It was stated as being guidance (we dont need to use..... it our professional judgement) that of course may change in the future. It will be interesting to see if the approach is adopted in the new pending revised EA TOX2.
Adam
________________________________
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List on behalf of Fairwood, Duncan (UK)
Sent: Thu 01/07/2010 17:27
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Updated HPA PAH CLIS document (version 3, dated 2010)
It would be interesting to establish the List view on whether this HPA document constitutes 'Guidance' for the industry / regulators, or does the 'old' TOX2 report (which as far as I know hasn't been withdrawn by the Agency) still hold sway?
A quick run through CLEA 1.06 using the EFSA BMDL10 and a Margin of Exposure of 10,000 gives a GAC of 0.36 mg/kg (sandy loam; 1% SOM)...are others getting similar results?
DUNCAN FAIRWOOD
Principal Consultant
BAE Systems Environmental
Euxton Lane, Chorley, Lancashire, PR7 6AQ
Tel: +44(0)1257 242008
Fax: +44(0)1257 242018
Mobile: +44(0)7793 421835
Environmental Consultancy / Remediation Consultancy & Contracting
Visit our website at - www.baesystems.com/environmental
BAE Systems Properties Limited
Registered Office: Warwick House, PO Box 87, Farnborough Aerospace Centre, Farnborough, Hants, GU14 6YU, UK
Registered in England & Wales No: 2863702
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Dainton
Sent: 01 July 2010 17:00
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Updated HPA PAH CLIS document (version 3, dated 2010)
*** WARNING ***
This message has originated outside your organisation,
either from an external partner or the Global Internet.
Keep this in mind if you answer this message.
I raised the issue twice in open group discussion and they wouldn't be drawn into discussing the down-the-line implications.
I'm sure they are well aware of it, but that's not their remit or in their gift: their hands are tied in many respects.
In the afternoon session, the attendees were split in four groups. One group discussed the toxicology and you'll have to get some feedback from someone in this group on the detailed conversations that went on (the ID issue was raised with the HPA who 'lead' the group).
Each group reported back in general terms and made recommendations for the way forward (sorry, shouldn't use that term).
SoBRA will be taking the PAH issues forward.
Many thoughts were raised on methods to derive the ID for BaP and ways to make the CLEA conceptual model a 'better' model (one hopes these will all eventually combine to make CLEA outputs more realistic).
Chris
********************************************************************
This email and any attachments are confidential to the intended
recipient and may also be privileged. If you are not the intended
recipient please delete it from your system and notify the sender.
You should not copy it or use it for any purpose nor disclose or
distribute its contents to any other person.
********************************************************************
|