A surprisingly large proportion of UK landfill applications end up going to a planning appeal
The Appeal process is lengthy and costly, often for both sides. This is a very wasteful way in which to determine proposals to provide what is, after all, an essential service. Secondly, the presumption in favour of developers can be a double-edged sword.
The planning authority is immediately placed on the back foot and is inclined to behave defensively, rather than being in a position to behave positively to achieve objectives defined in a coherent and responsible local plan.
Watch this video. How one community is improving their landfilling practices, plus reducing the waste that goes into landfill.
However, where planning authorities decide to take a positive stance, despite the system tending to encourage them otherwise, notions such as "planning gain" begin often then become implicated. But, this is a step away from considering each application solely on its merits and can give rise to inequities and poor decision-making.
One particular victim through all of this is the proper consideration of the need for a particular proposal. This may find little or no place in our present planning system.
It might have been thought that the advent of Environmental Assessments (EA's) for the more substantial waste disposal developments would have cleared the way for more objective decision-making. A personal perspective is that this does not seem to be the case so far. EA's certainly provide a much better basis for taking a balanced view of a proposed development. They also provide ammunition for both sides in cases where there is disagreement.
So, a major feature which should help the determination of a particular application is its conformity with local plans. Unfortunately the publication of plans is in some disarray in most authorities.
The problem requires when numerous separate plans are involved, these being Structure Plans and Minerals Plans under planning law, a Waste Disposal Plan, Waste Development Plans etc.
Besides the sheer amount of work involved there are obvious difficulties for an authority in co-ordinating these plans. Another problem is the in the UK the waste regulatory system has been revised and developed so much over the last 10 years, it is understandable that in some areas the plans may not have been yet produced.
For the average landfill planning application co-ordination is also needed between authorities. This arises as the provision of waste management facilities is usually of regional importance, each authority, however, will naturally look after their own interests first. So is it any wonder that in the UK they have not proved adept at working together to consider regional problems.
There are UK exceptions, notably SERPLAN (London and South East Regional Planning Conference), which is facing up to the need to provide for London's waste, among other issues. There are also instances where, for example, a county authority has declined to consent a clinical waste incinerator except at a capacity limited to the level of arisings within the county. This is despite the fact that there is no technical or environmental basis for the limitation, which in fact has rendered the proposals in some cases financially uneconomic.
During the planning process, planning authorities are required to consult other statutory authorities on an application. Consultations are also required at the licensing (called environmental permitting in the UK) stage.
Due to these potential problems the prospective landfill developer should discuss proposals at an early stage with the relevant planning authority and waste regulation authority.
The relevant matters to be considered in a planning application for a landfill site are likely to include the potential effects on:
• adjacent development and population;
• road and transport networks;
• services (gas, electricity, water);
• local amenity (noise, dust, odour, litter etc);
• ecology and nature conservation interests;
• agricultural land quality;
• restoration to an appropriate afteruse;
• surface and groundwater;
• landscape and visual amenity;
• archaeological interests;
• other designated areas or buildings of importance in the vicinity;
• air quality;
• minerals and other material assets.
This list may not be complete so check with the planning officer at the local authority when you meet him/her.
If you liked this article, then Steve Evans tells you how it is on other subjects too. Click on the link that follows to see more about the landfill specifications. Another web site that viewers of this site may find useful is the waste solutions web site.
Wednesday, 7 January 2009
Waste Degradation and the Idea of Acceptable Release Rate
Every landfill is an engineering project with an engineered leachate management system. Any landfill liner is part of the system. The system should be designed to accommodate a range of seepage rates from very low (the best containment that can be achieved) to high (a controlled form of dilute and attenuate) depending on the degree of environmental protection needed at that site.
Here is a video of simple unedited footage of very low contaminated leachate being irrigated into woodland. Take great care though. This will only work with very dilute leachate which is mostly groundwater and if the geology of the ground is right.
You should also see the leachate irrigation web site if you were interested in the video above.
Many guidance documents or statutory assessment methods use absolute terms such as "total containment", "prevention of leachate and landfill gas migration", or "impermeable". These terms can lead to the erroneous belief that such concepts are achievable, and that failure to do so is indicative of poor materials or workmanship.
Consideration of material properties demonstrates that, as all materials have a finite permeability, some finite seepage is inevitable.
For example, the frequently quoted requirements for one metre of clay with a maximum permeability of 10-9 m/s and a maximum leachate head of 1 metre implies, using Darcy's Law, a seepage rate of 1.7 m^/d/ha, and yet it is commonly referred to as the provision of "total containment".
Actual flow rates are affected by a range of ameliorating and aggregating factors. Calculation of actual seepage rates is complex, and should be carried out using risk assessment methodology carried out to a recognized methodology.
For gases, viscosity and diffusion characteristics must be taken into account. In general, mineral liners on their own are not usually effective barriers against gas migration, though they can be useful components of a multi-barrier system.
Measurements of hydraulic conductivity are of little relevance in respect to gas, as gas is able to pass through a barrier at a rate several orders of magnitude greater than that which may be measured for water.
All materials will allow the passage of liquids to an extent determined by their permeability. Risk assessment methodology will quantify the probability distribution for a derived seepage rate for a given liner/landfill situation.
This should be used either to assess the probable impact on the receiving source, or to determine the performance specification for the liner and landfill operational methods. In this way, an appropriate liner specification can be derived, incorporating a suitable safety margin.
Excessive over-engineering should be avoided, as this can itself may be considered to contravene the principles of sustainable development.
The statement we have made regarding the fact that flow through landfill containment systems will never be absolutely zero and will be a quantifiable small amount, cannot be refuted. It is a rigorously scientific approach to adopt this principle.
However, the concept of the fact that a seepage through a liner is acceptable has been resisted by some, and in particular can appear to be in conflict with the EC Groundwater Directive.
However, in certain circumstances, the discharge into the unsaturated zone of leachates containing List II substances (as defined by the EC Groundwater Directive) is permissible, provided that prior investigation has shown that this will be satisfactory and not significantly impact upon the environment.
Around the globe the primary concern will be to ensure the protection of groundwater, so for example in the EU landfill acceptability is classified by type within zones of travel time to a water source, and within resource protection areas.
Landfills are accepted as suitable for development when subject to adequate risk assessed engineered containment and operational safeguards.
Author Steve Evans has been writing about landfill daily cover and many other aspects of practical waste and secondary resource management since 2006. As you have been reading this article, there is a fair chance that you may enjoy his blog. We recommend a visit now!
Here is a video of simple unedited footage of very low contaminated leachate being irrigated into woodland. Take great care though. This will only work with very dilute leachate which is mostly groundwater and if the geology of the ground is right.
You should also see the leachate irrigation web site if you were interested in the video above.
Many guidance documents or statutory assessment methods use absolute terms such as "total containment", "prevention of leachate and landfill gas migration", or "impermeable". These terms can lead to the erroneous belief that such concepts are achievable, and that failure to do so is indicative of poor materials or workmanship.
Consideration of material properties demonstrates that, as all materials have a finite permeability, some finite seepage is inevitable.
For example, the frequently quoted requirements for one metre of clay with a maximum permeability of 10-9 m/s and a maximum leachate head of 1 metre implies, using Darcy's Law, a seepage rate of 1.7 m^/d/ha, and yet it is commonly referred to as the provision of "total containment".
Actual flow rates are affected by a range of ameliorating and aggregating factors. Calculation of actual seepage rates is complex, and should be carried out using risk assessment methodology carried out to a recognized methodology.
For gases, viscosity and diffusion characteristics must be taken into account. In general, mineral liners on their own are not usually effective barriers against gas migration, though they can be useful components of a multi-barrier system.
Measurements of hydraulic conductivity are of little relevance in respect to gas, as gas is able to pass through a barrier at a rate several orders of magnitude greater than that which may be measured for water.
All materials will allow the passage of liquids to an extent determined by their permeability. Risk assessment methodology will quantify the probability distribution for a derived seepage rate for a given liner/landfill situation.
This should be used either to assess the probable impact on the receiving source, or to determine the performance specification for the liner and landfill operational methods. In this way, an appropriate liner specification can be derived, incorporating a suitable safety margin.
Excessive over-engineering should be avoided, as this can itself may be considered to contravene the principles of sustainable development.
The statement we have made regarding the fact that flow through landfill containment systems will never be absolutely zero and will be a quantifiable small amount, cannot be refuted. It is a rigorously scientific approach to adopt this principle.
However, the concept of the fact that a seepage through a liner is acceptable has been resisted by some, and in particular can appear to be in conflict with the EC Groundwater Directive.
However, in certain circumstances, the discharge into the unsaturated zone of leachates containing List II substances (as defined by the EC Groundwater Directive) is permissible, provided that prior investigation has shown that this will be satisfactory and not significantly impact upon the environment.
Around the globe the primary concern will be to ensure the protection of groundwater, so for example in the EU landfill acceptability is classified by type within zones of travel time to a water source, and within resource protection areas.
Landfills are accepted as suitable for development when subject to adequate risk assessed engineered containment and operational safeguards.
Author Steve Evans has been writing about landfill daily cover and many other aspects of practical waste and secondary resource management since 2006. As you have been reading this article, there is a fair chance that you may enjoy his blog. We recommend a visit now!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)