Ben and Nick

I started life as a regulator and someone who aims to protect public
health and the environment. However I (unfortunately?) took an interest
in Contaminated Land. Now I feel that I need to be a hybrid of
toxicologist, geologist, hydrologist, environmentalist, lawyer, building
surveyor, engineer, IT geek, researcher, reviewer, data manager and
lobbyist!

(you can imagine that I have an interesting wardrobe consisting of hard
hats, wigs, spectacles with plasters holding them together, rigger
boots, sandals, dip meters, clip boards, test tubes, protective visors,
hundreds of books, warrants, etc)

I have a passing knowledge in each (well most of them). When I take time
to actually think about what I do I feel a mixture of awe, bewilderment,
disappointment, isolation, with an underlying nagging doubt about what
purpose this really serves. I also seem to just compile lists and cross
reference them, whilst also ensuring that the BVPI is taken care of even
though I find this difficult to see where this falls in the scheme of
things.

I console myself in that I am participating in semi-coordinated (by whom
exactly I am note sure) national land clean-up strategy and I am not
just ticking boxes.

I too thought that Kevin's illustration of risk was very profound. Just
goes to show that the pen is mightier than the sod.

(get it? - don't worry).

Paul Pearse
Environmental Control Officer
Planning, Protection & Licensing Colchester Borough Council
PO Box 889, Town Hall Colchester CO1 1FL
Tel: 01206 282592
Fx: 01206 282598
 
Help Protect the Environment. Only Print out this email if it is
absolutely necessary.
Any opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Colchester Borough
Council and or Colchester Borough Homes. This e-mail and any
attachments, replies and forwarded copies are confidential and are
strictly for the use of named recipient(s) only. If you have received it
in error you may not make use of it. Please e-mail us, including a copy
of the message, to [log in to unmask] Then delete the e-mail
and any copies.
 
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ben
Crowther
Sent: 03 July 2006 10:38
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: [QUAR] Re: When is a risk not a risk - commetry
Importance: Low

I find my self in a similar position to Nick, Having recently attempted
to join in the eminently sensible LQM workshop designed to make new,
peer reviewed SGVs - Temporary alternatives, I found myself a bit
overwelmed by the learning I'd have to do to truly understand creation
of SGV's.  I withdrew from the workshop - with some feelings of
inadequacy, feeling like a competent operator of a PC rather than a
softwear engineer- I'm able to assess a risk assessment, not do all the
complicated jiggery pokery with programs.  
I must say I hope the LQM event does really well tomorrow and wednesday
in Nottingham.  

In my own defence, I do do research and I am doing my dissertation for
my M.Sc on an outside/in the ground asbestos SGV type value, so i'm
adequate at carrying out research I think?.  The EA and HSE are in
negotiations about this at the moment and i'm riding on the back of some
research and we have some funds here for investigation a site with
asbestos in soil - for which we intend to try several methods for fibre
extraction, and publish a useful paper.

I'm drifting a bit, i appologise, I do this, - my point was to be why
has so much of the funding for CL been diverted in the EA to flood
defence forces when, while i'd been bailing out my friends kitchen last
night for an hour, the 7.8 million pound flood warning system siren went
off - (ok there is some wall building, greasing palms with slow foot
draggin contractors that only work 6 hours on a dry day and some digging
up of Tod central park to make a reservoir basin in the costs - all of
which had failed...) as you can imagine I found this appropriate timing
amusing after the roads in Todmorden were under a foot of dilute foul
water (and me up to my thighs in it), which means a lot of wasted money
when, in my opinion (I know, more commas needed stella) the more
significant threat of contaminated land to the long term health of
individuals is being let slide and funding appears to have dried up.

Pics just in case you want to look.

http://www.todchat.com/shadeflood/

Just my opinion.

Ben Crowther, B.Sc, FGS, PGCE, Stud. M.Sc. thinking about CGeol, and a
grammar course.

>>> Nik Reynolds <[log in to unmask]> 30/06/2006 16:23 >>>
Having reviewed all the discussion on the perceived risk of
toxicological
information, it appears to me that environmental scientists and
geologists
are taking on the role of even more of a role of toxicologists than
ever. 
The perceived idea of risk should be completed by persons suitably
qualified
in the subject that the risk is presented in.  I acknowledge that for
example within the BaP tox report the case for a reduction of risk may
be
justified as it is stated that the difference between NOAEL and LOAEL is
a
factor of 10 and hence an educated assessment can be made for 'tweeking'
Part IIa assessment parameters for compounds.  

I personally am a qualified geologist (partially under the belt of Grand
Master Privett) and hold no toxicological qualifications (other than
disecting a rat in 1st year at secondary school - biology class).  I
have
attended courses provided by Paul N, and reviewed the numerous documents
produced by the EA which have increased my knowledge base, however I
would
in no way claim to be a toxicologist.  It would be interesting to
determine
how deep non toxicologists are treading with this subject.  It is one
thing
to claim interest and a broad understanding of the subject, and another
to
go in depth and determine risk factors associated with the chemical
affects
of elements and compounds which have many sources.  I personally am
willing
to utilise information which has been qualified by a toxicologist,
however
am not prepared to enter the discussion as a specialist toxicologist.
If
after reviewing and claiming to understand the information within the
documents an honoury toxicological qualification can be given -
fantastic -
unfortunately this is not the case!

Surely this industry requires the Environment Agency to be called to
account
to the sluggish manner the whole CLEA/CLR system is being dealt with.  I
think the minimum baseline information we require regarding the CLEA/CLR
scheme is a concise assessment stating catagorically which documents the
Environment Agency, DEFRA, HPA, DoH, and the other associated Government
Bodies are satisfied with, and which require revoking/revising.  There
is
currently much conjecture regarding which parameters are considered as
suitable for use within contaminated land assessment.  Lets be frank
about
this, this is a big money business with money lost every day by
developers
for over conservatism.  We were originally provided several time tables
of
sgv and tox report publications which slipped and got lost in the midst
of
time.  Local Authorities are being forced to review ever more technical
reports, using ever more technical risk assessments to back up vague
assumptions.  How many local authorities have toxicological back up - my
guessing is none (assuming they don't subcontract to a consultant -
therefore consultants checking consultants)

Are we to wait years for the sgv task force to state that the current
system
is not suitable for use/partially suitable for use or suitable for use?
Its
already been 4 years since the CLEA/CLR system was released which
replaced
the former ICRCL system established 15 years previously!

Kevin quite rightly has cast significant doubt on the risk factors used
in
this field.  It should be noted that according to NASA the risk of a
1.5km
diameter meteriote hitting the Earth and killing 1.5bn people in any
given
year is 2 x 10-6 and winning the lottery is 1 in 14 million.  Think i'll
save my pound this week!
########################################################################
#############
This e-mail message has been scanned for Viruses and Content and cleared

by MailMarshal, the Council's Content Scanner
########################################################################
#############
########################################################################
##############

Warning

Please note that whilst this e-mail and any attachments originate from
Calderdale MBC, 
the views expressed may not necessarily represent the views of
Calderdale MBC. 

This e-mail and any attachments may contain information that is
privileged, 
confidential or otherwise protected from disclosure.  
They must not be used by, or copied or disclosed to persons other than
the intended recipient.  
Any liability (in negligence or otherwise) arising from any third party
acting, or refraining from acting, 
on any information contained in this e-mail is excluded. 
If you have received this e-mail in error please inform the sender and
delete the e-mail. 

E-mail can never be 100{ secure.}Please bear this in mind and carry out
such virus and other checks, as you consider appropriate.  
Calderdale MBC accepts no responsibility in this regard.

Copyright of this e-mail and any attachments belongs to Calderdale MBC.

Should you communicate with anyone at Calderdale MBC by e-mail, you
consent to the 
Council monitoring and reading any such correspondence. 

########################################################################
##############