1. Richard Moules A Look into the Future for Contaminated Land

2. DEFRA and WAG consultation on the Statutory Guidance on Part 2A draft EU Soil Framework Directive Introduction

3. Guidance does not explain adequately how to decide if land is contaminated land Causes inconsistency Intervention at low levels of contamination Insufficient targeting of high risk sites Consultation on statutory guidance

4. Local authorities as primary regulator Environment Agency responsible for special sites Definition of contaminated land in Part 2A Provisions on remediation and liability Key features of the regime will remain

5. Makes guidance more transparent But loose terminology used e.g. “pollutant” and “contaminant” treated interchangeably Issue 1: shorter, simpler guidance

6. Issue 2: separation of radioactively contaminated land guidance Separate guidance for radioactively contaminated land Any real practical impact? Danger of inconsistent approaches in the 2 documents

7. Only reference currently in non-statutory annex New section 12 detailing broad aims of Part 2A (i) protect health and environment from significant risks; and (ii) avoid disproportionate impact on society and business Issue 3: Broad objectives of the regime

8. Issue 4: Risk assessment Adds 5 new features Description of the process Use of external expertise Generic assessment criteria Uncertainty Risk summaries

9. Clarification that background levels of contaminants should not qualify as contaminated land generally Concern that authorities are taking too long to dismiss sites with normal levels of contamination Issue 6: Background presence of contaminants

10. “Death, disease, serious injury, genetic mutation, birth defects or the impairment of reproductive functions. For these purposes, disease is to be taken to mean an unhealthy condition of the body or a part of it and can include, for example, cancer, liver dysfunction or extensive skin ailments. Mental dysfunction is included only in so far as it is attributable to the effects of a pollutant on the body of the person concerned.” Issue 7: Significant harm to human health

11. Option 1 –Clarify definition of disease so only applies to serious unhealthy conditions –Remove reference to genetic mutation Option 2 –Revised definition of significant harm to human health –Some harm always significant e.g. Death –Other forms significant only if prescribed test passed Issue 7 cont’d

12. Source of major uncertainty No numerical test Clarify entails 2 stage analysis: understand risk then assess significance Traffic light system Issue 8: Significant possibility of significant harm (human health)

13. No problems here Wording revised slightly Issue 9: Significant possibility of harm to non-human receptors

14. Changes definition of contaminated land in respect of controlled waters Introduces s.86 of the Water Act 2003 Part 2A will only apply to significant pollution of controlled waters Issue 10: Pollution and controlled waters

15. Issue 11: determining whether land appears to be contaminated 4 additions Clarify process to speed it up Reconsideration of determinations Informing affected persons Postponing determinations

16. Issue 12: Remediation Merely makes guidance more concise

17. Issue 13: Liability Gov’t considers liability provisions to be “fit for purpose”

18. Issue 14: Recovery of costs of remediation Clarifying para 8.6 to encourage part-charging in cases of hardship

19. Issue 15: Appeals procedure Regulation 8 appeal right Regulation 11 anomaly to be removed Should appeal be to Environment Chamber of Tribunal system?

20. Proposed EU Soil Framework Directive Proposed in 2006 Covers –Degradation –Identification and remediation of contaminated land –Soil protection in national policy making –Control of loss of soil resources to development

21. Main requirements Article 9 prevention of soil contamination Article 10 inventory of contaminated land Article 11 identification procedure Article 12 soil status reports Article 13 remediation Article 14 national remediation strategy