I would use RBCA in association with other methodologies and approaches as
part of a determination. As I said previously, no approach is perfect and
maybe we should not get too hung up on QRA. I also not the deafening
silence from those in DEFRA and the EA responsible for the production of
CLEA and other guidance regarding these discussions.
-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Czarnecki [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: 10 November 2003 09:44
To: [log in to unmask]; Ray Murray
Subject: Re: Commercial Development on Hydrocarbon Contaminated Soils
I presume therefore that you would defend the use of RBCA as part of a Part
IIa determination???
I have asked you this question because there are large differences in
opinion in the use of proprietary non UK based software by LA's. Some
accpet RBCA/BP Risc some dont. Due to the "short-comings" of the existing
CLEA model and the recuctance by some LA's to accept RBCA
assessments we have recently actually coded up the CLR guidance algorithms
for the derivation of soil guidance values.
I agree that RBCA and all other software is only a tool for aiding in the
decision making process. But my point was that you are advocating a USA
based tool for making decisions in the UK where the guidance and legislative
environment is very much different.
**********************************************************************
Liverpool City Council Legal Disclaimer
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.
Please note that this email message has been checked for
the presence of computer viruses.
**********************************************************************
|