In Essex we do not adhere to the use of this system.

We invited the authors to present this to us a few years ago and they admitted that it was an unfinished and therefore largely unproven research project that could only be used on minor contamination. "Minor" was not defined. They also said that the EA had pulled out of the sponsorship. AS such we decided not to endorse its use.

Paul Pearse
Environmental Health Technician
Environment Services, Maldon District Council, Princes Road, Maldon, CM9 5DL
01621 875728 | www.maldon.gov.uk


-----Original Message-----
From: Ivens, Rob [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Thursday, August 26, 2010 9:37 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: BRE: BR 465


I see it quite often and yes we accept it
I think its great for those sites where there is just general rubbish in the soil and it there is sporadic contamination that is just there and quite frankly will always be there....and yes the caveat about running off the end of the graph is so true.

My simple take on its rejection is that as ever the ea finds it hard to give us the room to be adult!

So yes I think it has a place.


Rob Ivens
So much to read so little time.
01306 879232

-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Clennell-Jones, Simon
Sent: 25 August 2010 13:15
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: BRE: BR 465

BRE454 tends to be given as the source of the various capping thicknesses (typically 600mm but variable dependent upon end use). The issues around the potential for mixing of 'clean' soil is also my understanding of the reasons that the EA 'withdrew support' but I am not aware of anyone else publishing guidance on thicknesses of clean cover.

To be honest, I am a little confused as to why people turn their noses up at this particular document - anyone care to elaborate on their scepticism or have any alternative data or guidance on the thicknesses of cover which should be used?

Is there any particular reason why 'dilution' in this sense (if mixing were to occur through the action of a householder) is 'bad' compared to the sustainability implications of importation of greater volumes of 'clean' soil to a site when the risks to the end user are still likely to be of the same magnitude? Or is the concern that the mixing considered in the document is unrealistic?

Simon

-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David Dunkley
Sent: 25 August 2010 12:48
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: BRE: BR 465

We had an interesting conversation with a contaminated land officer about the BRE document:

The spreadsheet to calculate the thickness of capping considers the concentration of contaminants in the existing soil and uses this and knowledge of the concentrations in the cover system to derive a thickness. Apparently, the thinking behind this is that any mixing of the capping and contaminated soils will result in the near surface soils remaining below the guideline value.  Therefore a particularly 'clean' capping could be thinner than the one where concentrations are slightly higher.  As this approach accepts that mixing of clean and contaminated soils, there is an issue with potentially contaminating clean material, which is frowned upon. Apparently this was the reasoning for the EA to withdraw support for the document.

I am unsure on whether any of the above is correct, but it was something we were told during a conversation about a particular site.  It would be interesting to hear views on this.

It doesn't help though!!

David



David Dunkley B.Sc. (Hons)., CEnv, M.S.E.E., FGS
Senior Geo-environmental Engineer



Cedar Barn
t: 01604 781877
White Lodge
f: 01604 781007
Walgrave
m: 07900 006688
Northamptonshire
e: [log in to unmask]
NN6 9PY
w: www.soiltechnics.net


The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be legally privileged or prohibited from disclosure and unauthorised use. It is intended solely for the addressee, or the employee or agent responsible for delivering such materials to the addressee, and access to this e-mail by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any form of reproduction, dissemination, copying, disclosure, modification, distribution and/or publication or any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance upon this message or its attachments is prohibited and may be unlawful. At present the integrity of e-mail across the Internet cannot be guaranteed and messages sent via this medium are potentially at risk. We will therefore not accept liability for any claims arising as a result of the use of this medium.

-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Russell Corbyn
Sent: 25 August 2010 12:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: BRE: BR 465

No.
We've had it since 2004 or whenever it came out and it is about as much use as a fish's fart. Loving the bit in the table where it says "areas where rabbit or badger populations are significant."

Significant rabbits? Bwaaaa! Is that 1 in 10,000 or 1 in 100,000 ???

:)

Russell



-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Clive Williams
Sent: 25 August 2010 12:13
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: BRE: BR 465

The answer is invariably 600mm

there is an email [log in to unmask] on the Powerpoint (this powerpoint is fab for graphics)

Does anybody see much use of this document? I'm fairly sceptical of it but with th elack of anything else....... Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to. Save paper.

Visit http://www.molevalley.gov.uk for information about Council services, online payments and planning information.

This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to which they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient, the E-mail and any files have been transmitted to you in error and any copying, distribution or other use of the information contained in them is strictly prohibited.

The Council computer systems may be monitored and communications carried on them recorded, to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawful purposes.