3. Correspondencia entre conjuntos convexos y funciones sublineales
3.5. Aplicaciones
192. One of t he key obj ect ives of t his st udy was t o ident ify t he barriers t o t he direct t ransfer of uncont aminat ed soils bet ween donor and recipient sit es. Several barriers t o t he direct soil exchange were ident ified in t his st udy.
1) Timing: The t iming of t he soil availabilit y and t he requirement is oft en mismat ched. There is a lack of reliable inf ormat ion early enough t o enable t he direct exchange t o t ake place. If an exchange cannot be init iat ed or it falls t hrough and soil is no longer demanded, t hat proj ect t hen requires anot her recipient sit e t o accept t hat mat erial, or t he donor sit e t hen has t o pay a fee t o have t he mat erial removed quickly so t hat t he proj ect isn’ t held up, which may result in proj ect delays and t hus risky t o t he companies.
2) Commercial viability/ Cost: The benefit s of direct soil exchange are not realised by t he whole supply-chain. The current wast e framework direct ive legislat ive endorses ‘ Producer Pays Principle’ . The recipient sit es, who can use t he soil t o fill on-sit es, charge donor sit es for t he removal of soil. It may be necessary t o split t he cost in order for t he supply-chain t o eff ect ively have ‘ win-win’ sit uat ion in dealing wit h t he soil arising. Largest cost t o process of soil t ransfer is t he haulage it self. Reducing/ sharing
t hese cost s may be int egral t o t he success of est ablishing direct soil exchange benefit t ing t he ent ire supply-chain.
3) Supply-chain- visibility, communication: There is a lack of mechanism t o ident ify/ obt ain a suit able part ner for exchange. Companies, cont ract ors in part icular felt t hat t he variance and uncert aint y in ‘ lead-in t imes’ (from t ender submission) t o proj ect s, e.g. not ificat ion of successful t ender and t hus proj ect commencement ranges from weeks t o mont hs. This was said t o affect t he visibilit y and realisat ion of t he t ypes and volumes of mat erials t o arise on proj ect s, meaning t hat t he t ime-frame t o arrange mat erial t ransfer is t oo short and so t he only opt ion is t o ‘ muck-away’ surplus and absorb t he cost s. The different sit es/ companies are not aware of sit es needing soil or sit es which have soil t o t ransfer due t o lack of sharing of informat ion.
4) Regulation/ Legislation complexity: Several regulat ions such as Wast e Framework Direct ive, Sit e Wast e Management Plans and t he legal framework Dut y of Care need t o be complied. It is felt t hat current European and Government legislat ion is t oo complex, cost ly and very difficult t o underst and, and t herefore perform soil management procedures concisely t o legal requirement s. A key aspect of such difficult y was t he confusion over ‘ wast e’ . Planning aut horit ies are also seen as imposing t ough requirement s ont o development s and redevelopment s which are viewed as prohibit ive t o t he sust ainable management of t he soil. Current t onnage limit s for new exempt ions are prohibit ive and t he legislat ion t reat s clean soil as a wast e rat her t han a useable mat erial. Some expressed concerns on t oo much red t ape in obt aining licences.
5) Liability: Companies would much rat her excavat e and remove mat erial off-sit e regardless of where it is going, and pay t he fees as opposed t o managing soil sust ainably rat her t han face any legal proceedings and subsequent negat ive publicit y.
6) Lack of Site Storage: The size of t he sit e t o st ore soil during excavat ion was also seen as a limit ing fact or. Some sit es do not have sufficient space t o st ore t he excavat ed soil t herefore disposed off init ially and new soil is brought t o t he sit e when needed for re-fill. This requires careful t hinking in t he early st ages, proj ect planning and design as well as sit e evolut ion t o minimise t he double handling of excavat ed soils.
7) Lack of Awareness/ Education: A dist inct lack of indust ry educat ion and awareness regarding legislat ion, best pract ice and professionalism. The awareness of various code of pract ices and regulat ions such as CL:AIRE CoP, wast e legislat ions and compliance requirement s et c. amongst t he companies was limit ed.
8) Industry behaviour i.e. reliability of the service: Fear of some malpract ices prevailing in t he indust ry and consequences if somet hing goes wrong in t he soil exchange process, which is at t ribut ed t o t he lack of st andard and proven pract ices in t he supply chain, was also highlight ed in t he st udy.
9) Lack of Confidence: The issue of t rust (lack of confidence) is a huge fact or. The liabilit y at t ached if t he process of t ransferring uncont aminat ed soil bet ween const ruct ion sit es is abused is seen as a maj or concern t o t he companies.
10) Sub-contracting of Ground-works: As ground-works are subcont ract ed, co-ordinat ion and involvement of subcont ract ors at t imes is found t o be a limit ing fact or for t he soil exchange. 11) Lack of soil management regulation: It is felt a common soil
management process is required t o st andardise proceedings and t hus simplify t he process of soil management on proj ect s. CL:AIRE CoP is aimed t o fulfil such propose. The absence of a common st andard f or bot h qualit y processes and chemical composit ion has left client s and councils t o devise t heir own which are oft en
unrealist ic and unobt ainable. There is a need t o clarify not only t he product ion process for soil but t he chemical composit ion and suit abilit y of soils cont aining various t race element s. A misunderst anding of t he chemist ry of soil has lead t o overcaut ious st andards severely rest rict ing t he re-use of t he soil.