78Giac ntemngmn flnfl ie n adcnaiaino rdn rlwligcatie CIRIA coastlines low-lying or eroding on contamination land and sites landfill of management the on Guidance C718

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. 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: Guidance on the management of 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. landfill sites and land contamination Part 2 Perspectives: gives a suite of perspectives recognising that individuals or organisations may have different standpoints and responsibilities in relation to the subject on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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.

C718 9 780860 177210 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: Availability Unrestricted ‹‹ management of sea flooding and coastal erosion risks Content Advice/guidance ‹‹ land use or spatial planning at, or near, the coast Status Committee-guided ‹‹ owning, operating or regulating a landfill site or area of land User Land owners, developers contamination at, or near, the coast. (commercial and residential), professional This includes (but is not restricted to) flood and coastal advisors/consultants managers, land use planning and development control officers, (both engineering contaminated land officers, waste regulators, site managers and environmental), from local authorities, Environment Agency, Environment Agency builders and contractors, Wales (until April 2013), Natural Resources Body for Wales (from regulators (EA, SEPA, April 2013), Scottish Environmental Protection Agency, Northern NIEA, local authority and Ireland Environment Agency, Department for Environment, Food building control) and other and Rural Affairs (Defra), Scottish Government, Welsh Government, professional and non- Northern Ireland Assembly, Department of Agriculture and Rural specialist stakeholders 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 Summary Introduct

This publication provides guidance on the management of landfill sites and areas of land i contamination located on eroding or low-lying coastlines. on

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 part 1 part undesired physical, chemical and biological effects on the natural environment.

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.

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 P art 3 art P art 4 art

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 long- term. 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 may have different standpoints and responsibilities in relation to the subject of this guide. Each Introduct 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. i on

Chapter 11: very long-term erosion.

Chapter 12: future sites or site extensions. part 1 part 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:

Chapter 14: legislative and regulatory context. 2 part

Chapter 15: funding.

Chapter 16: approval mechanisms.

Chapter 17: stakeholders and their engagement.

Part 4 Case studies Part 4 of the guide presents the following three case studies that illustrate practical application of

differing aspects of the guidance: P art 3 art Chapter 18: Trow Quarry, Tyne & Wear, covering erosion of an historic landfill located directly at the coastal margin.

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. P art 4 art

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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 low- lying 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 Project steering group Introduct Siobhan Browne Natural England Anne Jones DEFRA Mark Langabeer Veolia Environmental Services (UK) plc Andrew Nicholas SITA

Pete Roberts Environment Agency i on John Shevelan LLWR Ltd Robin Siddle Scarborough Borough Council Owen Tarrant Environment Agency Richard Thomas (chair) Independent Consultant part 1 part Gary Thompson The Crown Estate Emma Thomson Environment Agency Jim Wilkinson Environment Agency

Corresponding members Matthew Clark Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) Nick Dolan The National Trust Tony Flux The National Trust

Jeanette Guy West Dorset District Council 2 part Tony Hanson South Tyneside Council Brendan McLean Belfast City Council Paul Robinson Environment Agency Shaun Robinson Environment Agency

Other consultees CIRIA would like to thank the following for contributions to specific aspects or sections of the guide: P

Toni Archer West Dorset District Council 3 art Richard Beaven 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 P

Rowan Devlin East Riding of Yorkshire Council 4 art 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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines vii Kirsty Klepacz Havant Borough Council Sue Lawrence Scottish Natural Heritage 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 Scottish Environmental Protection Agency 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 Scottish Environmental Protection Agency Alistair Rennie Scottish Natural Heritage 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 Scottish Environmental Protection Agency 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 Contents Introduct

Summary ...... iii. i on Introduction to the guide ...... iv

Acknowledgements ...... vi

Boxes ...... xii part 1 part Case studies ...... xii

Figures ...... xiii

Tables ...... xiv

Glossary ...... xv.

Abbreviations/acronyms ...... xx

1 Introduction ...... 1 1.1 Background ...... 1 1.2 Scope and purpose of the guidance ...... 2 part 2 part 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 I Guidance framework ...... 7

2 Guidance framework: background context ...... 8 2.1 Introduction ...... 8 2.2 Regulatory and legislative setting ...... 8 P

2.3 Route map to defining roles and responsibilities ...... 9 3 art 2.4 References ...... 13

3 Guidance framework: identifying sites ...... 14 3.1 Background ...... 14 3.2 Known sites ...... 14 3.3 Legacy sites ...... 18 3.4 References ...... 19

4 Guidance framework: characterising site history and setting ...... 20

4.1 Background ...... 20 P art 4 art 4.2 Desk study ...... 20 4.3 Site visit and limited sampling ...... 25 4.4 References ...... 28

5 Guidance framework: assessing the risk ...... 30 5.1 Background ...... 30 5.2 Potential sources ...... 31 5.3 Potential pathways ...... 36 5.4 Potential receptors ...... 40

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines ix 5.5 Risk assessment ...... 42 5.6 References ...... 47

6 Guidance framework: appraising the options ...... 50 6.1 Background ...... 50 6.2 Management options ...... 50 6.3 Appraisal process ...... 62 6.4 Preferred option ...... 66 6.5 References ...... 67

7 Guidance framework: delivering the solution ...... 71 7.1 Background ...... 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 7.7 References ...... 79

8 Guidance framework: evaluating performance and effects ...... 80 8.1 Background ...... 80 8.2 Monitoring plan ...... 80 8.3 Performance of scheme ...... 81 8.4 Potential wider effects ...... 84 8.5 Evaluation ...... 85

Part 2 Perspectives ...... 87.

9 Perspective: strategic coastal management planning ...... 88 9.1 Background ...... 88 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 . . 96 9.3 Effect of landfills or areas of contaminated land on management policy . . . . . 91 9.4 Wider implications of management policy on landfill sites or areas of contaminated land in nearby areas ...... 92 9.5 References ...... 94

10 Perspective: landfill site managers ...... 97 10.1 Background ...... 95 10.2 Reactive issues – dealing with events ...... 97 10.3 Proactive issues – protecting against future risk ...... 99 10.4 References ...... 100

11 Perspective: very long-term erosion ...... 100 11.1 Background ...... 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 11.6 References ...... 105

x CIRIA, C718 12 Perspective: future sites or site extensions ...... 105 Introduct 12.1 Introduction ...... 105 12.2 Operators and regulators ...... 105 12.3 Local planning authorities ...... 106 12.4 References ...... 107 i

13 Perspective: rivers ...... 109 on 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 1 part 13.4 References ...... 111

Part 3 Themes ...... 113

14 Theme: legislative and regulatory context ...... 114 14.1 Background ...... 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 14.5 References ...... 121 part 2 part 15 Theme: funding ...... 123 15.1 Background ...... 123 15.2 Legal responsibilities for funding remediation ...... 123 15.3 Alternative mechanisms for funding ...... 124 15.4 Further references ...... 128

16 Theme: approval mechanisms ...... 129. 16.1 Background ...... 129 16.2 Intrusive site investigation ...... 130

16.3 Planning/design and construction ...... 133 P art 3 art 16.4 Relevant legislation during production of the ES ...... 137 16.5 Further consent/licence requirements ...... 139 16.6 Emergency works ...... 140 16.7 References ...... 142

17 Theme: stakeholders and their engagement ...... 145 17.1 Introduction ...... 145 17.2 Potential engagement aspects ...... 145 17.3 Identifying potential stakeholders ...... 148

17.4 Planning and delivering a stakeholder engagement approach ...... 149 P art 4 art 17.5 References ...... 154

Part 4: Case studies ...... 155

18 Case study: Trow Quarry ...... 156 18.1 Background ...... 156 18.2 The problem ...... 156 18.3 Options appraisal ...... 157 18.4 Uncertainties and adaptability ...... 158

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines xi 18.5 Environmental issues ...... 158 18.6 Construction phase ...... 159 18.7 Post-scheme monitoring ...... 160

19 Case study: Spittles Lane ...... 162 19.1 Background ...... 162 19.2 Landslip event and immediate response ...... 162 19.3 Management plan ...... 163 19.4 Management options ...... 164 19.5 Preferred management option ...... 164

20 Case study: Shoreline Management Plan, Essex ...... 166 20.1 Background ...... 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 Figures Introduct Figure 1.1 Waste released onto the foreshore following a landslip in coastal cliffs in west Dorset ...... 2 Figure 1.2 Domestic waste spilled onto the onto the foreshore at the eroding margin of an estuary in south-west England ...... 2 Figure 1.3 Elements included within the scope of this guidance ...... 3 i Figure 1.4 Relationship with existing guidance ...... 4 on Figure 1.5 Cyclic management approach ...... 4 Figure 1.6 Structure of the guidance ...... 6

Figure 2.1 Legislative responsibilities for management of risks landfill sites or land 1 part 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 4.1 Wash out of waste in north-east England during particularly high sea states and wave run up events ...... 26 Figure 5.1 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 part 2 part 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 5.7 Waste retained behind a coastal defence structure (sea wall) (may be land reclaimed from the sea) ...... 38 Figure 5.8 Waste retained behind a coastal defence structure (embankment) (may be land reclaimed from the sea) ...... 39 Figure 5.9 Waste retained behind a coastal defence structure (revetment) (may be land reclaimed from the sea) ...... 39 Figure 5.10 Waste contained within a coastal defence or quay wall structure ...... 39

Figure 5.11 Removal or breaching of flood embankment (or other coastal defence) . . . . . 40 P art 3 art 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 P art 4 art 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) ...... 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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines xiii Figure 16.1 Summary 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 Sites of contaminated land at flood risk within the Essex and South Suffolk Shoreline Management Plan area ...... 167 Figure 20.2 Selection of contaminated sites identified within the Essex Shoreline Management 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 Generic criteria for assessing the risk to the identified receptor from non-permitted 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 16.1 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) . . . 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 Glossary Introduct

Advance the line Advancing the line of existing defence by building new defences i

on the seaward side of the original defences. on

Aquifer A geological formation containing or conducting groundwater.

Class A appropriate person A polluter who can be traced.

Class B appropriate person By default, this would be the landowner, where the Class A 1 part appropriate person cannot be traced.

Closed landfills Landfill sites that are closed to accepting waste, but are going through aftercare and monitoring as part of the permit surrender process.

Coastal defence A 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 mapping Maps published by the Environment Agency/Natural Resource Body Wales that can be used to identify coastal erosion risks. part 2 part Coast protection authority An 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 model A representation, either graphical or textual, which sets out pollutant linkages between sources and receptors.

Contaminated land Land 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: P art 3 art 1 Significant harm is being caused or there is a significant possibility of such harm being caused. 2 Pollution of controlled waters is being or is likely to be caused. Controlled waste Controlled waste as is defined in Section 75 (4) of the EPA 1990, meaning household, industrial and commercial waste or any such waste.

Controlled waters Waters defined and protected under Section 104 of the Water Resources Act 1991. Waters include coastal waters, inland fresh waters and groundwaters. P art 4 art Defra The 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 disperse Landfill 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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines xv Duty of care A 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 authority In 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 works A person who has responsibility to check, oversee and advise on works undertaken on site.

Environmental Impact An analytical process that examines the potential environmental Assessment consequences of a project.

Environmental Management Site-specific plans developed to ensure that all necessary Plan mitigation measures are identified and carried out to protect the natural environment and comply with environmental legislation.

Environmental Statement The output from the Environmental Impact Assessment process, which is submitted alongside an application for planning permission.

EU Habitats Directive European legislation on the conservation of habitats. (92/43EEC)

European Waste Catalogue A 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 maps Maps published by the Environment Agency/Natural Resource Body Wales, which can be used to identify sea flooding risks.

Foreshore The zone between the high water and low water marks, also known as the inter-tidal zone.

Free product A substance that is present in the environment as a separate liquid phase, which is relatively immiscible with water.

Futurecoast A 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 zone source 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.

Hazard In 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 waste Waste 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:

1 It does not undergo any significant physical, chemical or biological transformations.

xvi CIRIA, C718 2 It does not dissolve, burn or otherwise physically or Introduct 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. 3 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. i on Hold the line Maintaining or changing the standard of protection to hold the existing defence line.

Land contamination This term can cover a wide range of situations where land is in

some way contaminated. Where certain criteria are met, a site 1 part may be determined as “contaminated land”, which has a specific legal definition under Part IIA of the EPA 1990.

Landfill Directive 1999 The 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 The person who has control over the operation of the landfill.

Landfill regulator The authority on whom functions are conferred by the Landfill part 2 part Directive 1999.

Landfill tax A 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.

Leachate A solution, which is the result of the leaching process. The solution can contain soluble contaminants picked up when percolating or draining through waste.

Managed realignment Allowing the shoreline to move backwards or forwards, with P management to control or limit movement. 3 art

Monitoring plan A 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 No investment in coastal defences or operations.

Non-hazardous waste Waste 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).

Operational landfills A landfill site that is accepting waste. P art 4 art Orphaned linkage/ An orphan linkage may arise where the significant contaminated orphaned site linkage 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.

Overtopping A process of water overflowing or overspilling the crest of coastal defences, which could result in tidal flooding.

Part IIA Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (as amended)

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines xvii (England, Wales, Scotland) which establishes a legal framework for dealing with contaminated land.

Part III Part 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.

Pathway With regard to this guidance, a route by which a receptor is, or might be, affected by the waste or contamination.

Permitted landfill A 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.

Proportionality Ensuring 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 site Designated under the Ramsar Convention 1971. The objective of this designation is to prevent the progressive encroachment into, and the loss of, wetlands.

Receptor With 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 strategy A 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/body Person(s) legal responsibly for the site or site activities (landowner, local authority, Nuclear Decommissioning Authority)

Risk assessment The formal process of identifying, assessing and evaluating the health and environmental risks that may be associated with a hazard.

Sea defence Structure, 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.

Source With 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 Conservation A 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 also protected as Sites of Special Scientific Interest, except those Introduct in the marine environment below mean low water.

Special Protection Area A 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 i

Scientific Interest. on

Special Site A 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. 1 part

Stakeholder A person, group or organisation who affects or can be affected by an organisation’s actions.

Stakeholder analysis The 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.

Stakeholder engagement The 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 part 2 part decision making and accountability.

Storm surge A 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.

Surrendered landfills 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.

Tree Preservation Orders A Tree Preservation Order is made by a Local Planning Authority P to protect specific trees, a particular area or woodland from 3 art deliberate damage and/or destruction.

Waste acceptance criteria The criteria to be met before waste is accepted at a landfill site.

Waste Framework An EU Directive that provides a general framework for waste Directive 2008/98/EC management requirements and sets the basic waste management definitions for the EU.

Water Framework A EU Directive that aims to establish a framework for the Directive 2000/60/EC protection of inland surface waters (rivers and lakes), transitional waters (estuaries), coastal waters and groundwater. Its primary focus is preventing deterioration and improving chemical and P art 4 art ecological water quality.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines xix 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 CAR Controlled 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 EWC European Waste Catalogue Introduct FCERM Flood and coastal erosion risk management FCM Flood and coastal management FDGiA Flood defence grant in aid GAC Generic assessment criteria

GI Ground investigation i on GSI Geographical information system HMSO Her Majesty’s Stationery Office HSE Health and Safety Executive

HTL Hold the line 1 part 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 2 part 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 P art 3 art 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 P art 4 art 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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines xxi SEPA Scottish Environmental Protection Agency SGV Soil guideline value SI Site investigation SMP Shoreline Management Plan SNH Scottish Natural Heritage SPA Special Protection Area SRDP Scottish Rural Development Programme SSSI Site of Special Scientific Interest UKAEA UK 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 West Dorset District Council WFD Water Framework Directive WPA Waste planning authorities

xxii CIRIA, C718 Introduct i 1 Introduction on part 1 part

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.

The release of such waste and other contaminated material can result in a range of issues on part 2 part public health and safety, and cause adverse physical, chemical and biological effects on the natural 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.

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.

While such instances are expected to increase, there is limited experience to date of dealing with P art 3 art 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 ‹‹ as well as having a technical focus, environmental, economic and social issues have an P art 4 art 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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 ‹‹ historic landfills – legacy sites, many that pre-date environmental regulation Introduct ‹‹ 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 i

with waste buried in them. on

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. part 1 part part 2 part

Figure 1.3 Elements included within the scope of this guidance P

1.3 Relationship with existing guidance 3 art

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.

This publication focuses on the unique area of overlap between these sectors (Figure 1.4), P art 4 art signposting to existing guidance and other reference material as appropriate. Also it recognises the environmental, economic and stakeholder perspectives that need to be considered.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 3 Figure 1.4 Relationship with existing guidance 1.4 core 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.

1.5 target 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 ‹‹ flood risk managers who deliver their functions in relation to the rules set out in the Water Introduct 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 i

regulations (covering solids, liquids, gases, and radioactive materials) and various pollution on prevention and control legislation (covering water quality, air quality, noise and odour) ‹‹ 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 1 part ‹‹ 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.

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 part

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

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 P art 3 art 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.

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.

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.

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 P and provides specific guidance from these perspectives. 4 art

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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 5 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 Introduct i Part I on Guidance framework 1 part part 2 part P art 3 art P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 7 2 Guidance framework: background context 2.1 Introduction

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.

2.2 rEGulatory 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 2.3 route map to defining roles and Introduct responsibilities

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 i on regulatory routes on a site-by-site basis.

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. 1 part

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 Principal Legislation/Regulation Responsibilities

Operational Operating conditions defined by a landfill Operator responsible for measures 2 part landfill environmental permit, as required by the: to prevent release of waste from the ‹‹Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) permitted areas. Regulations 2010 Regulator required to undertake ‹‹Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) periodic inspections. Regulations (2000) ‹‹Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 Closed landfill Closure process as defined in: Operator responsible for measures ‹‹Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) to prevent release of waste from Regulations 2010 the permitted areas and to comply ‹‹Landfill Directive 1999 (for sites that are with the requirements of any closure permitted and closed after 16 July 2001) notice until the permit is formally surrendered. Regulator required to undertake P art 3 art

Permittedlandfill periodic inspections. Contaminated land Sites formally determined as contaminated land Causer, knowing permitter or (may include historic under: landowner potentially responsible and surrendered ‹‹Part IIA of the Environmental Protection Act for measures to manage risks posed landfill sites) (EPA) 1990 (England, Wales, Scotland) by release of contamination and/or ‹‹Part III of the Waste and Contaminated Land clean-up any contamination. Order (Northern Ireland) 1997. 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. P

Land contamination Sites not formally determined as contaminated Polluter or landowner responsible for 4 art (may include historic land under Part IIA and Part III: measures to manage risks posed by and surrendered ‹‹The Environmental Damage (Prevention and release of waste and/or clean-up any landfill sites) Remediation) Regulations 2009 environmental damage. ‹‹The Environmental Liability (Scotland) Permissive powers for action by the Regulations 2009 coast protection authority or flood ‹‹The Environmental Liability (Prevention and risk management authority (FCERM Remediation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) purpose only). 2009 ‹‹Coast Protection Act 1949 (permissive powers) ‹‹Water Resources Act 1991 ‹‹Flood and Water Management Act 2010

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 9 Figure 2.1 Legislative responsibilities for management of risks landfill sites or land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines

10 CIRIA, C718 In the route map Q1 relates to whether or not the landfill site or area of land contamination is, or will Introduct become, at risk from coastal erosion and/or sea flooding. If not, then this guidance does not apply.

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. i on

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 1 part guidance also available for England (Defra, 2012), Wales (Welsh Government, 2012), Scotland (Scottish Executive, 2006) and Northern Ireland (Department of the Environment, 2006).

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 part 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.

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. P

In these steps, the tracing of polluters and/or landowners will require a forensic approach 3 art 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.

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 P

contaminated land classification by those parties. If this can be proven, then under Part IIA and 4 art 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.

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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 11 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.

2.4 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/

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:0-75596- 097-1). 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 Statutes Introduct

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) i

Flood and Water Management Act 2010 (c. 29) on

Regulations The Pollution Prevention and Control (Scotland) Regulations 2000 (No. 323)

The Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 (No. 46) 1 part

The Environmental Damage (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations 2009 (No. 153) (England and Wales)

The Environmental Liability (Scotland) Regulations 2009 (No. 266)

The Environmental Liability (Prevention and Remediation) Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2009 (No. 252)

The Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2010 (No. 675)

Orders

Part III of the Waste and Contaminated Land Order (Northern Ireland) 1997 2 part

Directives Landfill Directive 1999 P art 3 art P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 13 3 Guidance framework: 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 Introduct Box 2.1 Scale of the problem

Historic landfills 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 i

with an average annual probability of occurrence of 0.5 per cent in each on 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 1 part 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) 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 2 part 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 In addition to historic and permitted landfill sites, there are other areas

of land contamination at, or near, the coast that could become affected P

by coastal erosion or sea flooding. This includes areas reclaimed from 3 art 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 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 P

shown schematically in Figure 3.1). 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 15 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: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37837.aspx

16 CIRIA, C718 Introduct i on part 1 part

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. part 2 part Combining datasets 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.

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 P art 3 art suite of shoreline management policies or delivery options to address these risks in a sustainable manner.

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).

Also, there remain areas of coastline that are not covered by a SMP or coastal strategy (including P many estuarine shores), and for coastal areas in Scotland and Northern Ireland there is not yet 4 art 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.

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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 17 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 Local Resilience Forums, under the Civil Contingencies Act 2004, can plan for major incidents for Introduct 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.

3.4 References i on

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2010) Coastal landfill assessment. Landfill locations, Halcrow Group Limited, UK

ROGERS, J, HAMER, B, BRAMPTON, A et al (2010) Beach management manual (second edition), part 1 part C685, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-682-4). Go to: www.ciria.org

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

Statutes part 2 part 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) P art 3 art P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 19 4 Guidance framework: 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.

4.2 dESK 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 ‹‹ historic industrial activities of a potentially contaminative nature (eg slag, spoil or ballast Introduct 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 i and management responses. on

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 1 part timelines.

For permitted or surrendered landfill sites, relevant information on the site’s history should be readily available in the form of:

‹‹ 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 part

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). P art 3 art P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 21 Table 4.1 Historical setting – potential further guidance/data sources

Type of data Information provided Further guidance/data source Historic maps, seabed Successive historic maps can show changes in Local museums and archives charts land-use, including if a site has been reclaimed Web-based historical maps by the sea, and locations and rates of erosion. Admiralty charts, available from the Successive Admiralty charts can show how the United Kingdom Hydrographic Office seabed and shoreline has changed over time, website: www.ukho.gov.uk which may influence exposure of the site to processes of erosion or sea flooding Historic photographs Historic photographs and artwork can show Local museums and archives and artwork erosion of coastlines and the construction or McInnes and Stubbings (2010) presence/absence of the main features Anecdotal evidence Changes in land use, pollution or erosion/flooding Coastal managers, landowners or the incidences, historic industrial activities general public General development Held by the local authority/district council these Local authority/district council planning order maps maps may provide information on landfill gas searches Bomb damage maps These may provide an indication of the risk of Stone et al (2009) unexploded ordnance (UXO) at the site. However, Web-based UXO risk maps a UXO specialist also should be consulted. Several UXO specialists and If there is a risk of UXO on a site, further consultants operate in the UK 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 Records of coal mining The Coal Authority retains records of coal mining For further guidance, mining reports activity activity. A report may be obtained from the Coal and property search services, see the Authority detailing the records of mining activity Coal Authority section of the DECC on, or close to, the site, such as redundant mine website: http://coal.decc.gov.uk/ shafts, together with information on whether these Ottaway et al (RP940) Abandoned have been capped or stabilised in any manner mine workings manual (in press) Records of Underground storage tanks may be a source of The local authority/district council underground oil contamination contaminated land officer should be storage tanks contacted to confirm whether these features are present on, or close to, the site

Private groundwater Private groundwater abstractions boreholes Environment Agency abstraction boreholes should be identified as these may be sensitive Local authority/district council receptors to pollution Industry profiles Potentially contaminative industrial activities Department of Environment 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 Pollution incidents maybe a source of Environment Agency (2012) What’s in incidents contamination your backyard: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/ homeandleisure/37793.aspx

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 Similarly, the location of the site to local communities or areas of importance for heritage, Introduct geological, geomorphological or nature conservation reasons will influence the consequences from any release of material.

Information on the site’s setting can be determined from many data and information sources, as described in Table 4.2. i on Desk study reporting 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. 1 part

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. 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 pre- regulation 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. 2 part 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. P art 3 art P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 These will highlight the current uses of the site and Ordnance Survey maps are available maps, site/aerial establish whether current practices may be giving from the website: photographs 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 These provide information on the geology beneath Geological and hydrogeological maps hydrogeological maps, the site and whether this is likely to allow the and borehole records are available geological memoirs, migration of contamination from the site either from the British Geological Survey borehole logs, and laterally or vertically. For example, if the site lies (BGS) website: www.bgs.ac.uk/ published papers 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 Admiralty charts and These can provide the heights of high and low Admiralty charts are available from tide tables tides to give an indication of how much the coastal the United Kingdom Hydrographic frontage of the site might be inundated by the tide. Office website (see References) This can affect how much sea water permeates Tide tables are available from the into the site (which may mobilise contaminants) BBC website: www.bbc.co.uk/weather/coast_ and_sea/tide_tables

Aquifer, groundwater These maps establish whether the site is on Maps are available from the vulnerability and highly sensitive water bearing geology. If the site Environment Agency website: source protection zone lies within a groundwater source protection zone, www.environment-agency.gov.uk/ maps this indicates that groundwater beneath the site homeandleisure/37793.aspx is currently being used to provide public drinking water and the quality of this water should be safeguarded in order to protect public health Topographic surveys, Topographic surveys can be used to develop a There are many companies Lidar data topographic ground model of the site so that it can operating within the UK that provide be assessed in relation to water levels, gradients topographical survey services and (eg to inform potential release pathways) and Lidar data adjacent land levels

Water level, wind and Providing information and data on physical For information on SMPs and wave climate data processes operating at or near to the site and Futurecoast (covering England and and information on coastal dynamics (sediment erosion, transport and Wales): coastline dynamics deposition). Information available from published www.environment-agency.gov.uk/ literature, including Admiralty Tide Tables, research/planning/104939.aspx academic papers and other literature, such as www.defra.gov.uk consultancy reports, in-house reports etc including SMPs, coastal strategy studies, and Futurecoast in England and Wales (Defra, 2001)

Erosion and flood risk Erosion maps provide information on erosion zones Maps are available from the maps and where coastal erosion is occurring. Flood maps Environment Agency website: identify areas that could be affected by flooding. www.environment-agency.gov.uk/ Available from national coastal erosion risk maps homeandleisure/37793.aspx (in England and Wales), Shoreline Management SMPs available from relevant local Plans (in England, Wales and parts of Scotland authority or Environment Agency and Northern Ireland), Environment Agency Flood region 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)

24 CIRIA, C718 Introduct Human and Built Environment Ordnance survey and These maps give further information on which Ordnance Survey maps are available definitive maps human receptors may be present (public access from the website: points, public rights of way, recreational features www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk etc) and how they are likely to come into contact Definitive maps are available on with contamination (footpaths, picnicking etc) individual local authority websites Site investigation If site investigation, ground investigations or BGS website GEOINDEX: i geophysical survey information is available, these www.bgs.ac.uk/geoindex/ on sources may provide additional site specific information, such as below ground structures and levels of contamination

Utilities and services Providing information on locations of any major Utility information can either be data buried pipelines or overhead cables etc sourced for the individual service 1 part provides alternatively there are many companies operating within the UK who provide a utility search services Coastal defence Providing information of the presence and Information available from the EA databases 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 part Authorised and historic Providing information of the location of authorised Maps are available from the landfill maps and historic landfill sites. Dates of when waste Environment Agency website: was received and the type of waste deposited may www.environment-agency.gov.uk/ be included where available. Locations of known homeandleisure/37793.aspx historic landfills can be obtained from the regulator (EA, local authority or district council). Natural environment Environmental These data bases provide information on location Maps are available from the Natural designation databases and details of vulnerable environmental receptors England website: (eg designated nature conservation sites) www.natureonthemap. naturalengland.org.uk http://magic.defra.gov.uk/ P art 3 art 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).

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 P art 4 art possible solely via desk-based assessment. For example releases from, or seepages through, a cliff face and the presence of waste on the foreshore.

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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 25 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 10381- 3:2001. 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 ‹‹ the site is regularly accessed (for example by noting vehicle or pedestrian access tracks worn Introduct in grass) ‹‹ 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 i on 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. part 1 part

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:

‹‹ 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) part 2 part ‹‹ 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).

‹‹ evidence of flooding and erosion processes:

‹‹ 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. P art 3 art ‹‹ current site use and layout:

‹‹ 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 P

possible to make general observations on their use and condition 4 art ‹‹ 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).

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 27 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).

4.4 References

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 978-0-86017- 681-7. Go to: www.ciria.org

28 CIRIA, C718 Statutes Introduct

Acts Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 (c.37)

British Standards i

BS ISO 10381-3:2001 Soil quality – Sampling. Part 3: Guidance on safety on

Regulations The Control of Substances Hazardous to Health Regulations 2002 (No 2677)

The Construction (Design and Management) Regulations 2007 (No 320) 1 part

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

Environment Agency: Shoreline Management Plans:

www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/104939.aspx 2 part

Environment Agency: What’s in your backyard: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/37793.aspx

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 P

Further references 3 art 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 P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 29 5 Guidance framework: 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 Introduct 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 i on 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.

The following sections describe the potential sources, pathways and receptors that may be part 1 part 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.

5.2 potential 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) ‹‹ industrial sites including those used for the storage and distribution of petroleum part 2 part 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). P art 3 art Solids 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. P

Liquids 4 art 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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 31 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 Table 5.1 Sites requiring specialist advice Introduct

Sites and/or hazard Specialist advice/further guidance Land contaminated by biological hazards (eg Specialist advice anthrax). Sites may include: Specialist advice should be sought from appropriately ‹‹cemeteries and burial grounds (human experienced and qualified consultants. The ENDS directory and animal) provides an online directory where appropriately experienced and

‹‹animal product processing works qualified consultants can be identified: www.endsdirectory.com i on ‹‹docks, warehouses and places where Further guidance animal product may have been handled ‹‹buildings where animal products have DETR, 1995d been used in construction. Turnball, 1996 Radioactive hazards – radioactive hazards Specialist advice part 1 part may be man-made (eg resulting from the As above burial of radioactive sources because The Radon Council also maintains a list of contractors and of airborne deposition of materials from consultants offering advice and services involving remedial works machining of depleted uranium or from for radon gas: www.radoncouncil.org diffuse ground contamination in the areas that non-nuclear industry radioactive Further guidance materials were manufactured, stored or DETR, 1998 processed) or naturally derived radioactivity, for example radon gas 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 DETR, 1995a and 1995b 2 part Sites containing asbestos Specialist advice As above Further guidance DETR, 1995c ICRCL, 1990 DoE (1979)

Box 5.2 Asbestos risks

Asbestos is a commonly identified contaminant in the UK particularly P art 3 art 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.

Site investigation P art 4 art 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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 Phased site investigation can maximise cost effectiveness. More phases of site investigation may be Introduct 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. i The heterogeneity of a source may be a significant constraint when assessing remedial options, on 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.

The content of a source is likely to vary significantly with the historic land uses previously 1 part 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.

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.

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 2 part and any related access or other restrictions. Further information on communication with stakeholders is included in Chapter 17.

Case study 5.1 Radiation sampling in Dalgety Bay, Fife

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. 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 P

sources have been recovered. In September 2011, SEPA undertook a check of the MoD’s contractors 3 art 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 P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 Introduct i on part 1 part Figure 5.4 Waste directly exposed at undefended shore margin

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.

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 2 part 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). P art 3 art

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. P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 Introduct i on

Figure 5.8 Waste retained behind a coastal defence structure 1 part (embankment) (may be land reclaimed from the sea) part 2 part

Figure 5.9 Waste retained behind a coastal defence structure (revetment) (may be land reclaimed from the sea)

Scenario 3: material release from coastal defence

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. P art 3 art

Figure 5.10 Waste contained within a coastal defence or quay wall structure P art 4 art

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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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).

5.4 potential 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 Case study 5.3 Halliwell Banks, Tyne & Wear Introduct

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 i inundation of the quarry by the North Sea. However, processes of coastal erosion have cut the cliff edge back to on within around 20 m of where the waste was thought to be present. 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 1 part ‹‹ assess the likely erosion rates at the site. 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 part 2 part 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 Figure 5.12 Eroding sea cliffs at Halliwell Banks the site the distance increased to (courtesy Nick Cooper, Royal Haskoning) 40 m. Also, the profiles through 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. P art 3 art

Figure 5.13 Landfill behind a limestone ridge at Halliwell Banks (courtesy Royal Haskoning) P art 4 art

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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 41 Table 5.2 Potential receptors

Receptor Definition of receptor Examples Humans Residents, site users/visitors, schools, hospitals, Public safety: cuts on broken glass or construction workers, maintenance workers and accidents with syringes, trips or slips on neighbouring land users. 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 of such a system including a SAC, Ramsar Site, a SPA in water quality, leading to, for example, for birds or a European site (as defined under the WCA fish deaths. 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 bio- Paragraph 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 In addition areas defined as Heritage Coasts and another. Mercury is a contaminant known Marine Conservation Zones (to be designated in the to be a persistent bio-accumulative future) should be included as possible environmental toxin meaning it does not break down or receptors where applicable. disappear. Property Buildings and infrastructure – the structure and Destruction of building: migration of fabric of buildings, building materials and foundations landfill gas into cellars or 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 Crops – produce grown domestically or on allotments affect the building construction. for consumption, livestock, other owned or domesticated animals, wild animals that are subject to shooting or fishing rights. Controlled Surface waters (ie lakes, rivers, canals), groundwater, Water quality: decline/deterioration waters and coastal waters. in chemical and ecological status, preventing the water body meeting objectives with respect to the Water Framework Directive.

5.5 rISK 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 Introduct 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, i which could alter the type and nature of the risks presented. on 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.

It is probable that there will be greatest uncertainty in defining the pathway(s) 1 part 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. 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 2 part 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.

Within the UK, the generic contamination risk categorisation (Rudland et al, 2001) is widely used P art 3 art for this purpose (Table 5.3). The process of assessment involves the classification of the following:

Table 5.3 Generic risk categorisation (from Rudland et al, 2001)

Consequence

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 P art 4 art Low Likelihood Moderate risk Moderate/low risk Low risk Very low risk

robability Unlikely Moderate/low risk Low risk Very low risk Very low risk P

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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 Table 5.4 Generic criteria for assessing the risk to the identified receptor from non-permitted sites Introduct

Receptor Generic criterion Further guidance Humans (public Risks from contaminants in soil Environment Agency Soil Guideline health) The Environment Agency has published Soil Value reports are available from the Guideline Values (SGVs) for a few commonly found Environment Agency website (see contaminants. Also, Generic Assessment Criteria References)

(GACs) have been published by industry bodies Hosford, 2009 i on (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

GAC/SGVs represent generic values, based on 1 part 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 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 2 part Risks from contaminants in air Air Quality Regulations (see Published ambient air quality criteria is available References) within country specific air quality regulations and Health and Safety Executive (2011) occupational exposure limits are available from the EH/40 Workplace exposure limits Health and Safety Executive O’Riordan and Milloy, 1995 Baker et al, 2009 Risks from contaminants in water General Water Supply and Surface Water Supply (Water Quality) Regulations and Surface Water Regulations including The Water Water Regulations include published concentrations Supply (Water Quality) Regulations and values that can be used for the assessment of risk 2010 (see Reference) in relation to drinking waters/drinking water supply Smith, 2002 Environment Ecological Risk Assessment (ERA) Ashton et al, 2008 P art 3 art (Ecological The Environmental Agency has published ecological Fishwick, 2004 systems) guideline values and benchmarks (eg Predicted No Effect Concentrations (PNECs) Property Risks from hazardous gases Wilson et al, 2007 Wilson et al (2007) provides guidance on gas risk ODPM, 2002 assessment, development of gas screening values Paul, 1994 based on site specific data (concentrations and flow Garvin et al, 2000 rates) and protection measures provided. Due to the coastal setting of the sites cover by this document it is BRE, 2003 important to assess the gas risk over a full tidal cycle Risks from substance hazardous to buildings, construction materials and services P

BRE guidance provides assessment criteria, utilising 4 art site specific information to determine appropriate construction materials or mitigation measures

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 45 Controlled Controlled waters risk assessment (not including risks Defra, 2010 waters 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

Risk Source Pathway Receptor Consequences Likelihood Category Construction Physical contact on Site Minor Likely Low risk materials, bricks, the foreshore, trip visitors (non-permanent (an event is not concrete hazard health effects) inevitable, but possible in the short-term and likely in the long-term) Construction Physical contact, SSSI Medium High likelihood High risk materials, bricks, smothering of habitat (death of member(s) (an event appears very concrete via bulk release of of a species within likely in short-term or material a designated nature inevitable in the long- reserve) term) Elevated Ingestion of or Site Medium Likely Moderate concentrations of contact with soil/ visitors (exceedence of (an event is not risk metals in made contaminants which generic assessment inevitable, but possible ground present are present at or criteria) in the short-term and behind a sea wall near the surface likely in the long-term) Elevated leachable Migration of Coastal Medium Likely Moderate concentrations of contaminants waters (exceedence of water risk metals in made through saturated quality standards) ground present zone behind a sea wall

Asbestos fibres Inhalation of dust Site Severe Likely High risk present in and fibres visitors (permanent health (an event is not foreshore debris effects) inevitable, but possible in the short-term and likely in the long-term)

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 The options appraisal process (Chapter 6) can then be taken forward with the aim of managing Introduct 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 i measures need to be delivered, for example by closing a site or restricting access, while on investigations into options are undertaken.

5.6 References 1 part

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

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

BRE (2003) Concrete in aggressive ground, Special Digest 1, BRE Press, Building Research

Establishment, London 2 part

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

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) P

DEFRA (2012) Environmental Protection Act 1990: Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance, 3 art Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Go to: www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb13735cont-land-guidance.pdf

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)

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 P

DETR (1995d) Industry profile. Animals and animal product processing works, Department of the 4 art 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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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: 978-1-85946-202- 7). 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 WILSON, S, OLIVER, S, MALLETT, H HUTCHINGS, H and CARD, G (2007) Assessing risks Introduct posed by hazardous ground gases to buildings (revised), C665, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017- 665-7). Go to: www.ciria.org

Statutes

Acts i on 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 part 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 part 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 Environment Agency: Soil Guideline Value reports: P

www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/64015.aspx 3 art

ENDS directory: www.endsdirectory.com P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 49 6 Guidance framework: 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

1 do 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 The do nothing scenario should consider how the coast will evolve without further management Introduct 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. i 2 Inspection and surveillance on 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).

This option should include a plan detailing the frequency of inspection/surveillance visits to 1 part 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.

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). part 2 part 3 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. P art 3 art

Figure 6.1 Removing the source of the risk

Removing the source of the risk can be achieved through one of the following:

‹‹ removing the waste or contaminated material P art 4 art ‹‹ 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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 re- location 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 Introduct i on part 1 part

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. part 2 part

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 soil- like 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.

The end point of this process is achieved when the waste or contaminated material is treated such P art 3 art 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).

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. P art 4 art

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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 53 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 Introduct 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 i aggressive treatment to remove. on 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. 1 part 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 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 part 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:

‹‹

clean-up operations P

‹‹ cover systems 3 art ‹‹ cut-off walls ‹‹ coastal defences. P art 4 art

Figure 6.4 Breaking the pathway between source and receptor

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 cover system may be a potential option on a site where a coastal defence is designed to prevent Introduct 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).

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. i on

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. 1 part

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.

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 2 part 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.

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 P

A coastal defence can be engineered to create a physical barrier between source and receptor. 3 art 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). P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 Case study 6.3 Blackdog Burn channel diversion Introduct

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 i the operation of the site. on 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. 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 part 1 part identified for both the sites. 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 part 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.

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. P art 3 art

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). P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 e Nick Cooper, Royal Haskoning DHV)

Further references CIRIA (1986) Maintenance of coastal revetments, TN124, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0- 86017-265-9) (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). Go to: www.ciria.org 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- 86017-391-5). 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 Introduct i on part 1 part Figure 6.9 Removing the receptor to avoid contact with the source

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 2 part P art 3 art Figure 6.10 Signage used at Trow Quarry to reduce risks to human health (courtesy Ruth Tyson and Nick Cooper, Royal Haskoning DHV) P art 4 art

Figure 6.11 Warning signage to prevent receptor coming into contact with a source

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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.

6.3 appraisal 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 constrained and instead should be a full exploration of all potential options, no matter how Introduct “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.

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 i work around constraints and/or deliver opportunities and ultimately screen-out some options as on 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). part 1 part Short-listed options should then be subject to a detailed options appraisal process involving assessments of technical, economic and environmental appraisals described as follows.

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.

To undertake the technical appraisal, it is necessary to use the skills of a waste specialist and/ 2 part or contaminated land scientist and a civil or coastal engineer who can determine the efficacy of different approaches.

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).

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). P art 3 art 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.

Due to this, there could be a high range of capital and operational cost estimates for a particular P art 4 art 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).

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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 63 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

Indicative costs Option Applicability per metre length Category

Dune grass planting Stabilise eroding dunes by £2–£20 Low Dune fencing trapping blown sand £4–£20 Low

Beach recycling or re-profiling To restore protective beach levels £10–£200 Low to mod Beach nourishment and widths £50–£2000 Mod. to high

Geotextile sand bags £20–£100 Low to mod

Gabion baskets Provide a defence “barrier” at the £50–£500 Moderate Rock revetment shore £3000–£5000 High

Concrete seawall £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 that will be incurred over the life of the asset. Typical areas of expenditure that are included in Introduct calculating the whole-life cost include:

‹‹ 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) i

‹‹ construction (including the remaining activities described in Chapter 7) on ‹‹ land or asset acquisition (if required) ‹‹ operations throughout the life time of the scheme (eg physical operation of mobile access barriers, if adopted as a preferred approach)

‹‹ maintenance throughout the life time of the scheme 1 part ‹‹ 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.

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. 2 part

“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: P

‹‹ avoidance of loss of, or damage to, property, infrastructure and services 3 art ‹‹ 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 tourism, amenity and recreation (if this is a true loss to the UK economy rather than just an economic “displacement”) P art 4 art ‹‹ 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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 65 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).

6.4 preferred 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 Table 6.2 Considerations when selecting a preferred option Introduct

Category Considerations

‹‹availability and suitability of technical solutions and resources ‹‹site access and logistics Technical and physical ‹‹presence of existing structures constraints ‹‹practicability, effectiveness and durability of any proposed actions

‹‹robustness to the range of uncertainties identified. i on ‹‹sustainability of any proposed actions ‹‹proportionality to the risk(s) presented ‹‹public health and safety Environmental issues ‹‹environmental effects during construction, operation and decommissioning/ refurbishment phases of the project part 1 part ‹‹meeting the objectives for both surface and ground water bodies as set out in the WFD river basin management plans.

‹‹cost of initial capital works ‹‹cost of maintenance or monitoring activities through the “whole life” of the scheme Economic constraints ‹‹benefits of the actions and implications ‹‹financial affordability and the availability (or otherwise) of lower priced alternatives ‹‹land or property blight.

‹‹urgency ‹‹time constraints on implementation Timeframes and future ‹‹effectiveness over the lifetime of the pollutant linkage considerations ‹‹adaptability to the range of uncertainties and climate changes identified ‹‹alternative future resolution mechanisms (eg site redevelopment). part 2 part 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.

6.5 References

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 (1986) Maintenance of coastal revetments, TN124, CIRIA, London (ISBN: 978-0-86017-265-9).

Go to: www.ciria.org P art 3 art 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)

EFTEC (2010) Flood and coastal erosion risk management: economic valuation of environmental effects, report to the Environment Agency, Bristol

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 P art 4 art 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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 67 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: 978-0- 07912-248-3)

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: 978-0-86017- 391-5). 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_Item05- DONOTPRINTBUTMUSTBEUPLOADED-WestSandsManagementPlan.pdf

Statutes

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)

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 Case study 6.5 Hunterston, North Ayrshire Introduct

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 i make a robust assessment of the potential risks associated with the area and to determine whether remedial on action would be warranted, based on current land use. 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. 1 part 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 P art 3 art P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 Figure 6.13 Sand-filled geotextile being lifted into position (courtesy bags being layered to encapsulate Naue Geosynthetics) the site (courtesy Naue Geosynthetics)

70 CIRIA, C718 Introduct i 7 Guidance framework: on

delivering the solution 1 part 7.1 Background

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). 2 part

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.

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 P

consideration of health and safety risks during the design stage can help risks to be removed or 3 art reduced before the construction stage as far as is practicable.

7.2 Health and safety

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 co- ordinator. The roles and responsibilities of these are well defined in existing industry guidance P

(see HSE, 2007). 4 art

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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 71 ‹‹ 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 non- statutory 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 Due to the specialist nature of the works, it is recommended that a contractor is selected who is Introduct best able to demonstrate relevant expertise within the marine environment. Typically a quality- cost model will be best used to ensure a suitably qualified contractor is appointed at a cost- effective price.

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 i or unexploded ordnance, can all affect the decision that contract model and tender assessment on matrix is used. Specific procurement advice is sought from suitably experienced staff.

7.5 Construction supervision 1 part

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.

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. 2 part

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.

Some of the specific issues that may need to be supervised in this manner due to the specific P nature of the sites covered in this guidance include: 3 art

‹‹ 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 ‹‹ 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 P

science heritage (geology or geomorphology) 4 art ‹‹ 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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 73 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 The data obtained from sampling will identify potential health risks or risks of pollution to the Introduct 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. i The principles are as follows: on

‹‹ 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. 1 part 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 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 part 2 part 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.

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: P art 3 art ‹‹ 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 P

‹‹ keep records of all waste transfers in a register. 4 art

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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 75 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 Waste acceptance criteria (WAC) Introduct

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: i on 1 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 1 part 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.

Environmental supervision 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. 2 part

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.

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. P

A remediation strategy is produced for sites identified as having “pollutant linkage(s)” that pose a 3 art 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.

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 P

that all necessary information for the preparation of the remediation validation report is being 4 art 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.

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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 77 ‹‹ 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 in- line 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 7.6 Maintaining records Introduct

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. i on 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 up- to-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 part 1 part remediation measures in its future recommendations for maintenance and capital works activities.

7.7 References

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 (2004) Model procedures for the management of land contamination, Contaminated Land Report 11, Environment Agency, Bristol. 2 part Go to: http://cdn.environment-agency.gov.uk/scho0804bibr-e-e.pdf

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)

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) P

Statutes 3 art

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)

Websites Environment Agency: Contaminated land regime: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/40405.aspx P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 79 8 Guidance framework: 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 be proportionate to the risks presented. In some situations, visual observations during walkover Introduct inspections will suffice, in other situations more detailed surveying or sampling approaches may be required.

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 i monitoring plan is designed and pre-agreed with the regulators in advance of the solution being on 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. 1 part

Results arising from the monitoring will usually need to be shared with relevant bodies at pre- agreed intervals during the life of the scheme.

8.3 pErformance 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: part 2 part ‹‹ environmental monitoring to demonstrate that the solution is producing the desired effects on contaminants at the site ‹‹ technical monitoring to evaluate the engineering performance and efficiency of the solution being used ‹‹ 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. P art 3 art P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 81

to

all

and

that

ensure

compaction

will of

This level

suitable

a backfilling.

to of

materials

completion

on

and

appropriate

with

excavation

the

Visits, photographs and measurements before, during and on completion on and Visits, during before, measurements photographs and of affected materials have been removed and that the excavation has been backfilled the required elevation. Regular intervals weekly/monthly/quarterly) (eg depending on the risk. Water sampling analytes may includecontaminant and monitored natural attenuation parameters Monitoring may beneeded within thetreatment area and also at the site boundary to ensure that mobilised any contaminants are not migrating sensitivetowards 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 ceased. has 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 mobilised any 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 ceased. has 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. Comments visual inspectionsvisual excavations of soil sampling dimensions/ excavation of measurement elevations ground measurement of volumes of waste removed compaction tests and soil samples of backfill. soil sampling water sampling gas monitoring/sampling monitoring level water volumes of treatment agent deployed. critical process parameters pressure (eg or temperature) pre-treatment post-treatment and concentrationscontaminant volumes of material treated. thickness, permeability and integrity tests of engineering containment structures outside gas sampling/monitoring or water the containment structure. ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ Monitoring ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ Table 8.1 Available approaches to monitoring of scheme performance so that flooding

sea

or

To extractTo contaminated soil or water concentrations that so treat of and particular contaminants are below before levels acceptable threshold replacement on site or disposal To store theTo wastewithin discrete containers/engineered cells at the site so it is not directly released or erosion by environment the into flooding Purpose remove the wasteTo and re-locate it in areas that are not susceptible to erosion To treat theTo waste in situ particular contaminants are reduced acceptable threshold levels below to treatment treatment Ex situ In situ Containment Sub-option re-locationWaste Remove source of the risk Remove source of the risk Remove source of the risk Option

82 CIRIA, C718 Introduct

from

waste(s)

collect

i on need,

the

identifies

part 1 part identified.

monitoring

waste(s)

When

particular

shores.

the

to

Regular intervals weekly/monthly/quarterly) (eg 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 the shore and dispose in a controlled manner using specialist contractors suited Regular intervals quarterly/annually/two-yearly) (eg 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 cliff (eg collapse, subsidence of structure, foreshore lowering) and threatening its integrity. Identify whether solid any or liquid waste is penetrating through the barrier onto the shore. completion of on and Visits, during before, measurements photographs and 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 cap. the incorporated into Counts of visitor numbers to the site and observations of their behaviours when interacting with signs and barriers. Observation is informal access routes site/shore. the to part 2 part walkover visual inspections at low tide soil sampling water sampling gas monitoring/sampling. walkover visual inspections at low tide topographic or Lidar surveys and land or tide. low photographs at aerial inspectionvisual thickness of cap compaction tests soil sampling. walkover visual inspections at low tide. P ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ art 3 art ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ ‹ flooding

marine

of

P To prevent theTo source of the risk being released from the site by processes erosion marine of prevent theTo source of the risk being released from the site by processes prevent accessTo by the public To remove the wasteTo from the foreshore once it has been released from the site but before it comes into contact with a main receptor art 4 art Physical coastal barrier Soil capping Signage and physical access barriers Monitor and clear up Break pathway between source receptorand Remove the receptor Break pathway between source receptorand

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 surveying (eg topographic or Lidar surveys) undertaken (at low water) to Introduct 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 i on 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.

Suitable approaches for monitoring baseline conditions and changes in existing habitats and 1 part species in the unique inter-tidal setting, either during construction or post-delivery of a solution, may include:

‹‹ 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) 2 part ‹‹ 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.

8.5 Evaluation

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. P art 3 art

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.

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 P risks presented are still being managed in a proportionate manner and that any residual risks 4 art 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.

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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 85 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 Introduct i Part 2 on Perspectives 1 part part 2 part P art 3 art P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 Shoreline Management Plans (SMPs) Introduct 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 i second generation SMP has now been produced. on

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, 1 part using four main policy options:

1 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 2 part 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.

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 P art 3 art health and safety legislation.

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.

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: P

‹‹ investigate and understand the risk 4 art ‹‹ take other appropriate actions ‹‹ influence coastal management decision making in a proactive manner.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 It is envisaged that potentially there could be other management options that do not fall within Introduct 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. In- situ reduction of risks to acceptable levels could result in a different shoreline management policy

being selected in the medium- or long-term. i on

9.3 Effect of landfills or areas of

contaminated land on management 1 part 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.

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. 2 part

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. P

Scenarios also may exist where the risks demonstrated by the presence of landfills or areas of 3 art 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.

9.4 Wider implications of management P

policy on landfill sites or areas of 4 art contaminated land in nearby areas

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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 91 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.

9.5 References

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, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Go to: www.defra.gov.uk/publications/files/pb11726-smpg-vol1-060308.pdf

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

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 Case study 9.2 North-West Shoreline Management Plan Introduct

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 i during consultation with project partners and the public. The risks related to erosion and sea flooding were on 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:

Inner Mersey estuary – Arpley landfill: this inner estuary location at Warrington includes an active landfill 1 part 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.” 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.” 2 part 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.” 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 P art 3 art P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 Information relating to data sources for sites that are at risk from coastal erosion and sea flooding Introduct 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.

There are two distinct issues where coastal erosion and sea flooding may cause a landfill operator to trigger a potential course of action: i ‹‹ an event of coastal erosion or a sea flooding, which causes imminent or actual pollution on from the permitted area of the site ‹‹ the medium to long-term threat of pollution due to perceived risk associated with potential sea flooding or coastal erosion in the future. part 1 part These are discussed in Section 10.2 (“reactive” issues) and Section 10.3 (“proactive” issues).

10.2 Reactive issues – dealing with events

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 part 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. P

Where the landfill containment system has been breached, or if there is an imminent risk 3 art 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.

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 P the occupier cannot be found) to agree and arrange the appropriate action for dealing with the 4 art pollution.

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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 95 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 ‹‹ any more accurate information on the matters for notification Introduct ‹‹ 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. i

If the pollution causes a major or significant incident to be declared then a multiagency response on may be required.

Lessons learnt part 1 part 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

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 2 part 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.

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 P art 3 art 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.

Site prioritisation 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 P

the consultation period during the permit application process. However, for some older sites, it 4 art 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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 10.4 References Introduct

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, i Environment Agency, Bristol. on Go to: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/BN_-_Closed_Landfill_ Update_2_-_Nov_2010.pdf

ENVIRONMENT AGENCY (2010) The surrender of permits for the permanent deposit of waste, version part 1 part 1, Environment Agency, Bristol. Go to: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/static/documents/Business/GEHO0910BTAW-E-E.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

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 P art 3 art P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 99 11 Perspective: very long- term 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 non- radiological 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 long- term 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 11.2 past coastal evolution Introduct

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 i

structure (ie presence of faults or fissures). Also, it is important to understand how the climate, on and especially sea level, has changed over such times and how this has influenced coastal change.

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. part 1 part 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.

11.3 contemporary coastal processes and climate

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 2 part 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.

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 P morphological response modelling). Due to this, a combination of desk reviews, data collection 3 art 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.

Box 11.1 Climate change

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. P A web-based interface is available, which enables users to access 4 art 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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 representing all uncertainties. It should be noted that long-term predictions of coastal erosion Introduct and flooding can periodically be updated by re-running models based on observed data.

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 i management options will need to be re-evaluated in accordance with the principles described in on Part 1 of this guide.

11.6 References 1 part

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

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

LLW REPOSITORY LTD (2011) The 2011 Environmental safety case – main report, LLWR/ 2 part ESC/R(11)10016, LLW Repository Ltd, Cumbria. Go to: http://tinyurl.com/9jgf5ab

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 P art 3 art P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 north- western 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 Introduct i 12 Perspective: future sites on

or site extensions 1 part 12.1 Introduction

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.

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 part 2 part 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.

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.

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 P

human health during the whole lifecycle of the landfill, including aftercare and monitoring. 3 art

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.

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 P art 4 art 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.

12.2 operators 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,

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 105 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 Management Plan due to be published in 2013). The WPA is responsible for land use matters and Introduct 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.

Flood risk i on 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. 1 part

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 is appropriate in zone 1 (low probability of flooding, less than 1 in 1000 chance

per year) 2 part ‹‹ 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.

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.

Coastal erosion and instability risk P art 3 art 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. P

12.4 References 4 art

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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 107 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 Introduct i 13 Perspective: rivers on part 1 part

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.

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. 2 part

13.1 dIFFErences in physical processes

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:

‹‹ 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 P art 3 art too, but in general terms fluvial flooding is less likely to be sudden and catastrophic ‹‹ 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 ‹‹ 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.

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). P art 4 art 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).

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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 109 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.

13.2 dIFFErences 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).

13.3 dIFFErences 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 Chapter 4 is equally applicable for inland situations. Introduct

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. i on

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. part 1 part Chapters 7 and 8 are equally applicable for inland situations.

13.4 References

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

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 2 part

Statutes

Acts Coast Protection Act 1949 (c. 74) (Regnal. 12_13_and_14_Geo_6)

Floods and Water Management Act 2010 (c.29)

Water Resources Act 1991 (c.57) P art 3 art P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 111 112 CIRIA, C718 Introduct i Part 3 on Themes 1 part part 2 part P art 3 art P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 The focus of this section is on the following type of site: Introduct

‹‹ operational landfills ‹‹ closed landfills ‹‹ historic and surrendered landfills ‹‹ contaminated land. i on Operational landfills 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 1 part 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:

1 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 part 2 part 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. P

2 Medium to long-term threat of pollution due to perceived risk associated with coastal 3 art erosion or sea flooding, ie where there is not an immediate risk, but there may be a long- term 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.

Closed landfills 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 P art 4 art 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.

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).

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 115 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 Land Order 1997 in Northern Ireland, which is enacted but not yet in force (referred to in this Introduct 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). i

Further references on DEFRA (2012) Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance 2012 (covering England only), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, London. Go to: www.defra.gov.uk/publications/2012/04/10/pb13735contaminated-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 1 part 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 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 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). 2 part 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)

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 P art 3 art 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 ‹‹ identify the appropriate party who will be responsible for remediation of the contamination, if contaminated land is identified P art 4 art ‹‹ 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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 117 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

14.3 pollution 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 human health. However, pollutant objectives incorporate target dates and averaging periods that Introduct take into account economic considerations, practicability and technical feasibility.

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. i on

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. part 1 part Noise 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.

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). 2 part

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.

Odour Odours are currently controlled in the UK under the following regulations:

‹‹ Environmental Protection Act (EPA) 1990 P ‹‹ Town and County Planning Act 1990 3 art ‹‹ 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.

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 P

notice when an odour nuisance exists, which requires the owner/operator to remove the nuisance 4 art in a specified time period.

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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 119 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.

14.4 coastal 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 Promoting their own schemes under the Coast Protection Act 1949.

120 CIRIA, C718 2 Regulating protection works by landowners or bodies with statutory powers (such as Introduct 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. i on

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 1 part they are desirable having regard to national flood and coastal erosion risk management strategy.

14.5 References

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 (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 2 part

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

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 P art 3 art Acts Coast Protection Act 1949 (c. 74) (Regnal. 12_13_and_14_Geo_6)

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) P

The Public Health (Ireland) Act 1878 4 art

Water Resources Act 1991 (c.57)

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)

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 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)

Websites Environment Agency: Contaminated land regime: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/40405.aspx

122 CIRIA, C718 Introduct i 15 theme: funding on part 1 part

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.

The principal parties with responsibilities for undertaking these tasks are landfill operators, landowners, enforcing authorities, and coast protection or flood risk management authorities (see part 2 part Chapter 2).

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.

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. P art 3 art 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).

If an appointed person or landowner of a site formally determined as contaminated land under P Part IIA/Part III is identified as being responsible for the release of pollution by processes of 4 art 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.

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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 123 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.

15.3 aLternative 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 Most local authorities/district councils may be required to, or could potentially fund, investigation Introduct 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. i on

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. part 1 part

England

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:

‹‹ 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 part

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).

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 P resilience partnership funding). This funding mechanism allows Flood and Coastal Erosion 3 art 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.

Defra has also created the Catchment Restoration Fund to improve the landscape that water flows P through. This fund aims to support projects that restore natural features in and around waters, 4 art reduce the effect of man-made structures on ecology and reduce the effect of small, spread- out (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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 125 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 Lottery funding Introduct 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. i

Generally, the main advantage of lottery funding is that it can provide relatively large amounts on 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. part 1 part Charitable trusts 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.

Voluntary and community organisations

Voluntary, community and “friends” organisations play a similar role to charitable trusts, but 2 part 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. P art 3 art Private sector 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.

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. P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 127 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: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/121220.aspx

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

Environment Agency: Contaminated land regime: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/40405.aspx

Flood and coastal risk management investment and funding: www.environment-agency.gov.uk/research/planning/116703.aspx

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 Introduct i 16 Theme: approval on

mechanisms 1 part 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.

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 part 2 part for scheme progression should be assessed on a case-specific basis.

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.

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 P

solutions to problems associated with erosion and sea flooding at landfill sites or areas of land 3 art contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines. These are summarised in Table 16.1. P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 ‹‹landowner consent ‹‹statutory or non- ‹‹landowner consent consent ‹‹marine licence (if below MHWS) statutory EIA ‹‹marine license ‹‹consent from The Crown Estate (if (determined by the ‹‹planning permission works are likely to affect foreshore LPA through the EIA ‹‹consent from The Crown or seabed) screening process) Estate ‹‹local lead flood authority consent ‹‹WFD assessment (can ‹‹harbour authority ‹‹permission from the Coal Authority be provided as part of consent to enter or disturb Coal Authority the EIA) ‹‹footpath diversion order mining interests (if such deposits ‹‹provision of information ‹‹flood defence consent are present) for the competent ‹‹non-departmental public ‹‹non-departmental public body authority to undertake a body consent consent (Natural England, HRA (can be provided as ‹‹authorisation of CAR SNH, DoE NI) if within an part of the EIA). (within Scotland) environmentally sensitive area ‹‹waste management ‹‹authorisation of CAR for the license or mobile plant drilling of boreholes license. ‹‹waste management licensing or mobile plant licensing.

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 Formal permission from the Coal Authority would be required if any in situ coal, old mine Introduct 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).

Care should be taken during both the intrusive site investigation phases and during any i later remediation work. This is to ensure that the works do not inadvertently create further on contaminant pathways or to increase risks to new or existing receptors.

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 1 part place. In Scotland, waste management licences or mobile plant licences may be required to carry out intrusive SI works. These are regulated by SEPA.

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. 2 part

Consent from The Crown Estate 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. P art 3 art

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.

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 P art 4 art 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.

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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 131 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 16.3 pLanning/design and construction Introduct

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) i on ‹‹ a marine licence from the relevant regulatory authority (identified earlier).

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 part 1 part 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.

Outline design of scheme The Marine Works (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2007 Consultation Screening and scoping request

The Town and Country Planning 2 part (Environmental Impact Assessment) Regulations 2011 Screening and scoping opinion

Specialist studies and surveys Environmental Impact Consultation (as directed by scopining Assessment (EIA) opinion) P art 3 art Information for Habitats Regulations assessment Environmental Statement (ES) Information for Water Framework Directive assessment

Application for Land Drainage consent, Rivers Works Application for marine P Licence, The Crown Estate 4 art licence/planning consent, Footpath Diversion permission (or both) 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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 133 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 was required is carried out without permission being obtained, the local authority can take Introduct 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. i on Enabling legislation – marine planning and licensing 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 1 part England, Wales and Northern Ireland consolidates and replaces previous statutory controls, including:

‹‹ 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). part 2 part 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.

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. P

Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) legislation 3 art 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).

Town and Country Planning (Environmental Impact Assessment)

Regulations 2011 P art 4 art 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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 135 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 ‹‹ activities that are regulated under the MCAA 2009 (ie those activities that require a marine Introduct licence).

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. i on 16.4 rELEVant legislation during production of the ES part 1 part Assessment under the requirement of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 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 2 part ‹‹ 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.

The implementation of the WFD in the UK will largely be undertaken by competent authorities, P art 3 art 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) Regulations 2010 (the 2010 Regulations) replace those parts of the Water Resources Act 1991 that relate to the regulation of discharges to P

controlled waters. Under the Regulations, water discharge activities relate to discharges to surface 4 art 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 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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 137 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 Where any works are proposed within or near to a SSSI, the developer needs to consider how Introduct 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).

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 i giving assent (with or without conditions), or by declining assent. If assent is provided, the on 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 part 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.

16.5 Further consent/licence requirements

Depending on the location of the scheme, applications for the following licenses and consents may part 2 part 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 P

There is potential for landside works to require the temporary or permanent diversion of 3 art 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. P art 4 art 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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 139 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 Maritime local authorities have coastal erosion responsibilities under the Coast Protection Act Introduct 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 i on 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.

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 1 part relevant in emergency situations (SEPA, 2012):

‹‹ 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 ‹‹ 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 2 part 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.

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:

‹‹ in response to any flood or the imminent risk of any flood ‹‹ the purpose of preventing pollution of the environment P art 3 art ‹‹ 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). P

The NIEA has produced guidance with regard to emergency and high risk works under Part 4 art 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:

‹‹ emergency works in response to flood or flood risk ‹‹ cables and pipelines – authorised emergency inspection and repair.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 141 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). Go to: www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/nppf

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. Go to: www.ciria.org

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 Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 3) Introduct

Water Resources Act 1991 (c.57)

Orders The Access to the Countryside (Northern Ireland) Order 1983 (No. 1895) (N.I. 18)

The Marine Licensing (Exempted Activities) Order 2011 (No. 409) i on 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 part 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)

The Town and Country Planning (General Permitted Development) (Amendment) (Wales) Order 2 part 2012 (No. 1346) (W. 167)

Regulations The Conservation of Habitats and Species Regulations 2010 (The Habitats Regulations) (No. 490)

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)

The Environmental Impact Assessment and Natural Habitats (Extraction of Minerals by Marine P

Dredging) (Wales) Regulations 2007 (No. 2610) (W. 221) 3 art

The Environmental Impact Assessment and Natural Habitats (Extraction of Minerals by Marine Dredging) (England and Northern Ireland) Regulations 2007 (No 1067)

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) P

The Water Environment (Water Framework Directive) (England and Wales) Regulations 2003 4 art (No. 3242)

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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 143 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 Introduct i 17 Theme: stakeholders on

and their engagement 1 part 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.

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 part 2 part opportunities will differ between stakeholders.

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.

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.

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. P art 3 art This section provides a brief overview to help the reader appreciate some of the challenges and approaches.

The remainder of this section is structured as follows:

‹‹ potential engagement aspects ‹‹ identifying potential stakeholders ‹‹ planning and delivering a stakeholder engagement approach.

Carefully planned and expertly executed stakeholder engagement can realise the mutually shared P

desire for better decision making and lead to management approaches that can be adopted with 4 art local community support (Collier, 2011). Also, it can also lead to genuinely collaborative solutions and identify potential partnership funding opportunities with other organisations.

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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 145 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 Once the key roles and responsibilities have been identified in accordance with Chapter 2, the Introduct 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.

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 i stakeholder engaged will vary according to the stage of the project and a wide variety of site- on specific issues. Further guidance on both of these issues is provided later in this chapter.

Table 17.1 Typical stakeholder engagement for managing ongoing or imminent issues part 1 part Chapter Purpose of engagement Type of engagement of guide Where potential risk from erosion or sea flooding to ‹‹informing about risks, datasets, known sites is being reviewed, engagement within information, uncertainties and between different stakeholders is required. This ‹‹asking for technical support, datasets, will enable the exchange of appropriate datasets information and information specifically relating to site locations, ‹‹listening to others’ knowledge of site and flood and erosion risks or mechanisms, etc. Such an specialist technical advice open approach to data and information sharing and ‹‹working together to collectively understand collective knowledge building will help build trust and site locations and erosion or sea flooding collaboration (Sniffer, 2010). risks. If a release of material is brought to the attention of ‹‹informing about the location, nature and a coastal manager following a storm or sea flooding timing of the release ‹‹asking for event information and details of

event , then there will be the need for engagement 2 part both internally (up the line management chain to an the release appropriate level and across departments as necessary) ‹‹listening to others’ first-hand experience of and externally (eg with landowners, site operations, the event regulators). This will usually require quite rapid action ‹‹working together to understand and manage the risks posed by the release.

Chapter 3: Identifying sites and direct one-to-one contact between individuals. Engagement with stakeholders (sometimes including ‹‹informing known information about the site the wider public) can generate more complete and ‹‹asking for records, datasets or anecdotal better quality data or information. As well as access evidence to data sets, engagement with long-standing officers ‹‹listening to others’ first-hand experience of or residents may provide additional anecdotal local the site history information about the history of the site. ‹‹working together to collectively understand When undertaking an initial site visit, it may be site history and setting. prudent for multiple stakeholders to attend so that the issues can be fully understood from differing P perspectives (eg flood and erosion risk management, 3 art 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. Chapter 4: Characterising site history and setting When the sources of risk, receptors to the risk and ‹‹informing about the sources, pathways pathways that link the two have been identified, a CSM and receptors, how they interact and the can be developed and risk assessment undertaken. risks that are presented This can be done by a single organisation or jointly by ‹‹asking for data or information about the stakeholders involved in managing the site. sources, pathways or receptors The risk assessment information can be ‹‹listening to others’ first-hand experience of the pathways that link the sources communicated to appropriate individuals for P

validation so that appropriate immediate management and receptors and the consequences of 4 art action can be taken (eg warning signs, initiation of material release engagement with landowners or the public). At this ‹‹working together to develop a CSM and stage, it can include engagement with the wider Risk Assessment. community so that their awareness is based on science-based information, rather than possibly inaccurate perceptions. Chapter 5: Assessing the risk

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 147 The options appraisal process would usually benefit ‹‹informing about the potential options that from early and ongoing engagement with those exist, the appraisal processes that are to stakeholders who will have some influence on its be adopted and the preferred solutions outcome, including landowners/site operators, that result from the process (this may be in regulators and financiers, or be affected by its multiple stages of engagement) outcome, including the wider public. This not only ‹‹asking for views on the advantages and ensures that views from these stakeholders or disadvantages of potential options individuals are incorporated at an early stage, but also ‹‹listening to views and using the responses should help smooth the process of approvals, funding to influence appropriate option selection and community “buy-in” to the proposed management ‹‹working together to develop preferred responses. In doing this, it is important to recognise approaches that, as far as is practicable, that some matters are decided and cannot be altered, address the concerns raised, while some are preferred but remain open to influence and delivering proportionate solutions that others are completely open. Section 20.4 provides are technically feasible, economically further guidance on this. Where appropriate, options viable and environmentally and socially should be explored with potential amenity, commercial acceptable. or other partners so that broader objectives and enhancement opportunities can be identified. Chapter 6: Appraisaing the options Any stakeholders involved with, or affected by, ‹‹informing about the risks or disturbances sampling, investigations or clearance of released likely to be faced and the methods to be waste at a site or construction works once a solution used to mitigate or minimise them has been developed should be made fully aware of all ‹‹asking for information about how certain risks presented and accordingly adopt appropriate risk risks or proposed activities may affect management practices during their activities. This will stakeholders include both risks presented by the wastes/materials ‹‹listening to others’ needs and at a site and the risks presented by working at or near requirements the coastal margin. ‹‹working together to ensure that Traffic movement, congestion, working hours, disturbance and risks to people and the dust, noise etc are likely to be a concern to several environment are minimised to acceptable stakeholders and mitigation plans should be discussed levels during the investigations or construction works.

Chapter Delivering 7: the solution with those stakeholders likely to be affected. Most solutions involve monitoring of how a scheme is ‹‹informing about the findings from the performing or how the coastline at a site is changing monitoring and evaluation and then evaluating how this affects the residual ‹‹asking for feedback on the process and risks. In some situations inspection and surveillance the effectiveness of the solution can be the preferred approach. Outputs from such ‹‹listening to others’ perspectives relating to monitoring and evaluation need to be communicated effectiveness of the solution to all relevant stakeholders so that appropriate ‹‹working together to ensure that any “fine- changes to the agreed management approach can be tuning” or alternative approaches are made if necessary. adopted, contingent upon results from the monitoring and evaluation. Chapter 8: Evaluating performance

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 Who will the issue or project affect (positively and negatively)?

148 CIRIA, C718 2 Who might think that the issue or project will affect them (even if this perception is not Introduct deemed realistic)? 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? i on 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? 1 part

Table 17.2 Key potential external stakeholders

Regulator Regulated Other interested parties ‹‹local authorities ‹‹site landowners or ‹‹Local Coastal Forum ‹‹Environment Agency occupiers ‹‹financiers (see Chapter 15) ‹‹SEPA ‹‹landfill operators ‹‹landowners (including National ‹‹Natural Resource Body Wales ‹‹developers Trust, MoD, The Crown Estate, ‹‹Single Environment Body Wales ‹‹port/harbour authorities. private landowners) ‹‹Department of Environment ‹‹recreational users (eg ramblers) Northern Ireland ‹‹residents/communities ‹‹Natural England ‹‹hospitals ‹‹SNH ‹‹schools part 2 part ‹‹MMO ‹‹site workers ‹‹MCU ‹‹media ‹‹Marine Scotland ‹‹local councillors ‹‹regional coastal groups (England ‹‹local politicians and Wales) ‹‹interest/protest groups.

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.

Once identified, stakeholders should be mapped out as appropriate across the different functions (regulator, regulated, other interested parties), sectors (private, public, voluntary), geographical P

distances from the site, economic wealth or deprivation area classes, ages, diversities, abilities 3 art 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

As mentioned in the previous section, organisations may have their own stakeholder team or P employ the services of external specialists who can advise on the approach for specific schemes. 4 art However, this section provides some general guidance with reference to published sources.

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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 149 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 The preference is to defend the eroding The design and content of public because the release of materials coastline using rock armour constructed warning signs to be placed along from the site is causing pollution from granite blocks, but other forms of the coastal margin. to a receiving water body. material would be considered if they were felt more visually aesthetic by beach users.

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 Table 17.4 Making engagement programmes stakeholder friendly (from Collier, 2011) Introduct

Issue Points to note It takes time and commitment to participate properly, and there are many competing Competing demands demands. Try to make participation as easy as possible The timing and location of events should be focused on the stakeholders needs. For Timing and location 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. i on Carefully consider access to documents and outreach events. Take into account the needs Access of the disabled. Aim to allow sufficient time within the programme for participants to prepare for events Time and to read and comment on documents.

People have to be aware of the programme to participate. Think about informing and 1 part Awareness encouraging people through a co-ordinated promotion campaign. Try to present a range of information, taking account of the format and level of detail Information required by different participants, eg level of understanding, language barriers. The stress of speaking in a meeting deters many from participating. Surgeries and Public speaking exhibitions are more flexible and less intimidating. The internet gives people access to a wide range of information and access to the internet Internet opinions from all sides of the argument. But not everybody has access, so a website on its own is not enough.

The Environment Agency (2012) has produced further advice on developing a stakeholder engagement plan that suitably defines how to work with stakeholders. part 2 part 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.

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.

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 P art 3 art 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.

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 P art 4 art is recommended upon its completion so lessons learned can be captured and built into future activities.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 151 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 Introduct Box 17.2 Ten building blocks of effective engagement (adapted from Sniffer, 2010)

1 Build trust: throughout the project’s lifecycle, trust can be built through awareness, openness, 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. i on 2 Understand perceptions of risk: often understanding of risk can be influenced by (accurate or erroneous) 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. part 1 part 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. 5 Improve 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. 2 part 6 Involve 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 Keep it simple: technical information and management decisions are best presented in a way that 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 Allocate financial budget and human resource:often this is an underestimated aspect and needs P to be considered at the start of a project and then reviewed as the project develops. If media or 3 art 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 Work with the media: potentially the media can be either helpful or detrimental to the engagement process. 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 Use an engagement specialist or public relations team: these are specially trained in how to deal with 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 P accurately portray the risks and risk management approaches. art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 153 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 Introduct i Part 4 on Case studies 1 part part 2 part P art 3 art P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 These risks were first highlighted following observation of erosion episodes. A ground Introduct 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.

Following this assessment, a management decision was made by the landowner in association with i the local authority to provide public warning signs and undertake regular inspection and clean- on up of any hazardous debris from both the foreshore and the cliff face, while further options were being assessed. part 1 part part 2 part

Figure 18.2 Coastal erosion at Trow Quarry (courtesy Ruth Tyson and Nick Cooper, Royal Haskoning DHV)

18.3 options appraisal P

Having identified the problem, characterised the site and assessed the risks, an appraisal was 3 art undertaken of management options to reduce the risk from the ongoing erosion. This involved:

‹‹ 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) ‹‹ 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 P

‹‹ option appraisal: options screened in for further assessments were then subject to an 4 art 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.

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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 157 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 Table 18.1 Effects and mitigation measures at Trow Quarry Introduct

Effect Mitigation measure Loss of excavated fill material Excavated fill material was tested and disposed of at a licensed site in to the environment accordance with legal and industry-standard procedures for the handling and transportation of such material. Disturbance to over-wintering Construction activities did not take place within the SPA between the months of

birds October and March due to the designated over-wintering bird interest. i on

Encroachment of the structure Encroachment across the foreshore was minimised through design as far as to designated areas 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 1 part geometric profile of the revetment and re-graded slope. Noise and vibration from Vehicle movements and construction activities were restricted to pre-defined vehicles and construction working windows to reduce noise and vibration disturbance. activities Disturbance during import Import of rock was made only by sea to minimise vehicle movements associated of rock to humans, wildlife, with delivery from land. Rock was stockpiled temporarily on the sand veneer of plants, and geological/ Graham’s Sand and not on the rocky shore of either Graham’s Sand or Southern geomorphological interest Bay where the foreshore is designated both for geology and algal communities. Change to visual character of A landscape character assessment identified the use of granite as the rock type, the coast 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 part

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.

18.6 construction phase P

During the construction phase of the scheme several interesting challenges were faced and 3 art overcome, including:

‹‹ 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 P art 4 art ‹‹ 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-

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 159 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 cross- contamination, 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 Introduct i on part 1 part

Figure 18.3 Completed scheme at Trow Quarry (courtesy Ruth Tyson and Nick Cooper, Royal Haskoning DHV)

Further references 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, part 2 part marine structures and breakwaters: adapting to change, vol 1, Thomas Telford Publishing, UK, pp 488–497 P art 3 art P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 Introduct i on part 1 part

Figure 19.1 Spittles Lane landslip (courtesy Natural Environment Research Council) 19.3 Management plan

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 part 2 part sampling. These activities found the presence of no significant contaminants, but larger waste items, glass, and asbestos fragments were identified.

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.

After completion of the emergency actions and site-specific risk assessment of the situation, the following were undertaken: P art 3 art

‹‹ 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 ‹‹ 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

‹‹ further geotechnical investigation by technical specialists, informed by GPS survey of the P art 4 art 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 ‹‹ 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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 163 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.

19.5 preferred 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 Conclusion Introduct 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 i stakeholders. on

Further references 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 1 part 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 P art 3 art P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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-on- Sea 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.

20.2 contaminated 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 Introduct i on part 1 part part 2 part P art 3 art

Figure 20.1 Sites of contaminated land at flood risk within the Essex and South Suffolk Shoreline Management Plan area P art 4 art

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 the risk of pollution leaching in to the estuary. The SMP process highlighted this as an issue and Introduct raised awareness of the need to investigate these sites.

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 i methods for management, and this guide is an important element. Also, the action plan on refers to national policy under consideration ‹‹ 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 1 part ‹‹ there is a general action for regular review of the policies for frontages where there is the presence of contamination constrained management options.

20.4 Actions and plans following the SMP

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 2 part 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:

‹‹ identify contaminated sites in Essex ‹‹ 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.

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 P

frontages. 3 art

20.5 Lessons learnt

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 ‹‹ the team’s knowledge of the issue developed in the course of the process based on local P

knowledge of all partner organisations. The process would have been helped by an early 4 art and complete overview of contaminated sites ‹‹ 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.

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 169 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: 978-0- 86017-410-3). 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: 978- 1-84432-949-6). 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

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 non- aqueous 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 P2- 254/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: 1-85705- 209-9). 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). Go to: www.ciria.org

Guidance on the management of landfill sites and land contamination on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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 78Giac ntemngmn flnfl ie n adcnaiaino rdn rlwligcatie CIRIA coastlines low-lying or eroding on contamination land and sites landfill of management the on Guidance C718

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. 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: Guidance on the management of 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. landfill sites and land contamination Part 2 Perspectives: gives a suite of perspectives recognising that individuals or organisations may have different standpoints and responsibilities in relation to the subject on eroding or low-lying coastlines 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

C718 9 780860 177210