Dear all,
I'm dealing with a site that is being claimed to be zoned as advocated by
CLEA. One of the zones is for residential development. Rather than calculate
the 95th percentile and compare to the sgv the consultant has taken the
maximum sample values of contaminants found during the investigation and
compared these directly to the sgvs avoiding the maximum value test.This is
a claimed precautionary measure. On the basis of this only one hot spot of
contamination has been claimed.
I'm of the opinion CLEA cannot be used in this way. CLEA is a site/zone
specific assessment model with the stats being specifically designed for the
model. Each site is treated as an area rather than an individual sampling
point and comparing the lab results directly to the sgv does not work. This
case looks to be manipulation of the statistics to me to avoid further
investigation.
Has anybody else accepted the use of CLEA in this way or had a similar
experience? What are other people's opinion on the matter?
kind regards,
Mike Williams
Breckland Council
Health and Housing
01362 656334
**********************************************************************
This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they
are addressed. If you have received this email in error please notify
the system manager.
This footnote also confirms that this email message has been swept by
MIMEsweeper for the presence of computer viruses.
www.mimesweeper.com
**********************************************************************
|