CIRIA, C718
2
Inspection and surveillance
If the risk assessment concludes that at present there are no unacceptable risks, then inspection
and surveillance may be an appropriate management option (Chapter 6).
part 1
This option should include a plan detailing the frequency of inspection/surveillance visits to
assess if any maintenance is required, if any defects have occurred that require action, eg defects
to sea walls or flood embankments, and if any conditions at the site have changed, leading to a
requirement for re-assessment of potential risks.
Introduction
The do nothing scenario should consider how the coast will evolve without further management
intervention and what the consequences or impacts would be. This can be informed by work
undertaken during earlier stages of the project (see Chapters 3, 4 and 5) on understanding
historic change, contemporary processes and projections of future coastal evolution or sea
flooding risk.
For operational landfill sites, specific conditions detailing inspection and surveillance
requirements may be included within the permit, such as requirements for gas, groundwater,
leachate or surface water monitoring to be undertaken at specified frequencies. The monitoring
plan for a site may also detail the specific pollutants to be monitored and define action levels (the
thresholds that further action would be required at).
Remove the source of the risk
The risks from landfill sites and areas of land contamination on eroding and low-lying coasts
only arise from the presence of certain materials (solid, liquid or gas) within the site. So removing
these materials removes the problem.
part 2
3
Part 3
Figure 6.1 Removing the source of the risk
Removing the source of the risk can be achieved through one of the following:
Part 4
removing the waste or contaminated material
on-site treatment
off-site treatment.
Removing the waste or contaminated material
Removing the waste or contaminated material from the area at risk may present the most
effective way of resolving the issue (Figure 6.2), but it may be the most expensive method. Serious
consideration would need to be given to the acceptability of excavating and transporting waste to
an alternative site, including the associated environmental, health, safety and wider sustainability
issues.
51
Figure 6.2 Removing the waste or contaminated material
Generally, there are two options for dealing with material removed from a site:
excavation and retention on site for reuse or disposal
excavation and removal from site for disposal or recovery elsewhere.
Case study 6.1 West Sands, St. Andrews
A section of the dunes at West Sands was formerly a landfill for St. Andrews town’s waste. Recently, inert waste
has started to become exposed at the eroding dune edge.
Fife Council has developed a Management Plan for the beach and dunes at West Sands (West Sands
Partnership, 2011). Part of this plan involves relocating a proportion of the waste material to elsewhere within
the dune system. This means that it is less likely to be affected by coastal erosion due to its set-back location,
while the erosion processes are being managed using a variety of soft approaches. This approach of waste relocation is being adopted in preference to protecting the in situ with engineered coastal defences.
Further information: http://publications.1fife.org.uk/uploadfiles/publications/c64_
WestSandsManagementPlanRevisionJune32011.pdfa
For the retention option, the use of the excavated material needs to be considered. If the landfill
is still active, the operator can apply to remove the waste for deposit elsewhere within the
landfill. Also, it is possible to dispose of the excavated material elsewhere on a closed site, but
the Landfill Directive 1999 will apply to the area on which the waste is to be deposited. So the
operator will need to apply to vary the permit to allow the re-deposit, and will need to include
on the application how the relevant requirements of the Directive will be met. However, retaining
material on site is less likely to be possible for surrendered or historic sites because the sites are
likely to be subject to alternative current land uses and there is no permit in place to manage such
disposal (although this could potentially be applied for). Where retention is not feasible, then a
suitable external receiving site will need to be identified.
If the landfill was used to dispose of inert material, excavation may generate material that is
suitable for reuse on or off site. Landfills that had biodegradable or hazardous wastes are not
likely to be able to be reused, and will require an off-site management solution, following the
principles identified in the waste hierarchy and the waste duty of care (see Chapter 7).
It is noted that if material is excavated, this will leave a void that may leave the remainder of the
site in an unstable condition or at increased likelihood of sea flooding. So excavation is only a
small part of a wider engineering solution and should not be considered in isolation.
On-site treatment
Some types of contaminated material can be treated in situ, or be excavated then treated on site
and returned back into the void (Figure 6.3).
52
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
part 1
Figure 6.3 On-site treatment of waste or contaminated material
Possible treatment techniques include, but are not limited to:
biological treatment
flushing (water or leachate)
treatment of leachate and/or groundwater
soil vapour extraction
stabilisation/solidification.
Some of these techniques have applications as both engineering and environmental risk control
measures, while others have just one primary function. Other factors affecting the effectiveness of
in situ treatment techniques include the heterogeneity of the source, contaminants present within
the source, spatial distribution of source (depth) and the permeability of the ground.
53
Part 4
The use of in situ techniques at historic sites or contaminated sites generally will be covered by
using a mobile plant licence or permit. The risks associated with the specific site usually will be
addressed by completing a site deployment form before use. This will have to be submitted to the
regulator for approval, normally at least 28 days before the activity taking place. The use of in
situ techniques at a permitted landfill (eg active or closed) will be managed differently/separately
as they will generally require control via a variation to the site environmental permit, as the
regulator will want to apply a higher level of control.
Part 3
The end point of this process is achieved when the waste or contaminated material is treated such
that the risks presented by its release into the wider environment through erosion or sea flooding
are reduced to acceptable levels (in accordance with the risk assessment procedures previously
described in Chapter 5).
part 2
The suitability of the potential application will depend on many factors and may have to be used
in combination. The most critical factors are likely to be how homogenous the material is, what
range of pollutants is present, and at what concentration, and what volume of material is required
to be treated. Many of the most effective remediation techniques have been developed for soillike material and some will not be suitable for highly heterogenic wastes (for example mixed
municipal waste landfills, containing a range of biodegradable and non-biodegradable materials).
Some common techniques are biological treatments, soil vapour extraction, soil washing, and
stabilisation/solidification (Barry et al, 2001). It is essential that work is designed, undertaken and
supervised by suitably qualified personnel.
On-site treatment methods
Biological treatments are applicable where the level of contamination largely comprises aerobically
biodegradable constituents (particularly volatile/semi-volatile organic compounds). Treatment is achieved via
several means, including the forced addition of oxygen (bioventing and biopiles) or hydrogen peroxide through
the soil to improve the rate of aerobic biodegradation. Soil micro-organisms can be used in either aerobic or
anaerobic conditions to convert contaminants into less harmful compounds. The main disadvantage of biological
processes is that high levels of contamination can be toxic to the micro-organisms.
Soil vapour extraction will be appropriate where there is the presence of volatile hydrocarbons or metals in the
material that needs to be treated. Extraction wells are placed into the material and a vacuum is applied through
the walls. This creates a low vapour pressure, which causes volatile compounds to be removed via the wells. The
vapour that is removed is collected and treated.
Soil washing is a technique that separates and cleans contaminated soils and can be used to clean up a variety
of organic and inorganic contaminants. The fine material, which is typically where most contamination is found, is
separated from the bulk of the material by the washing process. This breaks the bonds that bind smaller clay/silt
and organic particles from larger sand and gravelly particles. It can reduce the volume of contaminated material
requiring disposal and enables the cleaned soil to be reused as an engineered fill on site. The technique is best
suited for material with a high granular content, typically below 30 per cent fines is ideal. Also, it can be used as a
process to treat hazardous waste.
Stabilisation or solidification techniques involve mixing specific reagents into the contaminated material to
achieve the stabilisation of hazardous components before binding into a stable matrix that can be designed
to have specific engineering properties. In certain cases, where the output meets a market specification and
has a definite use, it may meet the end-of-waste criteria defined in Article 6(1) of the revised Waste Framework
Directive (rWFD) 2008. The effectiveness of the initial chemical reactions before solidification is essential in
determining whether the material is considered fully stabilised (non-hazardous) or partly stabilised (hazardous).
It is important to note that solidification processes tend to increase the volume of the treated material. This
will need to be considered if the stabilised/solidified material is placed back into the void. Stabilisation or
solidification techniques commonly involve the following:

aggressive chemical conversion of hazardous contaminants into non-hazardous forms (via oxidation,
chlorination etc)

convert contaminants into insoluble compounds (metal precipitation etc) to lower potential leachability

absorb and bind contaminants into a stable insoluble matrix (hydrocarbon re-absorption)

change the granularity so as to lock contaminants into the treated matrix in order to prevent future leaching

reduce the permeability so as to prevent water movement and to further prevent the possibility of
contaminant leaching.
Off-site treatment
Off-site treatments may be carried out to remove or lower contamination, or make the material
less liable to leaching. All of the techniques for on-site treatment can be undertaken off-site.
Also, the use of off-site treatment facilities will offer advantages, such as not being constrained
by space of the required treatment area, not having to vary the landfill environmental permit to
accommodate a temporary treatment activity, or carrying out more than one proposed treatment
solution in series, which may be necessary if there is a mixture of contaminants. However, all
material being removed from site will have to be dealt with as waste. So the treatment site should
hold an environmental permit. Also, the treated material may be classified as a waste, so when it is
replaced in the void (if that is the intention) it will be subject to landfill tax.
In addition to the on-site methods, some of the other methods that can be adopted for off-site
treatment include:
chemical extraction
chemical reduction/oxidation (redox)
thermal desorption.
54
CIRIA, C718
Thermal desorption involves heating the contaminated material (up to 550°C), which volatilises organic
contaminants and water in the mass. They are removed from the heated material using either a vacuum
extraction, or by passing a carrier gas through the material. The contaminated gas is then treated. Particulates
also will be collected and these will require treatment using wet scrubbers or fabric filters. This leaves a
potentially hazardous material to dispose of. This process is not effective at removing heavy metal contamination.
4
part 1
Chemical reduction/oxidation (redox) processes are ideal where the contamination is heavy metals or inorganics.
Also, it may be possible to treat cyanides. The process works by carrying out redox reactions on hazardous
contaminants to convert them into less hazardous and more stable or inert substances. This method tends to be
less effective on organic contaminants. Another disadvantage is that where the initial contamination is high, the
process is likely to require high concentrations of reagents to use in the process, which increases costs.
Introduction
Off-site treatment methods
Chemical extraction, based on acid extraction and solvent extraction, can be used to remove a wide range of
contaminants. The treated material is then dewatered and neutralised with an alkaline material, such as lime,
to raise the pH. This process can be improved by using separation techniques, such as gravity, physical sorting/
sieving or magnetic processes on the contaminated material to separate out the smaller particles, which are
more likely to contain the contaminants. The advantage of this process is that it works on heterogeneous
material and can work on municipal waste. However, the physical processes alone do not completely remove the
contaminants and actually increase the concentration of contaminants in the finer fraction. So this will need more
aggressive treatment to remove.
Break the pathway between the source and the receptor
The pathway between a source and receptor can be broken (Figure 6.4) by intercepting any
released waste or contamination in solid, liquid or gas form before it comes into contact with a
receptor or by creating a physical barrier between source and receptor.
part 2
When assessing the risks, many pollutant linkages may be identified. For example, one pathway
may exist due to a breach in a sea wall causing wash out on the foreshore. A second pathway may
arise from waves overtopping the sea wall during high tides or a storm event, causing degradation
or destruction of a capping layer or exposing waste materials in areas accessible to the public. In
these scenarios a combination of remedial options may be the most appropriate approach, for
example the construction of a new sea wall to prevent further washout and constructing a new
capping system behind the sea wall to prevent direct contact pathways with exposed waste.
The principal methods for breaking the pathway are:
Part 3
clean-up operations
cover systems
cut-off walls
coastal defences.
Part 4
Figure 6.4 Breaking the pathway between source and receptor
55
Clean-up operations
The pathway can be broken by regularly monitoring the site and foreshore for signs of material
release and, if found, clearing it away using specialist contractors.
This may be a preferred approach where the risk to human health and the natural environment
is low, for example where erosion rates are low and episodic or where the material being released
is inert or non-hazardous and causes an aesthetic effect only. Also, it may be appropriate in
situations where natural processes are used to dilute and disperse or attenuate material release in
a controlled and monitored manner. However, the clean-up option is not applicable where release
of material into the environment is deemed unacceptable.
Uncontrolled underground disposal and/or storage of waste, including radioactive waste, may
have occurred historically on many sites because of manufacturing processes (fluorescent paints,
specialist alloys) or because of radioactive sources from x-ray sets or laboratories. Steel containers
and/or drums may currently contain these waste products. However if they are deposited on
the foreshore via coastal erosion or sea flooding, they will need to be removed from the site by a
specialist contractor and disposed of in-line with current waste disposal regulations and guidance.
For hazardous materials, this approach is only likely to be suitable as an interim measure since
monitoring and clean-up may not necessarily occur sufficiently soon after the waste has been
released, leaving it exposed on the foreshore or released into the air or sea.
Case study 6.2 Spittles Lane monitoring and clean-up
The preferred management option at Spittles Lane in West Dorset involved ongoing monitoring (see Chapter
19). The monitoring programme involved annual soil sampling with extra sampling when required, and visual
inspections at weekly intervals (WDDC dog warden), monthly intervals (WDDC environmental health) and quarterly
intervals (WDDC environmental health and specialist contractors). Also, visual inspections when wave heights
exceed certain thresholds, in advance of public holidays when larger numbers of beach users would be expected,
and following reports from visitors to the site expressing concern about land movement or exposure of waste.
Cover systems
A cover system (cap) will create a physical barrier using a natural, synthetic or combination
(natural/synthetic) liner (Figure 6.5).
Figure 6.5 Cover systems
Due to coastal weathering processes, particularly wave action and erosion it is likely that cover
systems may only be appropriate at certain sites and in combination with engineered cut-off walls
or coastal defence structures (solutions that are discussed later in this section). For example, a
56
CIRIA, C718
When designing a cover system there are many different factors that should be taken into
account, including the contaminants that are present, the form they are present in (solid, liquid or
gases), and the presence of buried services or burrowing animals.
Cut-off walls
Cut-off walls are subsurface barriers constructed by backfilling a trench with a suitable material
(bentonite, concrete etc). The purpose of a cut-off wall is to create a low permeability barrier in
the ground to contain or direct groundwater or leachate. Depending on the geology underlying
the site, cut-off walls may be keyed-in to impermeable underlying strata.
part 2
Partial containment of a source via construction of a cut-off wall may be a viable option in a
scenario where a seepage path exists between a landfill site generating leachate and an eroding
cliff face. This causes the seepage of hazardous liquids on to the foreshore or in to a controlled
water body. The option may comprise construction of a cut-off wall set back from the coastline,
which will contain any leachate generated, breaking the pollutant linkage, combined with
construction of a rock revetment to prevent future coastal erosion and protect the cut-off wall.
part 1
Gas-related risk may arise from the presence of a cover system at a site due to the reduced
permeability potentially resulting in the increased lateral migration of hazardous gas to nearby
sites and/or receptors. These potential risks should be fully assessed before selecting such an
approach.
Introduction
cover system may be a potential option on a site where a coastal defence is designed to prevent
further erosion of the coastline, but the surface soils behind the defence are considered to pose a
residual risk to human health (site visitors, dog walkers, ramblers etc).
Leachate-related risk may arise from the incorporation of a cut-off wall at a site due to the
reduced migration of the leachate, leading to potential build-up of liquid behind the wall or
migration to a nearby site. These potential risks should be fully assessed at the option appraisal
stage before selecting such an approach.
Coastal defence
Part 3
A coastal defence can be engineered to create a physical barrier between source and receptor.
At the coastal margin, this can be best achieved by some form of structure built along the
shoreline, such as layers of sand-filled geotextile bags, walls of stone-filled gabion baskets, clay
embankments, sheet pile retaining walls (especially along port and harbour quay areas), concrete
sea walls (Figure 6.6), blockwork or concrete sloping revetments, or rock revetments (Figure 6.7).
Part 4
57
Figure 6.6 Seawall creating a barrier between source and receptor
Figure 6.7 Rock revetment creating a barrier between source and receptor
Other conventional coastal defence approaches exist, such as beach recharge, groynes and
offshore breakwaters, but they would not guarantee the same extent of continuous protection to
the site, either spatially across the frontage or over time, as a shoreline parallel defence structure.
However, in situations where the risk presented by the release of materials is relatively low (ie low
likelihood of occurrence and/or low consequence, and/or where the natural environment setting
is highly valued for nature conservation or aesthetics) then “soft” engineering approaches may be
better suited. Also, there may be specific situations where less conventional coastal engineering
responses are required due to particular characteristics at the site, such as at Blackdog Burn in
Aberdeenshire (see Case study 6.3).
There may be situations, especially if leachates are present, where coastal defences may need to be
used in conjunction with other options to ensure a robust solution is provided to all risks that are
present at a site.
58
CIRIA, C718
The former Blackdog Landfill in Aberdeenshire comprises an area of around 13 ha and is separated from the
beach by a width of 40 to 60 metres of sand dunes.
The site was originally used for sand and gravel extraction, and the void was later infilled with waste. The
landfill operated as a dilute and disperse site under license between 1982 and 1993. It accepted a variety
of domestic, commercial and industrial wastes including oil-based drilling muds and drilling cuttings form the
North Sea oil industry. It is estimated that in the region of 30 000 tonnes of oil may have been deposited during
the operation of the site.
Oil migrating from the landfill now lies under the dunes and the beach near to the landfill. Notably the oil
beneath the beach is generally obscured to the casual observer by a covering layer of clean sands.
part 1
The former landfill and the adjacent beach and dunes were identified by as contaminated land under Part IIA of
the Environmental Protection Act 1990 by Aberdeenshire Council in July 2004. Several pollutant linkages were
identified for both the sites.
Introduction
Case study 6.3 Blackdog Burn channel diversion
The Blackdog Burn flows onto the foreshore immediately to the south of the landfill. Left to natural processes
the course of the Blackdog Burn between the dunes and the sea varies widely according to meteorological and
tidal conditions. On occasion the Burn follows a course northwards parallel to the dune face and next to the
landfill for several hundred metres before turning across the beach to discharge to the sea.
Several of the pollutant linkages associated with the Blackdog beach and dunes are brought about by the
migration of the Blackdog Burn over the area of contaminated beach sands. Scouring of the underlying
contaminated sands by the Burn and by the flood tide racing up the Burn channel causes gross pollution of the
water environment through release of hydrocarbons from the pore space of the sands.
Following discussions with Aberdeenshire Council the former landfill operators agreed to permanently divert the
course of the Blackdog Burn so that the channel remained within a “remediation envelope” lying to the south
of the area of contamination. This was achieved by excavating a channel across the beach and reinforcing the
margins with some 20 m of rock armour.
part 2
The Burn diversion is currently monitored every month, and water analysis and a topographic survey are carried
out annually.
As expected, since it was constructed in November 2008 the Burn does occasionally breach the rock armour
and the “remediation envelope” and the channel has to be re-excavated.
A further consideration is an understanding of proportionality to the risk presented and the
need (or otherwise) for future adaptability of the scheme to reflect uncertainties. In relation to
the latter point, some types of defence can be more easily maintained and adapted in the future
(eg removed, extended in length, elevated in crest level and increased in robustness) than others,
depending on defence type, foreshore access, material availability and other relevant design
considerations. Further information can be found in CIRIA (1986), Fleming (1990), Thomas and
Hall (1992), SNH (2000), Leggett et al, 2004, and CIRIA, CUR, CETMEF (2007).
Part 3
The preferred approach adopted at a site will depend heavily on the robustness of the solution
required, its desired design life and the physical setting. For example, stone-filled gabion baskets
may provide a sufficient barrier at an effective capital cost for a relatively long time to a site
located within a sheltered harbour setting, but would not have great longevity in a highly exposed
open coast setting where wave action is more dominant. In the latter situation a concrete sea wall
or rock revetment would provide a more robust and durable technical approach.
Part 4
59
a
b
c
d
Figure 6.8 Coastal defence structures providing
a barrier at the coastal margin. Stone-filled
gabion baskets (a), clay embankment (b),
concrete sea wall (c), blockwork revetment (d),
rock revetment (e) (courtesy Ruth Tyson and
Nick Cooper, Royal Haskoning DHV)
e
Further references
CIRIA (1986) Maintenance of coastal revetments, TN124, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-086017-265-9) (out of print). Go to: www.ciria.org
CIRIA, CUR, CETMEF (2007) The Rock Manual: The use of rock in hydraulic engineering
(second edition), C683, CIRA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-683-1). Go to: www.ciria.org
FLEMING, C A (1990) Guide on the use of groynes in coastal engineering, R119, CIRIA,
London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-313-7). Go to: www.ciria.org
LEGGETT, D J, COOPER, N and HARVEY, R (2004) Coastal and estuarine managed
realignment – design issues, C628, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-628-2).
SNH (2000) A guide to managing coastal erosion in beach/dune systems, Scottish
Natural Heritage, Inverness. Go to: www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/
heritagemanagement/erosion/sitemap.shtml
THOMAS, R S and HALL, B (1992) Seawall design, B12, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-086017-391-5). Go to: www.ciria.org
5
Remove the receptor to the risk
If the receptor is removed (Figure 6.9), material will continue to be released but it will not come
into contact with the receptor. However, it is not always possible to achieve this. Examples of
receptors that cannot always be removed include controlled waters (ie surface and groundwaters)
and ecological receptors such as habitats.
60
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
With respect to public health and safety, potential exists at some sites to use warning signs (Figure
6.10) and fencing to prevent the public from coming into contact with the source (Figure 6.11).
part 1
Figure 6.9 Removing the receptor to avoid contact with the source
part 2
Part 3
Figure 6.10 Signage used at Trow Quarry to reduce risks to human health
(courtesy Ruth Tyson and Nick Cooper, Royal Haskoning DHV)
Part 4
Figure 6.11 Warning signage to prevent receptor coming into contact with a source
61
Regular checks of signage and fencing and the effectiveness of these measures should be carried
out and improvements to fencing systems or the location and number of signs undertaken where
required.
6.3Appraisal process
The process by which the main potential management options are assessed is called the option
appraisal process. This involves assessment against technical, economic and environmental
criteria in order to assist the decision making process of selecting a preferred option. The
preferred approach will usually demonstrate an acceptable balance between these factors,
ensuring that a suitable and sustainable solution is delivered that is proportionate to the risks
presented.
In most cases where a problem has been identified, it will be unacceptable to do nothing.
However, it remains important to assess this option as it presents a “base case” that the other do
something options are assessed against.
In the flood and coastal erosion risk management (FCERM) industry, which is of particular
relevance to the problems addressed in the present guidance, the procedures for option appraisal
are well established. This is particularly evident across England and Wales where first MAFF,
then Defra and now the Environment Agency has been responsible for developing and refining
project appraisal guidance (Environment Agency, 2010).
The nuclear industry has a code of practice (Nuclear Industry Safety Directors’ Forum, 2010),
which enables the best available technique (BAT) to be identified for the management of the
generation and disposal of radioactive wastes. This code uses slightly different nomenclature to
the FCERM guidance and the code also explicitly incorporates a step in its process where the
principles of proportionality are applied, but otherwise it embodies similar principles.
The first step in the appraisal process should be to ensure a thorough understanding and clear
definition of “the problem” (or “the issue”) is achieved. In terms of the problem(s) associated
with the release of waste material or contaminants into the environment from coastal erosion or
sea flooding. This is where the development of a source-pathway-receptor conceptual site model
and an associated risk assessment (as discussed in Chapter 5) can be of particular help. It should
be recognised that at any particular site there may be several sources of risk and/or receptors at
risk and there may be more than one linkage between each. This is where a forensic approach
to understanding the linkages is important so that a scheme successfully delivers a solution to all
presented risks.
Once the problem has been identified, it is possible to define the aims and objectives of the
management response. This may solely be to stop the release of waste from a particular site
(sometimes at whatever cost), but also may be broader in context. For example, it may be
necessary to incorporate any constraints presented at a particular site or it may be desired to
deliver wider opportunities. Examples of constraints may include the presence of buried services,
environmental assets and features or human uses of a site that may prohibit a certain type of
approach, while opportunities may include the desire to more widely remediate a particular site
for future amenity, industrial or residential use. The defined aims and objectives then provide
criteria that the performance of the selected management response can be assessed against over
time (see Chapter 8).
With a clearly defined problem(s) and identified aims and objectives (defined by site constraints,
opportunities and assumptions), a long-list of options to address the problem(s) being faced
should be identified and characterised. Often, this can be undertaken during a brainstorming
session involving many of the bodies with responsibilities for managing the problem (eg site
owner/operator, enforcing authority, statutory regulators). The long-list should not initially be
62
CIRIA, C718
With a long-list available an initial screening exercise should be undertaken by suitably qualified
staff to assess at a high-level the technical feasibility and efficacy, economic viability and
environmental acceptability of the options. This should consider the ability of the approach to
work around constraints and/or deliver opportunities and ultimately screen-out some options as
being non-feasible, non-viable or non-acceptable. This leads to a short-list of options that appear
from this screening to warrant more detailed consideration. This may be an appropriate time to
undertake communication with stakeholders (see Chapter 17).
Technical appraisal involves assessing the short-listed options in respect of how they can be
designed and delivered to address the problems that have been identified at a particular site. This
places great emphasis on adequately understanding “the problem” to ensure that the option will
prove effective. Indeed, some of the options given in Section 6.2 may not be appropriate due to
the nature of the risks presented at a particular site. In some cases it may be necessary to use a
combination of options to fully address the risks.
The technical assessments should not only consider present day conditions, such as sea levels,
waves and surge events, but also likely future conditions associated with ongoing climate change
(see Environment Agency, 2011).
part 2
To undertake the technical appraisal, it is necessary to use the skills of a waste specialist and/
or contaminated land scientist and a civil or coastal engineer who can determine the efficacy of
different approaches.
part 1
Short-listed options should then be subject to a detailed options appraisal process involving
assessments of technical, economic and environmental appraisals described as follows.
Introduction
constrained and instead should be a full exploration of all potential options, no matter how
“out of the box” they may first appear. This ensures that a potential option is not omitted from
consideration and that pre-defined assumptions about solutions are not propagated.
Economic appraisal considers both the monetary costs of a particular option and the monetary
benefits arising from it. The relationship between benefits and cost is often called the benefit–cost
ratio (BCR) and for a scheme to be economically viable, the benefits should ideally be in excess of
the costs (ie BCR > 1).
Part 3
Economic appraisal is standard practice across most industries to help identify the most
economically advantageous of a range of management options. However, the most economically
advantageous option is not necessarily always the preferred option because there could be other
factors, such as non-monetary benefits, technical considerations or environmental issues that need
to be taken into account alongside economics.
Assessing the economic costs of the options will be highly dependent on the approaches
considered (which influences the extent of any material handling, reuse or disposal requirements)
and the type(s) and extent of materials present on the site.
Although recognising that the cost estimates will be highly variable due to particular site
characteristics and/or these material uncertainties, there are existing industry guidance
documents that will assist with formulating a cost range estimate.
For options where contaminated land has been identified as requiring remediation a range of
63
Part 4
Due to this, there could be a high range of capital and operational cost estimates for a particular
option, reflecting uncertainty about material type and quantities. Greatest capital costs are likely
to be associated with schemes. This can result in material being excavated and transported off-site
to alternative licensed disposal facilities because in some circumstances, landfill tax will apply (see
HM Revenue and Customs, 2012).
remediation techniques may be available, and the respective capital cost for delivery will vary
considerably. Influencing factors include historical land use and associated contaminants of
concern, sensitivity and associated risks to the underlying groundwater, nearby surface waters and
the proposed end use of the site (eg residential, commercial, industrial, public open space).
Guidance on assessing the capital cost of remediating land affected by contamination is difficult
to provide because the cost estimate is so site-specific, solution-specific and waste type-specific.
Some advice is provided by English Partnership (2008). This includes a means of making
adjustments for regional variations in cost, depending on the site location.
It should be noted that the volume of material to be treated is a critical factor when considering
remediation techniques. A minimum volume may be required to cover the set-up cost for certain
treatment technologies. For example a minimum volume of 10 000 m3 is recommended to cover
set-up cost with respect to a thermal desorption remediation technique.
For options involving coastal defence solutions, a high level indicative capital cost range for different
defence types can be formulated through reference SNH (2000), summarised in Table 6.1.
Table 6.1 Indicative comparative cost ranges for coastal defence options
Option
Dune grass planting
Dune fencing
Beach recycling or re-profiling
Beach nourishment
Applicability
Stabilise eroding dunes by
trapping blown sand
To restore protective beach levels
and widths
Geotextile sand bags
Gabion baskets
Rock revetment
Concrete seawall
Provide a defence “barrier” at the
shore
Indicative costs
per metre length
Category
£2–£20
Low
£4–£20
Low
£10–£200
Low to mod
£50–£2000
Mod. to high
£20–£100
Low to mod
£50–£500
Moderate
£3000–£5000
High
£2000–£5000
High
If more detailed capital cost estimates are required, the Environment Agency has a unit cost
database, which can be interrogated to find indicative cost ranges for constructing a unit length
(eg cost per metre run) of a particular defence type. Guidance by Langdon (2012), which is
updated annually, contains similar unit cost information for a wide range of civil engineering
works (including ground investigation, excavation of materials, and various construction
materials), with further detail on price estimating for preliminaries, general items, resources,
overheads and profit.
At the time of preparing capital cost estimates, consideration should be given to the location of the
nearest licensed sites for disposal of waste of different categories (if this is required as part of the
option), which will influence transport and handling costs of that material. The latest guidance
on landfill tax values and exemptions should be checked at that time.
Recognising the uncertainty regarding the type and extent of material present on the site, capital
cost range estimates could be considered that incorporate contingency to reflect the likely upper
and lower bounds of these uncertainties, rather than single value cost estimates. This enables
sensitivity tests to be performed between options and highlight those options that are most
sensitive to variations in material types or quantities. This may then prompt the requirement
for further site investigations or material testing before construction or order to reduce the
uncertainties and refine the estimated cost range.
In addition to estimates for the initial capital construction works, assessment of “whole-life”
economic costs should be made. These estimates take into consideration other cost elements
64
CIRIA, C718
planning (including desk studies, site visits, sampling, site investigation, risk assessments and
options appraisals as described in Chapters 4 to 6)
design and approvals (including some of the activities described in Chapter 7)
construction (including the remaining activities described in Chapter 7)
land or asset acquisition (if required)
Introduction
that will be incurred over the life of the asset. Typical areas of expenditure that are included in
calculating the whole-life cost include:
operations throughout the life time of the scheme (eg physical operation of mobile access
barriers, if adopted as a preferred approach)
part 1
maintenance throughout the life time of the scheme
monitoring and re-appraisal of risk and management approaches at appropriate intervals
renewal and rehabilitation (if required at appropriate intervals)
depreciation and cost of finance (eg financial loans)
replacement or disposal of the asset at the end of its life.
“Conventional” approaches to assessing the economic benefits of flood and coastal defence scheme
assessments (as defined by the Flood Hazard Research Centre (2010), are often focused on the
more tangible economic benefits of protecting property and infrastructure). Assessing schemes to
address the issues of waste release into the environment from coastal erosion or sea flooding does
not easily fit within this approach. Due to this, it should be recognised explicitly and honestly that
while some of the benefits of the short-listed options can be quantified using various economic
methods outlined in existing guidance, some other aspects need to be considered in a more
qualitative manner. For this reason, the economic appraisal approach adopted should use both
quantitative and qualitative elements to consider the following benefit categories:
part 2
This approach to engineering economics ensures that organisations have full awareness of the
long-term costs of an asset and not only the initial capital cost. This enables those costs, which
will occur after an asset has been constructed, to become an important consideration in the
options appraisal decision making process. In this regard, the whole-life costs of each option are
considered and usually converted using discount rates into net present value costs.
Part 3
avoidance of loss of, or damage to, property, infrastructure and services
avoidance of loss of life or deterioration of health
avoidance of environmental or social effects (see Eftec, 2010 and Dunn, 2012 for further
guidance)
avoidance of loss of designated heritage or archaeological assets for selected terrestrial
habitat types due to erosion
avoidance of monitoring and inspection costs
avoidance of future investment costs to prevent erosion
avoidance of loss of public footpaths and other infrastructure from the site
avoidance of polluting incidents and clean-up costs
landscape improvement
ecological improvement
water quality improvement.
Benefits need to be considered over the whole-life of the scheme and converted using discount
rates into net present value benefits.
65
Part 4
avoidance of loss of tourism, amenity and recreation (if this is a true loss to the UK economy
rather than just an economic “displacement”)
The quantitative elements of this approach can be used to demonstrate whether there is net
benefit over the whole-life of the scheme that, in the absence of the scheme, would otherwise
be associated with the ongoing processes of erosion or sea flooding of a site (ie BCR > 1). The
qualitative elements can then be used to describe the wider benefits that a scheme can deliver.
Case study 6.4 Trow Quarry economic appraisal
Using the outlined approach to economic appraisal, a coastal defence scheme at an eroding historic landfill at
Trow Quarry in South Tyneside was demonstrated to have nearly £16m in economic benefits over its 50 year
design life, compared with scheme costs of around £1.8m. In addition to these quantitative benefits, several
qualitative benefits associated with the scheme were identified, including the clearance of brickwork and
blockwork debris and domestic waste (eg broken crockery) from the upper foreshore to improve the aesthetics
of the area.
Environmental appraisal ensures that all environmental implications of a particular scheme are
taken into account before a scheme is progressed. To undertake this task, it will be necessary to
use an environmental scientist to identify the existing environmental baseline at the site, which
can be identified through site specific surveys and assessments, consultation with local authorities,
and government bodies (eg Natural England and Environment Agency within England, SEPA and
SNH, the DoE NI and the Single Environmental Body Wales). An environmental scientist will
then be able to determine the likely environmental effects of different approaches which will lead
to the identification of a preferred option. Options are generally assessed qualitatively against a
range of assessment criteria, which can be linked back to the environmental baseline information.
In some situations, this is undertaken in the form of a formal Environmental Impact Assessment
(EIA) (see Chapters 7, 14 and 16 for further details). It should be noted that a Water Framework
Directive compliance assessment and a Habitats Regulations Assessment (if the study site is
located within or adjacent to an environmentally protected area) may be required, even if EIA is
not considered necessary.
When appraising the environmental effects of options, the carbon footprint of schemes is
increasingly being used to help influence decisions. In the context of the options considered in
this guide, this may particularly affect decisions over the export of waste/material from site versus
managing it in situ and can influence the selection of construction material for different types of
scheme (eg locally sourced rock versus concrete).
6.4Preferred option
In all stages of the process, the actions taken should be in proportion to the risks presented by the
site to balance the reduction of risks from contamination and the benefits of intervention with the
potential costs and effects of taking action. In this regard, consideration should be given to issues
listed in Table 6.2 when selecting the preferred option.
With those issues in mind, and having involved the main stakeholders in communication at
appropriate stages (see Chapter 17), the preferred option should be selected that addresses the
risks presented in an appropriate and proportionate manner, upon the basis of the options
appraisal process.
66
CIRIA, C718
Category
Introduction
Table 6.2 Considerations when selecting a preferred option
Considerations
availability
Technical and physical
constraints
and suitability of technical solutions and resources
access and logistics
presence of existing structures
practicability, effectiveness and durability of any proposed actions
robustness to the range of uncertainties identified.
site
sustainability
Environmental issues
cost
Economic constraints
and implications
of initial capital works
of maintenance or monitoring activities through the “whole life” of the scheme
benefits of the actions
financial affordability and the availability (or otherwise) of lower priced alternatives
land or property blight.
cost
part 1
of any proposed actions
to the risk(s) presented
public health and safety
environmental effects during construction, operation and decommissioning/
refurbishment phases of the project
meeting the objectives for both surface and ground water bodies as set out in the
WFD river basin management plans.
proportionality
urgency
Timeframes and future
considerations
time
constraints on implementation
over the lifetime of the pollutant linkage
adaptability to the range of uncertainties and climate changes identified
alternative future resolution mechanisms (eg site redevelopment).
effectiveness
part 2
Once a preferred option has been selected, it is important that the works are designed,
environmentally assessed and delivered by suitably qualified people, including specialist
consultants and appropriately experienced contractors where appropriate.
6.5References
BARRY, D L, SUMMERSGILL, I M and GREGORY, R G (2001) Remedial engineering for closed
landfill sites, C557, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-557-5). Go to: www.ciria.org
CIRIA, CUR, CETMEF (2007) The Rock Manual: The Use of Rock in Hydraulic Engineering (second
edition), C683, CIRA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-683-1). Go to: www.ciria.org
DUNN, H (2012) Accounting for environmental impacts: supplementary Green Book guidance, HM
Treasury and Defra, London (ISBN: 978-1-84532-942-6)
Part 3
CIRIA (1986) Maintenance of coastal revetments, TN124, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-265-9).
EFTEC (2010) Flood and coastal erosion risk management: economic valuation of environmental effects,
report to the Environment Agency, Bristol
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2010) Flood and Coastal Erosion Risk Management Appraisal Guidance
(FCERM-AG), Environment Agency, Bristol.
Go to: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/116705.aspx
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2011) Adapting to climate change, Environment Agency, Bristol.
Go to: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/132904.aspx
FLEMING, C A (1990) Guide on the use of groynes in coastal engineering, R119, CIRIA, London
(ISBN: 978-0-86017-313-7). Go to: www.ciria.org
67
Part 4
ENGLISH PARTNERSHIP (2008) Contamination and dereliction remediation costs, Best Practice
Note 27, English Partnerships, London.
Go to: www.regenerate.co.uk/EP_Contamination%20&%20Remediation%20costs.pdf
FLOOD HAZARD RESEARCH CENTRE (2010) The benefits of flood and coastal risk management: a
handbook of assessment techniques (The Multi Coloured Manual).
Go to: www.mdx.ac.uk/research/areas/geography/flood-hazard/publications/index.aspx
LANGDON, D (2012) Civil engineering and highway works price book, twenty-sixth edition, Taylor &
Francis Group, UK (ISBN: 978-0-41568-064-6)
LEGGETT, D J, COOPER, N and HARVEY, R (2004) Coastal and estuarine managed realignment –
design issues, C628, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-628-2). Go to: www.ciria.org
RICHARDS, H (2011) Case study on application of the SAFEGROUNDS key principles and guidance:
management of the very low level waste disposal area at Hunterston A site, 2005–2011 Version 2.0,
Magnox Ltd. Go to: www.safegrounds.com/pdfs/Hunterston_A_case_study_v2_2011.pdf
RIGGS, J L (1982) Engineering economics, second edition, McGraw-Hill, New York (ISBN: 978-007912-248-3)
SNH (2000) A guide to managing coastal erosion in beach/dune systems, Scottish Natural Heritage,
Inverness. Go to: www.snh.org.uk/publications/on-line/heritagemanagement/erosion/sitemap.shtml
THOMAS, R S and HALL, B (1992) Seawall design, B12, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017391-5). Go to: www.ciria.org
NUCLEAR INDUSTRY SAFETY DIRECTORS’ FORUM (2010) Best Available Technique (BAT) for
the management of the generation and disposal of nuclear wastes. A nuclear industry code of practice.
Go to: www.rwbestpractice.co.uk/html%5CCode%20of%20Practice%20Issue%201%20_2010%20
11%2008_.pdf
WEST SANDS PARTNERSHIP (2011) A draft management plan for the West Sands, St. Andrews:
2011–2025. Go to: http://publications.1fife.org.uk/uploadfiles/publications/c64_Item05DONOTPRINTBUTMUSTBEUPLOADED-WestSandsManagementPlan.pdf
Statutes
European Directives
Websites
HM Revenue and Customs (2012) A general guide to landfill tax. Go to: http://customs.hmrc.gov.uk/
Interreg IVB (2002) Sustainable Coastal Development in practice. Go to: www.suscod.eu/
68
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
Case study 6.5 Hunterston, North Ayrshire
The very low level disposal area at Hunterston, in North Ayrshire, consists of five disposal areas constructed
within the made ground of the foreshore reclaimed area (formed from excavated material produced during the
station’s construction), into which solid very low level waste (VLLW) was disposed under an authorisation in the
1970 and 1980s.
The operator (Magnox Ltd) recognised that, in view of public concerns and the relative lack of hard information
on the VLLW disposal area, an appraisal of the area was required. This was to provide enough information to
make a robust assessment of the potential risks associated with the area and to determine whether remedial
action would be warranted, based on current land use.
part 1
A quantitative risk assessment was carried out that demonstrated the risk to human health was low. Due to
stakeholder concerns an options appraisal study was carried out following the risk assessment to select a
remediation strategy. Improved containment in the form of a cap was selected and delivered, combined with
reinforcement of sea defences by way of a rock revetment.
During 2006, the site commissioned contractors to undertake detailed topographic surveying of the shoreline
and initiate monitoring of coastal erosion, with a view to designing repairs/improvements to the coastal
defences. During 2007 and early 2008, the site commissioned contractors to place new rock armour on the
shoreline adjoining the VLLW disposal area, to reduce the risk of further coastal erosion of this part of the
foreshore reclaimed area. The rock armour was designed to be resistant to “normal” storm events (indicatively
one in 10 year frequency) but upgradeable to withstand more severe storms. Capping and restoration works
were completed in 2011.
Further reading on this location and approach adopted is provided in Richards (2011).
part 2
Part 3
Part 4
69
Case study 6.6 Brodick Beach, Isle of Arran
Through the terms of a lease from Arran Estates, North Ayrshire Council is responsible for land up to the high
water mark at Brodick Beach on the Isle of Arran. Within this area there is a closed landfill site that was used to
deposit waste – predominantly domestic refuse – during the early to mid-20th century.
Following cessation of the dumping, cover materials were placed over this ground, behind a beach seaward
of the site. Coastal erosion along Brodick Beach had exposed the edge of the closed landfill site, resulting in
material to be released onto the beach. This primarily comprised of broken glass, although a small piece of
asbestos was also found. As a precautionary measure, the Council immediately closed the beach to the public.
Although the landfill site predates its creation, the Council has a statutory requirement under the terms of the
lease, to address any pollution issues arising from the site.
Following investigations, it was identified that the erosion is an ongoing process with rates of retreat averaging
1 m/year to 2 m/year. However the erosion happens episodically and often is triggered by changes in the
alignment of the channel of the Glencoy Water, a tidally influenced burn, within the centre of the bay.
The Council recognised there was an immediate risk to the public from broken glass and asbestos and the
edge of the site and beach area was immediately secured from public access. This was undertaken using
a post and tape fence and appropriate signage. Also, there was deemed a potential risk to human health
from contamination within the superficial soils across the site. However, based on the available data, the
contamination risks associated with the site were unlikely to mean that the site would be designated as
contaminated under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990. However, further investigation, analysis,
monitoring and assessment of the risks to human health and the wider environment was required to support
this conclusion.
Several options to address the coastal erosion that exposed the edge of the landfill site were considered.
Beach recharge (considered both without and with control structures such as groynes) was rejected because
it would not provide total encapsulation of fill material, resulting in a degree of dispersion. Also, there would
be a continuing need to replenish the beach at intervals. Removal of the fill material was rejected because of
its prohibitive expense. A full heavy rock armour revetment would successfully encase the frontage of the site
but would cause a significant adverse effect on the amenity value of the beach and the landscape of the bay.
A lighter revetment, involving the placement of materials (eg lighter rocks or other material such as sand-filled
geosynthetic bags) along the edge of the landfill site and beach to enclose the landfill material was considered
as the preferred option.
The selection of sand-filled geosynthetic bags was made to enable the material to be sourced locally from
the beach and the final solution to be more sympathetic to the visual aesthetic of the bay. Local beach
management was also carried out.
Figure 6.12 Sand-filled geotextile bags
being lifted into position (courtesy
Naue Geosynthetics)
70
Figure 6.13 Sand-filled geotextile
bags being layered to encapsulate
the site (courtesy Naue Geosynthetics)
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
7.1
part 1
delivering the solution
Background
It is clear that it will take time to design and detail a scheme, gain the necessary approvals and
funding, procure contractors, mobilise and undertake construction activities. In the period
leading to scheme delivery so it may be necessary to carry out interim measures, such as warning
signage, access barriers and monitoring and clean-up operations to manage the risks in the
short-term. However, it should be remembered that in some situations these solutions may be the
preferred approach, representing a proportionate response to the risks presented.
7.2
Part 3
In situations where a scheme is needed, and given the specific context of the problems being
addressed in terms of both their coastal setting and the nature of the materials that may be
encountered, health and safety aspects are critical to both stages of scheme delivery. Early
consideration of health and safety risks during the design stage can help risks to be removed or
reduced before the construction stage as far as is practicable.
Health and safety
The nature of these schemes means that particular health and safety risks could be present, over
and above those relating to any CDM requirements and general construction health and safety
risks. These include:
access and egress points to and from the foreshore
working in, or next to, an inter-tidal environment that is also potentially susceptible to storm
events
delivery of materials to site and removal of wastes from site – possibly involving sea as well as
road deliveries or removals
71
Part 4
Due to the scale of works and the risks associated with most schemes that are likely to be
identified through the appraisal process, it is highly likely that the Construction, Design and
Management Regulations (CDM Regulations) 2007 will apply to the project. This will necessitate
the clear definition of roles such as the CDM client, designer, principal contractor and coordinator. The roles and responsibilities of these are well defined in existing industry guidance
(see HSE, 2007).
part 2
Once a preferred solution for managing the risks that are presented at a site has been identified
through the options appraisal process (Chapter 6), the focus moves to delivery of that solution.
For solutions involving an engineered scheme of some form (ie options other than warning signs
and access barriers or monitor and clean-up) this generally involves two stages the design and
approvals, and construction. Appropriate to each of these stages, it is important that funding
mechanisms are in place (Chapter 15) and any necessary approvals have been received before
activities start (Chapter 16).
working at height (if on a cliff or coastal slope)
stability of structures, cliffs or slopes on which plant and site workers will be based
accessibility of the site (both the land and the foreshore) to the public or fauna
excavation, handling, stockpiling and transport of materials.
7.3
Scheme design and assessment
There is in existence a considerable volume of detailed guidance on the design and detailing of
solutions involving waste handling and re-location, in situ and ex situ treatments, containment,
capping and coastal defences. Some specific aspects to note when considering the coastal or
estuarine setting of the sites covered in the present guidance is identified as follows.
In designing a coastal defence structure as a shoreline “barrier” to break the link between a
source and receptor it is of particular importance to ensure that the design takes full account of
potential short-term variations in foreshore level caused by seasonal or storm-related effects. Also,
to take due consideration of climate change and especially sea level rise in terms of both wave
overtopping of the structure and increased rates of lowering of the foreshore at the toe.
For some options, it is possible that a full and formal (statutory) EIA will be required before
adopting a preferred option (although this would be dependent upon a screening opinion that
would need to be requested from the local planning authority and/or Marine Management
Organisation/Marine Scotland). The EIA process is a tool for systematically examining, assessing
and mitigating the potential effects of a proposed development on the environment. An EIA is
carried out by, or on behalf of, the developer or proposer of a particular project, and the resulting
Environmental Statement (ES) is submitted along with the application for planning permission.
The ES should present details of the environmental baseline, main receptors, potential
environmental effects (both positive and negative) during the construction and operational
phases, proposed mitigation measures and residual effects. It is likely that technical specialists
would be required to feed into the EIA process, such as waste and contaminated land specialists
to assist with the various topics that comprise an ES. Further details regarding EIA (in addition to
the range of other consents and approvals that may to be required) are given in Chapter 16.
Certain projects and schemes will not require a statutory EIA, however the project may require
planning permission before it can be delivered. In such circumstances, a non-statutory EIA could
be undertaken and an environmental report (ER) produced to support the application. The nonstatutory ER should be undertaken by a competent environmental scientist, under the framework
and procedures set out for EIA, but with the assessment and reporting process reflecting the
significance of likely environmental effects. The assessment approach should be agreed with the
relevant local planning authority from the start.
It should be noted that any works to resolve a landfill at risk of coastal erosion of flooding should
not cause or exacerbate flood or coastal erosion risk elsewhere. The National Policy Statements
on major infrastructure contain this proviso, including that permission should not be granted for
development unless causing or exacerbating coastal flood or erosion elsewhere can be avoided or
mitigated. This principle is also included in CLG (2012a).
7.4
Procurement of contractors
There is a wide variety of different contract forms that could be used to procure the services of a
contractor to deliver the scheme. An important consideration in the selection in the choice of the
preferred contract form is the balance of risk between the client and the contractor. This could be
influenced by any residual uncertainties over the design that may need to be further investigated
during the construction phase.
72
CIRIA, C718
Risks and uncertainties, such as adverse weather conditions, wave or tidal surge events, severe
winds, extreme rainfall and unknown material composition, potential for archaeological features
or unexploded ordnance, can all affect the decision that contract model and tender assessment
matrix is used. Specific procurement advice is sought from suitably experienced staff.
Construction supervision
Works supervision
The nature and scale of the scheme, the sensitivity of the area, the degree of detail provided in
the design, the predictability of actual conditions on site, the experience of the contractor and the
sophistication of its health, safety, quality and environment systems will influence the degree of
additional supervision activities by an appropriately qualified civil, structural or coastal engineer.
Some approvals such as planning permission or a marine licence, may have been granted subject
to specific conditions that will need to be followed during construction (see Chapter 16). These
conditions could potentially affect the timing or sequencing of the works, or the plant or methods
that are used. Many sites of the types considered in this guidance are likely to be located within,
or immediately near to, residential areas, sites used for amenity purposes (including bathing)
or areas designated as being of importance for nature conservation or earth science heritage
(geological or geomorphological) values. Supervision of construction activities to ensure that the
all the conditions are being met throughout the construction period is very important.
Part 3
Some of the specific issues that may need to be supervised in this manner due to the specific
nature of the sites covered in this guidance include:
part 2
Supervision enables suitable decisions to be made on site to account for unexpected issues that
may arise during the construction process. This can include previously unidentified geological
faults or the presence of unexpected buried features such as services or UXO.
part 1
7.5
Introduction
Due to the specialist nature of the works, it is recommended that a contractor is selected who is
best able to demonstrate relevant expertise within the marine environment. Typically a qualitycost model will be best used to ensure a suitably qualified contractor is appointed at a costeffective price.
timing of works to accommodate tidal and weather windows
timing of works so as to avoid overwintering or breeding seasons in, or near to, inter-tidal
and terrestrial sites of importance for birds
timing of works so as to avoid fish migration or spawning seasons
timing of works so as to avoid public holidays or summer seasons on popular amenity
beaches
working hour restrictions in residential areas (which may severely constrain activities
because tidal influences will also affect most sites, further limiting potential working
windows for some construction activities)
unexpected visual or olfactory evidence of contamination
traffic restrictions for site workers or material movements in residential areas.
Some specific supervision activities, in addition to general civil, structural or coastal engineering
supervision, are discussed in following subsections. These relate to waste testing, stockpiling and
handling, environmental supervision, and archaeological and heritage supervision.
73
Part 4
plant restrictions for working within designated area, such as tracking across inter-tidal
sites designated as being of important for nature conservation (habitats or species) or earth
science heritage (geology or geomorphology)
Material handling, reuse and disposal
The waste hierarchy is set out in Article 4 of the revised Water Framework Directive (rWFD)
2008. This requires a demonstration that the following priorities have been considered to
determine the most suitable waste management option for the waste:
prevention
preparing for reuse
recycling
other recovery (for example energy recovery)
disposal.
Following the waste hierarchy not only increases the sustainability of the project but it is also a
legal requirement for waste producers/holders.
Certain landfills will contain waste material that is not suitable for retaining on site for use as
construction material, either as general fill, landscaping material or as construction material. This
is likely to be material from non-hazardous class of landfill, which take biodegradable matter, and
landfills that contain hazardous materials. If these materials are going to be excavated, then it is
recommended that they are removed off site. However, landfills that have accepted inert waste
only may provide a suitable source for construction material. Some contaminated sites may also
provide material that may be suitable as general fill or landscaping material, but their suitability
for use will have to be determined by analytical testing.
Retain material on site
The reuse of contaminated excavated material (where it has been determined as suitable for use)
on site promotes the waste hierarchy, so it is actively encouraged as the preferred option where
possible. On site reuse requires consideration of both the contaminated land and waste regulatory
control regimes.
The environmental regulator considers that excavated material, which is not going to be
reinstated back to the ground from where it was excavated from, is waste. To reuse this material
within a development requires compliance with waste legislation, unless it can be proven that the
material is not waste when it is reused. There are regulatory principles that define the end of
waste status in Article 6(1) of the revised Waste Framework Directive (rWFD).
Although there may be comprehensive records for wastes in active and closed landfills, for some
historic landfills, there is little or no data about the range or types of wastes that have been
deposited, and what the range and extent of chemical contaminants is. This will present an
immediate health and pollution risk to those carrying out the excavation, and the immediate
environment. So before any excavation, even for sites that have comprehensive data about the
material that has been placed there, the concentrations of contaminants in the mass of material
to be excavated should be determined. This will mean an intrusive investigation. The land
occupier or owner will need to work with environmental consultants to determine the appropriate
analytical suite and sampling plan, to ensure representative data is obtained about the waste mass
or contaminated site.
The contaminated material can be reused on site where it is determined as suitable for use. This
means that it should be suitable from a geotechnical perspective, ie has the correct engineering
properties, and also it should be chemically suitable and not cause pollution in use, ie the risk
to human health or controlled waters is acceptable low. If material meets these criteria, then if
certain other principles are adhered to, the material would not necessarily be considered as waste
when reused in-line with Article 6(1) of the revised Waste Framework Directive (rWFD) 2008.
74
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
The data obtained from sampling will identify potential health risks or risks of pollution to the
environment. Also, it can be used to determine whether the material will be suitable for use on
site. Contaminated Land: Applications In Real Environments (CL:AIRE) has written a code
of practice (CoP) for reusing excavated material (CL:AIRE, 2011). This CoP does not apply in
Scotland or Northern Ireland, however, the principles regarding rWFD 2008 Article 6(1) do
apply.
The principles are as follows:
It is recommended that a quantitative risk assessment is carried out to determine the risk to
human health and the environment in an industrial site context
the excavated material is suitable for its proposed use
part 1
the proposed use of the material must not cause any harm to human health or the
environment. This requires a risk assessment, at the appropriate level of the development
area, to demonstrate that the use will not create an unacceptable risk.
The chemical and geotechnical properties of the material should be demonstrated to be
suitable for the intended use
the use of the material is certain
The holder should be able to demonstrate through design that the material will be used
with defined quantities provided before use
only a sufficient quantity of material will be used
Surplus material beyond the design requirements cannot be deposited. This will constitute
waste.
If the principles of the CoP are not followed, the reuse of the material on site will require an
environmental permit.
part 2
Off-site removal
The waste duty of care applies to all holders of waste material. In the event of waste being
removed, the occupier (or landowner if the occupier cannot be located) will be responsible for
complying with the waste duty of care. This requires some basic considerations:
Part 3
comply with environmental legislation
know whether wastes are hazardous or non-hazardous
know the waste codes for all wastes being held
store wastes securely to prevent release – this includes windblown material from stockpiles
check that the wastes are transferred only those who hold an appropriate environmental
authorisation
provide documentation (ie a waste transfer note or hazardous waste consignment note as
appropriate) with any waste transfer to fully describe the waste and identify any special
handling requirements that could affect future waste management options on the waste
Where the waste is required to be removed, the formal requirements of duty of care must be
adhered to. On the transfer of waste a written description (of the waste) must be provided and a
waste transfer note (or hazardous waste consignment note for hazardous waste) must accompany
all movements of waste. The transfer note requires specific information about the description
of the waste, including the appropriate code for the waste, who are the parties involved in the
transfer and what authorisations each party holds. It is a legal document and all parties involved
in the transfer must sign the transfer note.
75
Part 4
keep records of all waste transfers in a register.
The waste duty of care requires the identification of whether any of the waste material is
classified as hazardous waste or not. Where there is any suspicion that the waste may contain
chemical contamination, the waste will be required to be analysed to identify the concentration
of dangerous substances. These concentrations are then compared with the various hazardous
waste thresholds to identify whether the waste is classified as hazardous or not. Guidance on
the desktop approach to the waste assessment process is provided by the Environment Agency
(2011). This is a complex process and is best done in consultation with hazardous waste experts. If
material is classified as hazardous waste, it must not be mixed with any non-hazardous material.
It must be stored separately then consigned off site in accordance with the appropriate hazardous
waste consignment procedures.
Even though the excavated contaminated material has come from a landfill, the waste hierarchy
must still be followed to determine where the material can be disposed or recovered. If any
sustainable options for off-site use, recycling or recovery of it cannot be justified in terms of the
waste hierarchy assessment, the contaminated material may be appropriate for landfill disposal.
Long-term residence in the landfill will have promoted the degrading of the waste, so it is likely
that landfill will be the only available option for the bulk of the excavated material. However,
some material, such as metals and some plastics, may be suitable for recycling. So the preferred
option is for excavated material to go for pre-treatment to remove recyclables before landfill.
It is noted that pre-treatment is a legal requirement for wastes destined for landfill and must be
carried out to meet the three-point test:
1
It must be a physical, thermal, chemical or biological process including sorting.
2
It must change the characteristics of the waste.
3
It must do so to:

reduce its volume
reduce its hazardous nature
facilitate its handling
improve its recovery
The excavated material will require assessment against the waste acceptance criteria (WAC).
The landfill operator or landowner/occupier will have to provide the basic characterisation
requirements of the waste.
Chemical testing
The range of chemical testing required will depend upon the proposed options for the material,
but may involve all or some of the following:
Tests required under the contaminated land regime
These comprise solid soil samples, which identify the total concentration of contaminants in the
soil, and leachate samples, which identify the concentration of contaminants that can be leached
from the soil under controlled conditions. Together, these are used to determine the risk to
human health and controlled waters.
Waste classification
These require solid soil samples. The results of the analysis are compared against the hazardous
waste thresholds. The solid soil analysis data from the contaminated land testing regime also can
be used for waste classification purposes. The data is used to determine whether the hazardous
waste thresholds are exceeded, and if so, the excavated material would be classified as a
hazardous waste.
76
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
Waste acceptance criteria (WAC)
There are two stage leachate tests, which are only required for wastes where landfill disposal
has been determined as the appropriate option in accordance with the waste hierarchy. It is
important to note that a WAC test will not identify whether a waste is hazardous or not. The
waste classification assessment needs to be determined before carrying out WAC tests. For
excavated material, there is likely to be only two scenarios when WAC testing is required:
The excavated material has been classified as a hazardous waste. If so, it can only be
deposited within a hazardous class of landfill if it meets the hazardous WAC.
2
The excavated material is non-hazardous and has very low concentrations of contamination.
If so, it may be able to be landfilled in an inert class of landfill, if it meets inert WAC. The
advantage of this is that it is much cheaper to deposit waste in an inert class of landfill
compared to a non-hazardous class of landfill.
Note that non-hazardous waste does not have to undergo chemical WAC tests before it can be
deposited in a non-hazardous class of landfill.
part 1
1
Environmental supervision
It is recommended that the environmental engineer/ECoW undertakes regular site visits to
ensure compliance with the environmental management plan (EMP) and/or remedial strategy for
the scheme.
part 2
A suitably qualified environmental engineer or environmental clerk of works (ECoW) should be
appointed to monitor and provide assistance to the contractor throughout the construction phase
with respect to any environmental or remediation aspects of the scheme.
EMPs are site-specific plans developed to ensure that all necessary mitigation measures are
identified and carried out to protect the natural environment (protected species, controlled
waters) and comply with environmental legislation. The environmental engineer/ECoW is
responsible for ensuring the development complies with environmental legislation, planning
conditions and any mitigation measures set out in the ES for the scheme, where appropriate.
The ECoW should collect the following information during the visits (this list will vary depending
on the exact scheme details):
photographic record of the excavations and earthworks
schedules of testing
laboratory data reports
77
Part 4
The ECoW is required to ensure that the strategy is correctly followed. The ECoW should identify
any non-conformities at an early stage to avoid extra costs (ie for later remediation) and to ensure
that all necessary information for the preparation of the remediation validation report is being
collected. The site should not be opened for public access without full implementation of the
remediation scheme. The remediation validation report should be submitted to the local planning
authority on completion. This may be a specific requirement of planning conditions for a scheme.
Part 3
A remediation strategy is produced for sites identified as having “pollutant linkage(s)” that pose a
risk and need to be addressed by appropriate remediation options. As detailed in Chapter 5 this
may be achieved via removal of the source, breaking the pathway or removal of the receptor. CLR
11 (Environment Agency, 2004) outlines that the remediation strategy should be fully recorded,
using an appropriate quality management system, such that there is a permanent record of the
work done to address the relevant pollutant linkages (the verification report). Where necessary,
remediation needs to be monitored and maintained. Monitoring may be used as a means of
demonstrating compliance against the agreed objectives and as an early warning of adverse trends.
data assessments for materials reuse and disposal
chain of custody notes for materials movement.
This information should be reviewed and collated following the site visit and checked against the
remediation strategy to ensure the works are being undertaken in a satisfactory manner and inline with current guidelines.
It is advisable that a meeting is held before the site works start where the practical measures for
the employment of the remedial strategy are confirmed and a system of record keeping and
communication is established. This will assist in the smooth running of the scheme.
The production and submission of the validation report to the local authority will complete the
remediation scheme and show that the site is being left in a condition suitable for the intended
use, in compliance with any planning conditions set out for the site. A validation report provides
a complete record of all remediation activities on site and the data collected as identified in the
validation plan to support compliance with agreed remediation objectives and criteria. Also, it
includes a description of the work (as-built drawings) and details of any unexpected conditions (eg
unforeseen hotspot contamination) found during remediation and how they were dealt with.
In the event that previously unidentified contamination is found on site when carrying out the
scheme it should be reported in writing immediately to the local planning authority.
These supervision activities will not be a requirement for all schemes but may be required if
sensitive receptors or “pollutant linkages” have been identified on site. They may be required
under the specific planning conditions for the scheme or as outlined in the EMP.
Archaeology and heritage supervision
It is unlikely that any archaeological finds will be present directly within areas where landfilling
activities have taken place, but within an adjacent coastal or estuarine setting archaeological
or heritage features may be present. These can include Roman remains, military structures,
wrecks and Listed Buildings on the foreshore and/or backing land. The presence of any of these
features should have initially been identified during the options appraisal stage (see Chapter 6).
As proposed management options at a site have the potential to affect a wider area (eg foreshore),
it is important that a desk-based assessment is undertaken in areas with archaeology and/or
heritage interest before, or during, the design and detailing of a scheme. This will usually involve
the collation of information from archaeological and historical records, maps and charts and a
walkover survey of the study area. The desk-based assessment will then provide a description
of the potential archaeology or heritage features and value of a site, and provide an early
identification of potential constraints to a proposed development. Generally, the requirement or
otherwise for a desk-based assessment is specified by the local planning authority, and will inform
a planning decision. However this request can be pre-empted by undertaking a desk-based
assessment early in the design process where archaeological or heritage features are considered
likely to be present, based on existing site knowledge.
Depending on the outcome of the desk-based assessment, it may be necessary to undertake
further archaeological or heritage investigations before or during the construction phase of
a scheme. Such works could include an archaeological watching brief of excavations, or a full
archaeological assessment before the main construction phase. Where necessary, these activities
are placed as conditions attached to planning consents. An archaeological watching brief can
be defined as a formal programme of observation and investigation undertaken during any
operation that is being carried out for non-archaeological purposes. The county archaeologist
should be contacted to discuss the results of the desk-based assessment and agree a scope of works
relevant to the nature of the potential finds. A scope of works for a full archaeological assessment
can be provided by the county archaeologist, which can be used in a tendering process.
78
CIRIA, C718
Maintaining records
Following delivery of the solution, it is important that records are updated and maintained
into the future. This will include updates to the site-specific risk assessments to ensure that the
protection or remediation measures at the site have been taken into account and any residual risks
have been identified.
7.7
References
part 1
Also, it includes updates to local records and national databases, such as coastal defence databases,
so that future iterations of national coastal erosion maps or flood zone maps are based on upto-date information and that strategic coastal management planning takes due account of both
the residual sea flooding or coastal erosion risk, and the presence (or otherwise) of protection or
remediation measures in its future recommendations for maintenance and capital works activities.
Introduction
7.6
CL:AIRE (2011) Definition of waste: development industry code of practice, CL:AIRE, London. Go to: www.
claire.co.uk/index.php?option=com_phocadownload&view=file&id=212:initiatives&Itemid=82
CLG (2012a) National Planning Policy Framework, Communities and Local Government, London
(ISBN: 978-1-40983-413-7). Go to: www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/nppf
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2011) Hazardous waste: Interpretation of the definition and classification
of hazardous waste. Technical Guidance WM2, Environment Agency, Bristol, SEPA, Stirling, and
Environment and Heritage Service Waste Management and Contaminated Land Unit, Belfast
(ISBN: 1-84432-454-0)
part 2
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2004) Model procedures for the management of land contamination,
Contaminated Land Report 11, Environment Agency, Bristol.
Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho0804bibr-e-e.pdf
HSE (2007) Managing health and safety in construction – Construction (Design and Management)
Regulations 2007: Approved code of practice, HSE Books, Health and Safety Executive, UK (ISBN
978-0-71766-223-4)
Part 3
Statutes
European Directives
Websites
Environment Agency: Contaminated land regime:
Part 4
79
evaluating performance
and effects
8.1
Background
Once a solution has been delivered at a particular site, it becomes important to design and
delivered a programme of “monitoring and review”. This enables its performance to be evaluated
against its intended aims and objectives, as set out at the start of the options appraisal process
(see Section 6.3). Sufficient resources should be made available to ensure this important activity is
undertaken throughout the life of the project.
Of principal concern is to ensure that the solution delivers its intended design function, which
may have been to remove the source of the risk, break the pathway between source and receptor,
or remove the receptor away from the risk.
Also, it is important to ensure that scheme performance does not deteriorate over time due to lack
of maintenance or because of storm-related damage, and that it does not have adverse effects on
the wider environment.
This chapter provides guidance on the undertaking of each of these components within the
context of a monitoring plan, together with a means for evaluating performance of the delivered
solution and assessing and monitoring residual risks.
It should be noted that monitoring and review may be a preferred management approach in its
own right (see Chapter 6) or may be an interim measure while a final solution is being delivered,
as well as being a means of evaluating the performance of a particular scheme.
8.2
Monitoring plan
Monitoring should have an intended purpose, and should not be undertaken purely for the sake
of monitoring. Accordingly, a monitoring plan should be designed to incorporate an appropriate
suite of approaches that will specifically address issues that are pertinent to the nature of the site
and the type of solution under consideration. There can be no “one size fits all” approach. Rather,
the monitoring plan should propose bespoke monitoring techniques, locations, repeated times,
and reporting arrangements that take into due consideration:
the intended aims and objectives of the scheme, ie its design function, incorporating its
continued performance over time
potential unintended or unavoidable effects of the scheme on the wider environment (or
vice versa) that may require offsetting
residual risks that are present from a site, or may arise from the failure of a scheme to
perform its intended function.
In developing a monitoring plan, a main principle should be that the approaches taken should
80
CIRIA, C718
Results arising from the monitoring will usually need to be shared with relevant bodies at preagreed intervals during the life of the scheme.
part 1
Often, the need for monitoring and evaluation of the solution is a condition of a planning consent
or marine licence. In such cases, the regulators may have identified specific issues that will
need to be incorporated in the monitoring plan. In these instances, it is recommended that the
monitoring plan is designed and pre-agreed with the regulators in advance of the solution being
delivered. Also, the monitoring plan should set out management actions that become triggered if
a particular intended function is not being delivered or if an undesired or unexpected wider scale
effect is being observed. Again, management actions should be pre-agreed with the regulator
where necessary.
Introduction
be proportionate to the risks presented. In some situations, visual observations during walkover
inspections will suffice, in other situations more detailed surveying or sampling approaches may
be required.
8.3Performance of scheme
Table 8.1 presents a suite of possible approaches to monitor the performance of the different
management options that were presented in Chapter 6 against their intended purpose.
Monitoring may be required for several reasons:
technical monitoring to evaluate the engineering performance and efficiency of the solution
being used
part 2
environmental monitoring to demonstrate that the solution is producing the desired effects
on contaminants at the site
environmental monitoring to ensure that potential unintended or unavoidable effects of the
scheme on the wider environment are being controlled to an acceptable level. These may be
a requirement of planning consent for the work and may include dust, noise and air quality
monitoring.
Part 3
Part 4
81
82
CIRIA, C718
To store the waste within discrete
containers/engineered cells at the
site so it is not directly released
into the environment by erosion or
flooding
To extract contaminated soil or water
and treat so that concentrations of
particular contaminants are below
acceptable threshold levels before
replacement on site or disposal
Ex situ treatment
Remove source of Containment
the risk
soil
To treat the waste in situ so that
particular contaminants are reduced
to below threshold acceptable levels
Remove source of In situ treatment
the risk
permeability and integrity tests of
engineering containment structures
water or gas sampling/monitoring outside
the containment structure.
thickness,
process parameters (eg pressure or
temperature)
pre-treatment and post-treatment
contaminant concentrations
volumes of material treated.
critical
sampling
sampling
gas monitoring/sampling
water level monitoring
volumes of treatment agent deployed.
water
Measurement of the performance and integrity of the containment structures
once in place. Monitoring may also be required outside the structure to
demonstrate that all contaminants are being contained to an acceptable
level.
Samples are likely to be needed to demonstrate that the required remedial
targets have been met after treatment. Ongoing monitoring may be needed to
demonstrate that contaminant levels are not rebounding after the treatment
has ceased.
Regular or continuous monitoring of process parameters. Monitoring may
be needed within the treatment process equipment and also within the
affected areas of the site at the site boundary to ensure that any mobilised
contaminants are not migrating towards sensitive receptors.
Samples are likely to be needed to demonstrate that the required remedial
targets have been met after treatment. Ongoing monitoring may be needed to
demonstrate that contaminant levels are not rebounding after the treatment
has ceased.
Monitoring may be needed within the treatment area and also at the site
boundary to ensure that any mobilised contaminants are not migrating
towards sensitive receptors.
Regular intervals (eg weekly/monthly/quarterly) depending on the risk.
Water sampling analytes may include contaminant and monitored natural
attenuation parameters
Visits, photographs and measurements before, during and on completion
of the excavation and on completion of backfilling. This will ensure that all
affected materials have been removed and that the excavation has been
backfilled with appropriate materials to a suitable level of compaction and to
the required elevation.
inspections of excavations
sampling
measurement of excavation dimensions/
ground elevations
measurement of volumes of waste removed
compaction tests and soil samples of
backfill.
soil
visual
Remove source of Waste re-location To remove the waste and re-locate it
the risk
in areas that are not susceptible to
erosion or sea flooding
Purpose
Comments
Sub-option
Monitoring
Option
Table 8.1 Available approaches to monitoring of scheme performance
Regular intervals (eg quarterly/annually/two-yearly) depending on the risk.
Further inspections/surveys following reports from public/landowner and
after major storm events. Assess the integrity of the structure as a physical
barrier and whether this is changing over time, eg due to material degradation
or erosion along nearby sections. Assess whether the barrier or the areas
landward or seaward of the barrier are moving over time (eg cliff collapse,
subsidence of structure, foreshore lowering) and threatening its integrity.
Identify whether any solid or liquid waste is penetrating through the barrier onto
the shore.
To prevent the source of the risk
being released from the site by
processes of marine flooding
To prevent access by the public
Signage and
physical access
barriers
Remove the
receptor
Part 4
Soil capping
Counts of visitor numbers to the site and observations of their behaviours
when interacting with signs and barriers. Observation is informal access
routes to the site/shore.
walkover
visual inspections at low tide.
Visits, photographs and measurements before, during and on completion of
the cap placement. Measurement of the thickness and compaction of a soil
cap to ensure that it is present to an acceptable thickness and permeability.
Soil sampling of a soil cap to ensure that suitably “clean” material has been
incorporated into the cap.
inspection
of cap
compaction tests
soil sampling.
thickness
visual
Part 3
Break pathway
between source
and receptor
topographic
visual inspections at low tide
or Lidar surveys and land or
aerial photographs at low tide.
walkover
Physical coastal
barrier
part 2
To prevent the source of the risk
being released from the site by
processes of marine erosion
Regular intervals (eg weekly/monthly/quarterly) depending on the risk.
Further inspections/sampling following reports from public/landowner,
after major storm events or in advance of major public holidays for highly
accessible shores. When monitoring identifies the need, collect waste(s) from
the shore and dispose in a controlled manner using specialist contractors
suited to the particular waste(s) identified.
visual inspections at low tide
sampling
water sampling
gas monitoring/sampling.
soil
walkover
Monitor and clear To remove the waste from the
up
foreshore once it has been released
from the site but before it comes into
contact with a main receptor
part 1
Break pathway
between source
and receptor
Introduction
83
8.4
Potential wider effects
It may be necessary to monitor the potential development of unavoidable or unexpected effects
associated with the solution on the wider environment, or the potential effects of the wider
environment on the solution.
Within this context, it is important to appreciate that the coastal or estuarine settings that the sites
covered in this guidance will be located in are naturally dynamic systems.
The action of tides, waves and winds can mobilise, transport and deposit sediment such as silts
and clays, sands and gravels, and even cobbles and boulders. These processes can lead to changes
in the level or shape of the shore or sea/estuary bed. Most commonly this is noted by beach
lowering near to shore-parallel coastal defences, beach accumulation against shore-perpendicular
maritime structures and deposition across the sea/estuary bed within navigation channels.
Such variations can occur over a short (such as a single tidal cycle or a storm event), medium
(such as seasonal behaviour between winter and summer seasons) and long period of time (such
as decadal trends, starting to become influenced by effects such as sea level rise). All of these
changes can have a potential effect on the integrity and performance of a solution. For example,
beach lowering during individual storms or winter seasons can expose the foundations of coastal
defence barriers, leading to undermining of the structures. Also, long-term sea level rise can lead
to increased overtopping by waves of these coastal defence barriers, potentially causing localised
sea flooding of sites.
This natural dynamism in the physical environment is replicated in the biological environment,
with seasonal patterns of species migration or vegetation growth and die-back as well as long-term
trends in the area of habitats or numbers of associated species.
The natural dynamism in the physical environment means it is useful to start monitoring of the
physical and biological environment, in situations where such monitoring is required, before the
solution is designed and delivered so that a “baseline” characterisation can be developed.
In coastal or estuarine settings, a principal concern often is to determine how the management
solution influences existing patterns of sediment erosion or accretion and how this may affect
the inter-tidal habitats and species. This can relate to both temporary disturbance during
construction of the solution, and permanent disturbance during the operational life of the
solution.
Suitable approaches for monitoring baseline conditions and changes in existing patterns of
sediment erosion or accretion, either during construction or post-delivery of a solution, may
include:
walkover visual inspections undertaken (at low water) to observe changes in level against
fixed features, such as exposed bedrock on the foreshore or coastal defence structures, or
to characterise the composition of sediment on the foreshore. These should be repeated at
regular intervals and findings recorded on a pro-forma inspection sheet to enable a record
of change to be built up over time. All walkover should be undertaken in-line with current
health and safety requirements
land or aerial photography undertaken (at low water) to record images of the position of a
particular feature of interest, such as a cliff top or the toe of a defence structure, or enable
the mapping of certain features of interest or zones of different composition of sediment on
the foreshore. Ideally, land-based photographs should be recorded at repeat intervals from
a fixed aspect and aerial photographs should be captured within a geographic reference
frame (geo-referenced) so that later surveys can be directly overlain to identify locations and
rates of change
84
CIRIA, C718
land or aerial photography undertaken (at low water) to record images of the position of a
particular habitat or species of interest, such as an area of habitat used by birds for feeding
or breeding.
part 2
inter-tidal habitat or species surveys undertaken (at low water) to identify the presence
of particular habitats colonising the foreshore or particular species using the foreshore.
Usually of particular concern are the presence of inter-tidal biotopes, which may provide
feeding areas for birds, and the use of the foreshore by overwintering or breeding birds.
Repeat surveys will help determine whether a management solution is affecting the extent
of habitats or presence of birds. It should be noted that an effect may be positive (increase
in habitat and species numbers and diversity due to the enhancements brought about by
implementing the scheme) or negative (loss of habitat area or species numbers and diversity)
part 1
Suitable approaches for monitoring baseline conditions and changes in existing habitats and
species in the unique inter-tidal setting, either during construction or post-delivery of a solution,
may include:
Introduction
land or aerial surveying (eg topographic or Lidar surveys) undertaken (at low water) to
record the position and level of features, such as the crest of a defence structure or the level
of the foreshore at the toe of a defence. Land-based topographic surveys are best suited to
where high precision in level is required over a relatively small area (ie a site and adjacent
foreshore) while airborne-based Lidar surveys offer slightly lower resolution but can capture
data instantaneously across a much wider geographical area. Also, this technique can be
used to map cliff top position along the coast and measure rates of cliff top retreat. Ground
control points can be established near the cliff edge and fixed “offset” measurements
taken along a fixed bearing to the cliff edge. Over time, this gives a good indication of cliff
recession rates.
8.5Evaluation
The monitoring plan should already have established the intended purpose of the monitoring
and set pre-established thresholds or conditions (qualitative or quantities) that, if reached, will
trigger a management response. For example, if a solution is not performing in its intended
function due to lack of maintenance, it might need some remedial works. Alternatively, if wave
overtopping of a coastal defence barrier was observed to be increasing over time due to the effects
of sea level rise, it may be necessary to increase the crest level of that structure.
It is highly unlikely that any single management approach at a landfill site or area of land
contamination on an eroding or low-lying coastline will deliver a “one-off” solution that remains
effective in perpetuity. Due to this, monitoring and evaluation of both residual risk and solution
performance and wider effects will be an important part of the management strategy.
85
Part 4
These performance evaluation reports need to use the data and findings to evaluate performance
and wider scale effects against these pre-established criteria. As part of this process, it is
recommended that the findings also are used to update the risk assessment to ensure that the
risks presented are still being managed in a proportionate manner and that any residual risks
are identified. Should the risk status change (eg inadequate scheme performance, residual risks
begin to materialise) then these risks need to be re-assessed by revisiting the guidance framework
(Chapter 5) and appropriate management measures implemented.
Part 3
The monitoring that is undertaken at a particular site will yield data and information that will
need to be analysed and interpreted. Simply collecting the data is insufficient, it needs to be
reported at suitable time intervals (eg quarterly, annually, two-yearly) as part of a performance
evaluation so that it can inform any necessary changes in management approach.
Case study 8.1 Trow Quarry monitoring plan
A monitoring plan was developed to assess the performance of the coastal defence scheme at Trow Quarry,
which was designed to prevent coastal erosion of an historic landfill, and enable assessment of its effects
(positive and potential negative) on the wider environment. This involved development of a methodology to
characterise baseline conditions and enable repeat surveys at two-yearly intervals. An interim review of the
management approach was scheduled for year 10 after scheme completion, with a full review in year 20 to
determine whether the scheme was likely to continue to function in the intended manner in the long-term,
especially in view of erosion rates along nearby undefended rock headlands. The monitoring plan set thresholds
that, if reached, would trigger a pre-defined management action. The monitoring comprised both physical and
biological components undertaken at two-yearly intervals (unless otherwise stated).
Physical:

mapping of geomorphological features and foreshore sediment types using orthorectified aerial
photography flown at low tide

walkover inspection survey to ground-truth geomorphological mapping, assess the integrity of the coastal
defence, check for evidence of erosion in the nearby undefended cliff headlands (eg undercutting, cliff
failures or cave formation), and check for evidence of waste materials on the foreshore

measurement of offset distances from fixed ground control points to the cliff edge on the undefended cliff
headlands to identify any signs of recession.
Biological:

mapping of terrestrial, coastal margin and inter-tidal foreshore habitat type and coverage using
orthorectified aerial photography flown at low tide

walkover inspection survey to ground-truth habitat mapping, and check for presence of invasive species

cliff top vegetation survey (every four to six years) to determine the species richness of the rare maritime
cliff vegetation that was seeded

collation of bird count data from published sources to identify any deleterious changes in bird use of the
area

inter-tidal biotope mapping and over-wintering bird surveys (every four to six years) to identify any
deleterious changes in bird food availability or bird use of the area.
Establishing a baseline report (year 0) following scheme completion in 2008, meant that the first monitoring
in 2010 (year 2) showed that the scheme was performing as intended, with no deleterious effects. Early signs
were shown of cliff top species establishment as an intended environmental improvement aspect of the design.
Further monitoring is planned for 2012 (year 4).
86
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
part 1
Part 2
Perspectives
part 2
Part 3
Part 4
87
9 Perspective: strategic
coastal management
planning
9.1
Background
The greatly improved understanding of coastal processes around the UK, and the realisation
that activity in one area may affect another, has led to the development of a strategic approach
to the management of erosion and sea flooding risk. This incorporates a hierarchy of strategic
coastal management plans. Different plans may cover different spatial or temporal scales and
may be intended for different audiences. However their general aim is to set out a management
framework that enables local decision making without causing adverse effects elsewhere. For
further information see Cooper and Hutchinson (2002) and Rogers et al (2010).
Further references
Environment Agency: e-learning site for flood risk management (FCRM):
http://learning.environment-agency.gov.uk/capacitybuilding/
The type of plan used most widely in the UK is the Shoreline Management Plan (SMP). SMPs
now cover the whole open coast and several estuaries of England and Wales as well as parts of
Scotland and Northern Ireland. The general principles of the shoreline management planning
process are now widely accepted as being beneficial to sustainable management of the coastline
(Cooper et al, 2000). This perspective has been focused primarily on their use in the management
of erosion and sea flooding risks to landfill sites or areas of land contamination. However, the
principles discussed here are equally applicable to other types of strategic coastal management
plan, including more localised coastal strategies and land use development plans. The principles
include:
ensuring that all available information is collated and used to inform decisions within the
plan area
assessing the level of risk from erosion and sea flooding to the sites, and the risk from
release of materials to the public and wider environment
considering whether the presence of a landfill site or area of land contamination affects
strategic management decisions
selecting suitable and sustainable policies for managing the risks.
It should also be noted that as strategic coastal management plans are usually developed by a
partnership of organisations, involving wider engagement and public consultation, stakeholder
and community awareness of risks from coastal erosion and sea flooding will be raised.
Consequently proposals put forward to manage them will have a greater chance of support (see
Chapter 17) and potential partnership funding contributors may more readily be identified (see
Chapter 15).
88
CIRIA, C718
SMPs are non-statutory documents that were introduced in England and Wales in the mid-1990s
and later were extended to parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Although non-statutory,
they can be used as material evidence to support strategic land use plans or development control
decisions. They are intended as “living documents” that are revised at appropriate intervals as
information is updated or government policy changes. In most parts of England and Wales a
second generation SMP has now been produced.
Hold the line (HTL) of existing defence by maintaining or changing the standard of
protection. This policy should cover those situations where work or operations are carried
out in front of the existing defences (such as beach recharge, rebuilding the toe of a
structure, building offshore breakwaters and so on) to improve or maintain the standard of
protection provided by the existing defence line. Included in this overall policy are other
policies that involve operations to the back of existing defences (such as building secondary
floodwalls) where they form an important part of maintaining the current coastal defence
system.
2
Advance the line (ATL) of existing defence by building new defences on the seaward side
of the original defences. Using this policy should be limited to those policy units where
significant land reclamation is considered.
3
Managed realignment (MR), by allowing the shoreline to move backwards or forwards,
with management to control or limit movement (such as reducing erosion or building new
defences on the landward side of the original defences).
4
No active intervention (NAI), where there is no investment in coastal defences or operations.
part 2
1
part 1
SMPs provide a high level assessment of the risks to people and the developed, natural and
historic environments from coastal erosion and sea flooding. It aims to appraise and identify the
most sustainable shoreline management policies for managing these risks over the next 100 years,
using four main policy options:
Introduction
Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs)
Due to their high level and strategic nature, it was always anticipated that SMPs in England and
Wales would be underpinned by more localised and specific plans or strategies. These would
provide a greater detail of the risk posed by coastal flooding and erosion, and a more detailed
analysis of management options.
Part 3
These policies are considered over three future epochs, namely 0–20 years, 20–50 years, and
50–100 years. Use of these epochs provides a mechanism for “planning for change” in situations
where it is unsustainable to maintain the status quo. It should be noted that all the policies will
need to be supported by monitoring and when put into practice must take account of existing
health and safety legislation.
The early and active involvement in strategic coastal management planning by those with
responsibilities for managing landfill sites or areas of land contamination should provide the
opportunity to:
Part 4
investigate and understand the risk
take other appropriate actions
influence coastal management decision making in a proactive manner.
89
9.2
Managing the risks of sea flooding
or coastal erosion to landfill sites
and areas of land contamination
within a strategic coastal
management plan area
Existing guidance on how to develop a SMP (Defra, 2001, and 2006a and b) does require
consideration of current and future land use when assessing risks from erosion and sea flooding
within an area. This principle is equally valid for all strategic coastal management plans.
However, in practice, the presence of landfill sites or areas of known land contamination has not
always necessarily been fully incorporated in the studies to date. This is largely due to partial
absence of records of such sites as digital layers that can be entered into geographical information
systems (GIS) alongside other relevant datasets.
When developing future strategic coastal management plans, it should be ensured that local
authorities and Environment Agency records of permitted landfill sites (both open and closed),
known historic landfills sites, and known areas of land contamination are sourced and entered
into the SMP-related GIS. When zones at risk of sea flooding (available from the Environment
Agency’s flood risk zones or from SEPA) and coastal erosion (available from the Environment
Agency’s national erosion risk maps) are superimposed, those landfill sites or areas of land
contamination at risk of sea flooding or coastal erosion can readily be identified. See Chapter 3,
for further information on coastal erosion and flood risk maps. In areas where flood zone maps
or erosion risk maps do not exist, expert hydrological or coastal geomorphological advice will
need to be sought on likely risks to these sites.
Uncertainty: unknown legacy sites
There will always remain unknown areas of historic
landfill and unknown areas of land contamination. The
management plan or strategy should be progressed on
the best information relating to risks from sea flooding and
coastal erosion available at the time of its development.
If new information becomes available on the presence
of previously unknown areas of historic landfill or land
contamination, this information should be used, depending
on the consequences and timescales associated with sea
flooding or coastal erosion of these sites. This will either
inform an immediate management response in-line with
Part 1 Guidance framework of this publication, or inform
the future update of the management plan.
Once an historic or permitted landfill site or an area of land contamination has been identified,
it will be necessary to assess the risks to people and the environment, following the methods
described in Part 1. This will consider not only the consequences of material being released
from the site but also the likelihood of the event occurring, which will include an assessment of
timescales for sites subject to processes of erosion.
Depending on the outcome of the risk assessment it will be necessary to identify, for that frontage,
an appropriate shoreline management policy. Example scenarios may include:
low risk – NAI (but possibly with recommendations for monitoring)
medium risk – NAI (but possibly with recommendations for monitoring and clean-up of any
released waste and warning signs to the public)
high risk – HTL (build or upgrade a coastal defence at the shoreline)
high risk – MR (excavation of waste and re-location to an inland site).
90
CIRIA, C718
9.3
part 1
Effect of landfills or areas of
contaminated land on management
policy
There are some situations where an otherwise preferred management plan policy (such as no
active intervention or MR) may be constrained by the presence of landfills or areas of land
contamination. In such situations it may be possible to carry out a short-term policy of hold the
line while further investigations are undertaken to better quantify the risk presented.
Case study 9.1 Greatham Creek slag bank
A policy of MR was identified in the Tees Tidal Flood Risk Management Strategy for a section of frontage
along Greatham Creek in the River Tees estuary. This MR policy was required to create inter-tidal habitat as
compensation to offset losses anticipated within the Tees associated with policies of hold the line elsewhere to
protect large scale petro-chemical industrials from sea flooding over the next 100 years. However, an historic
slag bank was situated at one location on the site that would be inundated as part of this MR policy. Following
assessment of the risks that would be posed by erosion of the slag bank following inundation of the site, it was
decided that as part of the MR approach it was necessary to re-grade and cap the slag bank at its toe with a
clay seal to remove the potential pollution link between the contaminated material and the water.
When selecting a management policy for a particular frontage, it is vital that the wider scale
implications of that policy are fully understood on all nearby areas (both along the coast and landward
of the present-day shore). There could be situations where a decision made for one frontage has an
effect (either positive or negative) on another area. For instance, a proposal to apply a policy of no
active intervention or MR could adversely affect an area of landfill or land contamination that may be
presently set-back from the coastal margin. Management policies should also encompass the objectives
for both surface and groundwater bodies as set out in the WFD river basin management plans.
91
Part 4
Wider implications of management
policy on landfill sites or areas of
contaminated land in nearby areas
Part 3
Scenarios also may exist where the risks demonstrated by the presence of landfills or areas of
land contamination prohibit selection of the otherwise preferred management policy and dictate
an unavoidable approach of hold the line. In such situations, the high levels of risk presented
to people and/or the environment from release of the material from the site (which dictates
the policy) should be considered in the options appraisal process for the preferred option to
determine its economic justification (see Chapter 6). Delivery of this policy will then be subject to
the usual funding and approvals processes as discussed in Chapters 15 and 16 respectively.
part 2
Depending on the outcome of this better informed risk assessment, it may be possible to carry
out the desired policy. This may involve either accepting the risks from the release of the material
under a policy of no active intervention or MR, or incorporating necessary containment on site
treatment works or removal as part of the future scheme costs within a policy of MR.
9.4
Introduction
It is envisaged that potentially there could be other management options that do not fall within
the existing SMP policy definitions, particularly in relation to the in situ treatment of materials so
that the consequence of their release by sea flooding or coastal erosion is reduced to acceptable
levels. In such instances the management plan could instigate a particular shoreline management
policy over the short-term such as hold the line, with recommendation for treatment works. Insitu reduction of risks to acceptable levels could result in a different shoreline management policy
being selected in the medium- or long-term.
Existing SMP policy does encourage the implications of a particular policy decision to be
assessed across a wider scale. However in undertaking this assessment for SMPs or other strategic
management plans, it should be ensured that any implications on landfill sites or areas of land
contamination are fully considered over the full time of the plan.
9.5References
COOPER, N J, BRAY, M J, CARTER, DJ and HUTCHISON, J (2000) “A review of existing
Shoreline Management Plans around the coastline of England and Wales”. In: Proc 35th MAFF
Conference of River and Coastal Engineers, Keele University, 5–7 July 2000, pp 10.1.1–10.1.11
COOPER, N J and HUTCHINSON, J (2002) “Strategic approach to flood and coastal defence
in England and Wales”. In: Proc of the 28th int conf on Coastal engineering 2002, Solving Coastal
Conundrums, Cardiff, Wales, 7–12 July 2002 (ISBN: 978-9-8123823-8).
Go to: www.worldscientific.com/worldscibooks/10.1142/5165
DEFRA (2001) Shoreline management plans: A guide for coastal defence authorities, PB5519,
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London (superseded)
DEFRA (2006a) Shoreline management plan guidance – Volume 1: Aims and requirements, PB11726,
Go to: www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb11726-smpg-vol1-060308.pdf
DEFRA (2006b) Shoreline management plan guidance – Volume 2: Procedures, PB11726 v2,
Go to: http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/flooding/documents/policy/guidance/smpguide/
volume2.pdf
ROGERS, J, HAMER, B, BRAMPTON, A et al (2010) Beach Management Manual (second edition),
C685, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-682-4). Go to: www.ciria.org
92
CIRIA, C718
The North-West SMP2 covers an extensive length of coastline between North Wales and Scotland, including
most estuaries and tidal rivers as well as the open coast. This frontage contains several areas of former landfills
or areas of land contamination that are potentially at risk from erosion or sea flooding.
When assessing the no active intervention erosion and flood risk scenarios, consideration of landfill
and contaminated land sites was based initially on desktop study. This used GIS data obtained from the
Environment Agency that mapped both active and historical landfill sites. This information was improved
during consultation with project partners and the public. The risks related to erosion and sea flooding were
assessed and taken into account during policy development. Where the future approach to coastal defence was
anticipated to be significantly dependent on the risks related to the presence of landfill sites or areas of land
contamination, further actions were identified in the SMP action plan. Examples of sites and the further actions
recommended by the North West SMP2 are as follows:
part 1
Inner Mersey estuary – Arpley landfill: this inner estuary location at Warrington includes an active landfill
and sewage treatment works. The SMP2 appraisal identified that hold the line is the appropriate long-term
policy, but neither the local authority nor the Environment Agency were actively involved in the management
of the defences. The SMP2 raised awareness of the risks and the need for a management plan by specifying
the following action “clarify responsibilities with defence owners/site operators and agree long-term plan for
management of defences at landfill site and sewage treatment works.”
Introduction
Case study 9.2 North-West Shoreline Management Plan
Hightown, Sefton: a policy of MR was proposed in all epochs in the SMP2, with the action to “investigate the
hazard that the erosion of dunes north of the pumping station poses to people and the environment from
leaching or the release of contaminated materials.”
Tidal River Douglas: a MR policy has been proposed by the SMP2 in the long-term, subject to the following
action “investigate managed realignment opportunities for the medium- and long-term. Consider the hazard that
the landfill sites poses to people and the environment from leaching or the release of contaminated materials if
defences are realigned. Where necessary, consider protection in situ or excavation and removal of material.”
part 2
Dee estuary: there are several former landfills and areas of land contamination in the flood plain around
the Dee estuary. Some of these are located in areas behind defences where there is potential for defence
realignment for future habitat creation. At one location there is an eroding industrial landfill. Due to the
considerable number of sites, project partners were keen to see a strategic approach to the review of future
management of risks related to landfills. So following consultation the action plan included “undertake Dee
estuary wide study to investigate links between land contamination and flood risk management options in order
to inform long-term strategy on the requirements for implementation of measures to address any problems
arising from this study including consideration of removal of contamination so as not to constrain future
management. This work will focus on areas outside of the Wirral.”
Harrington (near Workington): a short-term policy of hold the line was established, to allow time to investigate
issues with potentially contaminated land before confirming the long-term policy, which was provisionally set as
no active intervention in the medium- and long-term. The action plan included “investigate potential contaminated
land between Harrington Parks and Harrington Harbour to confirm long-term policy for next SMP review”.
Further information: www.mycoastline.org/documents/smp2/SMP2Main.pdf
Part 3
Part 4
93
10 Perspective: landfill site
managers
10.1 Background
This guide is primarily focused on the coastal manager. However, it recognises there are many
other stakeholders who will have different aims and perspectives. The purpose of this chapter is
to raise awareness of the issues facing landfill operators with respect to coastal erosion and sea
flooding.
Full engagement by landfill site managers with the strategic coastal management planning
initiatives (as described in Chapter 9) provides a mechanism so that they can become aware of the
risks to their sites and some of the shoreline management options that may exist. Also, it provides
a mechanism for landfill site managers to be able to influence coastal management decisions that
could potentially affect their sites, either directly or indirectly.
This chapter focuses on landfill operators who manage active landfills that continue to accept
waste, or closed landfills that have ceased to accept waste but are going through the aftercare
process before the site permit is surrendered on approval from the regulator (see Chapter 14).
In this section, “site permit” means the appropriate authorisation issued by the regulator to allow
the deposit of waste on land.
This section does not cover issues associated with historic landfill sites, or landfill sites where the
regulator has approved the surrender of the site permit (see Chapter 14).
The majority of closed landfills are regulated by a range of conditions that were originally
imposed through waste management or waste disposal licences. All existing (pre-surrendered)
closed landfill licences have become environmental permits, but due to the variability in their
requirements the conditions and standards remain inconsistent. If the site closed after 16 July
2001, it is subject to the closure requirements of the Landfill Directive 1999 and these will be
managed via the site permit. The permit provides direction to those who are responsible for the
operation of the site when it is closed.
The landfill site permit provides a series of operating conditions, which are in place to ensure that
the site complies with legislative requirements. These include environmental protection measures
such as to control releases of waste, leachate or landfill gas beyond permitted levels (ie pollution)
from the site.
Landfill sites are likely to operate in accordance with a suite of site management documentation
(eg management system documents, site procedures and risk assessments). These documents,
together with the appropriate regulations, set out to how the landfill operators should manage
their landfill site to prevent pollution. These will include engineering, monitoring and aftercare
requirements, and how the operator should manage the effects of coastal erosion or sea flooding
to prevent pollution, or the perceived future risk of such pollution.
94
CIRIA, C718
There are two distinct issues where coastal erosion and sea flooding may cause a landfill operator
to trigger a potential course of action:
an event of coastal erosion or a sea flooding, which causes imminent or actual pollution
from the permitted area of the site
Introduction
Information relating to data sources for sites that are at risk from coastal erosion and sea flooding
is provided in Chapter 3. Information relating to the potential effects of coastal erosion and sea
flooding on landfill sites is provided in Chapter 5.
the medium to long-term threat of pollution due to perceived risk associated with potential
sea flooding or coastal erosion in the future.
10.2 Reactive issues – dealing with events
part 1
These are discussed in Section 10.2 (“reactive” issues) and Section 10.3 (“proactive” issues).
There are regulatory compliance issues facing the landfill operator in the event of pollution
because of coastal erosion or sea flooding. Pollution from a landfill cell is an offence. The
conditions of the site permit are there to ensure the landfill operator has measures in place on site
to prevent pollution from happening. These include ongoing site monitoring and inspection, in
addition to any inspection regimes of the coastal manager.
part 2
Identify the problem
The immediate issue facing a landfill operator following pollution is whether or not they are
legally responsible for it. It may be straightforward to determine where sea flooding or coastal
erosion has exposed the face of the landfill cell. In other circumstances, clarification will be
needed to determine the source of the material. For instance it may have arisen from the
operator’s landfill (ie as a consequence of a failure of the landfill containment system). However,
it could have arisen from litter or fly-tipping from other sources, pollution from other landfills
(including historic), other land activities in the area, or a failure by other parties in carrying out
their obligations to maintain coastal defences.
If any waste needs to be removed, this should be in accordance with the waste duty of care, and
if it is hazardous waste then extra provisions required by hazardous wastes legislation in the
UK should be adhered to. The safety of any receptors linked by a pathway to the pollution is
paramount during the removal or management of any pollution incident.
95
Part 4
The assessment should identify what type of pollution has been released (or is in imminent
danger of being released). If the location of the pollution is onto land that is outside of the
permitted boundary under the control of the landfill operator, the operator will need to liaise
with the regulator, the coastal manager and the current occupier of the land (or the landowner if
the occupier cannot be found) to agree and arrange the appropriate action for dealing with the
pollution.
Part 3
Where the landfill containment system has been breached, or if there is an imminent risk
of this occurring, an assessment of the likely threat of the material to human health and the
environment should be carried out to decide what the potential impact could be. This will
determine the required course of action that the landfill operator or coastal manager or regulator
should consider in relation to removing the polluting source or preventing imminent pollution.
The course of action may involve emergency action or further investigation.
Site management actions
The majority of landfill operators are likely to have a management system, which sets out the
procedures to be adopted to manage site activities. Where formal management systems are not
in place, there will be other documents that control site activities, for example the site closure or
aftercare monitoring plan, or site working plan. These can allow the site operator to introduce
procedures and plans that identify and minimise risks of pollution. Site control documents or
formal management procedures allow the landfill operator to:
detect abnormalities that have an effect on day-to-day operation and investigate the causes
assess the information and decide on the appropriate course of action
undertake the action required to minimise the environmental consequences
prevent against the reoccurrence of the problem in the long-term.
It would be good practice for landfill operators in coastal areas to include action plans for
monitoring for the potential effects of coastal erosion or sea flooding. The appropriate course of
action associated with pollution resulting from these mechanisms for the landfill operator should
be guided by the site measures and action plans that are already in place. Where possible, actions
to remediate any problem should be carried out in accordance with site control documents. It is
good practice to review these documents after a breach has taken place (or to consider the need
to create them where none are in place), with a view to incorporate new mitigation measures if
required and prevent any similar incidents from causing pollution in the future.
Where an incident of sea flooding or coastal erosion causes a failure of the landfill containment
system, this could trigger a review of the site engineering system against the requirements of
the site permit or closure/aftercare plan as appropriate. If changes, repairs or improvements are
required, these may need to be agreed with the regulator and other interested stakeholders.
Sites that are operational, or those going through post closure aftercare, normally have permit
conditions that require the operator to report breaches of their site permit, such as where
pollution is imminent or has occurred. The site permit or aftercare/closure plan will normally
identify how, when and what the landfill operator is required to inform the regulator in the event
of an incident. For sites that have a modern permit, the initial response reporting requirements
are likely to be as follows:
date and time of the event
reference or description of the location of the event
description of where any release into the environment took place
substances(s) potentially released
best estimate of the quantity or rate of release of substances
measures taken, or intended to be taken, to stop any emission
description of the failure or accident.
For older permits the reporting requirements are likely to be specified on a site by site basis, but it
is considered good practice to record this information to pass onto the regulator.
Following an investigation of the incident, the operator also may be required to provide the
following extra information:
description of where the effect on the environment was detected
substances(s) detected
concentrations of substances detected
date of monitoring/sampling
96
CIRIA, C718
measures taken, or intended to be taken, to prevent a recurrence of the incident
measures taken, or intended to be taken, to rectify, limit or prevent any pollution of the
environment that has been or may be caused by the emission
the dates of any unauthorised emissions from the installation in the preceding 24 months.
If the pollution causes a major or significant incident to be declared then a multiagency response
may be required.
Introduction
any more accurate information on the matters for notification
Lessons learnt
part 1
Site control documents are subject to periodic review because of experience in managing the
landfill. Following a pollution incident associated with coastal erosion or sea flooding it would
be appropriate for the landfill operator to consider a review of such documents, with a view to
adapting them to ensure appropriate management is in place to prevent future occurrences.
10.3 Proactive issues – protecting
against future risk
Part 3
The available data on predicted coastal erosion patterns may identify that the potential risk is tens or
hundreds of years in the future. This presents considerable uncertainty to the landfill operator, the
regulator and other stakeholders in the context that the surrender of modern permits is potentially
within the same timescale. The landfill operator should assess what their priorities for operational
activity and surrender are in light of data on potential coastal erosion or sea flooding, to allow them to
plan ahead if necessary. This should involve liaison with the regulator and coastal manager.
part 2
The adoption of SMPs and other strategic coastal management plans (see Chapter 9) around
England, Wales and parts of Scotland and Northern Ireland enables the identification of sites that
may be at future risk of sea flooding and coastal erosion. Certain landfill sites and some coastal
defence structures constructed with waste are in places that could constrain proposed shoreline
management options such as MR. Also, the vulnerability of these sites to erosion or sea flooding
risks can limit, or be affected by, shoreline management options on nearby stretches of coastline.
The sources of data identifying risk of coastal erosion and sea flooding to sites are identified
in Chapter 3. Where such data suggest that a particular landfill is at risk, it will allow landfill
operators to prepare for these potential future events and liaise with the regulator and other
interested parties.
Site prioritisation
Part 4
If a newly or recently permitted site is in the coastal zone, then the management of issues
such as coastal erosion and sea flooding (among other issues associated with being in that
particular location) will have been considered by the regulator and other stakeholders during
the consultation period during the permit application process. However, for some older sites, it
is possible that the environmental regulator and/or coastal manager may be aware of potential
risks before the relevant landfill operators. Also, it is possible that the teams that hold data on
coastal erosion or flood risk within the regulator organisation may not necessarily be those
teams involved with inspecting the landfill site. So it is vital that the regulator manages effective
communication within its organisation to ensure that the appropriate teams are made aware of
the data and what it means. This will allow the appropriate regulatory team to liaise with the
landfill operator to explain what the data means to them.
The regulator should be able to guide the landfill operator on the significance (likelihood and
magnitude) of potential sea flooding and/or coastal erosion risk to the operator’s site(s). This
97
should enable the most vulnerable sites to be prioritised. The assistance of the regulator in
assessing the risk of these future events can enable landfill operators to prioritise actions and plan
mitigation for sites with the most acute issues. It is important to maintain dialogue and discussion
between the regulator and the operator.
Site action
Where new information (for example on coastal erosion and sea flood risk) is made available to
landfill operators, this may prompt an operator review of site control documents, or the closure/
aftercare plan, or to site infrastructure, to incorporate preventative measures.
Where a site has been identified as being at potential risk from future coastal erosion or sea
flooding, this presents the possibility that there could be an increased risk of incidents in the
future that may cause pollution. The effect of a sea flooding incident or coastal erosion event
could affect several aspects of the landfill operation where new information has been highlighted.
Landfill operators should examine what measures and action plans they have in place already
and compare these with the assessment of the potential risk to the site. This will enable them to
identify whether there are any appropriate intervention opportunities, any site control documents
requiring amendment, or if new documents are required. It may be that current site permit
control documents provide adequate mitigation already. If this is the case the recommended
action would be to continue to maintain the appropriate site monitoring and inspection regimes
and review the site control documents as and when the regulator identifies that there is new data
suggesting an increased risk from coastal erosion and sea flooding.
Where current information suggests a site that is going through a closure programme could be
at future risk from coastal erosion and/or sea flooding, this may have an effect on the regulator’s
requirements leading to surrender the site permit. The environmental regulator has to be sure
that the surrender of the site permit does not take place until the landfill no longer poses any
unacceptable potential for pollution risk. Exactly what further mitigation measures will be
required, if any, to prevent against future risk of coastal erosion or sea flooding, will need to
be determined on a site by site basis. The surrender requirements imposed on an operator of
a closed landfill should be taken into account when considering strategic coastal management
policies, to ensure that these do not constrain the surrender process or prevent the operator from
discharging their obligations.
The landfill operator should work with the regulator to discuss the proposed changes to site
permit control documents and the implementation programme for any infrastructure or
containment system that may be necessary.
Financial implications
Where recommendations for site improvements, regulator-driven site investigation works, or
formal improvement programmes are needed, which will require changes to site infrastructure,
the landfill operator may be required to pay for these changes. Some infrastructure changes can
cost significant amounts of money. The perceived future risk of coastal erosion or sea flooding
may not have been apparent, either at the time that the site went through the permit application
process or during normal operation. The costings for the site may not have accommodated items
required to put in place new mitigation measures to prevent against these perceived future risks.
The operator would carry out a cost–benefit analysis to prepare justification for any potential
actions. The cost of outlay for various mitigation options will need to be carefully considered
against the perceived environmental protection benefit. It is noted that these costs are subject to
uncertainty, given that these risks are unpredictable. So it would be good practice for an operator
to maintain provision to manage the future long-term risk and cost liability associated with
potential future environmental effects.
98
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
10.4References
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2009) How to comply with your environmental permit. Additional
guidance for: Landfill (EPR 5.02), Environment Agency, Bristol.
Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/geho0409bput-e-e.pdf
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2010) Briefing note. Update 2: Regulation of closed landfills,
Environment Agency, Bristol.
Go to: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/BN_-_Closed_Landfill_
Update_2_-_Nov_2010.pdf
SEPA (2003a) Interim SEPA Technical guidance note: closure, restoration and aftercare plan for
submission to SEPA, Document Number LDIT/IGN/2 Revision 2,Scottish Environment Protection
Agency, Stirling
part 1
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2010) The surrender of permits for the permanent deposit of waste, version
1, Environment Agency, Bristol.
Go to: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/GEHO0910BTAW-E-E.pdf
SEPA (2003b) Interim SEPA Technical guidance note: closure procedures for landfill sites currently
operating under waste management licences, Document Number LDIT/IGN/1 Revision 10, Scottish
Environment Protection Agency, Stirling
part 2
Part 3
Part 4
99
11 Perspective: very longterm erosion
11.1 Background
Coastal erosion of sites covered in this guide can cause a risk to communities and assets over
different timeframes. In the short-term, the effects will require immediate or imminent
management action. In the long-term (decades) they will require a more strategic consideration
of management options, for instance, within strategic coastal management plans (see Chapter 9).
Also, there are exceptional cases where erosion over much longer times needs to be considered.
Often, these cases involve the management of radioactive waste but may apply to any site where
the hazard poses a long-term risk to the public or the environment.
Regulatory guidance (Environment Agency et al, 2009) requires solid radioactive waste to be
disposed of. This is so that the protection provided to people and the environment against the
radiological hazards of the waste, both at the time of disposal and in the future, is consistent with
the national standard at the time of disposal.
Also, it states that the waste must be disposed of so that unreasonable reliance on human action
is avoided both at the time of disposal and in the future. The estimated radiological and nonradiological risks at all times in the future must be acceptable when judged by today’s standards.
This requires assessment up to and beyond any time of maximum risk, which may include up
until the destruction of the disposal facility.
As predicting coastal erosion over 100 years is uncertain, then predicting coastal erosion over
many centuries or millennia is even more so. It is important to recognise that there is no single
model or method that can achieve this aim, rather a range of models and arguments will be
needed. Uncertainties should be recognised and their effects evaluated. Some may be represented
explicitly, others by means of alternative assumptions, eg using a scenario-based approach.
This chapter provides guidance on using sound science and good practice to assess very longterm erosion. It is structured around developing an understanding of:
past coastal evolution, including evolution over geological times
contemporary coastal processes and climate
future projections, based on assessments of both coastal change and climate change.
It is important to recognise that the understanding of how and when a site may be eroded is not
the endpoint for assessment, rather it is an input to decisions on the management of the coast (if
such is deemed necessary). More generally it is input to the assessment of hazards or risks that will
arise during and after erosion of the site (if that is the expectation for the site).
100
CIRIA, C718
Understanding past coastal evolution, including the genesis and evolution of coastal features
over geological times, assists in understanding the main controls that influence the nature and
rate of coastal change. Rocks of different lithology will erode, due to weathering and/or marine
erosion, at different rates depending on their resistance (relative hardness) and their geological
structure (ie presence of faults or fissures). Also, it is important to understand how the climate,
and especially sea level, has changed over such times and how this has influenced coastal change.
part 1
It is important to obtain specialist input from a marine geologist and/or geotechnical engineer
in understanding these aspects and what influence they have on the site under consideration.
This advice should be improved through reviews of maps and memoirs describing the solid
(underlying) and drift (superficial) geology and site investigations involving cores or boreholes
through the seabed, foreshore or cliff line.
Introduction
11.2Past coastal evolution
11.3Contemporary coastal processes
and climate
Part 3
Modern technology can be used to accurately measure these processes and morphological
changes, although in the UK long-term records (over many consecutive decades) are relatively
rare. Also, numerical modelling tools can be used to reliably replicate processes of wind and
wave climate, tidal regime and sediment transport. Modelling of morphological change such as
plan-form or cross-shore beach evolution can be undertaken. However, most existing tools are
physical process-driven and can only simulate these changes over relatively short period of time
(at most a few years, and with some uncertainty due to the greater complexities associated with
morphological response modelling). Due to this, a combination of desk reviews, data collection
and analysis, numerical modelling and geomorphological interpretation should be used to
understand the present day processes and climate, determine the interdependencies between
important processes and features, and understand how a particular coastal system functions.
part 2
The contemporary coastal system should be understood through analysis of the constituent
physical processes such as winds, waves and tides and their interactions with sediments of
different types (boulders, cobbles, gravels, sands, silts and clays). These interactions can lead
to mobilisation of sediments from the seabed or shore, transportation along the coast or out to
sea, and ultimately deposition. These processes combined can lead to changes in morphological
features, causing measurable trends of erosion or deposition if sustained over a period of time.
Box 11.1 Climate change
Part 4
The UK Climate Projections published in 2009 (UKCP09) provide
information on future climate changes over the next century. The
methods used represent scientists’ best views on the likely projections,
but the probabilistic approaches adopted in the assessments also
reflect the uncertainty inherent in the complex sciences involved.
A web-based interface is available, which enables users to access
more detailed climate projections for different times, greenhouse gas
emission scenarios and climate parameters at locations across the
whole of the UK.
Further information: ukclimateprojections.defra.gov.uk
BIOCLIM was a European-wide project launched in October 2000 for a
three-year period. The project provided a scientific basis and practical
methodology for assessing the possible long-term impacts due to
environmental change on the scale of millennia, specifically on the
safety of radioactive waste repositories in deep formations.
Published documents from the BIOCLIM project is available from: www.
andra.fr/bioclim/documentation.htm
101
11.4 Future projections
To predict how the coastline may evolve into the future, it is important to understand both the past
coastal evolution and contemporary processes, and the latest science on how the climate may change.
Information on climate projections is available from published sources (see Box 11.1).
While existing process-driven numerical models cannot quantitatively predict change over very
long period of time, so-called “reduced complexity” models can, although in a probabilistic
manner rather than deterministically. These are models that attempt to reduce the relationships
that exist between coastal recession, the governing processes of tides and waves (and their changes
over time due to climate change), and the controlling geology (relative resistance to erosion)
to relatively simple process- and morphological-based parameterisations. The models are then
run in a probabilistic way for long simulation periods in both an historic mode (to illustrate the
reliability of the model outputs in replicating past to present change) and in a forecasting mode.
This provides anticipated shoreline change over centuries to millennia.
There are a small number of reduced-complexity models built specifically for the coastal
environment, including Soft Cliff and Platform Erosion (SCAPE) (Walkden and Hall, 2005).
This model provides important feedback interactions between erosion and beach build-up that
modulate recession rates of soft cliffs and lowering rates of soft shore platforms. The model, and
others like it, can simulate very long-term response across many cross-shore profiles (Figure 11.1)
and aggregate this information to plot envisaged future shoreline positions in plan form across an
appropriate area of interest.
Figure 11.1 Successive responses of cross-shore profiles over a very long time
11.5 Managing uncertainties
Uncertainties associated with projecting climatic and coastal change are liable to increase the
further into the future that is considered. These uncertainties should be propagated into the
assessment of hazards and risks, such that precise forecasts of coastal erosion are not needed but
rather the hazards and risks that will occur during and after erosion can be estimated, or at least
bounded, by impact model calculations that represent the broad possibilities (scenarios or cases)
for timing and mode of erosion. This should incorporate an understanding of erosion, coastal and
marine dispersion processes and impact pathways.
The general endpoint is adequate and defensible estimates of impact for a range of cases that
represent the broad outcomes taking account of uncertainties, but not necessarily explicitly
102
CIRIA, C718
Due to the uncertainties involved with making projections of coastal change over a very long
time, it is important that monitoring of changes in both the coastline and the forcing climate
(eg sea level, waves and surges) is undertaken and fed into updates of the future projections at
appropriate intervals. Should the future coastal projections change, then the risks presented and
management options will need to be re-evaluated in accordance with the principles described in
Part 1 of this guide.
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY, NORTHERN IRELAND ENVIRONMENT AGENCY AND
SCOTTISH ENVIRONMENT PROTECTION AGENCY (2009) Near-surface disposal facilities
on land for solid radioactive wastes: guidance on requirements for authorisation, Environment Agency,
Bristol, Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Belfast and Scottish Environment Protection
Agency, Stirling. Go to: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/business/sectors/99322.aspx
part 1
11.6References
Introduction
representing all uncertainties. It should be noted that long-term predictions of coastal erosion
and flooding can periodically be updated by re-running models based on observed data.
HUTCHINSON, J N, MILLER, D L and TREWIN, N H (2001) “Coast erosion at a nuclear waste
shaft, Dounreay, Scotland”, Journal of Engineering Geology and Hydrogeology, vol 34, Geological
Society of London, pp245–268
WALKDEN, M J A and HALL, J (2005) “A predictive mesoscale model of the erosion and profile
development of soft rock shores”, Coastal Engineering, vol 52, 6, Elsevier BV, UK, pp 535–563
part 2
LLW REPOSITORY LTD (2011) The 2011 Environmental safety case – main report, LLWR/
ESC/R(11)10016, LLW Repository Ltd, Cumbria. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/9jgf5ab
Part 3
Part 4
103
Case study 11.1 Dounreay shaft
Hutchison et al (2001) reports work commissioned by the UK Atomic Energy Authority (UKAEA) that was
undertaken to determine the risk from very long-term (500 to 10 000 years) coastal erosion to a shaft
containing radioactive waste at the Dounreay nuclear power plant in Scotland.
The shaft in question is only 12 m landward of the cliff edge, which is of Caithness flagstone formation – mainly
indurated grey siltstones that are relatively resistant to erosion.
To further explore the potential risk to the shaft from erosion, the physical setting was examined through
geological, geomorphological, hydrogeological and physical process assessments, including assessments of
future climate change and sea level rise.
The rates of erosion were examined from historic maps and specialist attention was paid to the geology
and lithology of the rocks. This identified an interbedded nature of the geological strata, which led to the
development of notches in the weaker beds. A series of intrusive investigations was undertaken and erosion
measurements were made for many years from pins inserted near the cliff top.
Building on this baseline understanding, a two-layer conceptual recession model was developed, one layer
considering the superficial sediments, and the other considering the flagstone bedrock, including the effect of
weaker interbeds. The conceptual models were applied for optimistic, average and pessimistic erosion rates. By
repeating this approach for a series of cliff profiles across the site, the results could be summarised to estimate
the cliff top position in the future.
Results showed that under projected recession scenarios, there would be 160–240 years before the shaft is
breached. In March 1998, the UK Government announced that all wastes will be retrieved from the shaft and
conditioned for interim storage.
Further information: www.dounreay.com/decommissioning/shaft-and-silo
Case study 11.2 Low Level Waste Repository, Cumbria
The Low Level Waste Repository (LLWR) is the UK’s principal facility for the disposal of low-level radioactive
waste. The LLWR is located on the West Cumbrian coastal plain, close to the village of Drigg. At its northwestern corner, the LLWR site is only about 400 m from the high water mark. Rocks between the coast and the
site and beneath the site consist of readily erodible quaternary sediments, so that the site is vulnerable to sea
level rise and coastal erosion (LLW Repository Ltd, 2011).
Recognising the need to understand the potential for coastal erosion or inundation of the site over the
very long-term, the site operators have carried out an extensive programme of coastal studies to inform
an Environmental Safety Case (ESC) submitted to the Environment Agency, as regulators, in support of the
continued disposal of radioactive waste at the LLWR.
This programme has comprised:

studies of past coastal evolution, including coring and laboratory analysis to understand historic rates of
sea level change

development of a conceptual model of coastal system behaviour

collection of data relating to contemporary processes and morphological evolution to continually update
the conceptual model

review of global climate and sea-level change studies and adaptation to the LLWR site

workshops with internationally-recognised experts

reduced-complexity numerical modelling using SCAPE and use of empirical models to project coastal
recession and response to sea-level rise.
Based on qualitative evidence and quantitative modelling studies, it has been concluded that that the site will
be eroded over a time of a few hundred to a few thousand years, with consequent disruption of the repository.
Based on the anticipated timing and nature of coastal erosion, an assessment has been carried out of the
radiological and non-radiological impacts arising from coastal erosion. The results show that estimates of
radiological doses and non-radiological impacts are consistent with regulatory guidance levels.
The ESC is currently being reviewed by the Environment Agency. The outcome of this review will influence any
permitting decision by the Environment Agency.
Further information: www.llwrsite.com/about-us/our-site
104
CIRIA, C718
part 1
12.1Introduction
Introduction
12 Perspective: future sites
or site extensions
This chapter focuses on the outline selection of future sites, both from the point of view of
operators and regulators and from the point of view of land use planning.
Site extensions are those where the landfill operator wishes to expand their landfilling activities
to beyond the currently permitted boundary. Such an extension will also require the full
application process in terms of planning consent and environmental permit.
The influence of targets from EU Directives (eg the Waste Framework Directive 2008, and
the biodegradable municipal waste diversion targets in the Landfill Directive 1999) has had a
significant effect on the amount of waste that can be sent to landfill sites. Also, society as a whole
is producing less waste requiring disposal. Significant improvements have been made within the
waste sector and new infrastructure has been developed by the waste management industry to
ensure that more waste is reused, recycled or recovered rather than disposed. Landfills need a
significant amount of investment to cope with the aftercare requirements.
12.2Operators and regulators
An operator cannot carry out landfilling activities without an environmental permit. An
environmental permit can be applied for in parallel with an application for planning consent,
105
Part 4
There are other more site specific reasons why landfills are not likely to be developed or
expanded within the coastal zone. The Landfill Directive 1999 requires consideration to be taken
of the location close to water bodies, the existence of coastal waters and the likelihood of flooding
or subsidence at the site. These considerations will be subject to formal risk assessment during
both the planning process (via SEA, EIA etc) and the environmental permit application process,
for example in the Environmental Setting and Installation Design (ESID) report.
Part 3
It is not anticipated that there will be many new sites, or sites applying for an extension beyond
a currently permitted boundary. The need for new landfill in the UK is diminishing. This has
been influenced by the overall objective of the Landfill Directive 1999 to prevent or reduce as far
as possible the negative effects of landfilling on the environment as well as any resultant risk to
human health during the whole lifecycle of the landfill, including aftercare and monitoring.
part 2
In the context of this chapter, future sites are those where a new landfill is planned. This will
require an application for planning consent (including associated assessments, such as an EIA),
and an environmental permit (including the required risk assessments dictated by the Landfill
Directive 1999, and other assessments required by the permit application process). Any future
site will also need to ensure WFD compliance and meet the objectives set out for both surface and
ground water bodies in the WFD river basin management plans.
however, the environmental permit will not be granted by the regulator until the planning
consent is in place.
Operators will be required to go through a rigorous application process to obtain an
environmental permit, with operating conditions to ensure legal compliance, for any new site
or extension to an existing site. The regulators (NIEA, SEPA or the Environment Agency as
appropriate) will assess whether a planned site or site extension can be engineered and operated
to ensure that they do not pose a threat of pollution due to flooding or erosion (and other
environmental factors dictated by the Landfill Directive 1999). If this is the case, removal of that
risk may be a condition of the permit, or the permit may not be granted.
The regulator can only grant an environmental permit where:
the location of the landfill is such that the landfill would not pose a serious environmental
risk
the corrective measures proposed indicate that the landfill would not pose a serious
environmental risk.
The operator will be required to prepare an environmental risk assessment to demonstrate to the
regulator that the engineered design and operational procedures are sufficient to provide a high
level of protection for the environment as a whole.
In planning for future sites or site extensions, it is in the interest of both the operator and the
regulator to assess this risk. This requires a tiered approach. A first selection and identification
of issues can be made on the basis of directly available flood and erosion risk information (for
example from SMPs, the Environment Agency and SEPA’s flood mapping information, national
coastal erosion risk mapping and land use planning documents). For particular cases where
the uncertainty, the investment risk or the sensitivity is high, a more detailed site specific risk
assessment study can be considered.
12.3 Local planning authorities
From a land use planning point of view, the recently published National Planning Policy
Framework (CLG, 2012a) emphasises that the role of local planning authorities is only to ensure
that new development is appropriate for its location, taking into account the effects of pollution.
In doing so, the local planning authorities should assume that pollution control regimes will
operate effectively. The responsibility for contamination issues rests with the developer and/or
landowner.
The implementation of the Landfill Directive 1999 in the UK places a specific responsibility on
waste planning authorities (WPA) to consider specific requirements of the Landfill Directive
1999 when considering whether or not to grant planning permission for a landfill. These
requirements are:
the distances from residential and recreational areas
the distance from water sources
geological and hydro-geological conditions
the risk of natural disasters
protection of the site’s heritage.
The regulator and the WPA should discharge their duties in respect of the Landfill Directive
1999 in accordance with government policy on their complementary roles (as originally provided
for in PPS 10 for England and Wales (CLG, 2011), the overarching requirements on local
authorities in the National Planning Policy Framework (CLG, 2012a), and the National Waste
106
CIRIA, C718
Flood risk
Detailed guidance on the application of these principles is provided by the CLG (2012b),
which replaces PPS 25 (CLG, 2009), retaining the majority of its content. Whether a particular
development is appropriate depends on the level of flooding probability (defined in zones) and on
the development’s vulnerability to flooding. The technical guidance defines the flood zones and
provides a flood risk vulnerability classification (CLG, 2012b). Landfill sites are not mentioned
explicitly in this classification, but installations requiring hazardous substances consent are
classed as “highly vulnerable”. This vulnerability classification means:
development in zone 2 (medium probability of flooding, between 1 in 200 and 1 in 1000
chance per year for coastal flooding) requires an exception test
development in zone 3a (high probability of flooding, more than 1 in 200 chance per year)
and 3b (the functional floodplain) should not be permitted.
part 2
development is appropriate in zone 1 (low probability of flooding, less than 1 in 1000 chance
per year)
part 1
For flood risk areas (including coastal flood risk), the principle of land use planning is
that inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing
development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, by making it
safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere. Planning should be based on a sequential, risk-based
approach. These general principles apply to landfill sites similar to any development.
Introduction
Management Plan due to be published in 2013). The WPA is responsible for land use matters and
the Environment Agency for pollution control matters. The regulator will provide advice to the
WPA in relation to both development plans and planning applications, regarding circumstances
where it considers that a landfill should not be developed for pollution control reasons.
The exception test, needed for zone 2 development, involves demonstration that the benefits of
the development outweigh flood risk, and that the development will be safe for its lifetime and
will not increase flood risk elsewhere.
CLG (2012a) states that local planning authorities should reduce risk from coastal change (coastal
erosion and coastal slope instability) by avoiding inappropriate development in vulnerable areas.
They should identify any area likely to be affected by physical changes to the coast as a coastal
change management area. For these areas, the local planning authority should define what
development will be appropriate. The main considerations are whether the development will
be safe over its planned lifetime and does not compromise the character of the coast. There is
no detailed guidance, but SMPs (see Chapter 9) and marine plans are prescribed as part of the
evidence base for planning in coastal change management areas.
CLG (2009) Planning Policy Statement 25: Development and flood risk – practice guide, Communities
and Local Government, London (ISBN: 978-1-40982-055-0)
CLG (2011) Planning Policy Statement 10: Planning for sustainable waste management, Communities
and Local Government, London (ISBN: 978-0-11753-950-1)
CLG (2012a) National Planning Policy Framework. Community and Local Government, London
(ISBN: 978-1-40983-413-7).
Go to: www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/nppf
107
Part 4
12.4References
Part 3
Coastal erosion and instability risk
CLG (2012b) Technical guidance to the National Planning Policy Framework, Community and Local
Government, London (ISBN: ISBN: 978-1-40983-410-6).
Go to: www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/nppftechnicalguidance
Statutes
Council Directive 1999/31/EC of 26 April 1999 on the landfill of waste (the Landfill Directive)
108
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
13 Perspective: rivers
13.1Differences in physical processes
part 2
In broad terms, guidance in Part 1 applies in full to sites at risk of non-coastal flooding and
erosion. However, there are small but significant differences in the physical processes and in the
roles and responsibilities. These may have some effect on the guidance framework described in
Part 1, and add a different angle to the perspectives in Part 2 and the themes in Part 3.
part 1
This guide focuses on the coast and estuaries, but many of the principles and some of the detail
is also applicable to river environments. While not covering the topic in the same level of detail
this brief perspective identifies those parts of the guide that apply to rivers. Also, it describes
the similarities or differences in physical processes, roles and responsibilities, and processes for
managing landfills and areas of land contamination on river fronts.
Fluvial flood risk is different in some ways from coastal and estuarine flood risk, and this can
be significant for the management of landfills and contaminated sites. The most important
differences are:
typically, the likelihood of fluvial flooding is higher but the consequences are lower. This
is largely a function of the practice of flood risk management that tends to produce flood
defences with a higher standard of protection on the coast
Part 3
the source of risk is more dominated by water level only, and waves are usually less relevant.
Due to this, fluvial flooding is more likely to be caused by overtopping only, while coastal
flooding is almost always caused by breach of defences. Breaches do occur in fluvial defences
too, but in general terms fluvial flooding is less likely to be sudden and catastrophic
fluvial flooding is with fresh water instead of salt water.
These differences are broad and general, are strongly site-dependant and will not always have a
significant effect on the management of landfills sites and areas of land contamination.
In addition to the differences in how river flooding and erosion occurs, there is also a difference
in how the water body can transport contamination. Compared to a coastal or estuary situation,
the river flows in one direction and, unless there are “out of bank” flood levels it flows within
109
Part 4
Fluvial erosion risk typically occurs at a more local scale than coastal erosion, certainly in the UK.
Often it is constrained to clearly identifiable locations (eg the outer bend of meandering rivers).
The maximum extent of erosion is limited by geography (eg rivers meandering back and forth in
a valley), so there is usually not a long-term process of erosion in one direction. Of course, there
are exceptional cases of more extensive river bank erosion, and also cases where this can cause
contamination hazards. An example of this occurred in Norman, Oklahoma (USA) in 1986, where
a moderate magnitude flood event eroded riprap protection and exposed landfill contents (Curtis
and Whitney, 2003).
a clearly constrained channel, so any contamination of the water body will remain more
concentrated, but will also be more predictable. However, during flood events that result in “out
of bank” flows, there is potential for damage to property (and potentially human health) because
of contaminants that may be present within the water body. In such circumstances, the problems
are not constrained to the river channel and potentially can be widespread.
13.2Differences in roles and
responsibilities
The organisation of risk management for flooding is not fundamentally different for inland
areas than it is for the coast. The Environment Agency has overall powers relating to flood and
coastal risk management (which includes fluvial flood risk, coastal flood risk and coastal erosion
risk) under the Water Resources Act 1991, Floods and Water Management Act 2010 and Coast
Protection Act 1949. Also, the lead local flood authority (LLFA), the county council or the unitary
authority where these exist, has responsibilities relating to all forms of flooding. The LLFA has
particular powers relating to flood risk from smaller rivers and watercourses (not designated
as main rivers) and in these cases the LLFA has flood risk management powers instead of the
Environment Agency. Also, there are important roles for other organisations such as internal
drainage boards and water authorities. The local Environment Agency area flood risk managers
are the main contacts in England and Wales. Along with the LLFA, they will have a good
knowledge of all local flood issues.
There are no separate formalised roles and responsibilities with regard to fluvial erosion, unlike
the Coast Protection Act 1949 for coastal erosion. Due to this, responsibilities generally revert to
the riparian owner.
For land use planning, the arrangements for development control in flood risk areas are the same
for river flooding as for coastal and estuary flooding. There is no rivers equivalent for the coastal
change management areas prescribed by the CLG (2012a) (see Chapter 12).
13.3Differences in the process
for managing landfills and
contaminated land
This section assesses to what extent the physical and organisational differences between rivers
and coasts affect the process for managing landfills and contaminated land set out in Part 1 of the
guide.
Chapter 2 of this guide provides background context. This is largely applicable for inland areas
as well. The route map for identifying roles and responsibilities in Figure 2.1 is broadly applicable
apart from the fact that there is no distinction between erosion and flooding.
Chapter 3 gives guidance for identifying sites. The data sources for finding known sites are not
specific to coastal areas. There are no equivalent datasets for identifying areas of river erosion
risk, but as described, these are typically more constrained and predictable and generally less of
a long-term issue than on the coast. The flood risk maps in England and Wales cover both coastal
and fluvial flood risk areas. Where for coastal areas the SMPs have identified areas at risk, the
Catchment Flood Management Plans (CFMPs) have done so for river areas.
It should be noted that in many cases, inland flooding can be the consequence of solely rainfall
events and excess surface water (which are not covered in this guide), or a combination of these
and fluvial events.
110
CIRIA, C718
For Chapter 5 the conceptual site model, using the source–pathway–receptor approach, is equally
applicable for inland situations. The source characterisation is also the same. The four pathway
scenarios (undefended, defended, pollution from defence structure, and material constraining
management options) also apply to rivers, although the nature and extent will be different and
the behaviour of rivers as transporters of contamination is different.
Chapter 6 is equally applicable for inland situations. Broadly, due to the fact that long-term
ongoing erosion is less likely along rivers, Option 3 (break the pathway) through structural
protection is more applicable in a coastal situation.
Introduction
Chapter 4 is equally applicable for inland situations.
part 1
Chapters 7 and 8 are equally applicable for inland situations.
13.4References
CURTIS, J A and WHITNEY, J W (2003) “Geomorphic and hydrologic assessment of erosion
hazards at the Norman municipal landfill, Canadian River floodplain, Central Oklahoma”,
Environmental and Engineering Geoscience, vol 9, 3, USGS Publications, US, pp 241–252
part 2
CLG (2012a) National Planning Policy Framework, Community and Local Government, London
(ISBN: 978-1-40983-413-7).
Statutes
Acts
Floods and Water Management Act 2010 (c.29)
Water Resources Act 1991 (c.57)
Part 3
Part 4
111
112
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
part 1
Part 3
Themes
part 2
Part 3
Part 4
113
14 Theme: legislative and
regulatory context
14.1 Background
Many legislative and regulatory arrangements need to be considered when looking at landfills
and areas of land contamination located on eroding or low-lying coastlines due to:
the unique setting of the sites at the interface between land and sea
the potentially hazardous nature of the material(s) with the potential to be released into the
wider environment.
The route map overview presented in Chapter 2 helps identify the legal responsibilities and
regulatory roles involved in developing a solution.
This chapter provides more detailed information relating to the principal aspects of existing
legislation and regulatory approaches in relation to:
landfill sites and areas of contaminated land
pollution prevention and control
coastal erosion and flood risk management.
14.2 Landfill sites and areas of
contaminated land
The overarching framework for waste management and the definition of waste that is used across
the EU is provided by the revised Waste Framework Directive (rWFD) 2008. Specific principles
that are applied to the deposit of wastes in landfills, and the aftercare and monitoring of landfills
when they cease to accept waste (ie are “closed”) are provided in the Landfill Directive 1999.
“Waste” is defined as any substance or object that has been discarded, or that a holder intends or
is required to discard.
In the UK, the main principles of environmental protection were adopted via the Environmental
Protection Act 1990 (England, Wales and Scotland) and Waste and Contaminated Land
Order 1997 (Northern Ireland), which (along with statutory guidance) includes the statutory
contaminated land regime. It is important to clarify that issues of contaminated land are covered
by a separate regulatory regime (known as Part IIA in England, Wales and Scotland, or Part III
in Northern Ireland) to waste legislation and the principles of the rWFD. The environmental
controls associated with the management of waste are applied through a variety of regulations
across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland in accordance with these principles.
Although different regulations for the waste regime and the contaminated land regime exist
across the UK’s devolved administrations the principles of the rWFD and Landfill Directive still
applies to waste activities and landfill.
114
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
The focus of this section is on the following type of site:
operational landfills
closed landfills
historic and surrendered landfills
contaminated land.
Operational landfills
part 1
An environmental permit controls the way a waste activity is operated to protect the environment
and human health. Operators of landfills are required to have an environmental permit in place
to authorise the landfilling activity. This is required by Environmental Permitting (England
and Wales) Regulations 2010, Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (as
amended), and the Pollution Prevention and Control (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2003.
Each environmental permit sets out a series of operating conditions, which are in place to ensure
that the site complies with its legislative requirements. These conditions require that pollution
from the permitted area of the landfill is prevented. In the context of this guidance, for an
operational landfill, there are two issues to consider:
2
Medium to long-term threat of pollution due to perceived risk associated with coastal
erosion or sea flooding, ie where there is not an immediate risk, but there may be a longterm risk in the future, especially when sea level rise is taken into consideration: For
medium- to long-term risks, these are likely to be achieved as part of an improvement
condition or other imposed variation to the environmental permit.
Part 3
Imminent or actual pollution from the permitted area because of coastal erosion or sea
flooding: this would be an offence and the operator will be required to put measures in
place on site to prevent this from happening. The operator of the site is responsible for
maintaining these preventative procedures. The regulator (Environment Agency, SEPA or
the NIEA as appropriate) is required to conduct periodic inspections of permitted facilities
such as landfills. These will provide opportunity for the regulator to raise concern of an
imminent risk of pollution, if the operator has not already identified that there is a potential
problem. Because of such a visit, the regulator will decide whether to take enforcement
action or require the operator to carry out remedial measures. The regulator may arrange
for steps to be taken to remedy the risk of serious pollution, or the effects of pollution if the
regulator suspects that an offence is being or has been committed and that pollution is being
or has been caused. If the regulator arranges for steps to be taken under this regulation, it
may recover the cost of taking those steps from the operator.
part 2
1
Closed landfills
The legal test for surrender is “that the necessary measures have been taken (a) to avoid a
pollution risk resulting from the operation of the regulated facility, and (b) to return the site of
the regulated facility to a satisfactory state, having regard to the state of the site before the facility
was put into operation” (Environment Agency, 2010).
115
Part 4
The landfill closure process is defined by the Landfill Directive. If a landfill is going through
formal closure procedures the operator will be responsible for any release of waste, until the
permit is formally surrendered (and the regulator has accepted this). When this is the case, the
landowner could be responsible for any pollution from the land that they own. If the land is
classed as contaminated land under Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act or Part III
of Waste and Contaminated Land Order in Northern Ireland an assessment of the appropriate
person to take responsibility for the remediation has to be made. Chapter 2 contains further
information on roles and responsibilities.
Closed landfills fall into one of two general categories:
1
Sites that are permitted and have closed.
2
Sites that are closed but no longer have, or never had, a permit (these will be fully
surrendered or historic landfills).
The regulator does not have regulatory control over closed historic sites as their permits have
been surrendered or are otherwise no longer valid. Surrender is the formal route for disposing
of an operator’s obligations under a permit according to the Landfill Directive 1999. However,
before 1994, there was no surrender requirement and when the landfill was complete the
operator passed the license back to the regulator. Sites that closed after 16 July 2001 are subject to
the requirements of the LFD and will close in accordance with a closure plan. Once the regulator
accepts surrender of a landfill permit, they no longer have regulatory control over it, from a waste
management perspective, but if the site has classed as contaminated land under Part IIA of the
EPA the regulator will have powers under the contaminated land regime.
However, it has yet to be determined how the regulator would accommodate future risk of coastal
erosion or risks associated with tidal flooding in their surrender requirements. It is likely that
where it is known that there will be such a risk to a site going through closure, mitigation against
these risks will be required.
Historic and surrendered landfills
Many historic landfill sites pre-date environmental regulation and now represent a legacy issue.
For these sites, and for landfill sites that have gone through formal closure with the permit
being formally surrendered, the landowner or occupier may be responsible for dealing with the
consequences of pollution from the site if subjected to coastal erosion or sea flooding. If the land
is formally determined as contaminated land under Part IIA/Part III an identification of liable
persons will be made by the enforcing authority, this will identify who is liable to bear responsibility,
the main provisions for the establishment of liability are set out in Part IIA of the Environment
Protection Act 1990 and Part III of the Waste and Contaminated Land Order (Northern Ireland)
1997. For further information on roles and responsibilities, see Chapter 2.
Contaminated land
There are many other sites of historic industrial use located on, or near, eroding and low-lying
coastlines around the UK, in addition to historic and permitted landfill sites. These include areas
that have formerly been used for disposal of colliery spoil, ships ballast, furnace slag, construction
rubble – often containing asbestos and, in rarer instances, radioactive wastes.
Waste material has been used in historic land reclamation activities in many locations, especially
around port and harbour areas within estuaries. These reclaimed areas are often now defended
by quay walls or flood embankments or similar structures. In some cases, these structures also
contain waste material in their core. This means that if these structures start to fail, due to lack
of maintenance or storm damage, then they may start releasing pollutants and/or contaminants,
either from their core or from the backing land that becomes re-exposed to processes of coastal
erosion or sea flooding.
Areas of historic land “contamination” can potentially contain material that could cause issues of
concern to both public health and safety and the natural environment if released from a site by
processes of coastal erosion or sea flooding.
Such contaminated land is regulated under several regimes. The principal Acts operating
within the UK are Part IIA of the Environment Protection Act 1990 (England, Scotland and
Wales) (referred to in this guidance as Part IIA) and Part III of the Waste and Contaminated
116
CIRIA, C718
Further references
DEFRA (2012) Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance 2012 (covering England only),
Go to: www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2012/04/10/pb13735contaminated-land/
part 1
DOE NI (2006) Contaminated land. Implementation of Part III of the Waste and
Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) Order 1997. A Consultation Paper on Proposals
for the Contaminated Land Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2006 and Statutory Guidance
5th July, Department of the Environment Northern Ireland, Belfast.
Go to: www.doeni.gov.uk/cl-consultation_1_.pdf
Introduction
Land Order 1997 in Northern Ireland, which is enacted but not yet in force (referred to in this
guidance as Part III). These statutes are applied through contaminated land statutory guidance
in England (Defra, 2012), Wales (National Assembly for Wales, 2012) and Scotland (Scottish
Executive, 2006) and there is a consultation paper on proposals for statutory guidance in
Northern Ireland (DOE NI, 2006).
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2010) Environmental Permitting Regulations (England and
Wales) 2010), Showing that land and groundwater are protected, version 2.0, Regulatory
Guidance Note RGN 9, Environment Agency, Bristol. Go to: www.environment-agency.
gov.uk/static/documents/Business/RGN_9_Surrender_%28v2.0%29_30_
March_2010.pdf
NATIONAL ASSEMBLY FOR WALES (2012) Radioactive Contaminated Land Statutory
Guidance – draft 2012 version, National Assembly for Wales, Cardiff
part 2
SCOTTISH EXECUTIVE (2006) Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part IIA Contaminated
Land Statutory Guidance: Edition 2, Paper SE/2006/44, Scottish Executive, Edinburgh
(ISBN: 0-7559-6097-1).
Go to: www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/127825/0030600.pdf
Statutes
Environmental Protection Act 1990 (c.43)
The Contaminated Land (Scotland) Regulations 2005 (No 658)
Waste and Contaminated Land Order 1997 (SI 1997/2778)
Directive 2008/98/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 November
2008 on Waste and Repealing Certain Directives (Waste Framework Directive)
Part 3
The main aims of Part IIA/Part III are to deal with the legacy of historically contaminated land,
to ensure where possible those who pollute the land pay for its remediation so that it is “suitable
for its current use”. The regimes aim to provide a system for the identification and remediation
of land where contamination is causing or has the potential to cause unacceptable risks to human
health and/or the wider environment.
The primary regulatory role rests with the enforcing authorities (in most cases the local
authorities/district councils). The regulations place a duty on every enforcing authority to:
inspect their area periodically and undertake risk assessments to identify (potentially)
contaminated land
maintain a register that contains details of remediation notices served by them under Part
IIA/Part III.
It should be noted that contaminated land statutory guidance does not apply to radioactive
contamination of land. Radioactively contaminated land is covered by the respective radioactive
contaminated land regulations in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Also, the
Department for Energy and Climate Change (DECC) and the Welsh Government have recently
issued statutory guidance for radioactively contaminated land under Part IIA of the EPA 1990.
Within the UK it is the responsibility of the polluter to remediate any radiological contamination
caused by or due to the nuclear industry.
117
Part 4
identify the appropriate party who will be responsible for remediation of the contamination,
if contaminated land is identified
Further references
DEFRA (2012) Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A Contaminated Land
Statutory Guidance, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.
Go to: www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13735cont-land-guidance.pdf
The Radioactive Contaminated Land (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2010
The Radioactive Contaminated Land (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations 2010
The Radioactive Contaminated Land (Enabling Powers and Modification of Enactments)
(England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010
14.3Pollution prevention and control
Water quality
The aquatic environment is protected through the regulation of water quality. The primary
relevant pieces of legislation within the UK are the Water Resources Act 1991, Water Framework
Directive (WFD), the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011, and
the Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999.
If a person causes or knowingly permits a pollutant to enter controlled waters, or has caused, is
causing or is likely to cause significant adverse effects on the water environment or any part of it
(coastal waters, inland fresh waters and groundwaters) the relevant body (Environment Agency,
single environmental body Wales, SEPA, Northern Ireland Environment Agency) has the power
to serve a works notice/enforcement notice to ensure the responsible person/operator complies
with the regulations and remediates or prevents significant effect on the water environment, and
when reasonably practicable, restores the aquatic environment and any fauna and flora that are
dependent on it.
Air quality
Air quality is unlikely to be a factor in requiring remedial work but will influence the way any
remedial measures are executed.
Consideration of air quality regulations is likely to be required during the construction phase of
a scheme. Effects on air quality could arise because of off-road and on-road vehicular movements
and release of fugitive emissions, in addition to dust generated from movements of potentially
contaminated materials during earthworks. Particular attention is likely to be required if
asbestos is present on-site including implementation of monitoring plans and asbestos mitigation
measures to prevent risks to human health. Guidance regarding working with asbestos and risks
to construction workers can be found within Table 5.1. If the site is an operational landfill, air
quality controls will be a fundamental part of the environmental permit.
The UK Air Quality Strategy, which was originally published in 1997, has been reviewed and
updated to take account of the evolving EU legislation, technical and policy developments and the
latest information on health effects of air pollution. The strategy was revised and reissued in 2000
as the AQS for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and later amended in 2003. The
latest version was updated in 2007 (Defra, 2007a and b).
The standards and objectives relevant to the Local Air Quality Management (LAQM) framework
have been prescribed through the Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000, Air Quality (England)
(Amendment) Regulations 2002, Air Quality Standards (Scotland) Regulations 2010, Air Quality
Standards Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010, and Air Quality Standards (Wales) Regulations
2010. The AQS Regulations 2010 set out the combined daughter directive limit values and
interim targets for Member State compliance. Pollutant standards relate to ambient pollutant
concentrations in air, set based on medical and scientific evidence of how each pollutant affects
118
CIRIA, C718
Where an air quality objective is unlikely to be met by the relevant deadline, local authorities
should designate an Air Quality Management Area (AQMA). Following the designation of an
AQMA, local authorities are required to develop an air quality action plan (AQAP) to work
towards meeting the objectives and to improve air quality locally.
Possible exceedences of air quality objectives are usually assessed in relation to those locations
where members of the public are likely to be regularly present and are likely to be exposed for a
period of time appropriate to the averaging period of the objective.
Considerations with regard to noise in the context of this guidance are likely to be predominantly
required during the construction phase of a scheme. This is to ensure activities that can present
risks to noise sensitive receptors (ie humans or ecological receptors) are reduced and mitigated as
much as possible.
BS 5228:2009 provides guidance and advice relating recommendations for basic methods of
noise (Part 1) and vibration (Part 2) control relating to construction and open sites, methods for
assessing the effect of noise during different times of day, including noise limits, and calculation
methods for predicting the level of noise affecting noise sensitive premises.
part 2
The primary pieces of legislation within the UK relating to noise are the Control of Pollution Act
(COPA) 1974 and the Environmental Protection Act, 1990. Also, several British Standards (BS)
and Planning Policy Guidance (PPG) documents are of relevance, including BS 5228-1:2009 and
BS5228-2:2009, and PPG24 (CLG, 1994).
part 1
Noise
Introduction
human health. However, pollutant objectives incorporate target dates and averaging periods that
take into account economic considerations, practicability and technical feasibility.
Odour
Odours are currently controlled in the UK under the following regulations:
Part 3
Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990
Town and County Planning Act 1990
Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010
The Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994, The Waste Management Licensing
(Scotland) Regulations 2011, The Waste Management Licensing Regulations (Northern
Ireland) 2003 and Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000.
Where the site is an operational landfill, odour control will be a fundamental part of the
environmental permit. The site will be required to have an Odour Management Plan (OMP).
Closed landfill sites are unlikely to require an OMP. An OMP would have to be revised in the
context of any site activity required to mitigate against coastal erosion or tidal flooding, to specify
how odours will be prevented or managed.
119
Part 4
Under the EPA 1990, local authorities within England, Scotland and Wales have duties to inspect
areas regularly to determine whether odour nuisance exists or is likely to re-occur (the Public
Health (Ireland) Act 1878). Such inspections could be the result of complaints from members of
the public or local authority observations. The local authority has a duty to issue an abatement
notice when an odour nuisance exists, which requires the owner/operator to remove the nuisance
in a specified time period.
Environmental liability
Directive 2004/35/CE of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 on
environmental liability with regard to the prevention and remedying of environmental damage
establishes a common framework for liability with a view to preventing and remedying damage
to animals, plants, natural habitats and water resources, and damage affecting the land by
operators. The liability scheme applies to certain specified occupational activities and to other
activities in cases where the operator is at fault or negligent. The public authorities are also
responsible for ensuring that the operators responsible take or finance the necessary preventive
or remedial measures themselves.
14.4Coastal erosion and flood risk
management
Coastal erosion risk management involves managing risks to coastal areas from erosion by the sea,
which may take the form of coastal protection works. Flood risk management (in coastal areas)
involves managing risks from flooding by the sea, which may take the form of sea defence works.
For England and Wales, coastal erosion risk management is regulated primarily by the Coast
Protection Act 1949, as amended by the Flood and Water Management Act 2010. Coastal flood
risk management is primarily regulated by the Water Resources Act 1991 and the Flood and
Water Management Act 2010.
The Coast Protection Act 1949 is also valid for Scotland, but without the amendments by the
Flood and Water Management Act 2010 because its relevant parts only apply to England and
Wales. Coastal flood risk management is regulated by the Flood Risk Management Act (Scotland)
2009.
For Northern Ireland, there is no legislation to regulate coastal flood or erosion risk management.
The Drainage (Northern Ireland) Order 1973 does play a role, allowing designation of sea defences
“for the purpose of protection against flooding by the sea”, which gives the Rivers Agency powers
to construct and maintain specific structures at public expense. However, there are only 26 km
of designated sea defences along the 650 km coastline. Responsibilities and funding for coastal
erosion protection are based on an informal arrangement that each government department takes
responsibility for by providing erosion protection for their assets.
A long standing principle of UK law is that Governments have no legal duty or requirement to
provide protection from flood or coastal erosion, or to any given standard of protection. Flood
and coastal erosion risk management is carried out under permissive powers, which enable but
do not require activities to be carried out. Equally, individuals have the right to protect their
own property, subject to compliance with all relevant legislation, against coastal erosion or sea
flooding. Individuals do not have to exercise their rights, but they do have a duty of care to their
neighbours to take reasonable steps to remove or reduce hazards if they know of the hazard and if
they know of the consequence of not removing or reducing it.
Following widespread deterioration of coastal defences during World War II, it was recognised
that private owners lacked the resources to carry out works. The Coast Protection Act 1949 was
implemented to provide the coast protection authorities (mostly maritime local authorities) with
permissive powers to carry out works (within or outside their areas) for the protection of any land
against erosion or encroachment by the sea.
Coast protection authorities in England, Wales and Scotland now have two functions:
1
120
Promoting their own schemes under the Coast Protection Act 1949.
CIRIA, C718
Regulating protection works by landowners or bodies with statutory powers (such as
harbour authorities, highway authorities, Railtrack).
The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 introduced changes to the Coast Protection Act
1949 to convey the same powers to carry out works to the Environment Agency. The coast
protection authorities and the Environment Agency are jointly referred to as coastal erosion risk
management authorities. In Scotland, SEPA does not have this role.
14.5References
part 1
The Flood and Water Management Act 2010 also conveys powers to carry out works to manage
flood risk from the sea to the Environment Agency (for England and Wales). It updates previous
powers in the Water Resources Act 1991 and Land Drainage Act 1991. These works can consist of
constructing, repairing, improving, operating and maintaining works, under the condition that
they are desirable having regard to national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy.
Introduction
2
CLG (1994) Planning Policy Guidance 24: Planning and noise, Communities and Local
Government, London (ISBN: 978-0-11752-924-3).
Go to: www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/planningandbuilding/ppg24
DEFRA (2007b) The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Volume 2), Cm
7169 NIA 61/0607, The Stationery Office, Norwich (ISBN: 978-0-10171-692-5). Go to: http://archive.
defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/air/airquality/strategy/documents/air-qualitystrategy-vol2.pdf
part 2
DEFRA (2007a) The Air Quality Strategy for England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland (Volume 1), Cm
7169 NIA 61/0607, The Stationery Office, Norwich (ISBN: 978-0-10171-692-5). Go to: http://archive.
defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/air/airquality/strategy/documents/air-qualitystrategy-vol1.pdf
Statutes
British Standards
BS 5228-1:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. Noise
BS 5228-2:2009 Code of practice for noise and vibration control on construction and open sites. Vibration
Part 3
Acts
Control of Pollution Act (COPA) 1974 (c.74)
Environment Act 1995 (c.25)
Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (c.29)
Flood Risk Management (Scotland) Act 2009 (asp 6)
Town and County Planning Act (c.28)
Part 4
The Public Health (Ireland) Act 1878
Orders
Drainage (Northern Ireland) Order 1973(No. 69) (N.I. 1)
The Water (Northern Ireland) Order 1999 (No. 662) (N.I. 6)
Regulations
The Air Quality (England) Regulations 2000 (No. 928)
121
The Air Quality (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2002 (No. 3043)
The Air Quality Standards (Scotland) Regulations 2010 (No. 204)
The Air Quality Standards Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2010 (No. 188)
The Air Quality Standards (Wales) Regulations 2010 (No. 1433) (W. 126)
The Air Quality Standards Regulations 2010 (No. 1001)
The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010
The Radioactive Contaminated Land Regulations (Northern Ireland) (Amendment) Regulations
2010 (No. 2145)
The Radioactive Contaminated Land (Enabling Powers and Modification of Enactments)
(England) (Amendment) Regulations 2010(No. 2147)
The Radioactive Contaminated Land (Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations 2010 (No. 2153)
The Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (No. 1056)
The Waste Management Licensing (Amendment etc.) Regulations 1995 (No. 288)
The Waste Management Licensing (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2003 (No. 493)
The Waste Management Licensing Amendment (Scotland) Regulations 2006 (No. 541)
The Waste Management (England and Wales) Regulations 2006 (SI 937)
The Waste Management Licensing (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (No. 228)
European Directives
Websites
122
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
15Theme: funding
part 1
15.1 Background
Funding is one of the most significant non-technical challenges faced when managing the risks
associated with the sites considered within this guidance. This relates to the resources needed
to identify, characterise and appraise the problem, and to deliver and evaluate performance of a
solution.
Potential funding opportunities will depend on several important factors, including time, is the
problem potentially catastrophic, but unlikely to occur in the short-term or has the problem
already occurred and requires immediate restorative action.
part 2
The principal parties with responsibilities for undertaking these tasks are landfill operators,
landowners, enforcing authorities, and coast protection or flood risk management authorities (see
Chapter 2).
This chapter identifies and discusses a range of possible funding mechanisms that could
potentially be applied to a particular site. As outlined in Section 15.2 there are many potential
funding partners, and research and innovation will be vital elements in unlocking this funding.
Also, it should be noted that the funding source may have a strong influence that party leads the
project on and how it is then managed.
Part 3
15.2 Legal responsibilities for funding
remediation
If an operator of a permitted landfill site is identified as being responsible for the release of
pollution by processes of coastal erosion or sea flooding, then they may be liable for all costs
of remediation according to the terms of their environmental permit (see Chapter 2 on legal
responsibilities).
Under this approach the polluter or landowner then has the opportunity to voluntarily
undertake works to sever, or put in measures to manage, the pollutant linkages that are
123
Part 4
If an appointed person or landowner of a site formally determined as contaminated land under
Part IIA/Part III is identified as being responsible for the release of pollution by processes of
coastal erosion or sea flooding, then they would have the financial liability for managing this
risk under the “polluter pays” principle. The statutory guidance for Part IIA requires the local
authority to inform owners, occupiers and those potentially liable for remediation of its intention
to determine a site as contaminated land. See Chapter 2 for further legal information on this
regime. However, it is anticipated that budgeting for costs required for carrying out monitoring/
inspection and maintenance to prevent environmental consequences associated with historic
waste or industrial activities will be important to reduce the need for remediation in the future.
presenting unacceptable risks to people, the environment or property. Under Part IIA/Part III, a
remediation notice can be served to the appropriate party by an enforcing authority if they refuse
to remediate the land voluntarily. If this occurs, the party that the notice is served on is legally
required to carry out the remediation. If they do not, the enforcing authority can carry out the
remediation (if it has or can obtain funding in advance of the works), with reasonable costs then
being recovered from the appropriate/responsible party or a charge can be put on the land. The
enforcing authority has no power to recover costs incurred in determining whether the land is
contaminated or not.
However, there are many situations where a public body is responsible for the management of
a site. These include situations where third party operator/landowners cannot be traced (see
Chapter 2 for further information on orphan linkages) or where the public body is the operator
or landowner.
15.3Alternative mechanisms for funding
Funding opportunities and mechanisms can be split into several streams, including statutory
funding, lottery funding, charitable trusts, voluntary and community organisations, and private
funding.
To secure funding, it is necessary for applicants to demonstrate that a project meets the (often
strict) criteria set by the fund holder. Many funding mechanisms set out a range of criteria that
a project applicant would have to demonstrate. These are usually related to social issues, such as
art, sport, heritage, education and health. Also, some funding mechanisms will require the fund
to be used within one year of the date awarded or within a specified time. So it will be critical for
the applicant to demonstrate effective budget planning taking into account lead in times geared
towards the scheme to secure funding.
The current approach to central government funding in England for flood and coastal risk
management, means that rather than a few schemes being 100 per cent funded, more schemes
will receive a proportion of government funds. The policy allows flood and coastal erosion risk
management (FCERM) projects to apply for Flood Defence grant in aid (FDGiA), and encourages
funding from other sources to be secured to make up the shortfall. The proportion of central
funding that a project receives will depend on the benefits it will bring. The FDGiA program is
discussed later in this chapter (see section on England).
Partnership funding means that in the future local communicates, business, investors and local
authorities can play a greater role in advancing projects and schemes. Benefits include the
protection of households, commercial properties, public buildings, infrastructure and agricultural
land, lessening the pressures on central government budgets. Partnership funding is likely to
be critical issue with respect to the long-term funding of sites, where shoreline management is
critical to prevent future environmental impacts.
Public or government funding
This is money that comes from the taxpayer through a variety of routes, such as government
departments, government agencies, regional offices, local authorities, district councils and
European funding. Some central government departments and government agencies have
structured funding mechanisms relevant to Part IIA and flood and coastal erosion risk
management projects. Structured funding mechanisms have been designed to fit the policy
objectives and programme outcomes of the particular department. Changes and developments
to government structures and policies mean that priorities, criteria and names of government
departments can change over time. This means that current funding mechanisms can be affected
or removed or new funding mechanisms can become available.
124
CIRIA, C718
Relevant government departments and agencies include Defra, Environment Agency, Natural
Resource Body Wales, NIEA, SEPA and Natural England, SNH, and Department of Agriculture
and Rural Development Northern Ireland.
In England, the Environment Agency administers Defra-funded programmes including the
Contaminated Land Capital Programme to aid local authorities cover the capital costs of
implementing the contaminated land regime under Part IIA. The program funds two types of work:
part 1
England
Introduction
Most local authorities/district councils may be required to, or could potentially fund, investigation
and remediation projects. However, each authority/council will manage budgets, administration
and support differently, according to local priorities and resources. Historically, specific
departments within local authorities/district council have their own structured or unstructured
funding mechanism (usually a small grants making scheme) to allocate funds to various projects.
Each local authority/district council will have its own specific criteria, application procedure and
timescale.
intrusive site investigations, aiming to determine whether or not the land is contaminated
and to inform the remediation strategy
site remediation, aiming to ensure the contamination at a site will no longer pose a
significant risk to people or the environment.
part 2
Uncertainty: funding availability
The budget for the 2011–2012 Contaminated Land
Capital Projects Grant Programme was £4.35m, and the
Environment Agency received 96 bids to the value of £10m.
Because of the heavy demand, the Environment Agency
prioritised and supported 47 projects that posed the
greatest risk and offered best value for money (comprising
17 inspection projects and 30 remediation projects).
Part 3
In 2011 the Secretary of State for the Environment introduced an approach to funding projects
and schemes in England that aims to reduce flooding and coastal erosion risks (flood and coastal
resilience partnership funding). This funding mechanism allows Flood and Coastal Erosion
Risk Management (FCERM) projects to apply for Flood Defence grant in aid (FDGiA). This
programme is funded by Defra and administered through the Environment Agency to enable
operating authorities (coast protection authorities, internal drainage boards and the Environment
Agency) to undertake coastal protection and sea defence works that are proven to be “technically
sound, environmentally acceptable and economically justifiable and cost-effective”.
A main component of the present FCERM mechanism is that financial contributions are now
encouraged in many situations from potential beneficiaries of schemes to support the FDGiA.
125
Part 4
Defra has also created the Catchment Restoration Fund to improve the landscape that water flows
through. This fund aims to support projects that restore natural features in and around waters,
reduce the effect of man-made structures on ecology and reduce the effect of small, spreadout (diffuse) sources of pollution that arise from rural and urban land use. The Environment
Agency will administer this fund. It should be noted that the lead applicant for funding should
be a charity or an organisation with charitable, benevolent or philanthropic purposes under
the Charities Act 2006. Organisations that do not meet this criteria, such as local authorities or
private sector companies, can still be involved in delivering a project, but only as partners. This
fund may be applicable in scenarios where the site in question comprises land reclaimed from the
sea and/or heavily modified water bodies.
Scotland
In Scotland, SEPA administers a Scottish Government fund to promote the restoration of the
water environment to achieve river basin management planning objectives. The exact amount in
the fund per financial year will be determined on an annual basis and is likely to be subject to
change. The Scottish Government intends this fund to support delivery of projects/schemes where
the use of regulatory powers is not appropriate.
Another primary source of funding for environmental enhancement work in rural Scotland is the
Scottish Rural Development Programme (SRDP). This is a competitive funding mechanism that
is available for a wide range of development activities/schemes. Even if the project/scheme does
not achieve the relevant criteria for funding under the SRDP, opportunities may still be available.
In particular, the restoration fund will look to address catchment-scale impacts that would be
difficult to address via a competitive scheme such as SRDP.
Wales
In Wales, the Welsh Government is responsible for allocating funding to the Natural Resource
Body Wales and other risk management authorities (including local authorities). These
organisations are then responsible for making grant in aid available to support local authority
flood and coastal risk capital schemes and projects.
Also, funding mechanisms are in place accessed via the Welsh European Funding Office that
manages the delivery of the European Union Structural Funds programme in Wales.
At present there is funding allocation for the Contaminated Land Capital Fund in Wales, however
this may be subject to change.
Northern Ireland
Funding mechanisms in Northern Ireland administered by the NIEA, include the Natural
Heritage Grant Programme. This grant aims to support projects with the aims of conserving the
diversity of wildlife, geology and landforms, maintaining and improving the landscape quality of
the country and support sustainable management. Also, it provides and promotes opportunities
for sustainable access and countryside recreation. Funding can be provided for projects to be
carried out by councils, schools and voluntary organisations.
European
The European Union (EU) provides a large amount of money for social and economic
development in member states. However, the majority of funding goes to poorer regions
(distributed on need to member states, on application), in the form of structural funds. Some
funds, through structured funding mechanisms, will be granted directly to the project, whereas
other funds might be won by a government department or government agency that may then be
open to applications from relevant projects. EU funds are available only as structured funding
mechanisms (not unstructured mechanisms), and will usually require match funding and are
competitive.
EU structured funding mechanisms that may be relevant to remediation projects on land affected
by landfills or areas of land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines include EU LIFE+
Fund (including nature and biodiversity funding stream and environment policy and governance
funding stream).
126
CIRIA, C718
The National Lottery is a major source of funding for charitable trusts and community
organisations. The lottery prefers to fund projects initiated and managed by trusts and
community groups, although local authorities and government agencies can secure lottery
funding as a partner of a wider delivery group.
Generally, the main advantage of lottery funding is that it can provide relatively large amounts
of money, although most of their funds require match funding. Applications are appraised and
funding is distributed through independent lottery distribution bodies (intermediary funders).
Only structured funding mechanisms are available through the lottery distribution bodies.
Trusts are independent organisations working for a public benefit. Two broad categories of trust
have been identified:
1
Trusts that raise funds and deliver projects.
2
Trusts that award funds but do not directly deliver projects.
part 1
Charitable trusts
Introduction
Lottery funding
Voluntary and community organisations
Companies may donate materials, equipment or services to help with a particular piece of work
or may give money either in the form of donations or sponsorship. Developments in government
policies, taxation, business sector practices and improved reputation are increasing the way
companies give and the amount they are likely to give.
127
Part 4
Examples of private sector structured funding mechanisms include the landfill tax and the
Landfill Communities Fund (LCF). Operators of landfill sites pay tax on each tonne of landfilled
material. A proportion of this tax is used to support a range of environmental projects located
near to landfill sites, managed by the LCF.
Part 3
Private sector
part 2
Voluntary, community and “friends” organisations play a similar role to charitable trusts, but
are more local in scale and have a narrower scope. Often, community organisations have been
created by a community action group or fundraising group to support a specific local cause or
undertake a specific project, and usually formed on a volunteer basis. Voluntary, community
and friends groups tend to rely on funds from donations, fundraising events, and from statutory
(local authority) funding, rather than have a dedicated team securing a steady income from
membership. Often they have no legal status to hold and manage large sums of money, and have
limited experience in completing funding application forms. Also, they are relatively unknown
among the large funding bodies. Such groups have limited means and will help to deliver
projects through partnership working, providing “work in kind”, and assisting with technical or
planning input.
15.4 Further references
DEFRA (2012) Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part IIA Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance,
The Stationery Office, London. Go to: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/quality/land/
Statutes
Acts
Charities Act 2006 (C.50)
Websites
Contaminated Land Capital Projects Programme:
Contaminated Land Capital Fund (Wales):
http://wales.gov.uk/topics/environmentcountryside/epq/contaminatedland/capitalfund/?lang=en
Catchment Restoration Fund: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/136182.aspx
Flood and coastal risk management investment and funding:
European Union Structural Funds:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/infrastructures/index_en.cfm?pg=structural_funds
Flood and Coastal Resilience Partnership Funding:
www.defra.gov.uk/environment/flooding/funding-outcomes-insurance/funding/
The Landfill Tax and the Landfill Communities Fund: www.entrust.org.uk/home/lcf
Life Programme: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/lifeplus.htm
Natural Heritage Grant Programme:
www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/places_to_visit_home/natural_heritage_grants_programme.htm
Northern Ireland Environment Agency Funding: www.doeni.gov.uk/niea/funding.htm
SEPA (detailed funding information):
www.sepa.org.uk/water/restoration_fund/detailed_funding_information.aspx
128
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
part 1
16 Theme: approval
mechanisms
16.1 Background
When undertaking intrusive investigations or delivering remedial solutions at a landfill site or
area of land contamination on an eroding or low-lying coastline, it is important to ensure that all
of the appropriate permissions and consents are in place for each stage of the process. This will
ensure that the activities are legally compliant.
Due to the specific physical and environmental settings of sites that are covered in this guidance,
understanding the full range of necessary land or marine permissions and consents initially can
appear complex. Early consultation with the appropriate regulator(s) can be useful in providing
clarity in relation to each specific proposal. These include the local planning authority for
land planning consents and the Marine Management Organisation, Marine Scotland, Welsh
Government, Department of Environment Northern Ireland for marine consents.
Part 3
This chapter highlights the range of potential permissions and licences that are likely to be
required at different stages of the process. The stages include assessing, designing and delivering
solutions to problems associated with erosion and sea flooding at landfill sites or areas of land
contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines. These are summarised in Table 16.1.
part 2
The permissions and consents required to progress an intrusive investigation or a remedial
solution will vary depending on scheme type and scheme location. So the approval mechanisms
for scheme progression should be assessed on a case-specific basis.
Part 4
129
Table 16.1 Summary of potential consents and permissions that may be required before
each phase of a potential scheme (note that this list is not intended to be exhaustive)
Stage in process
Access to site
Ground investigation (intrusive)
Planning/design phase
Construction phase
Landowner
consent
landowner
statutory
landowner
consent
marine licence (if below MHWS)
consent from The Crown Estate (if
works are likely to affect foreshore
or seabed)
local lead flood authority consent
permission from the Coal Authority
to enter or disturb Coal Authority
mining interests (if such deposits
are present)
non-departmental public body
consent (Natural England,
SNH, DoE NI) if within an
environmentally sensitive area
authorisation of CAR for the
drilling of boreholes
waste management licensing or
mobile plant licensing.
or nonstatutory EIA
(determined by the
LPA through the EIA
screening process)
WFD assessment (can
be provided as part of
the EIA)
provision of information
for the competent
authority to undertake a
HRA (can be provided as
part of the EIA).
consent
license
planning permission
consent from The Crown
Estate
harbour authority
consent
footpath diversion order
flood defence consent
non-departmental public
body consent
authorisation of CAR
(within Scotland)
waste management
license or mobile plant
license.
marine
Note that in certain circumstances (such as emergency situations), these provisions may not be
applied or could be relaxed. However, this would require confirmation with the appropriate
regulatory authority before undertaking any works.
This chapter identifies some of the enabling legislation (ie land use planning approvals and
marine planning approvals) that are required to enable an investigation or scheme to legally
proceed. Also, along with other relevant legislation that may apply on applications for approvals
to undertake such investigations or schemes.
16.2 Intrusive site investigation
It is likely that an intrusive geoenvironmental site investigation (SI) and further chemical and
geotechnical laboratory testing would be required during the initial stages of a project, to
determine the composition of the hazards present. Chemical testing allows an assessment to be
made with regard to risks to controlled waters, human health and ecological receptors, while
geotechnical testing would provide information that is vital for later engineering design of a
scheme. It will be necessary to employ the services of a geoenvironmental consultant or ground
investigation contractor to design and undertake such an investigation.
The consents required to undertake an intrusive SI will vary depending on the location of intrusive
investigation works (ie whether or not the investigation is located on land or across the foreshore),
however landowner consent would always be required before accessing private land. If the
landowner does not provide consent to access private land, powers of entry are given under Section
108 of the Environment Act 1995. This section regulates the rights of entry for investigating officers
to enter land without permission. Section 196A of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 also
provides rights to enter land without a warrant to any person duly authorised in writing by the LPA,
at any reasonable hour, if there are reasonable grounds for entering for the purpose in question.
For all sites, landowner/tenant permission would always be required before undertaking a SI.
Land Registry searches can assist with the determination of landowners on a particular site.
For sites that are located within an environmentally designated site, non-departmental public
body (Natural England, Scottish Natural Heritage, DoE NI) consent should be received before
undertaking operations. Further information with regard to the mechanisms for undertaking a
coastal defence scheme within an environmentally designated site is provided in Section 16.3.
130
CIRIA, C718
Care should be taken during both the intrusive site investigation phases and during any
later remediation work. This is to ensure that the works do not inadvertently create further
contaminant pathways or to increase risks to new or existing receptors.
Consent from The Crown Estate
Flood defence consent
Under the Environment Agency’s regional land drainage and sea defence byelaws, consent is also
required for any works or structures within the byelaw distance (varies between regions) of the top
of the bank of a main river or sea defence.
Marine licence
Many different bodies are responsible for issuing a marine licence throughout the UK under
the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009. The relevant body should be contacted to confirm the
marine licensing requirements before undertaking any intrusive investigation works.
131
Part 4
Under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991 (Section 23) written consent from the relevant
drainage board (internal drainage board or lead local flood authority) will be required before
any works involving erection of a mill dam, weir or other obstruction to the flow of an ordinary
watercourse begin. Also, consent is required for the erection or alteration of a culvert in an
ordinary watercourse. These powers transferred from the Environment Agency to lead local flood
authorities on 6 April 2012. Clause 38 of the Flood and Water Management Act 2010 enables the
lead local flood authority (LLFA) to make their own byelaws with respect to four distinct drainage
and flood risk management objectives.
Part 3
The Crown Estate ownership extends to about 50 per cent of the foreshore, including tidal
estuaries and rivers, and virtually the entire seabed to the 12 nautical mile territorial limit
of the UK. The foreshore is the land between mean high water (MHW) and mean low water
(MLW) where MHW is the high water mark (HWM) of medium high tides and MLW is the
corresponding low water mark (LWM). In Scotland, the foreshore boundaries are mean high
water (springs) (MHW(S)) and mean low water (springs) (MLW(S)) being the high and low water
marks of ordinary spring tides. Before undertaking any works on The Crown Estate land, it is
necessary to obtain consent.
part 2
In addition to these, the following subsections identify several consents/licenses/permissions
that may be required during the intrusive investigation stage of a scheme. Users of this guide
are encouraged to contact the various authorities, identified throughout this section, at an early
stage in the proceedings, even if it is considered that the particular consent is not required until
the construction phase of the scheme. There is potential for significant benefits to a project by
undertaking consultation early. Pre-application advice and discussions can be highly useful and
are capable of streamlining the application process before the various bodies issue consent during
later stages of the project.
part 1
In England and Wales, an environmental permit may be required from the Environment Agency
if significant waste treatment/re-working of a landfill site and re-deposition of waste is taking
place. In Scotland, waste management licences or mobile plant licences may be required to carry
out intrusive SI works. These are regulated by SEPA.
Introduction
Formal permission from the Coal Authority would be required if any in situ coal, old mine
workings, current mine workings or shafts/adits are to be disturbed during a SI. Such “permission
to enter or disturb Coal Authority mining interests” will be required for all GI’s that will intercept
any coal seams in the ground. The likelihood for encountering Coal Authority mining interests
would be determined during the desk study stage (see Ottaway et al, in press).
These bodies are:
the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) are the regulatory authority for most marine
licensing in English inshore and offshore waters
Marine Scotland administers the licensing scheme on behalf of the Scottish Government for
activities carried out in the Scottish inshore region of UK waters from 0 to 12 nautical miles,
as well as the Scottish offshore region from 12 to 200 nautical miles
the Marine Consents Unit (MCU) within the Welsh Government issue marine licences in
Wales
the Marine Licensing (Appeals) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2011 apply in relation to
Northern Ireland and the Northern Ireland inshore region. The DOE NI is the appropriate
licensing authority for marine licences.
In England, a marine licence from the MMO would be required for any “removal” from below
MHWS, including grab samples and exploratory boreholes. This activity would be classed as a
“Tier 1, B and B” licence application (“boreholes or minor ground investigations”), which falls
into the MMO “fast track” licensing process. These applications for marine licenses are fast
tracked due to the relatively limited risk associated with such work in addition to the relatively
straightforward nature. Also, there is fee that is payable at the time of the application. The MMO
should be consulted at an early stage to confirm whether the application would be considered for
the fast track process. The MMO will consult on the application for four weeks (28 days) before
determining whether a license can be issued for such works.
In Scotland, the Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) (Scottish Inshore and Offshore Regions)
Amendment Order 2012, means that sediment sampling is an exempt activity, as long as certain
provisions are met. The sampling is exempt from marine licensing where the volume of each
sediment sample removed is less than one cubic metre, does not cause obstruction or danger to
navigation and is unlikely to have a significant effect on an environmentally designated site of
European importance.
Sediment sampling is generally an exempt activity within Northern Irish inshore waters.
However, early consultation with the DOE NI should be undertaken as the exemptions are
determined on a case by case basis.
Currently, a marine licence is required for all sediment sampling within Welsh inshore waters.
The MCU aim to make a decision on the application for a marine licence for such works within
ten working days following receipt of an application.
Harbour authority consent
Port and harbour authorities have overall responsibility for navigational safety in English
estuaries, with jurisdiction often stretching upstream into tidal rivers. If works are located within
a port of harbour area, the requirement for harbour authority consent should be investigated.
It should be noted that the consents and licenses identified here are not restricted to the intrusive
investigation phase of a proposed scheme. Consultation with the relevant bodies should be
undertaken to determine the requirement for extra consent during the planning/design phase of
the scheme.
132
CIRIA, C718
The two main types of development consent required for undertaking works as part of a scheme
at the coastal margin include:
planning permission from the relevant local planning authority (LPA) (for works generally
above the mean low water mark (MLWM)
a marine licence from the relevant regulatory authority (identified earlier).
part 1
These are known as “enabling legislation”. CLG (2012a) is considered to be enabling legislation, as the
Framework sets the UK Government’s planning policies for England. For developments that span the
land/sea boundary, both planning permission and a marine licence will be required. The process and
legislation, which is likely to be relevant to the design/planning phase of a scheme, is summarised in
Figure 16.1 and discussed within later sections.
Introduction
16.3Planning/design and construction
Outline design of scheme
Consultation
Screening and scoping
request
The Marine Works
(Environmental Impact
Assessment) Regulations 2007
Screening and scoping
opinion
Consultation
Environmental Impact
Assessment (EIA)
Specialist studies and surveys
(as directed by scopining
opinion)
Part 3
Information for Habitats
Regulations assessment
Environmental Statement
(ES)
Information for Water
Framework Directive
assessment
Application for Land Drainage
consent, Rivers Works
Licence, The Crown Estate
consent, Footpath Diversion
order and Water Environment
(Controlled Activities) consent
(Scotland only)
Figure 16.1 Summary of likely process to be followed during planning/design phase under the relevant legislation
133
Part 4
Application for marine
licence/planning
permission (or both)
part 2
The Town and Country Planning
(Environmental Impact
Assessment) Regulations 2011
Enabling legislation – National Planning Policy Framework
CLG (2012a) repeals more than 1000 pages of planning guidance. The Framework revokes and
replaces several Planning Policy Statements (PPS), Planning Policy Guidance (PPG), Minerals
Planning Guidance and circulars/letters. It sets out the UK Government’s planning policies for
England and how these are expected to be applied. Planning law requires that applications for
planning permission should be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless
material considerations indicate otherwise. Also, local plans, when produced, will have to be
assessed against the presumption in favour of sustainable development and the Framework.
However once the local plan is adopted, the local plan will be the starting point to assess the
viability of development. The Framework is a material consideration in planning decisions.
The Government’s aim is for every area to have a clear local plan that sets out local people’s views
of how they wish their community to develop. It should be consistent with the Framework and
against which planning applications for planning permission will be judged.
Enabling legislation – Town and Country Planning
The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is the principal legislation that governs planning
permission and planning law in England and Wales. The Town and Country Planning (Scotland)
Act 1997 governs planning permission and law in Scotland, while the Planning Amendment
(Northern Ireland) 2003 governs planning permission and law in Northern Ireland. The
procedural rules and regulations of these Acts are set out in several Statutory Instruments (SIs).
Consultation with the relevant LPA should be undertaken at an early stage to determine the
requirement for planning permission.
The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (as amended
by the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England)
Order 2012 and the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment)
(Wales) Order 2012), sets out the meaning of development and identifies the type and scale
of development that can be carried out within England and Wales without first applying for
planning permission to the LPA (ie permitted development). The Town and Country Planning
(General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 performs the same role in Scotland,
while the Planning (General Development) Order (Northern Ireland) 1993 is concerned with
development that does not require planning permission in Northern Ireland. Small scale/low
level schemes may fall under permitted development, which provides landowners/relevant parties
powers to undertake minor works under a deemed grant of planning permission. This removes
the need to submit a planning application. England and Wales have planning portals that allow
applicants to submit applications electronically.
However, given the nature of the sites this guidance is discussing and possible remediation
options required, it is considered likely that the works will not fall under permitted development,
and planning permission will be required. Applications for planning permission are made to the
LPA, which are generally the local borough or district council (local authority in Scotland), and
each has their own application forms, contact details and relevant documentation.
Developments as defined within Section 55 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 in
England and Wales are subject to this consent procedure. The main planning law in Scotland is
The Town and County Planning Act (Scotland) 1997 Chapter 8, as amended by The Planning
etc. (Scotland) Act 2006. In Northern Ireland, the Planning Act (NI) 2011 received Royal Assent
on 4th May 2011. The Act provides for the transfer of the majority of planning functions from
central government to district councils. The LPA is responsible for consent for the area of their
jurisdiction boundary down to the mean low water (MLW) mark or enclosed estuaries. During
this procedure, appropriate national, regional and local planning policy should be taken into
consideration by the LPA. The developer cannot undertake a scheme that requires planning
permission before having such permission in place. Where work for which planning permission
134
CIRIA, C718
Enabling legislation – marine planning and licensing
part 1
Part 4 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act (MCAA) 2009 in England, Wales and Northern
Ireland and the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 in Scotland provides a framework for the marine
licensing system for works below the level of MHWS tides. The marine licensing system in
England, Wales and Northern Ireland consolidates and replaces previous statutory controls,
including:
Introduction
was required is carried out without permission being obtained, the local authority can take
enforcement action to force the landowner or property owner to take action to remedy the breach
of planning law. This may mean applying retrospectively for planning permission, or removing/
altering a structure. Under Section 171B of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, the local
authority can only take enforcement action within 10 years for works other than alterations/
additions/changes to a single dwelling house.
licences under Part 2 of the Food and Environment Protection Act 1985
consents under section 34 of the Coast Protection Act 1949
consents under Paragraph 11 of Schedule 2 to the Telecommunications Act 1984
licences under the Environmental Impact Assessment and Natural Habitats (Extraction
of Minerals by Marine Dredging) (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2007 (No.
1067).
Any works undertaken below the level of MHWS will need to been undertaken in accordance
with this legislation and would require a marine licence from the regulatory authority before
undertaking such works (a single licence would be issued, where possible, to cover all licensable
activities). The regulatory authorities are the MMO (England), Marine Scotland (Scotland),
Marine Consents Unit (Wales) or the DOE NI (Northern Ireland). Further detail regarding
requirements for marine licenses during intrusive works is presented in Section 16.2.
The requirement for an EIA to be undertaken in support of an application for planning
permission or a marine licence would be determined by the LPA and the MMO respectively,
through the EIA screening process. The regulations that an EIA may be required under include
the Town and County Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 and the
Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 (as amended by the Marine
Works (Environmental lmpact Assessment) (Amendment) Regulations 2011).
The requirement for EIA is established by EU Directive 85/337/EEC (as amended by Directives
97/11/EC and 2003/35/EC) on the “assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects
on the environment”. The requirement for EIA to be undertaken in support of an application for
planning permission submitted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is considered
under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations
in England 2011. Note that in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland only Sections 55 to 57
respectively apply. In Scotland, the requirement for EIA to be undertaken in support of an
application for planning permission submitted under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 is
considered under the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment (Scotland)
Regulations 2011.
135
Part 4
Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)
Regulations 2011
Part 3
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) legislation
part 2
The marine licensing system in England, Wales and Northern Ireland has been in force since 6
April 2011, while in Scotland the marine licensing system has been in force since March 2010.
An EIA is an assessment of the possible positive or negative effects that a proposed development
may have on the environment, including environmental, social and economic aspects. The
regulations apply to two separate lists of projects:
1
Schedule 1 projects, which require statutory EIA (eg major industrial and infrastructure
development, such as crude oil factories).
2
Schedule 2 projects, which requires an EIA but only if the particular project exceeds certain
thresholds identified within the regulations.
The requirement for EIA will need to be established once a preferred option has been outlined.
The LPA determines whether a proposed scheme is considered as a Schedule 1 or Schedule
2 development. This is defined by the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact
Assessment) Regulations 2011 and Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)
(Scotland) Regulations 2011. The requirement is defined through the EIA screening process and
provision by the LPA of a formal screening opinion. The developer should seek a formal screening
opinion from the LPA to determine the requirement for EIA. The developer can either request this
opinion from the LPA, or employ the services of an environmental consultant to do so.
Regulation 13 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)
Regulations 2011 and Part 4 of the Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact
Assessment) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 makes provision for a “scoping opinion” to be sought
from the LPA before submission of a planning application. If the LPA determines that EIA is
required, the developer should produce, or commission an environmental consultant to produce,
an environmental scoping report. The objectives of an environmental scoping report are to:
define and describe the study area (in terms of its sensitive resource, ie physical, biological,
human and built) and the scheme (and its alternatives) to scope the potential environmental
effects
identify the main potential environmental effects associated with the proposed scheme (as
well as possible solutions)
determine the impact assessment approach, particularly relating to issues of potential significance
define other projects and initiatives that may need to be considered in combination with the
proposed works (ie cumulative effects)
identify where data gaps exist and what further data collection and assessment may be
necessary (ie field surveys or modelling).
The document is principally used to inform consultees of the proposal, to seek any further
information and to identify any issues of concern. This report should be submitted to the
consenting authorities together with a request for their formal opinion on the information to be
supplied within the Environmental Statement (ES). An ES is then produced by an environmental
consultant, which should be submitted to the LPA alongside the planning application.
If the LPA determines that the development does not require an EIA, the LPA may recommend
that specialist studies/investigations and accompanying reports are undertaken, which will
need to accompany the planning application. It is considered best practice to produce an
environmental report to document the findings of such studies.
Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations
2007 (as amended)
The Regulations transpose the EIA Directive into UK Law in relation to the following activities:
harbour works that require approval or consent pursuant to a local act or an order made
under Section 14 or 16 of the Harbours Act 1964
136
CIRIA, C718
The regulations apply to marine licenses issued by the relevant licensing authority. They
implement a legal requirement on the licensing body to make an EIA consent decision when
determining a marine licence for a type of project that the 2007 Regulations apply to.
16.4Relevant legislation during
production of the ES
The Water Framework Directive (2000/60/EC) (WFD) establishes a legal framework to protect
and restore clean water (surface waters, groundwaters, estuaries and coastal waters) across
Europe to ensure its long-term, sustainable use. It applies to waters out to one nautical mile from
the baseline that territorial waters are drawn from. One of the aims of the WFD is to ensure
that all European water bodies are of good ecological and chemical status/potential by 2015
by the setting of environmental quality objectives (EQOs), for water chemistry, ecological and
hydromorphological quality parameters. Key objectives of the WFD are:
part 1
Assessment under the requirement of the Water Framework
Directive (WFD)
Introduction
activities that are regulated under the MCAA 2009 (ie those activities that require a marine
licence).
part 2
to prevent further deterioration in water body status (as well as improving the status of
failing water bodies
reduce pollution of water bodies
ensure progressive reduction of groundwater pollution.
The WFD is transposed through the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England
and Wales) Regulations 2003, the Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003
(WEWS), and the Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations (Northern
Ireland) 2003.
Part 3
The implementation of the WFD in the UK will largely be undertaken by competent authorities,
which include the Environment Agency (England and Wales), SEPA (Scotland) and the NIEA
(Northern Ireland). The relevant competent authority will need to confirm acceptability of
the project, or otherwise under the WFD. This legal requirement is addressed through the
undertaking of a WFD assessment accompanying a marine licence application or application for
planning permission to the appropriate authority.
Environmental Permitting Regulations 2010
The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2012 (2012
Regulations) came into force on 6 April 2012. The 2012 Regulations amend the 2010 Regulations
in a number of relatively minor ways. Such amendments include (amongst others) minor changes
to certain exempt waste operations, minor changes relating to radioactive substances activities
and making it easier to transfer permits in certain situations.
137
Part 4
The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (the 2010 Regulations)
replace those parts of the Water Resources Act 1991 that relate to the regulation of discharges to
controlled waters. Under the Regulations, water discharge activities relate to discharges to surface
waters that are controlled waters (the regulations do not apply to groundwater). It is an offence to
cause or knowingly permit an entry or discharge to inland freshwaters, coastal waters or relevant
territorial waters of any poisonous, noxious or polluting matter, waste matter, trade effluent or
sewage effluent, except under and to the extent authorised by an environmental permit.
The Conservation of Species and Habitats Regulations 2010
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (the Habitats Regulations) implement
the Habitats Directive (EU Directive 92/43/EEC) in respect to England and Wales. In Scotland,
the Habitats Directive is transposed through a combination of the Habitats Regulations 2010 (in
relation to reserved matters) and the Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations 1994. The
Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995, as amended, transpose
the Habitats Directive in relation to Northern Ireland.
In accordance with the Habitats Regulations, appropriate assessment (AA) is required for any
plan or project, not connected with the management of a European site, which is likely to have
a significant effect on the site either alone or in combination with other plans and projects.
European sites comprise Special Protection Areas (SPAs), as designated under the EU Birds
Directive (79/409/EEC), or Special Area of Conservation (SACs), as designated under the Habitats
Directive. AA is also required as a matter of Government policy for potential SPAs, candidate
SACs and listed Ramsar sites for the purpose of considering development proposals affecting
them (ODPM, 2005).
If the proposed scheme, either alone or in combination with other plans or projects, is deemed
to have a “likely significant effect” on an SPA, SAC or Ramsar site, then an AA should be made of
the potential implications of the proposed scheme. This is in view of the conservation objectives
from the sites in accordance with Article 6 of the Habitats Directive. The AA would be undertaken
by the competent authority, with regard to advice from Natural England and SNH.
The Habitats Regulations protects all European protected species (EPS). It is an offence to
deliberately disturb, capture, injure or kill, or damage or destroy a breeding site or resting
place of an EPS. However, these actions can be made lawful through the granting of licences by
the appropriate authorities. Licences may be granted for several purposes, but only after the
appropriate authority is satisfied that there are no alternatives, and the actions will not have any
detrimental effects on wild populations of the species concerned.
The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland)
Regulations 2011
These Regulations are more commonly referred to as the Controlled Activity Regulations
(CAR). Any activity that may affect Scotland’s water environment should be authorised by SEPA,
including discharges, abstractions, impoundments and engineering work. Under Section 32 of
the Regulations, SEPA has power to serve an enforcement notice on the responsible person or
the operator, as the case may be, specifying information such as the matters constituting the
contravention or likely contravention, the nature of any adverse effects on the environment
if SEPA is of the opinion that the activity has caused, or is likely to cause a significant adverse
effect on the water environment, and the steps that need to be taken by the responsible person
or operator to prevent, mitigate or remedy the adverse effects on the water environment. SEPA
also has powers to carry out works if it appears to SEPA, after reasonable inquiry that no person
can be found on whom to serve the enforcement notice. If SEPA has undertaken works and the
responsible person is known, it is entitled to recover the costs of doing so from the responsible
person or operation that has carried out, is carrying out or is likely to carry out the activity. This
is in respect of the enforcement notice that has been served.
Wildlife and Countryside Act (WCA) 1981
The WCA 1981 (as amended by Schedule 9 to the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, the
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 and the Nature Conservation (Scotland)
Act 2004) provides for the notification and confirmation of Sites of Special Scientific Interest
(SSSIs).
138
CIRIA, C718
The WCA 1981 (as amended) states that notice should be given to Natural England/SNH before
carrying out or causing, or permitting to be carried out on that land, any operation specified
in the notification. In such cases, Natural England/SNH has 28 days in which to reply, by either
giving assent (with or without conditions), or by declining assent. If assent is provided, the
operation can start immediately. If assent is not provided, or the public body proposes to carry
out the operation contrary to the conditions, the public body should wait for the expiry of 28 days
from the date of the original notice before giving Natural England a second notice.
part 1
Approval under Section 28 of the WCA 1981 (as amended) would be intrinsic to Natural
England’s overall advice regarding the requirement (or otherwise) for AA under the Habitats
Regulations, and response to the consultation on the application for planning permission and a
marine licence.
Introduction
Where any works are proposed within or near to a SSSI, the developer needs to consider how
the proposed scheme is likely to affect this special interest to inform the relevant authority under
Section 28(4)b of the WCA 1981 (as amended).
16.5 Further consent/licence
requirements
part 2
Depending on the location of the scheme, applications for the following licenses and consents may
be required before the scheme is adopted. As previously mentioned, the consents required for
individual scheme progression are likely to vary, and as such, the consents and licences required
should be assessed on a case by case basis.
Consent from The Crown Estate
Permission is required before starting any works that could affect The Crown Estate’s assets (see
Section 16.2).
Public path diversion order
139
Part 4
In Scotland, the general or district planning authority that the footpath is located within has
power to create any new public path necessary for effecting a diversion, as well as extinguishing a
right of way under Section 35 of the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967. The DOE NI in Northern
Ireland may make a public path extinguishment order or a public path diversion order under
Section 16 of the Access to the Countryside (Northern Ireland) Order 1983. This is where they
are satisfied that it is necessary to do so to enable development to be carried out in accordance
with planning permission.
Part 3
There is potential for landside works to require the temporary or permanent diversion of
footpaths (if present) to prevent health and safety incidents to the general public. Within England
and Wales, the local council has powers to make a public path diversion order (PPDO) under
Section 257 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or Section 119 of the Highways Act
1980. Either Act can be used, dependent upon whether the public right of way (PRoW) is being
considered as part of a development requiring planning permission (Section 257 of the Town and
Country Planning Act 1990) or whether the diversion is a stand-alone process (Section 119 of the
Highways Act 1980). Both processes have set criteria that are required to be met before an order
is made and confirmed. Consultation with the LPA should be undertaken at an early stage of the
project, to identify whether a footpath is present on the definitive map and to allow sufficient time
to ensure its diversion before the scheme is carried out.
Flood defence consent
Under the terms of the Land Drainage Act 1991, Water Resources Act 1991 and associated byelaws,
written consent from the Environment Agency is required before any works in, under, over or
near the bank of a designated “main river” or sea defence start. Such consent will be required for
a scheme if it falls within these parameters before any construction works start. In England and
Wales, such consents are issued by the Environment Agency and Environment Agency Wales (until
April 2013) respectively. In Scotland, a CAR authorisation is required for engineering works in
rivers. In Northern Ireland, the developer should have consent from the Rivers Agency before
placing any structures in any watercourse that are likely to affect its drainage.
Navigation
There is potential for schemes that are close to estuaries and harbours to affect navigational
safety, because of potentially increased vessel movements that may be required during
construction works. Early consultation with the port or harbour authority should be undertaken
if any works have the potential to affect existing navigational practices (during the construction or
operation phase of a scheme).
Harbour authority consent
A harbour authority consent is likely to be required for any works within the relevant harbour
authorities jurisdiction (see Section 16.2).
16.6 Emergency works
Local authorities are required to have emergency plans in place so that they are able to respond
to an incident or emergency quickly and effectively. Each local authority should have an
emergency planning officer. They will need to be contacted immediately upon identification of
an emergency situation where coastal erosion or flooding are leading to adverse effects on public
health and safety, the environment or property (note that in some instances, emergency planning
officers are shared between local authorities).
The MMO have issued guidance with regard to marine licensing of emergency and high risk
works. The MMO define emergency works as: “Works where urgent permission is required to
shore up/make safe only, an existing structure/development/project (possibly in response to a
recent event) where human health, property or the environment are at imminent risk. These
works will only be classed as an emergency where there is no realistic possibility that the applicant
can proceed through the normal application process or a fast tracked version of the process
without posing a higher risk” (MMO, 2011).
The MMO will decide whether the project falls within the category of emergency works, and will
need to be contacted before undertaking works. A marine licence for emergency works will only
be issued to shore up or make safe any further works to repair damage, reinstate infrastructure
etc that are not deemed to be emergency works will require a marine licence before undertaking
works (MMO, 2011). Applicants should not hold out from applying for a marine licence to allow
the state of works to degrade. Ideally applicants should apply for a marine licence before the
works become an emergency to allow the proper formal application procedure to be followed.
When an emergency licence is issued, the licence holder should inform the MMO of the start date
of the works through their online service account, otherwise the licence will not be active.
An activity carried out on behalf of the Environment Agency for the purpose of executing
emergency works in response to any flood or the imminent risk of flood is exempt from requiring
a marine licence. This exemption is subject to the condition that the activity may only be carried
out in accordance with an approval granted by the MMO for that purpose (MMO, 2011).
140
CIRIA, C718
Regulation 48 provides a defence for unauthorised activities that are the result of an
accident, natural causes, force majeure, or carried out by certain persons as long as they are
satisfy specific conditions
Within Scotland, the Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 regulates marine licensable activities undertaken
below MHWS up to 12 nautical miles. Certain activities are exempt from the requirement for a
marine licence. These activities are set out in the Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) (Scottish
Inshore Region) Order 2012. Section 21 of the order exempts emergency works, and applies to an
activity carried out for the purpose of executing emergency works:
part 2
Regulation 18 accelerated determination for new applications or variations and suspensions
that need to be adopted, in a shorter period of time by reason of an “emergency”. An
emergency is defined within this legislation as an event or situation that threatens serious
damage to human welfare, ie loss of human life, human illness or injury, homelessness,
damage to property, and event or situation that threatens serious damage to the
environment, ie contamination of land, water or air with biological, chemical or radioactive
matter, or disruption or destruction of plant life or animal life, or an event or situation that
SEPA is instructed to treat as an emergency by Scottish Ministers.
part 1
Within Scotland, the Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011
(CAR, 2011), which came into force on 31 March 2011 introduce two new regulations that are
relevant in emergency situations (SEPA, 2012):
Introduction
Maritime local authorities have coastal erosion responsibilities under the Coast Protection Act
1949. The Environment Agency guidance has been produced for such authorities to seek approval
for coastal erosion strategies. Emergency works for coastal erosion projects can be carried out by
a maritime local authority, without formal scheme approval, although the Environment Agency
should be notified immediately of the need for emergency works and seek an approval to proceed.
The works can then start, and an application for grant in aid on the emergency works can then be
submitted in parallel. Where necessary, the Environment Agency can provide funds to carry out
emergency works, however funding for such works is not guaranteed and would be subject to the
same cost–benefit analysis and justifications as any other FCERM scheme.
in response to any flood or the imminent risk of any flood
to repair an existing structure.
It should be noted that this is subject to the condition that the activity is approved by the Scottish
Ministers before it is carried out. The details of any proposed emergency works to take place
below MHWS should be submitted in writing to the Marine Scotland Licensing Operations Team,
and a member of the team will advise as appropriate. However, permission from other consenting
bodies may still be required to undertake emergency works (eg a river works licence should be
works be located within the jurisdiction of a harbour or port authority. In this situation, the
relevant harbour or port authority should be contacted for advice).
emergency works in response to flood or flood risk
cables and pipelines – authorised emergency inspection and repair.
141
Part 4
The NIEA has produced guidance with regard to emergency and high risk works under Part
4 of the Marine and Coastal Access Act, 2009 (NIEA, 2012). If a marine license is required
immediately for emergency works, NIEA is not required to consult. If NIEA proceed with this
option, all primary advisors and consultees who would normally be consulted will be issued with
a copy of the license for their information. The Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) Order
2011 details some emergency activities that are exempt from requiring a marine licence in certain
conditions. These are:
Part 3
the purpose of preventing pollution of the environment
With regard to the emergency works in response to flood or flood risk, NIEA would include
damage from storm sea surges to roads/sea defences as flood events. However consultation with
NIEA Marine Assessment and Licensing Team should be undertaken before undertaking works.
16.7 References
CLG (2012a) National Planning Policy Framework, Communities and Local Government, London
(ISBN: 978-1-40983-413-7).
MMO (2011) Marine licensing guidance 7: Emergency and high risk works, Marine Management
Organisation, Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK.
Go to: www.marinemanagement.org.uk/licensing/documents/guidance/07.pdf
NIEA (2012) Northern Ireland Guidance. Emergency and high risk works under Part 4 of the Marine
and Coastal Access Act 2009 – August 2012, Northern Ireland Environment Agency, Belfast. Go to:
www.doeni.gov.uk/index/information/foi/recent-releases/publications-details.htm?docid=8937
ODPM (2005) Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation. Office of the
Deputy Prime Minister, London
OTTAWAY, J et al (not yet published) Abandoned mine workings manual, RP940, CIRIA, London.
SEPA (2012) Regulatory Method (WAT-RM-49) CAR 2011 Emergency Provisions and accelerated
determination, Scottish Environment Protection Agency, Stirling.
Go to: www.sepa.org.uk/water/water_regulation/guidance/all_regimes.aspx
Statutes
Acts
Countryside and Rights Of Way Act 2000 (c.37)
The Countryside (Scotland) Act 1967 (c.86)
Environment Act 1995 (c.25)
Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (c.29)
Food and Environment Protection Act 1985 (c. 48)
Harbours Act 1964 (c.40)
Highways Act 1980 (c.66)
Land Drainage Act 1991 (c.59)
The Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (Commencement No.5, Consequential and Transitional
Provisions) Order 2011 (No. 556) (c. 19)
Marine (Scotland) Act 2010 (asp 5)
Natural Environment and Rural Communities Act 2006 (c. 16)
Nature Conservation (Scotland) Act 2004 (asp 6)
Planning Act (Northern Ireland) 2011 (c.25)
Planning etc. (Scotland) Act 2006 (asp 17)
Telecommunications Act 1984 (c.12)
Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (c.8)
Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997 (c. 8)
142
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 3)
Orders
The Access to the Countryside (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 (No. 1895) (N.I. 18)
The Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) Order 2011 (No. 409)
Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) (Scottish Inshore and Offshore Regions) Amendment
Order 2012
The Planning (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 2003 (No. 430) (N.I. 8)
part 1
The Planning (General Development) (Amendment) Order (Northern Ireland) 2011 (No. 75)
The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) Order 1995 (No. 418)
The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England)
Order 2010 (No. 654)
The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (England)
Order 2012 (No. 748)
The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Scotland) Order 1992 (No.
223) (S. 17)
Regulations
The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (The Habitats Regulations) (No. 490)
part 2
The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (Wales) Order
2012 (No. 1346) (W. 167)
The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (No. 2716)
The Conservation (Natural Habitats, etc.) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1995 (No. 380)
The Environmental Impact Assessment and Natural Habitats (Extraction of Minerals by Marine
Dredging) (Scotland) Regulations 2007 (No. 485)
Dredging) (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2007 (No 1067)
Part 3
Dredging) (Wales) Regulations 2007 (No. 2610) (W. 221)
The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010
The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2012
The Marine Licensing (Appeals) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2011 (No. 80)
The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 (No. 1518)
The Town and County Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 (No. 1824)
The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 (No. 544)
The Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011 (No. 209)
European Directives
Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds (the Birds Directive)
Council Directive of 27 June 1985 on the assessment of the effects of certain public and private
projects on the environment 85/337/EEC
143
Part 4
The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003
(No. 3242)
Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild
fauna and flora (the Habitats Directive)
Council Directive 97/11/EC of 3 March 1997 amending Directive 85/337/EEC on the assessment of
the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment
Directive 2003/35/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 26 May 2003 providing
for public participation in respect of the drawing up of certain plans and programs relating to
the environment and amending with regard to public participation and access to justice Council
Directives 85/337/EEC and 96/61/EC Statement by the Commission
Websites
Land Registry: www.land-reg.co.uk/landregistry.aspx
Coal Authority: http://coal.decc.gov.uk/
144
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
part 1
17 Theme: stakeholders
and their engagement
17.1 Background
Management of landfill sites and areas of land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines
is likely to affect, or be affected by, several individuals, groups and organisations. These are
collectively known as stakeholders and range from local residents and whole coastal communities,
through site workers, users or visitors, to statutory regulators and their scientific advisors.
Throughout this guide, the importance of engaging with stakeholders at appropriate stages has
been highlighted within relevant chapters. However, the timing and nature of this engagement
will vary depending on the nature of the project.
part 2
Each type of stakeholder will have different perspectives and will be affected, or exert an
influence on decisions, in different ways and at different times. Also, perceptions of risks and
opportunities will differ between stakeholders.
Engagement with stakeholders is an important and skilled process. It needs to progress from
the start with a clear and specific understanding of what the aims are from the process and why
engagement with stakeholders is needed.
The remainder of this section is structured as follows:
Part 3
Many organisations will have access to in-house skills or external advisers, who can lead on
planning and delivering stakeholder engagement activities. Others may seek independent advice.
This section provides a brief overview to help the reader appreciate some of the challenges and
approaches.
potential engagement aspects
identifying potential stakeholders
planning and delivering a stakeholder engagement approach.
17.2 Potential engagement aspects
Depending on the nature of the project, the risks presented by erosion or sea flooding at a site
may either:
be of an ongoing or imminent nature, requiring an immediate response. In some cases these
145
Part 4
Carefully planned and expertly executed stakeholder engagement can realise the mutually shared
desire for better decision making and lead to management approaches that can be adopted with
local community support (Collier, 2011). Also, it can also lead to genuinely collaborative solutions
and identify potential partnership funding opportunities with other organisations.
instances may be identified via a call from a member of the public, a regulator following an
inspection, or a site user with information about a release from the site
be likely to occur at some future year or decade, requiring consideration with the strategic
coastal management planning process.
For the latter situation, stakeholder engagement remains important, although the timescales for
such engagement are likely to differ and the focus will be more on strategic policies rather than
urgent mitigating action. Engagement with important internal and external stakeholders should
become embedded within the process of developing the strategic coastal management plans, such
as SMPs or Coastal Strategies. Detailed procedural guidance on this topic has previously been
published by Defra in the context of SMP development (Defra, 2006b).
Further references
DEFRA (2006b) Shoreline Management Plan Guidance – Volume 2: Procedures, version
2, PB11726, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London.
Go to: www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb11726v2-smpg-vol2-060523.pdf
In particular see Appendix A of the Shoreline Management Plan guidance, which covers
stakeholder engagement strategies specifically for SMPs, go to:
www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2011/06/10/pb11726-shoreline-guidance/
For sites where risks are of an ongoing or more imminent nature, the following steps set out
typical initial priority actions in the stakeholder engagement process following notification of the
issue.
1
While organisational structures will vary, the first priority should be to identify and inform
the appropriate management group within the organisation so that appropriate resources
can be allocated to the issue, pre-existing contingency arrangements can be deployed (if
necessary) and appropriate technical and engagement specialists can be involved.
2
Further internal, inter-agency and external engagement can be co-ordinated, at least
initially, by this group who would then identify:

appropriate departments across a responsible body who need to be made aware of the
issues so that the full range of necessary skills (eg contaminated land officers, marine
environmental scientists, coastal engineers, land use planning and development control,
public relations) can be applied
appropriate public bodies and their specialist advisors (eg regulators, nature
conservation bodies) who need to be made aware of the issues so that they can advise on
the risks presented and the appropriateness of different management options and, in
some cases, funding opportunities
main community groups and representatives (eg residents, site visitors, workers and
neighbouring nurseries, hospitals, schools, GP surgeries), the local media and local
politicians
others who may have commercial, recreation or other interests in the coastline and
surrounding area which may be affected by the risks or the management proposals.
For projects of this nature, engagement with stakeholders can follow the sequence of activities
from identifying sites, through appraising and delivering solutions, to evaluating performance of
a solution, as previously presented in Part 1 of this guide and explained further in this section.
As discussed in Chapter 2, it is recommended that important internal and external stakeholders
are fully engaged in the process of identifying the legislative and regulatory arrangements that
apply to a particular site. In particular, this includes internal management groups and external
regulator bodies or regulated parties. This engagement not only ensures that appropriate
awareness is gained, and shared, in relation to the site and its issues, but that other useful
information can be identified and collated to start informing the planning and development of
site management responses to the issues faced.
146
CIRIA, C718
The exact engagement purposes and activities will vary from site to site and this underlines
the importance of developing a site-specific stakeholder engagement plan. Furthermore, the
stakeholder engaged will vary according to the stage of the project and a wide variety of sitespecific issues. Further guidance on both of these issues is provided later in this chapter.
Introduction
Once the key roles and responsibilities have been identified in accordance with Chapter 2, the
project will commence through the cyclic management process presented in Chapters 3 to 8.
Table 17.1 summarises the typical purpose and type of engagement with stakeholders at each of
the main stages of this process.
Table 17.1 Typical stakeholder engagement for managing ongoing or imminent issues
Chapter 3: Identifying sites
Chapter 4: Characterising site history and
setting
Where potential risk from erosion or sea flooding to
known sites is being reviewed, engagement within
and between different stakeholders is required. This
will enable the exchange of appropriate datasets
and information specifically relating to site locations,
flood and erosion risks or mechanisms, etc. Such an
open approach to data and information sharing and
collective knowledge building will help build trust and
collaboration (Sniffer, 2010).
informing
Engagement with stakeholders (sometimes including
the wider public) can generate more complete and
better quality data or information. As well as access
to data sets, engagement with long-standing officers
or residents may provide additional anecdotal local
information about the history of the site.
informing
about risks, datasets,
information, uncertainties
asking for technical support, datasets,
information
listening to others’ knowledge of site and
specialist technical advice
working together to collectively understand
site locations and erosion or sea flooding
risks.
informing about the location, nature and
If a release of material is brought to the attention of
timing of the release
a coastal manager following a storm or sea flooding
asking for event information and details of
event , then there will be the need for engagement
the release
both internally (up the line management chain to an
appropriate level and across departments as necessary) listening to others’ first-hand experience of
the event
and externally (eg with landowners, site operations,
working together to understand and
regulators). This will usually require quite rapid action
manage the risks posed by the release.
and direct one-to-one contact between individuals.
When undertaking an initial site visit, it may be
prudent for multiple stakeholders to attend so that
the issues can be fully understood from differing
perspectives (eg flood and erosion risk management,
waste management, contaminated land,
environmental health, environmental conservation).
Any limited sampling activities undertaken during the
visit can capture data that will be of mutual benefit to
several stakeholders.
When the sources of risk, receptors to the risk and
pathways that link the two have been identified, a CSM
can be developed and risk assessment undertaken.
This can be done by a single organisation or jointly by
stakeholders involved in managing the site.
known information about the site
for records, datasets or anecdotal
evidence
listening to others’ first-hand experience of
the site history
working together to collectively understand
site history and setting.
asking
Part 3
about the sources, pathways
and receptors, how they interact and the
risks that are presented
asking for data or information about the
sources, pathways or receptors
listening to others’ first-hand experience
The risk assessment information can be
of the pathways that link the sources
communicated to appropriate individuals for
and receptors and the consequences of
validation so that appropriate immediate management
material release
action can be taken (eg warning signs, initiation of
working together to develop a CSM and
engagement with landowners or the public). At this
Risk Assessment.
stage, it can include engagement with the wider
community so that their awareness is based on
science-based information, rather than possibly
inaccurate perceptions.
informing
147
Part 4
Chapter 5: Assessing the risk
Type of engagement
part 2
Purpose of engagement
part 1
Chapter
of guide
Chapter 6: Appraisaing the options
Chapter 7: Delivering the solution
Chapter 8: Evaluating
performance
The options appraisal process would usually benefit
from early and ongoing engagement with those
stakeholders who will have some influence on its
outcome, including landowners/site operators,
regulators and financiers, or be affected by its
outcome, including the wider public. This not only
ensures that views from these stakeholders or
individuals are incorporated at an early stage, but also
should help smooth the process of approvals, funding
and community “buy-in” to the proposed management
responses. In doing this, it is important to recognise
that some matters are decided and cannot be altered,
some are preferred but remain open to influence and
others are completely open. Section 20.4 provides
further guidance on this. Where appropriate, options
should be explored with potential amenity, commercial
or other partners so that broader objectives and
enhancement opportunities can be identified.
informing
about the potential options that
exist, the appraisal processes that are to
be adopted and the preferred solutions
that result from the process (this may be in
multiple stages of engagement)
asking for views on the advantages and
disadvantages of potential options
listening to views and using the responses
to influence appropriate option selection
working together to develop preferred
approaches that, as far as is practicable,
address the concerns raised, while
delivering proportionate solutions that
are technically feasible, economically
viable and environmentally and socially
acceptable.
Any stakeholders involved with, or affected by,
sampling, investigations or clearance of released
waste at a site or construction works once a solution
has been developed should be made fully aware of all
risks presented and accordingly adopt appropriate risk
management practices during their activities. This will
include both risks presented by the wastes/materials
at a site and the risks presented by working at or near
the coastal margin.
informing
Most solutions involve monitoring of how a scheme is
performing or how the coastline at a site is changing
and then evaluating how this affects the residual
risks. In some situations inspection and surveillance
can be the preferred approach. Outputs from such
monitoring and evaluation need to be communicated
to all relevant stakeholders so that appropriate
changes to the agreed management approach can be
made if necessary.
informing
about the risks or disturbances
likely to be faced and the methods to be
used to mitigate or minimise them
asking for information about how certain
risks or proposed activities may affect
stakeholders
listening to others’ needs and
requirements
working together to ensure that
disturbance and risks to people and the
Traffic movement, congestion, working hours,
environment are minimised to acceptable
dust, noise etc are likely to be a concern to several
levels during the investigations or
stakeholders and mitigation plans should be discussed
construction works.
with those stakeholders likely to be affected.
about the findings from the
monitoring and evaluation
asking for feedback on the process and
the effectiveness of the solution
listening to others’ perspectives relating to
effectiveness of the solution
working together to ensure that any “finetuning” or alternative approaches are
adopted, contingent upon results from the
monitoring and evaluation.
Note: careful consideration should be given to the stakeholders to be engaged (see Section 17.3) and the stage(s) of the process at
which each stakeholder should be engaged (see Section 17.4).
17.3 Identifying potential stakeholders
Potential stakeholders may be internal or external to an organisation and both are equally
important.
Internal stakeholders can offer specialist technical advice, management direction, staff or other
resources, and professional support. Also, some may have recently engaged with the same
external stakeholders on other issues and this could have a significant impact on how further
engagement is received.
For the purposes of this guide, external stakeholders have been collated into three distinct
groups: regulators, regulated, and other interested parties. Table 17.2 provides an initial range
of important potential external stakeholders within each of these categories. This information is
not intended to be exhaustive because main stakeholders relevant to a particular situation should
be identified on a case by case basis. To further develop this list in respect of a particular site or
project the following questions may assist (derived from Environment Agency, 2012):
1
148
Who will the issue or project affect (positively and negatively)?
CIRIA, C718
3
Who could be interested in the issue or project?
4
Who is likely to support or object the issue or project?
5
Whose input or knowledge is needed to address the issue or deliver the project?
6
Who has been engaged in the past and what has been learned from them?
7
Who could influence how the issue is addressed or how the project is delivered?
8
Are there parts of the community who should be engaged?
9
Do any of the stakeholders know of others who have not yet been identified and are
expected to be interested in the issue or project?
part 1
Who might think that the issue or project will affect them (even if this perception is not
deemed realistic)?
Introduction
2
Table 17.2 Key potential external stakeholders
Regulator
Regulated
Other interested parties
local
site
Local
landowners or
occupiers
landfill operators
developers
port/harbour authorities.
Coastal Forum
(see Chapter 15)
landowners (including National
Trust, MoD, The Crown Estate,
private landowners)
recreational users (eg ramblers)
residents/communities
hospitals
schools
site workers
media
local councillors
local politicians
interest/protest groups.
financiers
part 2
authorities
Environment Agency
SEPA
Natural Resource Body Wales
Single Environment Body Wales
Northern Ireland
Natural England
SNH
MMO
MCU
Marine Scotland
regional coastal groups (England
and Wales)
Where they exist, local coastal forums and regional coastal groups provide an excellent starting
point for identifying appropriate external stakeholders who may have an interest in a particular
site or issue.
Part 3
Once identified, stakeholders should be mapped out as appropriate across the different functions
(regulator, regulated, other interested parties), sectors (private, public, voluntary), geographical
distances from the site, economic wealth or deprivation area classes, ages, diversities, abilities
and vulnerabilities of people. These helps to analyse the stakeholders and identify engagement
priorities and approaches (see Section 17.4 for further guidance). For example, some may just
need information while others may wish or need to be more actively involved in scoping of options
or contributing to decision making.
17.4 Planning and delivering a
stakeholder engagement approach
The stakeholder engagement process needs to start with a clear and specific understanding of
why it is needed. In some cases, there may be a legal obligation or procedure to consult with
certain stakeholders (eg to obtain permits or licenses) but more generally it is accepted that
stakeholder engagement can build relationships, trust and co-operation, help inform decision
making and lead to more widely accepted solutions.
Specific engagement objectives pertinent to an organisation’s aims and responsibilities should
be defined at this point, so they form the basis for performance evaluation during and after
149
Part 4
As mentioned in the previous section, organisations may have their own stakeholder team or
employ the services of external specialists who can advise on the approach for specific schemes.
However, this section provides some general guidance with reference to published sources.
the process is complete. These objectives also provide the framework for deciding what the
stakeholders need to be engaged about. There are likely to be some decisions that can be
influenced by stakeholders and others that cannot, due to various legal, technical, environmental,
commercial or other reasons. It is useful at this stage to consider what views or aspects are
decided and cannot be altered, preferred but open to influence, or totally open. An example in
the context of this guide is provided in Table 17.3.
Table 17.3 Understanding what can and cannot be influenced by stakeholders
Decided
Preferred
Open
Doing nothing is not an option
because the release of materials
from the site is causing pollution
to a receiving water body.
The preference is to defend the eroding
coastline using rock armour constructed
from granite blocks, but other forms of
material would be considered if they were
felt more visually aesthetic by beach users.
The design and content of public
warning signs to be placed along
the coastal margin.
Many engagement processes fail because scheme promoters will have already decided the
outcome and subsequent engagement is seen by them as a formality for presenting and
maintaining the decision – the so called “decide, announce, defend” approach. Early discussions
on those aspects which can be influenced by stakeholders will lead to a better outcome – the
“discuss, deliberate, decide” process. A further major advantage is that timely and accurate
engagement of this nature, using plain English, can prevent misperception of risks that otherwise
could arise amongst the public and, potentially, the various regulatory and other bodies.
Further guidance on the difference between these approaches and the benefits of the latter
approach are available within an Environment Agency staff guide (Environment Agency, 2012).
Once a list of main stakeholders has been identified, it is important to undertake stakeholder
analysis, ie to anticipate or evaluate their concerns, interests and priorities. In doing this it is
important to recognise that some stakeholders will be more affected by the risks (and their
management) than others. For example, those who are housebound or in neighbouring schools
or hospitals may be both more at risk by release of certain types of materials from a site and
more affected by any nuisance or disruption caused during investigations and remediation
works. Stakeholder analysis will help inform the stakeholder engagement plan, which is intended
to identify who needs to be engaged and when in the process this should be done. Not all
stakeholders need to be involved in all decision making steps. Over-engagement on trivial issues
can be as harmful as none at all. The aim is involvement that is proportionate to the technical,
environmental and social significance of the issue.
It is necessary to consider how engagement needs to be undertaken with each type of stakeholder
when the stakeholder engagement plan is being developed. To an extent, this will be dictated
by the engagement objectives and stakeholder analysis. Box 17.1 (adapted from Sniffer, 2010)
considers particular aspects of engagement and the importance of matching it to the needs
of different stakeholders, while Box 17.2 (adapted from Sniffer, 2010) sets out some general
framework and guiding principles.
There is no single “one size fits all” approach to engagement with stakeholders since the
approach(es) required will depend on several site-specific factors and broader local or regional
influences. Further guidance specifically on the challenges of communicating understanding
of contaminated land risks to public stakeholders is available (Sniffer, 2010 and Collier, 2011).
In developing an engagement strategy, however, it is important to recognise several general
principles, as listed within Table 17.4.
150
CIRIA, C718
Points to note
Competing demands
It takes time and commitment to participate properly, and there are many competing
demands. Try to make participation as easy as possible
Timing and location
The timing and location of events should be focused on the stakeholders needs. For
example, some people will want to be engaged during the day, others cannot. Some people
will want to remain close to their homes, others will be happier to travel greater distances.
Access
Carefully consider access to documents and outreach events. Take into account the needs
of the disabled.
Time
Aim to allow sufficient time within the programme for participants to prepare for events
and to read and comment on documents.
Awareness
People have to be aware of the programme to participate. Think about informing and
encouraging people through a co-ordinated promotion campaign.
Information
Try to present a range of information, taking account of the format and level of detail
required by different participants, eg level of understanding, language barriers.
Public speaking
The stress of speaking in a meeting deters many from participating. Surgeries and
exhibitions are more flexible and less intimidating.
Internet
The internet gives people access to a wide range of information and access to the internet
opinions from all sides of the argument. But not everybody has access, so a website on its
own is not enough.
part 1
Issue
Introduction
Table 17.4 Making engagement programmes stakeholder friendly (from Collier, 2011)
The Environment Agency (2012) has produced further advice on developing a stakeholder
engagement plan that suitably defines how to work with stakeholders.
In the absence of proactive engagement with stakeholders about the actual risks, perceptions
may arise based upon differing concerns or fears, such as the health of people, or pets, blight on
property or loss of amenity, which can affect people’s emotions and behaviours (Sniffer, 2010).
It must be recognised that the link between actual risk and the perception of risk is not always
correlated.
151
Part 4
Once the engagement is underway, it is recommended that the strategy is reviewed at appropriate
intervals against its objectives to determine how effective it is. As necessary, it should be refined
as the project evolves. To this end, stakeholder engagement is considered a “living” process. For
example, erosion processes may accelerate beyond projections prompting the need for earlier
action. New technical information may emerge from investigations that has a bearing on what,
when and how information is conveyed, or some stakeholders may identify others who also
need to be involved in the process. Similarly, a detailed evaluation of the engagement strategy
is recommended upon its completion so lessons learned can be captured and built into future
activities.
Part 3
Often low risk sites with low levels of public concerns will have a smaller number of stakeholders
from a more limited range of generic groups. More standard and simple methods of engagement
can be adopted usually with relatively low cost and time resources demanded. High risk sites with
high levels of public concern will be the converse, and so a more sophisticated strategy will be
required covering a wide range of stakeholders and employing several engagement methods.
part 2
Whatever engagement strategy is adopted with stakeholders, it is important that people can see
how their views have been taken into account in the decision making, or that explanations can be
provided for why they have not.
Box 17.1 Key considerations of effective
engagement (adapted from Sniffer, 2010)
The message: the information that is to be communicated. This should be provided in an open and honest
way using a simple and concise approach, but supported by evidence. Where the message relates to the
assessment of different management responses to address the risks presented, both the benefits of different
approaches and their costs and disadvantages should be acknowledged. As much good quality visual material
as possible should be used in preference to reams of text. This may include leaflets, posters and presentation
slides. Important messages should be limited to an appropriate number, ie three, so as not to overwhelm the
audience, and these should be reinforced by the range of other engagement materials.
The messenger: the person, or people, delivering the information. The front person should be professional
in appearance and manner and ideally should remain as the same principal point of contact for a particular
community. This means that they see continuity and over time can build up their own confidence in, and contact
with, that person. Also it is important that the messenger is a good listener who uses plain English and chooses
their responses to questions carefully. They should be fully briefed and adequately prepared and be aware of,
and empathetic to, the varying levels of concern and pre-existing perceptions of different generic groups of
stakeholder. If contact details are being circulated to stakeholders it may be best to issue generic departmental
details in case a particular individual is absent due to illness or annual leave or in case of problems with
harassment.
The means: the method(s) to deliver the message. These will depend on the number and range of stakeholders
with interest in the issues presented by a particular site. It is possible that different generic groups of
stakeholder may require information to be provided using different approaches. Each should be selected from
a continuum of engagement methods that covers from simple information pro vision through to full stakeholder
engagement.
Information provision methods: the principal purpose is to raise awareness of the risks to those who may be
affected by them and stimulate interest in participation in later activities. Methods include press releases,
newspaper advertisements, community newsletters, letterbox-drops, public announcements.
Engagement methods: building upon the notification methods, the primary purpose is to provide public
stakeholders with understanding, enabling them to constructively input to developing a solution and helping
them feel they are regaining an element of influence and control over the situation. Not only does this inform
and educate people, but also it establishes the organisation managing the situation as a reliable source of
information and one that can be trusted to act fairly, treating people with respect and dignity and actually
working in partnership with them to jointly develop and deliver an appropriate solution. Methods include
information “roadshows”, public meetings or drop-in sessions*, presence at local community events, and
roundtable workshops.
* Note: Some difficulties can be experienced with formal public meetings. Some attendees view them as an opportunity to air
their frustrations across a whole range of levels, whilst others may feel intimidated about sharing their views in such a public
setting. On some occasions they have been known to degenerate into physical confrontations. Increasingly, less formal public
“drop-in” events are being organised in preference to public meetings. These give the public an opportunity to attend at any
time to suite them within defined hours and talk to staff on a one-to-one basis. Also, this can encourage enhanced dialogue
with a particular individual that may otherwise not be possible during a public meeting where several individuals may wish to
share their views within a limited time period.
152
CIRIA, C718
uild trust: throughout the project’s lifecycle, trust can be built through awareness, openness,
B
transparency, responsiveness and willingness to deliver an appropriate solution. This is further elaborated
in Collier (2011) as: “Trust in the process, trust in the organisation and the credibility/trust of the lead
individual”. In cases where a project is starting from a position of distrust, an independent third party
could be appointed (with the agreement and support of both parties) to act as a facilitator between
parties, or as an independent peer reviewer of reports.
2
nderstand perceptions of risk: often understanding of risk can be influenced by (accurate or erroneous)
U
perceptions that can lead to entrenched positions. Some anticipation of different stakeholders’
perceptions of risk, although difficult to fully predict, can help set the engagement strategy off in the right
direction from the start. Understanding of the influences that shape people’s perceptions, and ultimately
their actions, can be used to contextualise the factual information that is presented to good effect.
3
Provide reliable information: information provided to stakeholders must be robust and reliable.
Information is also deemed more credible if it is linked appropriately to independent academic sources
and government guidance.
4
Use careful timing: there is little point in unnecessarily concerning consultees about a potential risk
if there are adequate interim management measures in place while further investigations are ongoing.
Equally, if a risk is confirmed often there is a need to inform consultees at the earliest appropriate timing
so that they do not come into contact with the source of risk. Also considering the timing of engagement
activities, in relation to the programming of the investigative or remedial works, is important so that it
does not become perceived that “nothing is happening” or worse that “something is being hidden” about
the risk when much of the work may well be ongoing.
I nvolve affected parties: giving stakeholders an opportunity to feed in to decision making can assist
in smoothing the process for conducting activities and agreeing decisions and, in some cases, securing
approvals and/or funding.
7
eep it simple: technical information and management decisions are best presented in a way that
K
will be understood by the stakeholders. For those individuals representing organisations who will be
making technical, environmental and economic decisions, technical information will be required. For
their managers, less technical briefing papers will suffice and for most other stakeholders, including the
public, non-technical information using clear and simple explanations that avoid jargon and try to adopt
plain English wording is required. Pictures and diagrams such as a Conceptual Site Model (CSM) can be
effective in portraying the risks posed. Uncertainties need to be carefully explained and not hidden, with
demonstration of how they will be reduced through investigations or addressed through an appropriate
management response provided so as to avoid concerns.
8
llocate financial budget and human resource: often this is an underestimated aspect and needs
A
to be considered at the start of a project and then reviewed as the project develops. If media or
community interest is high, then it should be expected that local authority councillors, heads of services
and council leaders will be demanding a regular flow of information internally, which can be a major
human resource commitment.
9
ork with the media: potentially the media can be either helpful or detrimental to the engagement process.
W
Some stories can appear as blatant scare-mongering, gaining a lot of public attention by playing on their
fears and exploiting any lack of trust people may already feel in local government. Often it can lead to
entrenchment of existing perceptions. Adopting a proactive approach to the media will usually lead to a more
balanced manner and inform communities about what is planned or being done to manage them.
10
se an engagement specialist or public relations team: these are specially trained in how to deal with
U
stakeholders and often have local and community knowledge that can be used to define appropriate
approaches. They can be proactive in approach and used to produce suitable materials to enable
engagement with stakeholders. However, they will need professional support from technical specialists to
accurately portray the risks and risk management approaches.
153
Part 4
6
Part 3
I mprove dialogue: the most effective engagement is a two way process that respects the views of all
participants. This not only helps achieve “buy-in” to the approaches that ultimately are developed, but
also may generate more complete and better quality information upon which risks can be assessed and
management decisions can be made.
part 2
5
part 1
1
Introduction
Box 17.2 Ten building blocks of effective
engagement (adapted from Sniffer, 2010)
17.5 References
COLLIER, D (2011) SAFEGROUNDS: Community stakeholder involvement. A report prepared within the
SAFEGROUNDS version 3. W038, SAFEGROUNDS Network, CIRIA, London.
Go to: www.safegrounds.com/guidance.htm
DEFRA (2006b) Shoreline management plan guidance – Volume 2: Procedures, PB11726 v2,
Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Go to: http://archive.defra.gov.
uk/environment/flooding/documents/policy/guidance/smpguide/volume2.pdf
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2012) Working with others: a guide for staff, Environment Agency, Bristol.
Go to: www.participationcymru.org.uk/working-with-others-building-trust-with-communities
SNIFFER (2010) Communicating understanding of contaminated land risks, UKQL13, Arup Scotland
and Ray Kemp Consulting Ltd on behalf of Sniffer, SEPA, NIEA and Environment Agency.
Go to: www.sniffer.org.uk/files/5513/4183/8005/Communicating_understanding_of_
contaminated_land_risks_guidance_UKLQ13.pdf
154
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
part 1
Part 4
Case studies
part 2
Part 3
Part 4
155
18 Case study: Trow Quarry
18.1 Background
Trow Quarry is a former Magnesian Limestone quarry located on the coast near South Shields in
North East England. Following cessation of quarrying activities in the mid-20th century, the site
was partially in-filled with waste material by the Municipal Authority throughout the 1960s and
1970s up until the mid-1980s when it was capped with topsoil and landscaped. Landownership
was transferred to The National Trust in the 1990s and the site is now used as a public open
amenity space and nature conservation area.
This case study describes how problems were characterised associated with the ongoing
erosion and release of waste material from the site into the environment. Also, how appropriate
management responses were appraised, leading to the design and delivery of a coastal defence
scheme to address the problems.
Figure 18.1 Trow Quarry (source North East Coast Observatory:
www.northeastcoastalobservatory.org.uk)
18.2 The problem
The material in-filling the former quarry comprises a range of inert and non-hazardous
industrial and domestic waste such as brickwork, masonry, soil and ash, but also other material
that is hazardous to both the natural environment and to human health. Some of the waste was
periodically being washed out from the coastal margin by processes of erosion and deposited on
the adjoining foreshore or washed into the sea. This created a risk that the release or exposure
of hazardous material could result in environmental damage or adverse effects to public health,
including injury, illness or death.
156
CIRIA, C718
Following this assessment, a management decision was made by the landowner in association with
the local authority to provide public warning signs and undertake regular inspection and cleanup of any hazardous debris from both the foreshore and the cliff face, while further options were
being assessed.
Introduction
These risks were first highlighted following observation of erosion episodes. A ground
investigation was undertaken in two stages from 2003 to 2005 to better understand the nature of
the in-fill and to inform management options. This highlighted the presence of materials such
as asbestos, chemical compounds (eg arsenic, cyanide), heavy metals (eg lead, mercury), diesel,
petroleum organics, hospital syringes, glass etc.
part 1
part 2
Figure 18.2 Coastal erosion at Trow Quarry
18.3Options appraisal
option identification: a full range of potential options was identified including do
nothing, do minimum (monitoring and clear up) and do something (removing the waste or
constructing a physical barrier type defence)
Part 3
Having identified the problem, characterised the site and assessed the risks, an appraisal was
undertaken of management options to reduce the risk from the ongoing erosion. This involved:
option screening: undertaking an initial high-level screening exercise in a qualitative
manner that considered technical, environmental and economic aspects and enabled
“showstoppers” associated with any options to be identified and any options that were
considered to be unacceptable or unfeasible to be removed at this stage of the process
In the option screening and option appraisal stages, the technical screening assessment was based
on the effectiveness of each option. This was in addressing the problem of hazardous material
157
Part 4
option appraisal: options screened in for further assessments were then subject to an
appraisal that considered technical, engineering and economic factors in a detailed way and
led to the identification of a preferred option. In this case, the detailed assessment focused
on do nothing (as a base case that do something options were compared against), removing
all or part of the waste from the coastal margin, and building a physical coastal defence
barrier at the coastal margin to prevent erosion from occurring. The preferred approach
was the latter option and involved the construction of a rock revetment at the toe of the
coastal margin and re-grading of the slope above it to a more stable angle.
being washed onto the foreshore and whether it could successfully remove the source of the risk,
remove the receptor or break the pathway(s) between the receptor and the source of the risk.
18.4 Uncertainties and adaptability
While the preferred option was identified as an appropriate way of immediately addressing the
ongoing erosion and was proportionate to the nature and magnitude of the risks posed, it was
also acknowledged that there remained some uncertainties governing future coastal change
at the site. These particularly related to the recession rates of the controlling rock headlands
along the coast and the future rates of sea level rise. Also, it was decided that the rock revetment
would be designed to be sufficient in its role in reducing coastal erosion risk over the next
50 years, while avoiding imposing undue constraints on the delivery of alternative long-term
options in the future. This means that the scheme selected is proportionate to present-day and
medium-term future risks, but also is adaptable should risks change in the future. This could
allow strengthening or raising of the rock revetment as necessary in the future, contingent
upon the findings from an accompanying long-term programme of monitoring, inspection and
investigation to address these uncertainties.
18.5 Environmental issues
The overall purpose of intervention at Trow Quarry was to reduce risks to both the natural
environment and public health from the release of hazardous material (ie the scheme was
principally driven by an environmental need). However, as the site is located within several areas
of nature conservation importance, such as the Durham Coast Special Area of Conservation
(SAC), the Northumbria Coast Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar Site, and the Durham
Coast Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), environmental considerations during construction
operations were of paramount importance. Also, the scheme fell under Schedule 2 of the Town
and Country Planning (EIA) Regulations 1999, as defined by the local planning authority, and an
Environmental Statement (ES) was produced.
Importantly, the detailed design of the preferred option was purposely undertaken in parallel
with the many environmental investigations so that any effects could be identified and removed,
reduced or mitigated throughout the design process, in so far as was practicable. The main
environmental risks were identified through the EIA process and the appropriate scheme
mitigation measures given in Table 18.1 were highlighted and adopted.
158
CIRIA, C718
Mitigation measure
Loss of excavated fill material
to the environment
Excavated fill material was tested and disposed of at a licensed site in
accordance with legal and industry-standard procedures for the handling and
transportation of such material.
Disturbance to over-wintering
birds
Construction activities did not take place within the SPA between the months of
October and March due to the designated over-wintering bird interest.
Encroachment of the structure
to designated areas
Encroachment across the foreshore was minimised through design as far as
reasonably practicable, and the margins of the scheme were altered to provide a
niche habitat for semi-halophytic species. The need to strike a balance between
minimising foreshore encroachment and minimising the volume of fill material
to be excavated (for both environmental and cost reasons) largely dictated the
geometric profile of the revetment and re-graded slope.
Noise and vibration from
vehicles and construction
activities
Vehicle movements and construction activities were restricted to pre-defined
working windows to reduce noise and vibration disturbance.
Disturbance during import
of rock to humans, wildlife,
plants, and geological/
geomorphological interest
Import of rock was made only by sea to minimise vehicle movements associated
with delivery from land. Rock was stockpiled temporarily on the sand veneer of
Graham’s Sand and not on the rocky shore of either Graham’s Sand or Southern
Bay where the foreshore is designated both for geology and algal communities.
Change to visual character of
the coast
A landscape character assessment identified the use of granite as the rock type,
together with a graduation from large boulder size (seaward) to smaller cobble
size (landward) in construction. This provided the most natural visual appearance
as well as being of rock per se (rather than concrete).
part 2
Delivery of the preferred scheme has provided an environmental improvement at Trow Quarry
because the erosion that led to man-made debris littering the foreshore has now stopped and
the landscape character has also improved. The design for the seeding regime of the re-graded
coastal slope used Red Fescue (Festuca Rubra) to reflect coastal grassland. Importantly the
seeding regime was designed at a low density along the coastal margin to deliberately leave a
niche habitat for the establishment of marginal coastal cliff species that were not present with the
existence of the landfill cliff.
part 1
Effect
Introduction
Table 18.1 Effects and mitigation measures at Trow Quarry
18.6Construction phase
rock delivery: one of the planning conditions imposed by the local planning authority
(to minimise road traffic disruption) was that all rock armour delivery to the site had to
be made by sea. To reduce noise and vibration disturbance, another condition was on
daily working hours. Due to the nature of the site, the 15 000 tonnes of rock armour first
had to be delivered from the source quarry in Larvik, Norway by sea to the UK and then
transhipped onto a smaller delivery vessel capable of reaching as far as possible up the
foreshore during the height of the tide. A tug was required to stabilise the delivery vessel
while it was moored for offloading of the rock. This operation was tide-dependent and early
consideration of the logistics of this process through early involvement of the rock supplier
meant that suitable arrangements could be made in the planning application to allow 24-
159
Part 4
health and safety: the health and safety aspects of the scheme were considered at the earliest
possible stage of the project and updated throughout the design and construction phases.
Some of the principal risks involved the potentially hazardous nature of the in-fill material
that was being excavated and disposed off-site, the risk of plant and operatives becoming
trapped by a rising tide, working in areas with limited manoeuvrability and access, and the
import of rock by sea. These aspects were addressed by CDM co-ordinator involvement,
contractor enforcement of health and safety policy and site rules, and regular inspection/
audit by senior project management staff during construction
Part 3
During the construction phase of the scheme several interesting challenges were faced and
overcome, including:
hour working for the rock delivery. This allowed rock to be offloaded during high tide to
an inter-tidal stock-pile and then allowed the stockpile to be cleared during the low tide
between deliveries. This meant that initial concerns of nature conservation bodies regarding
stockpiling in the inter-tidal zone for long durations were reduced to acceptable levels
excavation and licensed disposal of hazardous material: an important component of
the scheme involved the excavation and removal of some of the in-fill material to enable
re-grading of the coastal slope. This was undertaken for three purposes to provide a
more stable slope angle than the near-vertical coastal margin that was prone to slumping,
to enable the footprint encroachment of the rock revetment across the foreshore to be
minimised, and to remove some of the hazardous material located closest to the coastal
margin off-site to licensed disposal sites. This aspect was carefully planned and monitored
to reduce health and safety risks to site workers and the wider public. To achieve safest
working methods, there was no storage of excavated material on-site. Instead, works were
planned so that excavated material could be transferred immediately into sealed wagons
and removed off-site to the nearest licensed disposal site for accepting such material.
Regular Waste Acceptance Criteria (WAC) testing was undertaken by senior contaminated
land experts and, in accordance with the agreed dust management plan, only 20 m of fill
material was exposed through excavation at any one time. To avoid potential for crosscontamination, fresh imported topsoil was used to cover the re-graded slope.
18.7 Post-scheme monitoring
The construction scheme was completed in November 2008. Now, long-term monitoring is being
undertaken to assess both the engineering and environmental performance of the scheme.
This monitoring will focus particularly on recession of the hard rock headlands that control the
shoreline position, with a view to identifying any modification works that may be required in
the long-term. Also, ongoing monitoring will determine whether the scheme is successful in its
prevention of erosion of the coastal margin and release of waste into the environment.
Conclusions
The Trow Quarry case study shows how, through a successful partnership approach involving
active involvement from appropriate organisations (landowner, local authority, funding body
(in this case the Environment Agency through FCERM grant in aid), and regulators), a scheme
can successfully be developed and delivered to protect and enhance the environment. This has
been possible because of the pragmatic and proportionate response from all parties that delivers
a solution to solve the immediate risks posed by coastal erosion. Also, it can be adapted in the
future as appropriate, contingent upon the findings of long-term monitoring and improved
understanding of present-day uncertainties.
Acknowledgements
The Trow Quarry case study is based on work undertaken between 2003 and 2008 by South
Tyneside Council, The National Trust, Royal Haskoning, Environment Agency, Natural England,
and Carillion, who are acknowledged for their support.
160
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
part 1
Figure 18.3 Completed scheme at Trow Quarry
Further references
part 2
COOPER, N J, WAINWRIGHT, A and LEGGETT, D J (2009) “A rock and a hard place:
managing coastal erosion risk at Trow Quarry, South Shields”. In: W Allsop (ed) Coasts,
marine structures and breakwaters: adapting to change, vol 1, Thomas Telford
Publishing, UK, pp 488–497
Part 3
Part 4
161
19 Case study: Spittles Lane
19.1 Background
The Spittles Lane landfill site is located to the immediate east of Lyme Regis in West Dorset.
It was actively used unlicensed up to 1974 by predecessor local governments. Since cessation of
waste tipping the former landfill site has become overgrown with scrub and woodland.
Although the present West Dorset District Council (WDDC) had no involvement in the tipping
activities, the authority inherited responsibilities because of local government re-structuring. The
site started to receive waste from late Victorian times and with known mixed waste present at the
site it was identified by WDDC as potentially contaminated land.
The site is located near the top of the Black Ven and Spittles landslide complex, a highly active
section of cliffed coastline. This frontage falls within the UNESCO World Heritage Site, an Area
of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONB), a Special Area of Conservation (SAC) and a Site of
Special Scientific Interest (SSSI). This means that it is within an important earth science heritage
and nature conservation setting, close to a popular seaside tourist town.
19.2 Landslip event and immediate
response
Historically, movement in the landfilled area of the complex had been gradual and affected only
small volumes of waste. However, on 6 May 2008 a major coastal landslip occurred, bringing large
quantities of waste materials onto the foreshore (Gallois, 2009).
Immediately following the landslip event, the following emergency responses occurred:
meeting between staff from appropriate bodies and departments, including WDDC,
emergency services, Dorset County Council (DCC), Health Protection Agency, Environment
Agency, Lyme Regis Town Council (LRTC) and technical specialists
emergency sampling of landfill wastes and site-specific risk assessment
sampling of controlled waters and assessment of impact by the Environment Agency
initial geotechnical inspection of the landslide by technical specialists
closure of the affected section of the Lyme Regis to Charmouth coastal footpath by The
National Trust
managed release of information to the press, residents, businesses and visitors to the beach
by DCC, WDDC and LRTC.
162
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
part 1
Figure 19.1 Spittles Lane landslip
(courtesy Natural Environment Research Council)
19.3 Management plan
WDDC prepared a management plan to identify the risks posed by the site and explore the
management options that were practically available to adequately manage the risks. This
concluded that the recommended approach, based on knowledge of the waste materials to date,
was to leave the waste in situ at the former landfill site and deal with any waste deposited on the
foreshore in a controlled manner. To assist with this approach, WDDC set aside a contingency
budget of £100k.
application for Defra funding to complete a contaminated land Part IIA investigation
involving quarterly landfill waste sampling rounds and human health risk assessment of
identified contaminants
Part 3
After completion of the emergency actions and site-specific risk assessment of the situation, the
following were undertaken:
part 2
Grant funding of ~£30k from Defra was used by WDDC to undertake some sampling of the waste
and prepare a site-specific risk assessment. The Environment Agency also undertook sea water
sampling. These activities found the presence of no significant contaminants, but larger waste
items, glass, and asbestos fragments were identified.
investigation of ownership of the former Spittles Land landfill and identification of legal
liabilities arising from its ownership
regular inspections of waste material via different agencies reporting to WDDC
collection and suitable disposal of waste materials identified as posing an immediate risk,
such as asbestos fragments and metal tanks by a specialist contractor
installation of signage and staggered gates to notify the public of hazards related to the
landslip and the landfill waste
continued closure of the affected section of the coastal path.
The geotechnical assessments identified that significant seaward movement of the landslide
complex would continue and this would lead to further deposition of material onto the foreshore.
It was expected that before any further large landslip, there would be a series of smaller events
163
Part 4
further geotechnical investigation by technical specialists, informed by GPS survey of the
affected area and piezometer readings from the landslip complex and including assessment
of the direct physical risks from the landslip process per se, and the potential effects of the
landslip on outflanking or destabilising nearby coast protection works at Lyme Regis
each likely to trigger further small releases of waste from the seaward edge of the landfill area
during the course of each year. Also, waste previously released from the landfill during the 2008
landslip but trapped within the complex would migrate down the cliff face or be released by
further erosion or weathering of the landslip toe.
The risk assessments were informed by the results of sampling both soils and controlled waters
close to the released materials. They concluded that there was no significant effect on controlled
waters but at the landslip toe there was the presence of lead, polyaromatic hydrocarbons and
asbestos. Also, there was a direct physical risk to the public from further falling debris, of cuts
from glass, tanks and jagged shards of metal, and from trips and falls over debris. In terms of
ecological receptors, potential effects on limpets and periwinkles were identified from the metals
present.
19.4 Management options
In recognition of these risks, the following management options were considered:
stabilise: it was considered impractical from safety, economic and environmental viewpoints
to further stabilise the landslip complex
remove: it was considered impractical from safety, economic and environmental viewpoints
to remove waste from either the existing unaffected landfill area or, once disturbed, from
the within the landslip complex before it reaches the foreshore
manage in situ: this involves monitoring the landslide for further movement and sampling
the waste composition to continually update the site-specific risk assessment and was
identified as the preferred approach.
19.5Preferred management option
In delivering the preferred management option (manage in situ), the monitoring involves annual
soil sampling with further sampling when required, and visual inspections at weekly intervals
(WDDC dog warden), monthly intervals (WDDC environmental health) and quarterly intervals
(WDDC environmental health and specialist contractors). Also, extra visual inspections when
wave heights exceed certain thresholds, before public holidays when larger numbers of beach
users would be expected, and following reports from visitors to the site expressing concern about
land movement or exposure of waste.
When necessary, this option also involves collection of waste from the foreshore and disposal in
a controlled manner using specialist contractors suited to the particular waste(s) identified. An
important part of the process also involves a yearly review of advice and signage provided to the
local community and visitors.
The management plan developed for the Spittles Lane landfill (West Dorset District Council,
2010) also gave proactive consideration to the workers (skills and resource) required to carry out
the preferred approach, their training and personal protective equipment (PPE) requirements,
the costs for inspections, sampling and analysis, risk assessment and risk management, waste
removal and disposal, and signage and provision of information. Also, in recognition of the
importance of keeping people informed and the importance of tourism to the local economy, the
management plan established a strategy for communication with stakeholders and the media. An
incident response plan was developed in the event of another major landslip incident releasing
large quantities of waste onto the foreshore.
164
CIRIA, C718
The management plan recognised the importance of annual reviews of the site-specific risk
assessment and the preferred management approach in light of new information about the
presence of contaminants. Other factors that will require annual review included increases in
the rate of slippage and release of material onto the foreshore, grant funding awards, increased
public awareness and use of the site, changes in legislation and the influences and concerns of
stakeholders.
Introduction
Conclusion
Further references
part 1
GALLOIS, R W (2009) “A recent large landslide at The Spittles, Lyme Regis, Dorset and
its implications for the stability of the adjacent urban area”. Geoscience in South-West
England, vol 12, pp 101–108
WEST DORSET DISTRICT COUNCIL (2010) West Dorset District Council Executive
Committee – 22 June 2010 Report of the Community Protection Manager Directorate:
Corporate resources and health. Spittles Lane management plan.
Go to: http://m.dorsetforyou.com/media.jsp?mediaid=150076&filetype=pdf
part 2
Part 3
Part 4
165
20 Case study: Shoreline
Management Plan, Essex
20.1 Background
SMPs and their relevance to landfill sites and land contamination were previously discussed in
Chapter 9. SMPs are documents that describe the intent of the coast protection authorities and
the Environment Agency for managing the coast. SMPs are developed in partnership with local
planning authorities and other organisations to ensure they reflect the interests, needs and
constraints of the communities and the environment in the coastal zone.
The Essex and South Suffolk SMP was developed between 2008 and 2011. It covers the coast
between Landguard Point, near Felixstowe in the north, and Two Tree Island near Southend-onSea in the south and includes the Essex and South Suffolk estuaries and embayments.
The Environment Agency is the lead authority, reflecting their role in managing coastal flood risk
for this largely low-lying coastline, but the SMP was developed in close partnership with the coast
protection authorities, the local planning authorities, the two county councils, Natural England
and English Heritage. These organisations were involved through both officers (providing
information and helping develop the approach) and elected members (to make and confirm
decisions). The SMP was signed off by all councils.
There are several contaminated sites on the Essex coast. This has influenced the development of
shoreline management options, and the SMP has initiated actions to resolve these issues.
20.2Contaminated sites on the Essex
coast
The SMP identified several frontages where contamination is an issue (Figure 20.1), with different
causes:
presence of landfill sites behind the defences: Levington Creek (River Orwell estuary,
Figure 20.2a), Barling Marshes (River Roach estuary), Two Tree Island (River Thames
estuary, Figure 20.2b)
the actual defences containing, or being constructed out of waste: Holliwell Point (Dengie
Peninsula), Hadleigh Marsh (Southend-on-Sea, River Thames estuary, Figure 20.2c) and
South Fambridge (River Crouch estuary)
likely presence of contamination behind the defences due to military land use: Potton Island
(Figure 20.2d), Rushley Island and Great Wakering (all River Roach estuary).
166
CIRIA, C718
Introduction
part 1
part 2
Part 3
Figure 20.1 Sites of contaminated land at flood risk within the
Essex and South Suffolk Shoreline Management Plan area
Part 4
167
a
b
c
d
Figure 20.2 Selection of contaminated sites identified within the Essex
Shoreline Management Plan area (courtesy Abigail Brunt, Environment Agency)
20.3 Effect on policy development
An important issue for the Essex and South Suffolk SMP concerned future management of coastal
flood defences that are under pressure from coastal processes. There are defences running nearly
the whole length of the coast of the SMP area. This has resulted in the estuaries being constrained
and many of the frontages are under threat from erosion of the foreshore or the flood defence.
Climate change and sea level rise is likely to increase this pressure. In time, holding the existing
defence line at those locations will become more challenging and more expensive, and the
negative effects on habitats and other uses of the coast also will increase. For each of these
frontages, the SMP assessed whether managed realignment (MR) would be a more sustainable
management option, and if so, within what time line. The SMP identified frontages where MR
would not be possible, or would require further information or site specific feasibility study to
reach an informed decision. When assessing the preferred management of the flood defences
containing or protecting unknown contaminants it was felt that an informed decision could not be
made without further information on what they contained, the risk of pollution and extra cost to
manage these sites.
Most of the sites in Figure 20.1 are located on frontages that are under pressure from erosion
of the foreshore or toe of the defence. The SMP process was high level and as such was not
able to investigate these site specific issues in detail. The SMP partnership agreed that further
investigation of these sites was a high priority that needs to be resolved. Consequently, the SMP
explicitly states where contamination was a factor in selecting a hold the line policy, and warns
that management of the defences in these locations will remain challenging. In some cases, the
need to hold the line because of contamination on one side of an estuary meant that MR had to
be selected for the opposite bank to relieve the pressure. The SMP also makes these decisions
explicit, and highlights that this may be revised if further research provides evidence that
realignment of contaminated frontages is viable. If MR is not possible due to the complexity
and added cost of cleaning up a site, detailed assessments will be needed to help support future
maintenance of the defence. Also, there is a legal responsibility to identify these sites and assess
168
CIRIA, C718
In addition, the SMP’s action plan contains specific actions to set in motion the process to resolve
contaminated land issues:
the action plan calls for a national study to establish the extent of the issues and identify
methods for management, and this guide is an important element. Also, the action plan
refers to national policy under consideration
there is a general action for regular review of the policies for frontages where there is the
presence of contamination constrained management options.
part 1
there are frontage-specific actions to investigate the waste filled walls, particularly in Dengie
and in the Roach and Crouch Estuary. For Two Tree Island there is a specific action in
relation to the risk of erosion of contaminated land
Introduction
the risk of pollution leaching in to the estuary. The SMP process highlighted this as an issue and
raised awareness of the need to investigate these sites.
20.4 Actions and plans following the SMP
identify contaminated sites in Essex
part 2
To deliver the actions in the SMP the Environment Agency have commissioned a PhD with
Queen Mary University of London (QMUL) to identify pilot areas of contaminated land at
flood risk (with a focus on Essex). This study will monitor and evaluate the sites to determine
what contaminants are present, the risk of them leaching and options for future sustainable
management. This will enable development of a series of evidence-based scenarios of the
implications of managing and not managing the pilot sites to help inform future management of
other, similar areas of low-lying contaminated land. The project activities are as follows:
monitor and evaluate contaminated sites
develop a series of evidence-based scenarios of the implications and develop a management
plan for the pilot areas of risk.
20.5 Lessons learnt
Part 3
Once the PhD is complete the findings and evidence can be presented to the delivery partners
of the SMP and decisions can be made about potentially revisiting the policies for the identified
frontages.
The main lessons learnt from the SMP in relation to coastal landfill sites and contamination are:
the involvement of all relevant organisations in a collaborative partnership made it possible
to develop a shared understanding of the issue. This was strongly reinforced by the active
role that local authority elected members played in the SMP process
SMP guidance could have helped the process through early identification of the issue.
However, there would have been no benefit in having rigid detailed guidance: the solutions
need to be developed locally in partnership with all relevant organisations.
169
Part 4
the team’s knowledge of the issue developed in the course of the process based on local
knowledge of all partner organisations. The process would have been helped by an early
and complete overview of contaminated sites
Further reading
Management of the coastline
BUDD, B, JOHN, S, SIMM, J and WILKINSON, M (2003) Coastal and marine environmental site
guide, C584, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-584-1). Go to: www.ciria.org
DUPRAY, S, KNIGHTS, J, ROBERTSHAW, G, WIMPENNY, D and WOODS BALLARD, B
(2010) The use of concrete in maritime engineering – a guide to good practice, C674, CIRIA, London
(ISBN: 978-0-86017-674-9). Go to: www.ciria.org
Land contamination
JEFFRIES, J and MARTIN, I (2009) Updated technical background to the CLEA model, Science
Report SC050021/SR3, Environment Agency, Bristol (ISBN: 978-1-84432-856-7).
Go to: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/CLEA_Report_-_final.pdf
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2000) Land contamination risk assessment tools: an evaluation of some of
the commonly used methods, P260, R&D Technical Report, Environment Agency, Bristol
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2009) Dealing with contaminated land in England and Wales. A review
of progress from 2000–2007 with Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act, Environment Agency,
Bristol. Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/geho0109bpha-e-e.pdf
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2010) GP1 – Guiding principles for land contamination, Environment
Agency, Bristol. Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/geho1109brgy-e-e.pdf
ICRCL (1990) Notes on the development and after-use of landfill sites eighth edition, ICRCL Paper 17/78
Interdepartment Committee on the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land, UK.
Go to: www.eugris.info/envdocs/ICRCL17_78.pdf
STEEDS, J E, SHEPHERD, E and BARRY, D L (1996) A guide for safe working on contaminated sites,
R132, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-451-6). Go to: www.ciria.org
TOWLER, P, RANKIN, A, KRUSE, P and ESLAVA-GOMEZ, A (2003) SAFEGROUNDS: Good
practice guidance for site characterisation, version 2, W030, CIRIA, London.
Go to: www.safegrounds.com/guidance.htm
Radioactively contaminated land
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2012a) Radioactive contaminated land. Briefing note 2: An overview of
land contaminated with radioactive substances, Environment Agency, Bristol.
Go to: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/2racl_bn_2_v2_1445620.pdf
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2012b) Radioactive contaminated land. Briefing note 3: Developing land
contaminated with radioactivity, Environment Agency, Bristol. Go to: www.environment-agency.gov.
uk/static/documents/Leisure/3racl_briefing_note_3_1445630.pdf
170
CIRIA, C718
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2012c) Radioactive contaminated land. Briefing note 5: Land
contaminated with radioactivity on nuclear licensed sites, Environment Agency, Bristol. Go to: www.
environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/5racl_briefing_note_5_1445638.pdf
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2012d) Radioactive contaminated land. Briefing note 6: Land
contaminated with radioactivity and the Radioactive Substances Act 1993, Environment Agency,
Bristol. Go to: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/6racl_briefing_
note_6_1445645.pdf
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2012e) Radioactive contaminated land. Briefing note 7: Voluntary
remediation of land contaminated with radioactivity, Environment Agency, Bristol. Go to:
www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/7_racl_briefing_note_7_1445650.pdf
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2012f) Radioactive contaminated land. Briefing note 8: Land
contaminated with radioactivity and the principles of radiation protection, Environment Agency, Bristol.
Go to: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/8_racl_briefing_
note_8_1445654.pdf
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (1996–2006) Detailed inspection of radioactive contaminated land
under Part 2A EPA 1990. Guidance for local authorities on the collation and assessment of documentary
information B20(a), version 2, Environment Agency, Bristol.
Go to: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Leisure/a071207_b20a_final_v2_1445505.pdf
Controlled waters
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2006) Groundwater protection: policy and practice, Part 1: Overview,
Environment Agency, Bristol. Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/geho1006blmw-e-e.pdf
Carey, M A, Marsland, P A and SMith, J W N (2006) Remedial Targets Methodology, Hydrogeological
risk assessment for land contamination, Environment Agency, Bristol.
Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/geho0706bleq-e-e.pdf
Risks associated with gases
CARD, G B (1996) Protecting development from methane, R149. CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-086017-410-3). Go to: www.ciria.org
CROWHURST, C and MANCHESTER, S J (1993) The measurement of methane and other gases from
the ground, R131, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-372-4). Go to: www.ciria.org
HARRIES, C R, WITHERINGTON, P J and MCENTEE, J M (1995) Interpreting measurements of
gas in the ground, R151. CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-446-2). Go to: www.ciria.org
HOOKER, P J and BANNON, M P (1993) Methane: its occurrence and hazards in construction, R130,
CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-373-1). Go to: www.ciria.org
RAYBOULD, J G, ROWAN, S P and BARRY, D L (1995) Methane investigation strategies, R150.
CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-435-6). Go to: www.ciria.org
Assessing the risks to ecosystems
BOUCARD, T and WHITEHOUSE, P (2008) Guidance on the attribution of cause and effect in
ecological risk assessment, Science report SC070009/SR2e, Environment Agency, Bristol (ISBN: 9781-84432-949-6). Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho1008borw-e-e.pdf
EASTMAN, R, HARES, R and ROAST, S(2008) Guidance on the use of ecological surveys in
ecological risk assessment, Science report SC070009/SR2d, Environment Agency, Bristol (ISBN:
978-1-84432-951-9). Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho1008bosp-e-e.pdf
MERRINGTON, G, CRANE, M, ASHTON, D and BENSTEAD, R (2008) Guidance on the use
of soil screening values in ecological risk assessment, Science report SC070009/SR2b, Environment
Agency, Bristol (ISBN: 978-1-84432-952-6).
Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho1008bosq-e-e.pdf
171
POWER, B, CRANE, M and BRADFORD, P (2008) Guidance on desk studies and conceptual site
models for ecological risk assessment, Environment Agency, Bristol (ISBN: 978-1-84432-946-5).
Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho1008borp-e-e.pdf
ROAST, R, ASHTON, D, LEVERETT, D, WHITEHOUSE, P and BENSTEAD, R (2008)
Guidance on the use of bioassays in ecological risk assessment, Science report SC070009/SR2c,
Environment Agency, Bristol (ISBN: 978-1-84432-948-9).
Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho1008boru-e-e.pdf
Options appraisal guidance
BARDOS, P, NATHANAIL, C P and WEENK, A (2000) Assessing the wider environmental value
of remediating land contamination: a review, R&D technical report, Environment Agency, Bristol
(ISBN: 978-18570-503-7-0)
BONE, B D, BARNARD, L H and HILLS, C D (2004) Guidance on the use of stabilisation/
solidification for the treatment of contaminated soil, Science Report: SC980003/SR1, Environment
Agency, Bristol (ISBN: 1-84432-320-X).
Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho0904bifo-e-e.pdf
BONE, B D, BARNARD, L H, BOARDMAN, D I, CAREY, PJ, HILLS, C D, JONES, H M,
MACLEOD, C L and TYRER, M (2004) Review of scientific literature on the use of stabilisation/
solidification for the treatment of contaminated soil, solid waste and sludges, Science Report SC980003/
SR2, Environment Agency, Bristol (ISBN: 1-84432-319-6).
Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho0904bifp-e-e.pdf
CAREY, M A, FINNAMORE, J R, MORREY, M J and MARSLAND, P A (2000) Guidance on the
assessment and monitoring of natural attenuation of contaminants in groundwater, R&D Publication 95,
Environment Agency, Bristol. Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/sr-dpub95-e-e.pdf
CAREY, M A, FRETWELL, B A, MOSLEY, N G and SMITH, J W N (2002) Guidance on the use
of permeable reactive barriers for remediating contaminated groundwater, National Groundwater &
Contaminated Land Centre report NC/01/51.Environment Agency, Bristol.
Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho0902bitm-e-e.pdf
DAVISON, R M, WEATHHALL, G P and LERNER, D N (2002) Source treatments for dense nonaqueous phase liquids, R&D Technical Report P5-51/TR/01, Environment Agency, Bristol (ISBN:
978-1-85705-483-5)
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2004) Mobilising nature’s armoury: Monitored natural attenuation –
dealing with pollution using natural processes, Environment Agency, Bristol.
Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho0104bhtd-e-e.pdf
HODSON, M E and VALSAMI JONES, E (2000) Remediation of toxic metal pollution in soil using
bone meal. Technical Report P238, Environment Agency, Bristol (978-0-185705-033-2)
KEARNEY, T (2002) Remedial treatment action data sheets, Environment Agency, Bristol.
Go to: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Research/rtas.pdf
Remediation options guidance
BARR, D, FINNAMORE, J R, BARDOS, R P, WEEKS, J M and NATHANAIL, C P (2002)
Biological methods for the assessment and remediation of contaminated land: case studies, C575, CIRIA,
London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-575-9). Go to: www.ciria.org
BARRY, D L, SUMMERSGILL, I M, GREGORY, R G and HELLAWELL, E (2001) Remedial engineering
for closed landfill sites, C557, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-557-5). Go to: www.ciria.org
BRE (1994) Slurry trench cut-off walls to contain contamination, BRE Digest 395, BRE Press, London
(ISBN: 0-85125-639-2)
172
CIRIA, C718
DETR (1998) Active containment: combined treatment and containment systems, Department of the
Environment, Transport and the Regions, London (ISBN: 978-1-85112-114-4)
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2000) Costs and benefits associated with the remediation of contaminated
groundwater: a framework for assessment, R&D Technical Report 279, Environment Agency, Bristol
(ISBN: 1-85705-207-2). Go to: http://a0768b4a8a31e106d8b0-50dc802554eb38a24458b98ff72d55
0b.r19.cf3.rackcdn.com/strp279-e-e.pdf
ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2002) Costs and benefits associated with the remediation of contaminated
groundwater: application and example, R&D Technical Report P2-078/TR, Environment Agency,
Bristol. Go to: http://a0768b4a8a31e106d8b0-50dc802554eb38a24458b98ff72d550b.r19.cf3.
rackcdn.com/sp2-078-ts-e-e.pdf
EVANS, D, JEFFERIS, S A, THOMAS, A O and CUI, S (2001) Remedial processes for contaminated land
– principles and practice, C549, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-549-0). Go to: www.ciria.org
GARVIN, S L, PAUL, V and UBEROI, S (1995) Polymeric anti-corrosion coatings for protection of
materials in contaminated land, BRE Report 286, BRE Press, London (ISBN: 1-86081-017-9).
Go to: www.brebookshop.com
HARRIS, M R, HERBERT, S M, SMITH, M A et al (1995–1998) (SP164) Remedial treatment for
contaminated land, series. Go to: www.ciria.org:
SP101 Introduction and guide (ISBN: 978-0-86017-396-0)
SP102 Decommissioning, decontamination and demolition (ISBN: 978-0-86017-397-7)
SP103 Site investigation and assessment (ISBN: 978-0-86017-398-4)
SP104 Classification and selection of remedial methods (ISBN: 978-0-86017-399-1)
SP105 Excavation and disposal (ISBN: 978-0-86017-400-4)
SP106 Containment and hydraulic measures (ISBN: 978-0-86017-401-1)
SP107 Ex-situ remedial methods for soils, sludges and sediments (ISBN: 978-0-86017-402-8)
SP108 Ex-situ remedial methods for contaminated groundwater and other liquids (ISBN: 978-0-86017-403-5)
SP109 In-situ methods of remediation (ISBN: 978-0-86017-404-2)
SP110 Special situations (ISBN: 978-0-86017-405-9)
SP111 Planning and management (ISBN: 978-0-86017-406-6)
SP112 Policy and legislation (ISBN: 978-0-86017-407-3)
HARDISTY, P E and OZDEMIROGLU, E (1999) Costs and benefits associated with the remediation of
contaminated groundwater: a review of the issues, R&D Technical Report 278. Environment Agency,
Bristol (ISBN: 1-85705-131-9). Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/str-p278-e-e.pdf
NOBLE, P and MORGAN, P (2002) Laboratory to field scale relationships in the assessment of the
potential for monitored natural attenuation of contaminants in groundwater, R&D Technical Report P2254/TR, Environment Agency, Bristol (ISBN: 978-1-85705-701-0).
Go to: http://a0768b4a8a31e106d8b0-50dc802554eb38a24458b98ff72d550b.r19.cf3.rackcdn.com/
sp2-245-ts-e-e.pdf
POSTLE, M, FENN, T, GROSSO, A and STEEDS, J (1999) Cost-benefit analysis for remediation of
land contamination, R&D Technical Report P316, Environment Agency, Bristol (ISBN: 1-85705209-9). Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/str-p316-e-e.pdf
PRIVETT, K D, MATTHEWS, S and HODGES, R A (1996) Barriers, liners and cover systems for
containment and control of land contamination, SP124. CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-437-0).
173
Statues not cited in the publication
Flood and coastal management
Environment Agency local byelaws
Acts
Control of Pollution (Amendment) Act 1989 (c. 14)
Orders
Environmental Civil Sanctions (England) Order 2010 (SI 1157)
Regulations
The Conservation (Natural Habitats, &c.) Regulations 1994 (No. 2716)
The Contaminated Land (England) Regulations 2006 (No. 1380)
The Contaminated Land (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (No. 178)
The Contaminated Land (Wales) Regulations 2006 (No. 2989) (W. 278)
Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) (Wales) Regulations 2009 (No 995) (W.81)
The Flood Risk Regulations 2009 (No. 3042)
Controlled Waste Regulations 1992 (SI 558)
Controlled Waste (Amendment) Regulations 1993 (SI 556)
Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2005 (SI 894)
Hazardous Waste (England and Wales) (Amendment) Regulations 2009 (SI 507)
The List of Wastes (England) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 (No. 1673)
Waste Batteries and Accumulators Regulations 2009 (SI 890)
The Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment Regulations 2006 (No 3289)
The Waste Management Licensing Regulations 1994 (No. 1056)
The Waste (England and Wales) Regulations 2011
European Directives
Directive 2006/118/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2006 on
the protection of groundwater against pollution and deterioration
174
CIRIA, C718
C718
These are likely to be experienced more frequently as a consequence of the effects of
climate change, especially sea level rise, and likely to become a more common challenge
to coastal managers and those responsible for coastal sites in the future.
To date there has been limited experience of dealing with such problems from
identification through to solution. This guide has been produced to help the increasing
number of professionals who will come across such problems for the first time.
The guide is split into four parts:
Part 1 Guidance framework: presents the core framework of the guide, which starts with
a background context and then sets out the steps involved in identifying and managing
the risks presented.
Part 2 Perspectives: gives a suite of perspectives recognising that individuals or
organisations may have different standpoints and responsibilities in relation to the subject
of this guide. Each of the chapters in this section provides a specific topic identified by
stakeholders during development of the guide.
Part 3 Themes: addresses themes that can have an overarching overall effect on the
approach or can significantly influence the success (or otherwise) of an outcome.
Part 4 Case studies: three case studies are included in this section that illustrate
practical application of differing aspects of the guidance.
To purchase a printed version of this guide
please visit www.ciria.org/landfills
9 780860 177210
CIRIA
C718
Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines
Over the years, processes of coastal erosion and sea flooding have resulted in waste from
some sites being deposited on the foreshore or seeping into the coastal and marine
environment, potentially resulting in a range of issues such as adverse effects on public
health and safety or undesired physical, chemical and biological effects on the natural
environment.
Guidance on the management of
landfill sites and land contamination
on eroding or low-lying coastlines