Landfill — Liquid waste — Appellant depositing liquid waste 1,000m below sea level — Whether this activity amounting to prohibited “landfill” under regulations 9(1) and 3(2) of Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002 — Appeal dismissed
The appellant owned and operated an on-shore oilfield near Lincoln. As part of its operations, it brought hazardous liquid industrial wastes onto the site for disposal through a borehole into sandstone and limestone strata lying 1,000m below sea level. A report obtained by the appellant stated that a layer of impermeable rock above the disposal zone prevented any contaminated water from migrating upwards, effectively isolating it from the earth’s surface and drinking water. By regulation 9(1) of the Landfill (England and Wales) Regulations 2002, implementing Article 5.3 of Directive 1999/31/EEC, operators of landfill sites were prohibited from accepting any waste in liquid form. Regulation 3(2) defined “landfill” as “a waste disposal site for the disposal of waste onto or into land”.
The appellant sought a declaration that its liquid disposal activities did not amount to landfill within the meaning of regulation 9(1). It argued that the discharge of waste into a water environment was not a landfill activity, since landfill was a controlled medium whereas waste could not be controlled once it left the borehole and intermingled with the existing water. The judge refused to make the declaration sought, and instead declared that such activities did constitute landfill. The appellant appealed.
Held: The appeal was dismissed.
There was no doubt that the appellant’s property constituted a site for the disposal of waste. As to whether there was a “deposit” of waste into land within the meaning of regulation 3(2), the word “deposit” did not imply placing into a controlled medium. The appellant’s activities could not properly be described as constituting discharge into groundwater so as to fall outside the scope of the directive. The most important reason for concluding that the appellant’s activities involved landfill was that, once deposited, the waste did not dissipate beyond the site because it was naturally buoyant and was constrained by the upper layer of clay; thus it was deposited into land. Prohibiting the disposal of liquid waste at the appellant’s site was entirely consistent with the objectives of the directive, which included protecting the environment and human health, and preventing or reducing any pollution caused by placing waste onto or into land. Such an interpretation of the directive involved no incompatibility with other legislation.
Stephen Tromans (instructed by Andrew & Co, of Lincoln) appeared for the appellant; Kassie Smith (instructed by the solicitor to the Environment Agency) appeared for the respondent.
Sally Dobson, barrister
