whitemoss landfill limited whitemoss landfill · whitemoss landfill limited whitemoss landfill ......

WHITEMOSS LANDFILL LIMITED WHITEMOSS LANDFILL

WL/WL/SPS/1616/01/17 NOV 1

November 2014 WL_WLp16603

Schedule 1 to the letter to PINS dated 17 November 2014

Comments on the Examining Authority’s draft Development Consent Order and comments made by other parties with respect to the revised draft Development

Consent Order

Comments on the Examining Authority’s draft Development Consent Order

1.1 The applicant provides comments on the substantive changes suggested by the

Examining Authority in the table below. With respect to the minor changes that the

Examining Authority have made the applicant has no comments.

Article (A) Works (W) or Requirement (R)

Suggested Change by the Examining Authority Applicant’s comments

A2 & A4 The definition of maintain does not address the issue of ensuring that maintenance works do not have significant adverse impacts, and in A4 the ExA considers the applicant’s proposed additional text to be potentially confusing in referring to the 1990 Act when this would be development granted by a DCO under the 2008 Act. The ExA’s proposed changes are designed to address these issues.

Noted.

R12 The ExA interprets R12(2) as precluding any water abstraction or mineral excavation below 65m AOD from any of the application land until the mineshafts are located and a stand-off distance agreed.

Noted.

R13 Lancashire County Council has requested an addition to R13 as follows: c) details for the monitoring of groundwater levels around the site during the period of active dewatering including locations and techniques of monitoring, data to be collected and means of reporting monitoring results to the county planning authority including comparison with background pre development levels. The ExA requests comments on this suggested addition.

The applicant does not object to this wording being included in R13 if it is considered necessary by the ExA or the Secretary of State.

R18 Similar clauses have been divided into the structure 1) there will be a scheme to be approved by the LPA ; 2) the scheme will include x, y and z; and 3) the scheme will be implemented as approved (eg R17, R13). It is more consistent to continue that approach, which is the intent behind the ExA’s proposed wording.

Noted.

R23 Applicant’s suggested addition deleted as this appears to be a matter to be covered by the Environmental Permit.

Noted.


WL/WL/SPS/1616/01/17 NOV 2


Article (A) Works (W) or Requirement (R)

Suggested Change by the Examining Authority Applicant’s comments

R32 The proposed amendments are designed to ensure consistency of timing between the reviews of waste deposits and the phases of the development and make clear the roles/responsibilities of the applicant and county planning authority. The amended requirement also ensures that an approved scheme must be secured and implemented in the event of a significant shortfall in the quantities of waste accepted at the landfill site during the lifetime of any of the phases of operation, before the excavation of a subsequent phase may be commenced.

Noted. With respect to the comments from the Examining Authority the applicant consider that the excavation of the subsequent phase is the implementation of the amendment. This observation does not change the wording of the Requirement.

Lancashire County Council

1.2 The applicant’s response with respect to the proposed addition to R13 is included in

the table above.

1.3 The applicant has no further comments on the points raised in the letter from

Lancashire County Council.

CPRE

Article A8 Powers to deviate

1.4 As the applicant has explained previously and as the Examining Authority will be

aware Limits of Deviation are provided for in the legislation relating to DCOs to set the

tolerances within which dimensions or distances must be complied with. The applicant

already has provided their comments ‘Limits of Deviation’, most recently on 30 October

2014 (Appendix B) and 11 November 2014 (Paragraph 2.1). It is considered by the

applicant that the ‘Limits of Deviation’ proposed are reasonable in respect of a

proposed landfill development and no changes are necessary.

1.5 Article 20 requires the plans referred to in that article to be submitted as soon as

practicable, the timescale for formally certifying the plans is at the discretion of the

decision maker but should not be unreasonably withheld or delayed. The arbitration

provisions at Article 21 may be used to resolve any delay to the certification.


WL/WL/SPS/1616/01/17 NOV 3


1.6 The applicant’s comments in respect of Paragraph 7 are provided under Sub

Paragraph 3 of Paragraph 2.24 of this response.

R12 Treatment of mineshafts and depths of excavation

1.7 For the reasons outlined in the applicant’s submission of 30 October 2014 the

applicant considers that the wording of R12 is appropriate. The wording of R12 has

been agreed with Lancashire County Council.

R17 Temporary stockpiles

1.8 The final soil handling scheme was included with the Statements of Common Ground

with Lancashire County Council and Natural England (Document references

WL/WL/SPS/1616/01 SOCGNE, WL/WL/SPS/1616/01 SOCGNE2 and M11.172(l)

Whitemoss Landfill.G.005S.Agreement of Common Ground with LCC_2014-09-25).

The revisions to R17 have been agreed with Lancashire County Council.

R19 Control of noise and dust emissions during construction and operation

1.9 The use of water sprays to control dust at mineral and waste facilities is a simple

management technique which is proven to be effective and consistent with guidance.

The use of temporary cover also is an accepted practice consistent with the

Environment Agency guidance. Should guidance change in the future operational

practice may need to change. The use of daily cover is an Environmental Permitting

matter rather than a DCO matter.

R29 Wheel cleaning

1.10 The applicant responded in numerous previous submissions on this matter and has

nothing further to add.

1.11 The applicant has responded where necessary to the issues raised in previous

submissions and has nothing further to add. It is noted by the applicant that the

Examining Authority has suggested revisions to R32 on which the applicant and

Lancashire County Council do not object.


WL/WL/SPS/1616/01/17 NOV 4


Recent Major Accident Consultation

1.12 The consultation referred to by CPRE is not relevant to the proposed development.

Summary

1.13 The applicant has commented in numerous previous submissions on the matters of

sustainability and Green Belt.


WL/WL/SPS/1616/01/17 NOV 1


Schedule 2 to the letter to PINS dated 17 November 2014

Responses to comments from other parties on the Whitemoss 30 October 2014 submission and further hearing submissions

ARROW 16 Need

2.1 As stated previously by the applicant the proposed development has been properly

classified as a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project under the Planning Act

2008 and given that the application has been accepted for Examination by the

Secretary of State, the Secretary of State is satisfied that the proposed development

is a Nationally Significant Infrastructure Project. This was confirmed by the

Examining Authority in their letter dated 30 May 2014.

2.2 The applicant disagrees with the point in Footnote 1 made by ARROW that ‘the new

operations should give no benefit to the proximity to the current operation’. As stated

in Paragraph A39 of the applicant’s 30 October 2014 submission

(WL/WL/SPS/1616/01/HEARINGS) there is a benefit in the association of the new

area with a pre-existing successfully run waste facility which enjoys a strategically

suitable location.

2.3 The applicant has provided comments on need and waste hierarchy in numerous

previous submissions including the 30 October 2014 submission.

2.4 Comment is made on the WRAP report on waste management costs. The WRAP

report does not provide comparative price data for the disposal and/or treatment of

individual waste types. The report provides an indication of the disposal and/or

treatment prices for a range of wastes and examples are given. The report shows

that the payment of Landfill Tax is an important factor for hazardous waste going to

landfill. Landfill tax currently is £80/tonne. Notwithstanding the fiscal incentive for

waste producers with respect to the management of their waste higher up the waste

hierarchy, The Waste (England & Wales) Regulations 2011 provides a regulatory

basis for the management of waste at the appropriate level in the waste hierarchy

and the appropriate declaration on consignment notes.


WL/WL/SPS/1616/01/17 NOV 2


Previous planning permissions

2.5 The applicant provided further information on the background history of the planning

applications for the site in the submission made on 30 October 2014.

2.6 As the Examining Authority are aware, in their submission of 30 October 2014 the

Environment Agency (EA) provided further comments with respect to CRT glass.

The EA confirmed that the safe storage of leaded CRT glass has been and is a

problematic issue at other sites around the country. The EA also confirmed that the

leaded glass treatment process at SIMS failed the commissioning trials and an

alternative recovery outlet has not yet been found.

The likelihood of lower levels of waste being deposited in the future

2.7 As requested the applicant clarified in their 30 October 2014 submission the

restrictions on the waste types which can be accepted at the Minosus facility. The

Minosus facility was initially promoted to accept APC residues from Incineration

plants hence it has limited waste categories included in its Environmental Permit.

From a review of the waste inputs to the Minosus facility to date it can be seen that

over 95% of the waste deposits are APC residues.

2.8 The applicant has provided further comments with respect to Randle Landfill site at

Paragraph 1.3 of the 11 November 2014 submission (WS010003/WLL/HEARINGS

RESPS).

2.9 At paragraph 22 of ARROW 16 it is suggested that the applicant has made an error

in confusing zinc oxide and zinc hydroxide. There is no error or confusion on the part

of the applicant. The guidance on the classification of hazardous waste relies on a

number of reference documents that must be used to support the classification

process. Simply because a compound is not listed in WM2 does not mean that the

substance does not have hazardous properties. There is an obligation to search for

risk phrases for specific compounds being assessed from other appropriate, current

data sources. These data sources include the following legal framework (as

explained in WM2 guidance):


WL/WL/SPS/1616/01/17 NOV 3


“(i) Where a substance is listed in Table 3.2 of the CLP you are

legally required to use that classification. You should however take into

account:

- any amendments that have been made to that table by

adaptations to technical progress (ATPs) and corrigendums;

- some entries in the CLP may be incomplete, so use information

from other sources that indicates that additional categories of danger

may apply.

(ii) Where a substance is not listed in Table 3.2 of the CLP you must

determine the classification of the substance using the procedures set

out in the Approved Classification of the Labelling Guide (ACLG). The

use of the REACH registered substances database is indicated by the

ACLG as the source of some of the necessary information. It may be

incomplete so additional information should be considered where

relevant.

(iii) Where the substance is not listed in Table 3.2 of the CLP or

registered with REACH then other data sources will be the principal

source of information as indicated in the ACLG.

There are a number of issues that arise from this

(i) Amendments to the CLP are occurring at a rate averaging more

than once per year. The REACH registered substance database is also

updated frequently. This indicates how important it is that companies

routinely and regularly check any chemical classifications they are using.

An assessment tool is only capable of producing a legally valid

assessment of a waste if it is aligned with all current ATPs. Assessments

based on out-of-date data sources are unreliable.

(ii) If a substance is not listed in Table 3.2 of the CLP this cannot be

taken to mean that is it not a dangerous substance. The law requires

that you classify it in accordance with the procedures set out in the

Approved Classification and Labelling Guide, for example by using the

REACH registered substances database.

(iii) A substance listed in Table 3.2 or registered in the REACH

registered substances database may have additional categories of


WL/WL/SPS/1616/01/17 NOV 4


danger not listed there. So these do not exclude the requirement to

consider other reliable sources of data, for example IARC.

Furthermore, Table 3.2 of the CLP is updated from time to time by

means of Adaption to Technical Progress.”

2.10 This guidance is reiterated at point 2 in the Annex to a recent Environment Agency

letter to the waste management industry dated 29 September 2014 (a copy of which

is presented at Appendix A to this submission). In effect the rules for classification

are routinely adjusted to incorporate new advice and information. The applicant

confirms that zinc hydroxide is listed on the current European Registered Substances

Database (which is a database supporting the classification of chemicals including

under the REACH legislation) as having risk phrases R50/R53 which means that

currently mirror entry wastes containing more than 0.25% zinc hydroxide (with due

consideration of any other dangerous substances present) must be assigned the

hazardous property H14 Ecotoxic and classified as hazardous waste.

2.11 It is of note that since the submission of the comments on 30 October 2014, the

Environment Agency on behalf of the Joint Agencies announced on 12 November

2014 the launch of a consultation on Technical Guidance WM3 – Waste

Classification and Assessment. (https://consult.environment-

agency.gov.uk/portal/ho/waste/tech/guidance ). This document is an update of the

existing WM2 technical guidance, incorporating the legal changes to the list of waste

and hazardous waste criteria expected to apply from 1st June 2015. This new

guidance, once issued, will result in yet further changes to the classification of

hazardous waste as a result of the most recent changes in European legislation as

anticipated in the NPS for Hazardous Waste.

Possible use of inert waste for completing the site

2.12 The use of inert waste was suggested by the applicant consistent with the suggestion

by Lancashire County Council in their response to Second Written Question 4.6 in

which it is stated that ‘In such circumstances it would be possible to fill the remaining

void with inert waste thereby ensuring satisfactory restoration profiles’. As confirmed

in paragraph 1.7 of the submissions for the applicant dated 11 November 2014 the

applicant considers that the more likely scenario is a reduction in the depth of the


WL/WL/SPS/1616/01/17 NOV 5


excavation of the landfill void rather than the use of a substantial quantity of inert

waste. The reviews will provide for this design concept to be incorporated at an early

stage.

Green Belt

2.13 The applicant has made numerous previous submissions with respect to Green Belt

including further comments with respect to harm on openness at Paragraph 1.5 of the

applicant’s 11 November 2014 submission. The applicant has nothing further to add

to its previous submissions.

Timescale to reach the post operational phase

2.14 Environmental risks and the associated maintenance or operational requirements

clearly are matters addressed the Environmental Permit. As the applicant has

explained in previous submissions it is stated in the Hazardous Waste NPS that the

Environment Agency and the Secretary of State should work on the assumption that

the relevant pollution control regime will be properly applied and enforced. In

paragraphs 28 and 29 ARROW are questioning the design basis on which almost all

landfills for non-inert waste in the UK have been developed and which have been

accepted both in planning and Environmental Permitting terms.

2.15 The mechanism, method and timescale over which financial provision should be

made are matters to be agreed with the Environment Agency as part of the

Environmental Permitting regime. The financial provision must be sufficient to

discharge the conditions of the Permit. In accordance with guidance provided by the

Environment Agency the initial period of financial provision must be 60 years

although at any point in the aftercare period the financial provision must be sufficient

to discharge the conditions of the permit for a timescale agreed with the Environment

Agency.

Other hazardous waste sites with mineshafts

2.16 As the Examining Authority will be aware the applicant provided further information

with respect to Himley Landfill Site in the 11 November 2014 submission. Copies of

the planning permissions for the site were included at Appendix D of the submission.


WL/WL/SPS/1616/01/17 NOV 6


The applicant confirms that both Himley Landfill Site and Bryn Posteg Landfill Site

were constructed over mine shafts.

2.17 At Appendix B to this submission further information is provided with respect to

Himley Landfill Site including drawing reference HCDCT/H1 which shows the

positions of the recorded mine shafts at the site and an aerial photograph of the site

taken from Bing Maps which shows the development of the landfill site. It is clear

that the landfill site has been constructed over a number of mine shafts. The aerial

photo shows the location of a newly constructed landfill cell in the south western

corner of the site which is located over 2 mine shafts. Himley Landfill Site can accept

stable, non reactive hazardous waste as evidenced by the extract from the Cory

Environmental website included at Appendix B.

2.18 At Appendix C further information is provided regarding the Bryn Posteg Landfill Site.

The drawings provided are from the hydrogeological risk assessment report. From

the cross section (Figure 7) it can be seen that shafts are located in the area of Cells

6 and 7 and 3 to 5. The area of cells 6 and 7 and 3 to 5 are shown on Figure 9.

From the aerial photograph the development of the landfill into the areas of the site

where the shafts are located can be seen.

2.19 The comments from ARROW with respect to either non hazardous or hazardous

waste landfills located over mine shafts is irrelevant as the sites operate in the same

regulatory environment and the same technical precautions will be necessary.

Engineering requirements of the Landfill Directive

2.20 The applicant has responded to this issue in previous submissions.

Bickerstaffe Children’s Services

2.21 The applicant has addressed the points raised by Bickerstaffe Children’s Services at

Paragraphs B30 and B31 of the applicant’s 30 October 2014 submission which also

refers to where the issues have been addressed in previous submissions. In addition

the applicant confirmed at Paragraph 2.6 of the applicant’s 11 November 2014

submission where comments made by Bickerstaffe Children’s Services has been

addressed. The applicant refutes completely the suggestion by Bickerstaffe


WL/WL/SPS/1616/01/17 NOV 7


Children’s Services that issues they have raised have not been fully addressed by

the applicant.

Bickerstaffe Parish Council

2.22 As the Examining Authority will be aware the applicant has responded in detail with

respect to the perceived lack of consultation with the residents of Bickerstaffe in the

applicant’s letter dated 23 May 2014. The letter from the Examining Authority dated

30 May 2014 confirmed that the legislative tests for the adequacy of public

consultation were considered by the Secretary of State at the Section 55 acceptance

stage and the Secretary of State confirmed that the consultation was satisfactory.

2.23 With respect to the consultation with adjacent landowners the applicant responded

on this issue in the applicant’s 8 July 2014 submission (Paragraphs 1.2.4 and 4.7.2)

and the applicant’s 16 September 2014 submission (Paragraphs B3-B6).

CPRE West Lancashire District Group

2.24 As noted by CPRE the Stability Risk Assessment is included in the Environmental

Permit application and will be reviewed and assessed by the Environment Agency as

part of the determination of the Environmental Permit application. Notwithstanding

this the applicant has the following comments on the points raised by CPRE:-

1. The extant planning permission for the landfill site is planning permission

reference 08/11/0716 and not planning permission reference 08/96/0993 as

stated by CPRE. The drawing (68A/LE5102) titled ‘Proposed Restoration

Contours’ that CPRE refer to is an older restoration plan dated October 1996

which only shows the post-settlement restoration contours, which are the same

contours as shown on the current approved restoration plan for the site. The

current approved restoration contour drawing is drawing reference

LE00173/098 titled ‘Landscape Restoration Proposals & Post Settlement

Contours’ which is dated December 2005 and includes landscaping details.

2. The current permitted restoration contours and restoration scheme for the

current landfill area are presented on Figure ES7 of the Environmental

Statement. The information on Figure ES7 is based on drawing reference


WL/WL/SPS/1616/01/17 NOV 8


LE00173/098. The proposed restoration contours for the site including the

proposed western landfill area and the current landfill are presented on Figure

ES 5. It is important to note that the restoration contours presented on Figure

ES7 are the post-settlement restoration contours only. The pre-settlement

restoration contours are not shown on Figure ES7 but they are shown on

Figure E15.

3. As stated by the applicant in numerous previous submissions it is necessary

to tie in the restoration of the proposed western landfill area with the current

landfill. It will be necessary for the consented pre- and post-settlement levels

for the current landfill to be amended on the western side of the current landfill

where the current landfill and proposed western landfill area tie together. The

maximum pre- and post-settlement levels of the current landfill of

approximately 84mAOD and 77m AOD will not change. The detailed

construction design of the western landfill area, the way in which the western

landfill ties in with the current landfill and the stability of all the components of

the site are matters for the Environmental Permit and not the DCO.

4. It is concluded in the stability risk assessment presented at Appendix G to the

Environmental Permit application that target factors of safety can be achieved

at all stages of the landfill site development hence that all the components of

the landfill design including the way in which the proposed western landfill will

tie in with the current landfill and the overall restored landform will be stable.

Arthur Scarisbrick

2.25 The applicant’s comments in response to the points raised by Bickerstaffe Parish

Council in paragraphs 2.22 and 2.23 also are applicable to the comments made by

Mr Scarisbrick.

Judith Alexander (Submission uploaded to MAPD website on 13 November 2014)

2.26 The applicant’s comments with respect to the Opra score were provided in the

applicant’s response dated 11 November 2014. Like Mr Carr, Ms Alexander has

confused the ‘Opra Score’ for a site with the ‘Compliance Rating’.


WL/WL/SPS/1616/01/17 NOV 9


2.27 At point 4 in her response Ms Alexander is mis-reading the risk assessment and

management plan tables which are submitted with the Environmental Permit

application. The columns of the tables which she is quoting from are those which set

out the potential for exposures and risks in the absence of any control measures at

all. The columns immediately to the right of those quoted in her response headed

‘Risk Management’ and ‘What is the Residual Risk’ set out all the risk management

measures which will be implemented through the Environmental Permit and the

residual risk is shown as being ‘low’ or ‘Very low’ in all cases.

2.28 The applicant has not been disingenuous with the public with respect to the waste

delivery on 18 June 2014 or the Consignment Note. The applicant has stated on

previous occasions including Paragraph E10 of the applicant’s 30 October 2014

submission that the delivery was bottom ash waste from a paper mill.

2.29 The applicant provided comments on the Wrexham site referred to by Mr Carr in the

applicant’s submission dated 11 November 2014. The applicant has nothing further

to add.

2.30 As explained in previous submissions the financial provision for the site is sufficient to

discharge conditions of the Environmental Permit which are protective of the

environment. An allowance also is made for certain specified events. The

statements made in the audited accounts are entirely reasonable and consistent with

normal accounting practices for landfill operators, particularly as the protection of the

environment is afforded by the conditions of the Environmental Permit and the

subject of specific financial provision.

2.31 Comments with respect to the infilling of the ditch when the bund was constructed

were included in the applicant’s submission of 11 November 2014.

Judith Alexander (submission dated 14 November 2014) 2.32 With respect to the ditch referred to by Ms Alexander the applicant is not seeking to

avoid the issue or to provide in any way a disingenuous answer to the question. The

applicant does not have any knowledge of the ditch to which Ms Alexander refers.


WL/WL/SPS/1616/01/17 NOV 1


Schedule 3 to the letter to PINS dated 17 November 2014 Comments on the submissions made in response to the Examining Authority’s letter

dated 6 November 2014

Lancashire County Council 3.1 We note the suggestion of Lancashire County Council in their letter of 13 November

2014 that a provision is included in subparagraph (3) with respect to a longer time

period agreed in writing. The applicant does not object to this suggestion.

West Lancashire Borough Council

3.2 The applicant is pleased to note that West Lancashire Borough Council confirm that

the Parcel 18b does not overlie the emergency storage area that forms part of the

SUDS scheme. As stated in the applicant’s 12 November 2014 submission:

‘...the applicant can conceive of no logical reason why the use of the

land for drainage or as marshland/moss landscape and habitats

including ponds, scrapes and ditches cannot be incorporated into the

SUDS scheme. SUDS schemes are based on the principles of

incorporation and provision of features such as ponds and wetland

areas which provide attenuation and delayed drainage of storm water.

The proposed landscape scheme and the SUDS proposals are

readily compatible.’

The absence of any remaining technical objection showing that the land is required

by the Borough Council for another purpose, the evidence provided by the applicant

showing that the landscaping proposed for this area is compatible with the SUDS

scheme, and the case presented that the acquisition of this land is necessary and in

the public interest all indicate that compensation is an adequate remedy for the

acquisition of this land.


WL/WL/SPS/1616/01/17 NOV


APPENDIX A

COPY OF A LETTER FROM THE ENVIRONMENT AGENCY TO THE WASTE MANAGEMENT INDUSTRY DATED 29 SEPTEMBER 2014

Environment Agency Horizon House, Deanery Road, Bristol BS1 5AH www.environment-agency.gov.uk

Environmental Services Association Attn: Roy Hathaway and Barry Dennis 154 Buckingham Palace Road London SW1W 9TR

Date: 29th September 2014

Dear Mr Hathaway and Mr Dennis Misclassification of hazardous waste Tackling misclassification of waste is a priority for us and we would like to raise some concerns with you and ask for your assistance in communicating these issues to your members. Correct assessment and classification of waste is essential to help ensure it is properly managed. We have recently found that a number of companies are carrying out waste assessments using out of date information and as a result they are misclassifying and mismanaging hazardous wastes. This could pose a serious risk to people and the environment, as well as undermining those waste businesses who are correctly assessing and classifying their wastes. New hazardous waste criteria are being introduced next summer, and although this is unlikely to change many classifications, it will mean that companies will need to review their assessment procedures. For those whose current assessment procedures are up to date, the change is likely to be smooth, but for those whose assessment procedures are already incorrect they may find a number of areas where they need to make changes to their practices. We have already provided advice to members of our hazardous waste treatment group. To help further raise awareness we would like your help in encouraging your members to review their assessment procedures to ensure they are correct and up to date. We would recommend that this should include a review of internal or commercially available tools they may use. Your members will find it helpful to refer to Technical Guidance WM2 during the review. In the Annex to this letter we have included a number of examples of problems, which may assist in these reviews. In anticipation of your support, I would like to thank you for helping us communicate this important message. If you need any further technical advice about this, please contact Matt Womersley. Email [email protected]

3

Annex – Examples of aspects of waste assessment where concerns can arise The environment agencies of the United Kingdom publish a technical guidance document (WM2 - 3rd edition) which is reviewed regularly and is aligned to the current legal assessment of wastes. This guidance document should be followed carefully to ensure waste assessment is done correctly.

1. Review of assessment procedures or tools

The Environment Agency updates technical guidance WM2 approximately every two years. The guidance is only updated when an important part of the assessment has changed. We expect any procedures or tools used by waste companies to be routinely checked and updated to maintain alignment with this. If it is not it may not be compliant. Technical guidance WM2 was last updated in August 2013, was your assessment procedure or tool updated to reflect it?

2. The classification of chemicals To produce a reliable answer any assessment procedure or tool must use the correct classification of each chemical. Risk phrases must be obtained from appropriate, current data sources.

There is a legal framework for choosing the correct data source to obtain risk phrases associated with relevant substances. These are explained more fully in WM2, but can be summarised as follows:

(i) Where a substance is listed in Table 3.2 of the CLP you are legally required to use that classification. You should however take into account:

‐ any amendments that have been made to that table by adaptations to technical progress (ATP’s) and corrigendums;

‐ some entries in the CLP may be incomplete, so use information from other sources that indicates that additional categories of danger may apply.

(ii) Where a substance is not listed in Table 3.2 of the CLP you must determine the classification of the substance using the procedures set out in the Approved Classification of the Labelling Guide (ACLG). The use of the REACH registered substances database is indicated by the ACLG as the source of some of the necessary information. It may be incomplete so additional information should be considered where relevant.

(iii) Where the substance is not listed in Table 3.2 of the CLP or registered with REACH then other data sources will be the principal source of information as indicated in the ACLG.

There are a number of issues that arise from this

4

(i) Amendments to the CLP are occurring at a rate averaging more than once per year. The REACH registered substance database is also updated frequently. This indicates how important it is that companies routinely and regularly check any chemical classifications they are using. An assessment tool is only capable of producing a legally valid assessment of a waste if it is aligned with all current ATPs. Assessments based on out-of-date data sources are unreliable.

(ii) If a substance is not listed in Table 3.2 of the CLP this cannot be taken to mean that is it not a dangerous substance. The law requires that you classify it in accordance with the procedures set out in the Approved Classification and Labelling Guide, for example by using the REACH registered substances database.

(iii) A substance listed in Table 3.2 or registered in the REACH registered substances database may have additional categories of danger not listed there. So these do not exclude the requirement to consider other reliable sources of data, for example IARC.

Furthermore, Table 3.2 of the CLP is updated from time to time by means of Adaption to Technical Progress. 3. Appropriate worst case compounds are applied

Where the specific compound present is unknown, as explained in WM2, the classification for the worst case compound that might reasonably exist in the waste should be used. Where Table 3.2 of the CLP contains general compound entries for elements, that entry can only be used where it is the worst case. In some cases specific compounds for that element may be listed separately with more significant risk phrases. We therefore do not expect general compound entries to be used as ‘worst case’ in assessment tools, unless that can be justified for the individual waste being assessed. As an example, Arsenic can reasonably be expected to occur in soils as oxide forms. These oxides have specific entries in Table 3.2 of the CLP that are clearly the ‘worst case’ when compared to the general compound entry for arsenic. The latter should not therefore be used as the worst case. 4. Additive hazardous properties are correctly applied

Some hazardous properties are additive. This means two or more substances displaying the same or related risk phrases must be added when assessing against specific thresholds. Where the assessment procedure or tool does not add substances it will underestimate hazardous properties and have the potential to misclassify hazardous wastes as non-hazardous. For example, metal substances with ecotoxic risk phrases are additive.




APPENDIX B

FURTHER INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO HIMLEY LANDFILL SITE

Taken from Bing Maps on 11 November 2014. The image date is between September 2012 and November 2013.

Monday 17 November 2014

Home

About Us

News & Information

Development Projects

Trust Funding

Working for Cory

Where We Operate

Contact Us

Site Map

Home> Where We Operate> Himley

Himley, Dudley

Cory Environmental (Resource Management)Landfill

Address: Oak LaneKingswinfordDudleyWest Midlands DY6 7JS

Tel: 01384 401016

Fax: 01384 401476

Email: [email protected]

Location map: Click here

Opening times: Monday - Friday: 07.00 - 16.45Saturday: 07.00 - 11.45Sunday and Bank Holidays: CLOSED

Waste types: Non-hazardous commercial, industrial, domestic,contaminated landInert soilsHazardous contaminated land that meets the stable,non-reactive hazardous waste WAC

Customer servicetel:

01785 251555

Customer servicefax:

01785 251666

Licence number: BV7265

Landfill taxregistration number:

01682 0175 43000

VAT registrationnumber:

577 3648 93

Accessibility............A A A Search

SERVICES For Business

SERVICES For Local Authorities

For details of the RiversideCommunity Forum please clickhere...

Important Privacy Policy Website Terms & Conditions

Cory Environmental - 2014 - Designed By DTW

Welcome to Cory Environmental - Find out more here... News... New barges commissioned for Th

Cory Environmental - Waste Management - United Kingdom http://www.coryenvironmental.co.uk/page/Himley htm

1 of 1 17/11/2014 12:50




APPENDIX C

FURTHER INFORMATION WITH RESPECT TO BRYN POSTEG LANDFILL SITE

Taken from Bing Maps on 13 November 2014. Image date between October 2012 and November 2013.

whitemoss landfill limited whitemoss landfill · whitemoss landfill limited whitemoss landfill ......

Documents