For what it's worth, I have derived GACs for Pb using the standard CLEA model. I get 220 for residential (with and without plant uptake), 590 for allotments and 5100 for commercial. However, I have been holding off actually using them because I think the Agency is about to publish something (perhaps I am going soft in the head thinking this). At Hydrock, we still use the old SGV on the basis that the new method has yet to be revealed.
Regards,
Kevin Privett.
Dr Kevin Privett
Geo-Environmental Associate
Hydrock
Over Court Barns, Over Lane, Almondsbury, Bristol BS32 4DF
Tel:+44 (0)1454 619 533 Fax:+44 (0)1454 614125
Cell phone: +44 (0)7799 430870
Email: [log in to unmask]
Hydrock Consultants Limited, company number 3118932, Hydrock Contracting Limited, company number 3238802, Hydrock Special Projects Limited, company number 3238849 and Structures1 Limited, company number 3118932 are all trading divisions of Hydrock Group Limited, company number 6644687 and are all registered in England and Wales. The registered office of the above companies is Over Court Barns, Over Lane, Almondsbury, Bristol, BS32 4DF.
Before printing this e-mail please think about the environment
Disclaimer: The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be read, copied or used only by the intended recipients. If you are not the intended recipient you are hereby notified that any perusal, use, distribution, copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error please advise us immediately by return e-mail at [log in to unmask] and delete the e-mail document without making a copy. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure this email is virus free, no responsibility is accepted for loss or damage arising from viruses or changes made to this message after it was sent.
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Swainston
Sent: 15 January 2010 15:45
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Status regarding the confirmation of toxicology for lead
It would be nice to have some lead figures.... About the only thing we
can put into our reports at the moment is: this is what it used to be,
come back and look at it again when we have something to compare it to.
This is far from ideal.
We could use the last tox figures as a stop-gap, but the removal of
those in preperation for the potential methodology change has lead (no
pun) to a real problem. As we have no idea yet if the final figures are
likely to go up or down, we certainly cannot give clients any security
at all that their figures and strategies will hold up over time before
some new official tox data comes out. This one in years to come might
make an interesting test case. Let us say the figure goes from 700 to
350, where does that leave clients? Likewise I have not seen any new
figures for other areas (H&S etc.) in regards to lead exposure or
allowable amounts so we cannot really reference anything else to give us
a clue either! Has anyone seen any lead figures changed recently in any
related field? And did they go up or down? Likewise has anyone asked HPA
if they have a view on this? Ultimately they will have to agree (or at
least not disagree to strongly) with the toxicology the EA chooses to
use.
In regards to PBET, SBET, bioavailability, etc. until the EA agrees they
are valid methods, I do not see how anyone can go down that route alone
yet, especially as we have no screening value to say when we should be
doing it in the first place... However, we may have to if nothing else
presents itself or the tox is seen as potentially flawed.
Chris Swainston
This email has been scanned for viruses by Netshield MXSweep.
Geotechnics Limited, Registered in England No. 1757790 at The Geotechnical Centre, 203 Torrington Avenue, Tile Hill, Coventry CV4 9AP www.geotechnics.co.uk
Scanned by MailDefender - managed email security from intY - www.maildefender.net
Scanned by MailDefender - managed email security from intY - www.maildefender.net
|
