Procedure for Identifying Risks From Landfills v1.2 - EA England Wales - 2003

8/14/2019 Procedure for Identifying Risks From Landfills v1.2 - EA England Wales - 2003

1/19

Version 1.2, December 2003 Page 1 of 19

Procedure for identifying risks fromlandfills

Version 1.2

December 2003


2/19


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 RoadSpecific 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 Matrix2. Hazard List3. Receptor List4. Receptor AssessmentThe 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 hazardand receptors would normally be considered. For most of the hazards the pathway will


3/19


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 landfillinstallation. 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.


4/19


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 streamit 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 beenidentified 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 hazards 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.


5/19


6/19


Where there are no high sensitivity receptors it is unlikely that a quantitative

assessment will be required. Where there are hazardous waste 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 dustcomplaints 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 fromwww.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 Waste

Management 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)


7/19


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)


8/19


ENERIC

AZARDS

ENERIC

ECEPTORS*

Machinery/Generators/Pumps

Vehiclemovements

Wastedeposit

Engineeringworks

Leachate/Gastreatment

Loadingandunloading

Malodourouswastes

LandfillGasmanagement

Leachatemanagement

Dustywastes

Granularhazardouswastes

Vehiclemovements

Unrestoredsurfaces

Wastesurfaces

Particlesinsurfacewater

Windblownwastes

Wastedeposit

Wastesurfaces

Accumulationsoflitter

Littercollection

Putrescible/foodwastes

Storageofwastes

Habitatsforbreeding/loafing

Uncoveredwastes

Uncompactedsurfacevoids

VehicleMovements

Engineeringworks

OMESTIC DWELLING

HOOLS AND

LLEGES

OSPITALS

FICES/COMMERCIAL

EMISES

DUSTRIAL PREMISES

BLIC FOOTPATH OR

IDLEWAY

GHWAYS OR ROADS

RKS AND PUBLIC

EN SPACES

RMLAND WITH

VESTOCK

RMLAND ARABLE

ATURE RESERVE

OCAL)

ECIAL AREAS OF

NSERVATION AND

SIs (WITHIN 2 Km)

ECIAL PROTECTION

EAS (WITHIN 5 Km)

ILWAY

RPORT (13 Km)

RFACE WATER

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


9/19


2. Hazard List

Description of the activity e.g. Vehicle movements (full andempty), Waste deposit, Loading and unloading, Landfill GasFlares, Machinery, Generators, Pumps, Engineering Works

Location of the activity e.g. QuarantineCompound SE corner of site

Nature of the emission e.g. continuous, intermittent, lowfrequency, vibration, tonal etc. Sound power level in dB(A) orsound pressure level @ 10 metres expressed as an LAeq,T (where T

is the time of a typical cycle or other suitable time period).

Noise andVibration

Description of the activity/event e.g. landfill gas release, deposit of malodourouswastes etc.

Location of the activity or potential release points e.g. leachate monitoring wells (planreferences), 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

Odour

Description of the activity e.g. deposit of dusty wastes,emissions from uncovered/covered waste surfaces, vehicle

movements etc.

Location of the activity e.g. tipping face Phase 1 SWarea of site (June to December 2003), Phase 1A surface

with intermediate cover

Nature of the particulate e.g. bioaerosols, asbestos,other hazardous dust, inert dust etc

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

ParticulateMatter


10/19


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

Description of the hazard e.g. Flanks where poor compaction and/or cover would allow flyinfestation, wastes received previously stored for periods of time compatible with the lifecycle of flies, large tipping faces, inadequate compaction, areas left: uncovered, or

unrestored, deteriorating cover etc

Location of the activity e.g. Phase 2 tipping area (July 2003 to March 2004)Southern end of the site, Phase 1a intermediately covered flank (south facing),

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

Birds,Vermin andInsects

Description of the activity e.g. Vehicles depositing waste leavingthe site, vehicles delivering engineering material etc leaving thesite

Location of the activity e.g. Haul roads, other vehicle routese.g. delivery of capping material to Phase 1(a) programmed forSeptember 2003

Nature of the activity e.g. numbers ofvehicle movements, part icularconcentrations of vehicles (e.g. Fridaylunchtime, Monday morning), etc

Mud onHighway

Please add additional rows where necessary.


11/19


3. Receptor List

Receptor Name e.g.Carnation Avenue, CloseHouse Farm etc.

Type of Receptor e.g.house, street, village,SSSI etc

Brief description of the receptore.g. Area for public open space,population for a village, species /

habitat protected by the SSSI etc.

Minimumdistance fromsite boundary

(metres)

Directionfrom SiteBoundary

e.g. NNE

Frequency ofwind blowingin that

direction (%)

Brief description of pathway forairborne substances e.g. downhill(gradient), presence of bunds etc

PlanReference

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 Just ificat ion for the select ion of sens it iv ity

Noise and Vibration

Odour

Particulate MatterLitter

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


12/19


4. Receptor Assessment - High Sensitivity Receptors

ReceptorName

Noise and Vibration AssessmentRankingof the

Hazard

Relevant hazards and locations from Hazard list Distance fromhazard location to

receptor (m)

Directione.g. NNE

Direction in relation to prevailing wind directions and strengths

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. O perational 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.

Descript ion e.g . Acous tic enclosures for leachate t reatment plan t Hazard(s ) mi tigated against e.g. leachate t reatment p lan t

Monitoring

Points/locationsrelating to the receptor

e.g. Outside number 5Coronation Avenueetc.

Nature of monitoring

e.g. subjective noiseassessment, specialist

noise survey (e.g.BS4142), checkingon operational

practices etc.

Frequency of

monitoring e.g.periodic (e.g. daily,

weekly, monthly etc.)or response tocomplaints

Compliance

Assessment.Qualitative,

numerical oroperational

Key actions arising from monitoring e.g. records made, review of risk management measures

etc


13/19


Receptor Name

Odour AssessmentRanking of

the Hazard

Relevant hazards and locations from Hazard list Distance from hazard

location to receptor (m)

Direction e.g.

NNE

Direction in relation to prevailing wind directions and

strengths

1

2

3

4Risk management measures specific to receptor

Description e.g. active extraction of gas from operational phase 2b, covering of leachate lagoon in SE corner ofthe site etc

Hazard(s) mitigated against e.g. Number 3 fugitive landfill gas emissionsfrom 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

Descript ion e.g . seal ing of leachate moni toring wel ls LMP1 12 (plan x) Hazard(s) mit igated against e.g. Number 1 po int source fugi tive landfi ll gas

emissions from leachate well LMP2

Monitoring Points/locations

relating to the receptor e.g. SEcorner of boundary fence,leachate riser LEP2 Phase 2 of the

site, gas extraction boreholes 5 to15 and transmission pipework onphase 2 boundary etc

Nature of monitoring

e.g. olfactory inspectionby site manager, FIDmonitoring of gas

extraction system etc

Frequency of

monitoring e.g.daily, monthly,response to

complaints etc

Compliance

Assessment. Numericalor qualitative e.g.Odour Units,

undetectable, faint, etc

Key actions arising from monitoring e.g. records made, repai r/replacement

of pipework/valves, review of risk management measures etc


14/19


Receptor Name

Particulate Matter Assessment

Ranking ofthe Hazard

Relevant hazards and locations from Hazard list Distance from hazardlocation to receptor (m)

Directione.g. NNE

Direction in relation to prevailing wind directions andstrengths

1

2

3

4Risk management measures e.g. Surfacing and sweeping site roads, wheel wash, vehicle speed limits and restrictions (speed humps), capping and restoration schedule, cover and intermediatecapping, 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 thesemay require specific particulate monitoring.

Monitoring requirements e.g. asbestos fibres, ambient concentrations of particulatescontaining for example arsenic, PM10. A reference should be given to the detailedmonitoring plans

Justification for the quantitative monitoring proposed

Monitoring Points/locationsrelating to the receptor e.g.Boundary at SE corner of

the site, monitoring pointreference DMP 2 (plan x).

Nature of monitoring e.g.visual inspection by sitemanager, deposited dust,

PM10 monitoring, dustcomposition

Frequency of monitoringe.g. daily, monthly,annually, response to

complaints

Compliance Assessment. Numericalor qualitative e.g. no visible dust,

250mg/m2/day, 50g/m3 (with

relevant averaging period) etc

Key actions arising from monitoring e.g. records made,review of risk management measures etc


15/19


Receptor Name

Litter AssessmentRanking of

the Hazard

Relevant hazards and locations from Hazard list Distance from

hazard locationto receptor (m)

Direction

e.g. NNE

Direction in relation to prevailing wind directions and

strengths

1

2

3Risk 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 onSouthern boundary

Hazard(s) mitigated against e.g. Number 1 deposit at current tippingarea 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 completesite closure.

Hazard(s) mitigated against e.g. Number 1 deposit at current tippingarea Phase 2b

Monitoring Points/locations relatingto the receptor e.g. Hedge on LongRidge Lane

Nature and frequency of monitoringe.g. daily visual inspection by sitemanager, response to complaints

Key actions arising from monitoring e.g. records made, litter picking with response times and performancestandards, review of risk management measures etc


16/19


Receptor Name

Birds, vermin and insectsRanking of

the Hazard

Relevant hazards and locations from Hazard list Distance from hazard

location to receptor (m)

Direction e.g.

NNE

1

2

34

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 relatingto the receptor e.g. Outside number

5 Coronation Avenue, SE flank ofPhase 1 etc

Nature and frequency of monitoring e.g. daily visual inspectionby site manager, response to complaints etc

Key actions arising from monitoring e.g. records made, review of risk managementmeasures etc


17/19


Receptor Name

Mud on the roadRanking of

the Hazard

Relevant hazards and locations from Hazard list

1

23

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 thereceptor e.g. Corner of site road and QuarryLane, haul road leading to wheel wash, roadafter wheel wash, the wheel wash etc

Nature and frequency of monitoring e.g.twice daily visual inspection by sitemanager, response to complaints

Key actions arising from monitoring e.g. records made, road sweeping with response timesand performance standards, review of risk management measures etc


18/19


19/19

sion 1.2, December 2003 Page 19 of 19

Procedure for Identifying Risks From Landfills v1.2 - EA England Wales - 2003

Documents

Transcript of Procedure for Identifying Risks From Landfills v1.2 - EA England Wales - 2003