interpreting background information and just as likely that Environmental Consultancies will use different approaches.
The arguments with respect to assessing background have been going on in the Academic community for over 30 years and are likely to continue. I can see the need for CIRIA or CLAIRE to undertake a review on how background is assessed and develop guidance that can be used by regulator and industry alike.
The guidance also contains a discussion on the appropriate use of Generic Assessment Criteria, which should not be used to determine a site but rather in a first stage assessment. It is important that if a site is being considered for determination that a full detailed quantitative risk assessment be undertaken. It is quite clear in the guidance that remediation should not be based upon Generic Assessment Criteria but rather a risk derived remedial target that has been assessed and determined to be achievable through a pragmatic remedial approach.
In discussing remediation, the guidance encourages local authorities to allow innovative remedial approaches to be employed provided there is a back up plan if the new technique does not work.
In reviewing the proposed Guidance it become pretty clear that the responsibility for identifying, assessing and managing the remediation of contaminated land will move firmly to the Local Authority. The Environment Agency may provide some advice or guidance but actually determining if soil or groundwater has been remediated will be within the remit of the Local Authority and not the Environment Agency. I have reviewed this guidance document looking to see if I have missed something, but it looks to me as though the EA will only be involved so far as licensing is concerned and otherwise the Local Authority will be the primary regulator. The EA only appears to be responsible for Special Sites.
This will probably have a significant impact on Environmental Consultancies and industrial clients as there will be differences in capabilities between local authorities and a contaminated land officer cannot be expected to also be an expert in the vast number of remedial technologies and the verification process. There will be a need for external advice which may come from another consultancy which in turn can lead to issues surrounding proprietary technology. There could be a scenario where a client has two sites in different local authority areas with similar geologies and similar issues and that one local authority accepts a proposed remedial technology and another rejects the same technology.
Industrial Clients or Local Authorities may find that there is a need for appointing a second consultancy to act as a Monitor to review the investigation and remediation works and to provide sign off to the client that the works
|98| ENVIRONMENT INDUSTRY MAGAZINE
have been conducted according to the proposed scope of work and used best practice techniques. This is already happening on some large development sites. It will be necessary to show that the Monitor is experienced and competent to undertake this work.
While the above discussion may be taken as doom saying, it cannot be ignored. The guidance as it currently stands is not perfect. DEFRA rightly identifies it as being too long and vague in places. However, in devolving all responsibility to the Local Authorities, it is necessary to ensure that the guidance that will be needed for the Local Authorities and their advisors exists and is in place in order to be sure that this Guidance is implemented appropriately.
It is interesting to note, that while the Guidance brings Controlled Waters firmly into the regime, there remains a void with respect to sediments within UK legislation. Sediments have only been considered in legislation associated with dredging activities, yet in order to achieve higher water quality status in some water courses sediments will have to be addressed. It is possible as we move through 2011 that issues surrounding sediments and water quality will become more widely discussed.
There is a reference to sediments within the Environmental Liability legislation and within the proposed EC Soil Framework Directive. This directive will probably eventually be adopted and we should be looking at what tools we will need in order to evaluate soil structure and biodiversity. Rather than wait for the directive to be adopted, legislation to be put into place and then want guidance, we should be reviewing the directive and looking at what tools we need and what we think would be best practice for implementation. In this way we could be assisting in preparing any associated guidance as the legislation is introduced rather then demanding that the government now tell us how they want us to do it.
It is my belief that as we come out of the recession, the changes to the contaminated land regime will not halt the process of evaluating and remediating contaminated land. Local Authorities will require more assistance in their program of site evaluation. There will also be a need for assistance in evaluating proposed development projects on Brownfield sites. Owners of problem sites will find that both the consultants undertaking work on their behalf and the regulators have a requirement to assess uncertainty which will provide the site owners more certainty in the investigations and risk assessments. However, there will be a need for more Non Statutory Guidance and this needs to be developed quickly.
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112 |
Page 113 |
Page 114 |
Page 115 |
Page 116 |
Page 117 |
Page 118 |
Page 119 |
Page 120 |
Page 121 |
Page 122 |
Page 123 |
Page 124 |
Page 125 |
Page 126 |
Page 127 |
Page 128 |
Page 129 |
Page 130 |
Page 131 |
Page 132 |
Page 133 |
Page 134 |
Page 135 |
Page 136 |
Page 137 |
Page 138 |
Page 139 |
Page 140 |
Page 141 |
Page 142 |
Page 143 |
Page 144 |
Page 145 |
Page 146 |
Page 147 |
Page 148 |
Page 149 |
Page 150 |
Page 151 |
Page 152 |
Page 153 |
Page 154 |
Page 155 |
Page 156 |
Page 157 |
Page 158 |
Page 159 |
Page 160 |
Page 161 |
Page 162 |
Page 163 |
Page 164 |
Page 165 |
Page 166 |
Page 167 |
Page 168 |
Page 169 |
Page 170 |
Page 171 |
Page 172 |
Page 173 |
Page 174 |
Page 175 |
Page 176 |
Page 177 |
Page 178 |
Page 179 |
Page 180