Your cart is empty

Frequently Asked Question - Why does the methodology behind the assessment of “suitability” differ when considering the three scenarios of use on Site of Origin, Direct Transfer and Hub & Cluster within the DoWCoP? Why isn’t suitability defined by a simple risk assessment at the site of use?

Why does the methodology behind the assessment of “suitability” differ when considering the three scenarios of use on Site of Origin, Direct Transfer and Hub & Cluster within the DoWCoP? Why isn’t suitability defined by a simple risk assessment at the site of use?

Article 14 of the Waste Framework Directive requires necessary measures to be taken to ensure that waste is recovered or disposed of without endangering human health and without using processes or methods which could harm the environment, and in particular:

  • without risk to water, air or soil, or to plants or animals;
  • without causing a nuisance through noise or odours;
  • without adversely affecting the countryside or places of special interest.

In assessing the suitability of materials (and hence waste status) one has to consider not only the circumstances in which they arise but also the circumstances in which they are to be used. When considering “Site of Origin” scenarios, an acceptable level of risk to the environment is defined in the context of the sites current/baseline condition. This enables the re-use of otherwise contaminated materials on the basis of waste minimisation; land quality is being maintained or enhanced, thus achieving the objectives of the Waste Framework Directive.

When considering the importation of foreign materials to a site it is important to ensure that the materials will be used in a way that achieves the same goals. If materials were imported to a site so that new hazards were created, or existing hazards increased the net effect would be to increase the level of risk posed to human health and the environment. This would be contrary to the objectives of the waste framework directive. It should be remembered that land-use can and does change over time meaning that any new hazards created by importation of materials will have to be dealt with in due course. The net effect is that land quality would have been degraded rather than maintained or enhanced; this is not considered sustainable.

The differential between the costs of disposal of hazardous vs. non-hazardous materials also make it attractive to criminals to undertake “sham recovery” operations whereby the development itself is secondary to the profits to be made in circumventing legal controls on disposal. By providing clear guidance in the DoWCoP regarding such matters the Environment Agency hope to dissuade its potential exploitation in this manner.

CL:AIRE will not be responsible for any loss, however arising, from the use of, or reliance on, the information contained in the responses above, nor do they assume responsibility or liability for errors or omissions in the information provided. Readers are advised to use the information contained herein purely as a guide and to take appropriate professional advice where necessary.