Based on the information you have provided, I personally would resist
determining the site as there is no current pathway and therefore no
risk and no operational pollutant linkage.
However to be on the safe side I would make sure the site is flagged up
to be reviewed at regular intervals as part of the ongoing Part IIA
inspection program. If the pathway becomes operational or there is a
serious threat that it might then the site should be determined and
remediated.
In the meantime a future planning application might present an
opportunity to remediate the site.
I believe there are many sites which will need regular review in this
way.
However as DEFRA have said the final decision is down to your authority.
John Allison BSc MRSC SiLC
Public Health & Consumer Protection
Municipal Buildings
Cherryfield Drive
Kirkby
L32 1TX
Tel 0151 443 2796
Fax 0151 289 7488
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Robert
Kavuma
Sent: 02 May 2006 14:43
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Would you make the determination?
Have you considered the (future) legal implications?
Robert Kavuma
Principal Environmental Health Officer
London Borough Of Hackney
Pollution Team
Dorothy Hodgkin House
12 Reading Lane
London E8 1HJ
Tel: 0208 356 4675
Fax: 0208 356 4980
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Darren
Detheridge
Sent: 02 May 2006 13:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Would you make the determination?
I am unsure how to proceed with a Part IIA investigation and am writing
to ask for advice.
In one of our Part IIA investigations we have identified PAH
contamination in a residential back garden. Based on a risk assessment
(BaP) the site only poses a risk to the residents if they were to grow
vegetables. The risk is from excess lifetime cancer risk exceeding the
threshold of 1 in 100,000 not from non carcinogenic risk. My problem is
that the residents are not growing vegetables and do not intend to do,
so based on this theoretical significant pollutant linkage should I
determine the site as contaminated land?
After review of the guidance 02/2000 circular I note that the definition
of 'current use' Section A26 includes any use permitted through planning
and includes future uses or developments that do not require a new grant
of planning permission. So veg uptake should be considered.
However, the 3rd requirements for significant possibility of significant
harm B45 requires that there should be;
'no suitable and sufficient risk management arrangements in place to
prevent such harm'. Could the commitment of the residents to not grow
vegetables be considered as a suitable risk management arrangement? Or
could the SI reports and correspondence being available in the file be
considered to be a sufficient management arrangements as house buyer
searches would reveal the information and make future residents aware.
The residents have also been provided with all the relevant information
and have been informed of the risks from contamination. Being made aware
of the risks they have a duty to pass this on to future house
purchasers. Again could this be a suitable risk management arrangement.
I have spoken with DEFRA regarding this issue and whether veg uptake
pathways should be considered for this scenario and their response was
that this is a decision that the Local Authority should make.
This is proving to be a difficult situation as management team are of
the opinion that we have to assume vegetables could be grown at some
point in the future and the site must be remediated. I am not sure
whether undertaking remediation of this site would be reasonable given
that there are currently no significant pollutant linkages (veg are not
being grown) and consider that the cost would far outweigh the benefit
(which at the moment would be minimal as veg are not being grown).
Would anyone determine such a site? If not what justification would you
use for not undertaking any action? It just seems that sites such as
this are not really what the contaminated land regime was designed for
and that resources could be spent better elsewhere.
One last point is that through planning we always assume that where
there is a residential garden that veg could be grown and we ensure that
the land is remediated to this standard. Given this, could we then use a
different standard for Part IIA by allowing assessment for veg without
plant uptake in a residential garden.
All opinions/ advice would be appreciated
**********************************************************************
The information contained in this transmission may be
confidential and may also be the subject of legal
professional privilege. If you are not the intended recipient,
any use, disclosure or copying of any part of this transmission
is unauthorised. If you have received this transmission in
error, please notify the originator immediately.
www.southoxon.gov.uk
**********************************************************************
PLEASE HELP US TO REDUCE WASTE BY ONLY PRINTING THIS EMAIL IF IT IS
ABSOLUTELY
NECESSARY.
London Borough of Hackney may exercise its right to intercept any
communication on its networks - for more information see
http://www.hackney.gov.uk/email_disclaimer.html
This e-mail and any attachments are confidential and may also be privileged.
If you are not the intended recipient you should not copy or use any part of it or disclose its contents to any person. If you have received it in error please notify the sender immediately.
This e-mail and any attachments are believed to be virus free but it is the recipient's responsibility to ensure that they are.
|