Procedure for identifying risks from

Version 1.2 December 2003

Version 1.2, December 2003 Page 1 of 19 Risk Assessment Noise and Vibration; Odour; Particulate Matter; , 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 , 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 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 should be provided.

Version 1.2, December 2003 Page 3 of 19 Where the hazard is related to the 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.

Version 1.2, December 2003 Page 5 of 19 Where there are no high sensitivity receptors it is unlikely that a quantitative assessment will be required. Where there are streams with a high risk for particulate generation (with the presence of a sensitive receptor) then quantitative dust assessment would be justified.

For existing sites the current performance of the risk management measures can be used to help determine if a more detailed assessment is required. Noise, odour or dust complaints or incidents can indicate that a quantitative assessment (e.g. a noise survey) is required. The absence of such complaints should not preclude a quantitative assessment.

Where the risk screening methodology used here does not provide enough confidence to the Agency a more detailed risk assessment should be undertaken. It is recommended that the proposed level of risk assessment should be discussed at the pre-application stage.

Useful References

IPPC H1 Horizontal Guidance: Environmental Assessment and Appraisal of BAT, Version 3.1 (2002). Environment Agency, Bristol. (Available from www.environment-agency.gov.uk)

Guidelines for Environmental Risk Assessment and Management – Revised Departmental Guidance (2000). Department of the Environment, Transport & the Regions, Environment Agency &The Institute for Environment & Health, The Stationery Office, London. (www.defra.gov.uk)

Noise Guidance - Internal Guidance for the Regulation of Noise at Facilities, Version 3.0 (2002). Environment Agency, Bristol. (Available from www.environment-agency.gov.uk)

IPPC H3 – Horizontal Noise Guidance Part 1 ‘Regulation and Permitting’, Version 2 (2002). Environment Agency, Bristol. (Available from www.environment- agency.gov.uk

IPPC H3 – Horizontal Noise Guidance Part 2 ‘Noise assessment and Control’, Version 2 (2002). Environment Agency, Bristol. (Available from www.environment- agency.gov.uk)

Odour Guidance - Internal Guidance for the Regulation of Odour at Waste Management Facilities, Version 3.0 (2002). Environment Agency, Bristol. (Available from www.environment-agency.gov.uk)

IPPC H4 - Horizontal Guidance for odour Part 1: Regulation and Permitting (Draft for consultation 2002). Environment Agency, Bristol. (Available from www.environment-agency.gov.uk)

Version 1.2, December 2003 Page 6 of 19 IPPC H4 Horizontal Guidance for odour Part 2: Assessment and Control (Draft for consultation 2002). Environment Agency, Bristol. (Available from www.environment-agency.gov.uk)

Habitats Directive: Further guidance applying the Habitats Regulations to Waste Management facilities (Appendix 6) Version 1 (2002). Environment Agency, Bristol. (Available from www.environment-agency.gov.uk)

Version 1.2, December 2003 Page 7 of 19 INSECTS THE ROAD

GENERIC Machinery/Generators/Pumps Vehicle movements Waste deposit Engineering works Leachate/Gas treatment Loading and unloading Malodourous wastes Landfill Gas management Leachate management Dusty wastes Granular hazardous wastes Vehicle movements Unrestored surfaces Waste surfaces Particles in surface water Windblown wastes Waste deposit Waste surfaces Accumulations of litter Litter collection Putrescible/food wastes Storage of wastes Habitats for breeding/ loafing Uncovered wastes Uncompacted surface voids Vehicle Movements Engineering works HAZARDS

GENERIC RECEPTORS*

DOMESTIC DWELLING

SCHOOLS AND COLLEGES HOSPITALS

OFFICES/COMMERCIAL PREMISES NDUSTRIAL PREMISES

PUBLIC FOOTPATH OR BRIDLEWAY HIGHWAYS OR ROADS

PARKS AND PUBLIC OPEN SPACES FARMLAND WITH LIVESTOCK FARMLAND ARABLE

NATURE RESERVE LOCAL) SPECIAL AREAS OF CONSERVATION AND SSSI’s (WITHIN 2 Km) SPECIAL PROTECTION AREAS (WITHIN 5 Km) RAILWAY

AIRPORT (13 Km)

SURFACE WATER

* Within at least 500m of the installation boundary unless otherwise stated.

Version 1.2, December 2003 Page 8 of 19 2. Hazard List

Noise and Description of the activity e.g. Vehicle movements (full and Location of the activity e.g. Quarantine Nature of the emission e.g. continuous, intermittent, low Vibration empty), Waste deposit, Loading and unloading, Landfill Gas Compound SE corner of site frequency, vibration, tonal etc. Sound power level in dB(A) or Flares, Machinery, Generators, Pumps, Engineering Works sound pressure level @ 10 metres expressed as an LAeq,T (where T is the time of a typical cycle or other suitable time period).

Odour Description of the activity/event e.g. landfill gas release, deposit of malodourous Location of the activity or potential release points e.g. leachate monitoring wells (plan wastes etc. references), transmission pipework northern boundary, leachate lagoon NE corner of site, tipping face Phase 1 SW area of site (June to December 2003) etc.

List of Waste types which are likely to be malodourous. EWC code and description e.g. 19 08 05 sludges from treatment of urban waste water EWC Description (with odour levels were known) High or Medium Risk Justification for selection of Risk level

Particulate Description of the activity e.g. deposit of dusty wastes, Location of the activity e.g. tipping face Phase 1 SW Nature of the particulate e.g. bioaerosols, asbestos, Matter emissions from uncovered/covered waste surfaces, vehicle area of site (June to December 2003), Phase 1A surface other hazardous dust, inert dust etc movements etc. with intermediate cover

List of Waste types which are likely to generate particulates. EWC code e.g. 03 01 02 Sawdust. Non-hazardous and Hazardous wastes (including stable, non reactive hazardous wastes) should be presented separately EWC Non-hazardous waste description High or Medium Risk Justification for selection of Risk level

EWC Hazardous waste description including hazard categories High or Medium Risk Justification for selection of Risk level

Version 1.2, December 2003 Page 9 of 19 List of Waste types are likely to become windblown. EWC code e.g. 15 01 01 Paper and cardboard packaging EWC Description High or Medium Risk Justification for selection of Risk level

Birds, Description of the hazard e.g. Flanks where poor compaction and/or cover would allow fly Location of the activity e.g. Phase 2 tipping area (July 2003 to March 2004) Vermin and infestation, wastes received previously stored for periods of time compatible with the life Southern end of the site, Phase 1a intermediately covered flank (south facing), Insects cycle of flies, large tipping faces, inadequate compaction, areas left: uncovered, or unrestored, deteriorating cover etc

List of Waste types are likely to attract birds, vermin, insects. EWC code e.g. 20 01 08 Biodegradable kitchen and canteen waste EWC Description High or Medium Risk Justification for selection of Risk level

Mud on Description of the activity e.g. Vehicles depositing waste leaving Location of the activity e.g. Haul roads, other vehicle routes Nature of the activity e.g. numbers of Highway the site, vehicles delivering engineering material etc leaving the e.g. delivery of capping material to Phase 1(a) programmed for vehicle movements, particular site September 2003 concentrations of vehicles (e.g. Friday lunchtime, Monday morning), etc

Please add additional rows where necessary.

Version 1.2, December 2003 Page 10 of 19 3. Receptor List

Receptor Name e.g. Type of Receptor e.g. Brief description of the receptor Minimum Direction Frequency of Brief description of pathway for Plan Carnation Avenue, Close house, street, village, e.g. Area for public open space, distance from from Site wind blowing airborne substances e.g. downhill Reference House Farm etc. SSSI etc population for a village, species / site boundary Boundary in that (gradient), presence of bunds etc habitat protected by the SSSI etc. (metres) e.g. NNE direction (%)

Sensitivity of receptor. Based on type and location of receptor, the nature of the pathway, wind directions, history of complaints/incidents etc Hazard Type High, Medium or Low Justification for the selection of sensitivity Noise and Vibration Odour Particulate Matter Litter Birds, vermin and insects Mud on Road

Copy and complete the above table for each Receptor identified in the Risk Identification Matrix with a potential linkage to a hazard

Version 1.2, December 2003 Page 11 of 19 4. Receptor Assessment - High Sensitivity Receptors

Receptor Name

Noise and Vibration Assessment Ranking Relevant hazards and locations from Hazard list Distance from Direction Direction in relation to prevailing wind directions and strengths of the hazard location to e.g. NNE Hazard receptor (m) 1 2 3 4 Risk management measures specific to receptor e.g. sound bunds/barriers; operational periods etc Description e.g. noise bund on southern boundary Hazard(s) mitigated against e.g. Operational noise from cell no X

General risk management measures e.g. source reduction, maintenance schedules, operating hours, machinery replacement schedules, operating hours, road surfacing and maintenance etc. Description e.g. Acoustic enclosures for leachate treatment plant Hazard(s) mitigated against e.g. leachate treatment plant

Monitoring Nature of monitoring Frequency of Compliance Key actions arising from monitoring e.g. records made, review of risk management measures Points/locations e.g. subjective noise monitoring e.g. Assessment. etc relating to the receptor assessment, specialist periodic (e.g. daily, Qualitative, e.g. Outside number 5 noise survey (e.g. weekly, monthly etc.) numerical or Coronation Avenue BS4142), checking or response to operational etc. on operational complaints practices etc.

Version 1.2, December 2003 Page 12 of 19 Receptor Name

Odour Assessment Ranking of Relevant hazards and locations from Hazard list Distance from hazard Direction e.g. Direction in relation to prevailing wind directions and the Hazard location to receptor (m) NNE strengths 1 2 3 4 Risk management measures specific to receptor Description e.g. active extraction of gas from operational phase 2b, covering of leachate lagoon in SE corner of Hazard(s) mitigated against e.g. Number 3 fugitive landfill gas emissions the site etc from operational phase 2b etc

General risk management measures e.g. Waste handling procedures for identified waste types, restrictions on deposit of identified waste types under certain wind directions, relevant measures from landfill gas management plan, , relevant measures from leachate management plan – enclosed leachate treatment, phased infilling and capping etc Description e.g. sealing of leachate monitoring wells LMP1 –12 (plan x) Hazard(s) mitigated against e.g. Number 1 point source fugitive landfill gas emissions from leachate well LMP2

Monitoring Points/locations Nature of monitoring Frequency of Compliance Key actions arising from monitoring e.g. records made, repair/replacement relating to the receptor e.g. SE e.g. olfactory inspection monitoring e.g. Assessment. Numerical of pipework/valves, review of risk management measures etc corner of boundary fence, by site manager, FID daily, monthly, or qualitative e.g. leachate riser LEP2 Phase 2 of the monitoring of gas response to Odour Units, site, gas extraction boreholes 5 to extraction system etc complaints etc undetectable, faint, etc 15 and transmission pipework on phase 2 boundary etc

Version 1.2, December 2003 Page 13 of 19 Receptor Name

Particulate Matter Assessment

Ranking of Relevant hazards and locations from Hazard list Distance from hazard Direction Direction in relation to prevailing wind directions and the Hazard location to receptor (m) e.g. NNE strengths 1 2 3 4 Risk management measures e.g. Surfacing and sweeping site roads, wheel wash, vehicle speed limits and restrictions (speed humps), capping and restoration schedule, cover and intermediate capping, packaging of waste, damping of waste at source, waste handling procedures for identified waste types – asbestos, granular hazardous wastes etc Description e.g. Phase 3c hydro-seeding September 2003, Phase 3d intermediate capping October 2003 Hazard(s) mitigated against e.g. Number 1 surface of Phase 3c

Specific Monitoring Requirements. Where the Hazard List has identified waste types that pose a specific hazard e.g. asbestos, granular treated hazardous wastes, fine particle wastes etc these may require specific particulate monitoring. Monitoring requirements e.g. asbestos fibres, ambient concentrations of particulates Justification for the quantitative monitoring proposed containing for example arsenic, PM10. A reference should be given to the detailed monitoring plans

Monitoring Points/locations Nature of monitoring e.g. Frequency of monitoring Compliance Assessment. Numerical Key actions arising from monitoring e.g. records made, relating to the receptor e.g. visual inspection by site e.g. daily, monthly, or qualitative e.g. no visible dust, review of risk management measures etc Boundary at SE corner of manager, deposited dust, annually, response to 250mg/m2/day, 50mg/m3 (with the site, monitoring point PM10 monitoring, dust complaints relevant averaging period) etc reference DMP 2 (plan x). composition

Version 1.2, December 2003 Page 14 of 19 Receptor Name

Litter Assessment Ranking of Relevant hazards and locations from Hazard list Distance from Direction Direction in relation to prevailing wind directions and the Hazard hazard location e.g. NNE strengths to receptor (m) 1 2 3 Risk management measures specific to receptor e.g. permanent and temporary litter fence locations, clearing of identified locations of litter accumulation etc Description e.g. moveable litter fence south side of Phase 2b (June to September 2003), daily clearing of ditch on Hazard(s) mitigated against e.g. Number 1 deposit at current tipping Southern boundary area Phase 2b

General risk management measures e.g. Waste handling procedures, adverse weather restrictions on identified waste types, emergency tipping area, supply of cover material, litter picking etc Description e.g. Wind speed and direction for excluding high risk waste types; medium risk waste types and complete Hazard(s) mitigated against e.g. Number 1 deposit at current tipping site closure. area Phase 2b

Monitoring Points/locations relating Nature and frequency of monitoring Key actions arising from monitoring e.g. records made, litter picking with response times and performance to the receptor e.g. Hedge on Long e.g. daily visual inspection by site standards, review of risk management measures etc Ridge Lane manager, response to complaints

Version 1.2, December 2003 Page 15 of 19 Receptor Name

Birds, vermin and insects Ranking of Relevant hazards and locations from Hazard list Distance from hazard Direction e.g. the Hazard location to receptor (m) NNE

1 2 3 4 Risk management measures specific to receptor e.g. daily and intermediate cover. Description e.g. intermediate cover on SE flank of Phase 1 Hazard(s) mitigated against e.g. Number 1 fly infestation SE flank of Phase 1

General risk management measures e.g. Waste handling procedures, compaction, supply of cover material, bird scaring etc Description e.g. helium balloons at locations marked on plan x. Hazard(s) mitigated against e.g. Number 2 sea gulls

Monitoring Points/locations relating Nature and frequency of monitoring e.g. daily visual inspection Key actions arising from monitoring e.g. records made, review of risk management to the receptor e.g. Outside number by site manager, response to complaints etc measures etc 5 Coronation Avenue, SE flank of Phase 1 etc

Version 1.2, December 2003 Page 16 of 19 Receptor Name

Mud on the road Ranking of Relevant hazards and locations from Hazard list the Hazard

1 2 3 Risk management measures e.g. wheel wash location, operation and maintenance, distance from wheel wash to receptor road, length of surfaced road from wheel wash, criteria for provision of road sweepers on and off site, specific measures relating to programmed engineering works – road sweeper continuously on site September 2003 etc

Monitoring Points/locations relating to the Nature and frequency of monitoring e.g. Key actions arising from monitoring e.g. records made, road sweeping with response times receptor e.g. Corner of site road and Quarry twice daily visual inspection by site and performance standards, review of risk management measures etc Lane, haul road leading to wheel wash, road manager, response to complaints after wheel wash, the wheel wash etc

Version 1.2, December 2003 Page 17 of 19 rsion 1.2, December 2003 Page 19 of 19