Category 4 Screening Levels
The main changes set out in the new Statutory Guidance, is the introduction of a new four category test to help decide when land is, and is not, contaminated land on grounds of significant possibility of significant harm to human health. Under the new four category test:
- Category 1 describes land that is clearly contaminated land, for example because similar land is known to have caused significant harm in the past.
- Categories 2 and 3 cover less straightforward land where more detailed consideration is needed before the regulator can decide either: (a) that there is a strong case for regulatory action, in which case the land would be in Category 2 and be classified as contaminated land under Part 2A; or (b) that such a case does not exist, in which case the land would be in Category 3 and not be classified as contaminated land under Part 2A.
- Category 4 describes land that is clearly not contaminated land, as discussed below.
One of the main purposes of including the Categories in the Statutory Guidance is to provide a legal framework against which new technical tools can be developed by the land contamination sector to describe the Categories in more detail with regard to specific substances and/or situations.
The new Category 4 test is particularly important in terms of reducing uncertainty over when land is definitely not caught by the regime.
The new Statutory Guidance makes clear what land should be placed into Category 4, for example:
(a) Land where no relevant contaminant linkage has been established.
(b) Land where there are only normal levels of contaminants in soil (as explained in Section 3 of the guidance), unless there is a particular reason to consider otherwise. In other words land with normal background concentrations in the soil.
(c) Land that has been excluded from the need for further inspection and assessment under Part 2A because contaminant levels do not exceed relevant generic assessment criteria in accordance with Section 3 of the guidance, or relevant technical tools or advice that may be developed in accordance with paragraph 3.30 of the guidance, e.g. Category 4 Screening Levels.
(d) Land where estimated levels of exposure to contaminants in soil are likely to form only a small proportion of what a receptor might be exposed to anyway through other sources of environmental exposure (e.g. in relation to average estimated national levels of exposure to substances commonly found in the environment, to which receptors are likely to be exposed to in the normal course of their lives).
The guidance clarifies how generic assessment criteria (including the currently available SGVs/GACs) should and should not be used. It states that:
3.27 It is common practice in contaminated land risk assessment to use “generic assessment criteria” (GACs) as screening tools in generic quantitative human health risk assessment to help assessors decide when land can be excluded from the need for further inspection and assessment, or when further work may be warranted.
3.28 Local authorities may use GACs and other technical tools to inform certain decisions under the Part 2A regime, provided: (i) they understand how they were derived and how they can be used appropriately; (ii) they have been produced in an objective, scientifically robust and expert manner by reputable organisations; and (iii) they are only used in a manner that is in accordance with Part 2A and this Guidance.
3.29 GACs relating to human health risk assessment represent cautious estimates of levels of contaminants in soil at which there is considered to be no risk to health or, at most, a minimal risk to health. With regard to such GACs:
(a) They may be used to indicate when land is very unlikely to pose a significant possibility of significant harm to human health. This is on the basis that they are designed to estimate levels of contamination at which risks are likely to be negligible or minimal and far from posing a significant possibility of significant harm to human health.
(b) They should not be used as direct indicators of whether a significant possibility of significant harm to human health may exist. Also, the local authority should not view the degree by which GACs are exceeded (in itself) as being particularly relevant to this consideration, given that the degree of risk posed by land would normally depend on many factors other than simply the amount of contaminants in soil.
(c) They should not be seen as screening levels which describe the boundary between Categories 3 and 4 in terms of Section 4 (i.e. the two Categories in which land would not be contaminated land on grounds of risks to human health). In the very large majority of cases, these SGVs/GACs describe levels of contamination from which risks should be considered to be comfortably within Category 4.
(d) They should not be viewed as indicators of levels of contamination above which detailed risk assessment would automatically be required under Part 2A.
(e) They should not be used as generic remediation targets under the Part 2A regime. Nor should they be used in this way under the planning system, for example in relation to ensuring that land affected by contamination does not meet the Part 2A definition of contaminated land after it has been developed.
The way in which the new four category system is intended to operate and the place of the C4SLs within that system, was explained in detail in the Impact Assessment which accompanied the Statutory Guidance. Please note that although the detail of the Impact Assessment is included here to provide clarity on the job expected of C4SLs, the Statutory Guidance, itself, sets out the regime that needs to be delivered under Part 2A.
11.4.19 Paragraph 47 of the Impact Assessment describes the diagram in detail. Of particular relevance to this project is the description of the overall diagram (sub-paragraph a), description of category 4 (sub-paragraphs c (part iv) and h) and the description of how the monetised benefits of the new system will be realised (sub-paragraph h). These sub-paragraphs are reproduced below.
