Phew, three to four samples per garden. Even if you did this is it
really statistically robust? So are you suggesting deriving upper 95%ile
from this data for EACH garden plot. I have seen some sites where the
"consultant" has adopted this strategy, but do you honestly believe it
is pragmatic or reasonable to do so?
PS Merry Xmas everyone.
Adam
Balmer, Brad P wrote:
>My view would be that if you wish to consider the gardens individually
>on this basis you do not have enough data to make an assessment and you
>should have the consultant recover 3-4 samples per garden this will give
>you enough data to have an averaging area for each individual garden.
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wendy
>Lilico
>Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 9:18 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: CLR7 and averaging areas
>
>I have asked this question a while ago and got some useful answers but
>can I be a bit more specific this time....
>
>I have a large housing development subject to a remediation scheme which
>includes testing soils prior to importation and again once the material
>is in-situ (on the basis of one sample every 2-3 plots). This is my
>preferred system as it guarantees that the material is the same, or at
>least as 'clean', as the material tested at source but source testing
>avoids importing clearly unacceptable material in the first instance.
>
>Anyway there have been a number of in-situ samples which have come back
>with results over the SSTLs for one or two determinands (usually zinc,
>boron or nickel). The consultant originally proposed that the whole
>volume of soil imported from a single source should be considered a data
>set for the mean and maximum value tests and, whilst that may appear
>reasonable in theory, in practice it involves a large area of the site
>with discontinuous plots often at considerable distance from the
>'failed' sample. It is my opinion that once the material is placed it is
>academic if the material at distance from the individual plot is
>acceptable - it is the exposure of the receptor at that particular plot
>which is important ("an averaging area (or area of
>interest) is that area (together with a consideration of depth) of soil
>to which the receptor is exposed or which otherwise contributes to the
>creation of hazardous conditions" CLR7)
>
>The question then is what is a reasonable 'averaging area' in these
>circumstances?? I draw a clear distinction between a planning assessment
>and a Part IIA assessment where it will usually be necessary to test
>each area of ownership to a sufficient extent to make a definite
>determination of whether it is 'contaminated land'.
>
>Any comments would be much appreciated as usual.
>
>Meanwhile may I take this opportunity of wishing you a very happy
>Christmas and thanking you for all the help and advice throughout the
>year. I personally find this forum invaluable - and even entertaining on
>occasions - what more could you want for Christmas !!
>Cheers
>Wendy Lilico
>Principal Environmental Health Officer (Pollution) Development and
>Environment Darlington Borough Council
>11 Houndgate
>Darlington DL1 5RF
>Directline (01325) 388570
>Mobile 0779 088 4198
>Fax (01325) 388555
>email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>***************************
>DISCLAIMER
>
>1. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. Unauthorised use,
>disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you
>have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender at the above
>address and then delete the e-mail from your system.
>2. Any opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual and
>not necessarily those of Darlington Borough Council.
>3. This e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus.
>It is however the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that they
>are virus free. No responsibility is accepted by Darlington Borough
>Council for any loss or damage arising from the receipt of this e-mail
>or its contents.
>
> ***************************
>
>
>The information in this email message is confidential and the contents are not to be disclosed to anyone other than the addressee, except with the authority of the addressee. Unauthorised recipients are requested to maintain this confidentiality and immediately advise the sender of any error or misdirection in transmission.
>
>
|