• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

Procedure for identifying risks from landfills Version 1.2 December 2003 Version 1.2, December 2003 Page 1 of 19 Landfill Risk Assessment Noise and Vibration; Odour; Particulate Matter; Litter, Birds, Vermin and Insects; Mud on Road Scope This guidance note provides a Risk Screening methodology for assessment of the following hazards commonly associated with landfilling operations: ? Noise and Vibration ? Odour ? Particulate matter ? Litter ? Birds, vermin and insects ? Mud on Road Specific risk assessments for Landfill Gas, Hydrogeological risk, Stability and Habitats are required as part of the PPC Permit Application and are not addressed here. This risk screening approach may provide sufficient confidence to enable the permit to be issued but where this is not the case a site specific risk assessment (simple or complex) may be required. Format The risk screening methodology described in this note comprises four sections. These are: 1. Risk Identification Matrix 2. Hazard List 3. Receptor List 4. Receptor Assessment The following provides guidance as to when and how to complete each section. 1. Risk Identification Matrix Purpose: To identify all the potential source-pathway-receptor linkages To be completed: For all applications All operators will need to identify the hazards that have the potential to be found at the landfill installation on the risk identification matrix. Additional hazards should be placed in the matrix in the blank columns where any site-specific hazards are not covered by the generic categories. Having identified the generic hazards the existence of a pathway between the hazard and receptors would normally be considered. For most of the hazards the pathway will Version 1.2, December 2003 Page 2 of 19 be airborne and therefore the pathway will always exist. For mud on the road there will always be an access road to the highway which acts as a pathway for an operational landfill installation. There may be some pathways that do not exist at all installations, for instance the risk of siltation in surface waters from runoff or service ducts as a pathway for rats. For the risks considered here, removing/interrupting the pathway will not usually be a realistic option to remove the source-pathway-receptor linkage. Where the hazard and a receptor exist a linkage should be assumed. You will therefore need to identify the presence of generic receptors near the landfill installation. The distance considered should be within at least 500m of the installation boundary. However there are some receptors where greater distances need to be considered i.e. airports and habitat sites. In some cases off-site impacts of noise may also extend beyond 500m.You must mark an X in the boxes where there is a hazard, and receptor identified. Additional receptor categories should be inserted as necessary into bottom rows of the matrix. The Risk Identification Matrix should identify where there is a potential source- pathway-receptor linkage. Where there are no hazards or no receptors for the hazards that do exist then the assessment is complete. Where a cross has been placed in a box in the Risk Identification Matrix then further information needs to be supplied on the relevant Hazards, Receptors by completing sections 2 and 3 described below. 2. Hazard List Purpose: To provide information on the location and nature of the specific hazards at the landfill installation To be completed: For all hazards where a potential pathway-receptor linkage has been identified in the risk identification matrix Where a generic landfill hazard has been identified and there is a potential pathway- receptor linkage then information on the specific hazards should be provided in the Hazard List. In circumstances where the location of noise sources or release points for substances will move over time (e.g. the tipping face) reference should be made to the phasing and development plans and the situation for the current year should be reflected. An annual review of the risk assessments will need to consider the change in locations as landfill progresses. It should be noted that although the changing locations of specific hazards should be taken into account the risk over the whole life of the landfill must be considered. Where possible the hazard should be simply quantified. For instance it is not unreasonable to expect the operator to know and report the noise levels from the main pieces of machinery operated at the site. Where a risk management measure for noise such as reduction at source (e.g. acoustic enclosures) already exists then the noise level supplied should be the level with the mitigation in place/use. Where odour levels from wastes are known these should be provided. For example a considerable amount of work has been done on odours from wastewater treatment so relevant information on odours from these sludges should be provided. Version 1.2, December 2003 Page 3 of 19 Where the hazard is related to the waste itself then the waste streams must be identified and classified as low, medium or high risk. Waste types considered to be low risk need not be listed. As an example a cardboard waste stream may be considered to be a medium litter risk. It should be noted that these waste type assessments are not a consideration of the relative risk but the absolute risk. In the above example of the cardboard waste stream this may be the highest litter risk at the landfill and as such the operator may consider describing it as a high litter risk. Even if the cardboard is the highest risk waste stream it should however still be regarded as a medium litter risk waste type. The assessment of the risk posed by the waste type should be on the basis of the properties of the waste and not the risk management measures that exist or are to be put in place. 3. Receptor List Purpose: To provide information on all the site specific receptors potentially at risk and consider the intrinsic sensitivity of each receptor To be completed: For all receptors where a potential linkage to a hazard has been identified in the risk identification matrix For each receptor identified in the Risk Identification Matrix, information on that receptor should be supplied in the Receptor List. Some receptors should be grouped together where this can be justified. For instance the houses in a short terrace may sensibly be considered together. For more distant receptors larger groupings may be appropriate such as a small village nearly 500 metres distant could potentially be considered as one receptor. A qualitative assessment should be made on the sensitivity of the receptor based on the receptor type and characteristics, its location and the pathway between the receptor and the identified hazards. For existing sites a consideration should also be made of past complaints and incidents. Unless there are compelling reasons against it, receptors where there have been substantiated complaints or recorded incidents should be identified as high sensitivity. For a SSSI receptor the sensitivity to each of the hazard types should be identified as high unless the hazard’s effect is either negligible or inconsequential. The assessment of the sensitivity should be based largely on the intrinsic sensitivity of the receptor. Risk management measures should not be considered at this point of the assessment. The assessment of sensitivity should be on the consideration of each of the hazard types. For example a receptor highly sensitive to noise is a high sensitive receptor even if its sensitivity to litter is low. Version 1.2, December 2003 Page 4 of 19 4. Receptor Assessment Purpose: To provide a qualitative assessment of the risk posed to each sensitive receptor; to identify the necessary risk management and monitoring measures and to trigger, where necessary, a more detailed risk assessment To be completed: For all receptors identified as high sensitivity. The assessment should only be completed for the Hazard types to which the receptor is highly sensitive (see Receptor List) For all receptors identified as High sensitivity in the Receptor List a Receptor Assessment should be completed bringing together the information from the Receptor list and the Hazard list. This should detail: ? the hazards relevant to the receptor ? a ranking of the hazards for that receptor ? the relevant risk management measures both general and specific to the receptor ? the monitoring locations to monitor the impact on the receptor ? the type of monitoring i.e. qualitative or quantitative ? the frequency of monitoring The receptor will not necessarily be sensitive to all the hazards. For instance mud on the road will clearly only be relevant to a road receptor. The receptor assessment should be completed only for the relevant hazard types. The hazards to the receptor should be ranked based on the potential level of the emissions and the nature of the pathway between the hazard and the receptor. The hazard with the greatest potential impact on the receptor should be ranked as the Number 1 hazard. The risk management measures specific to the receptor will often relate to measures to mitigate the impact of an emission. The general risk management measures are more likely to relate to a reduction in the level of the source of the emission. It should be noted that the risk management measures will normally be a combination of best practice landfill management and site specific risk mitigation. This receptor assessment should form the basis of future reviews of the risk posed to the receptor. Further Risk Assessment It is not possible to be prescriptive about when a more detailed risk assessment will be required. The key question is whether sufficient confidence has been provided to the Agency through the risk screening process.

Load more

  19

Copy Link