Morning Simon,

Thank you for sharing your views. By the way, the earlier response was
from David Jackson not me.

I absolutely agree that any requirements for testing must be reasonable
and commensurate with the perceived risks involved but I cannot agree
that topsoil can be imported without any testing at all. Top soil is, of
course, involved in many of the most significant residential exposure
pathways and any contamination of the topsoil will create a potentially
significant pollutant pathway. It seems a little pointless to me to
expend potentially significant sums of money carrying out desk studies,
intrusive investigations, remediation options appraisals and strategies
and then create such a significant source of uncertainty by failing to
prove the chemical suitability of the imported topsoil. The greatest
source of validation failures in my district is, without doubt, imported
topsoil failing chemical testing.

I was a police officer in a previous life so I think I tend to be more
cynical, suspicious and inquisitive than some regulators and the more I
poke my nose into topsoil the more dark practices I seem to uncover. I
am sure that I am not the only member of the list who can recount horror
stories about top soil. I am aware of a large, established and
supposedly reputable supplier taking contaminated 'muck away' from a
strip at one site and delivering it as clean top soil (with appropriate
paper work) directly to another site where it was placed as clean cover.
I am aware of another large, well established and widely used supplier
who provided a developer with clean topsoil which was accompanied with
an interim lab testing certificate which did not include the PAH results
despite the testing having taken place some months before. I happened to
be able to get a copy of the full testing certificate which, surprise
surprise, revealed that the PAHs were elevated. The same source that
provided me with the full testing cert was also able to confirm that the
supplier was fully aware of the results. I have also regulated a site
which imported British Sugar Landscape 20 and supplied copies of the
relevant transit notes, certificates etc for validation. However, I
wasn't that happy with the validation package so I went out to the site
myself and topsoil in the gardens contained visibly high levels of
physical contaminants (plastic, glass, wood, brick rubble etc etc) and
clearly was not BS topsoil. When I forced the developer to test it
failed on assorted elevated PAHs and Arsenic. My point is this: there
are plenty of people out there (developers, suppliers etc) who are
willing to deliberately lie and falsify paperwork in order to substitute
clean topsoil with a cheaper alternative. There are also plenty of
opportunities for imported soil it to become accidentally contaminated
through poor practices and soil management on site. 

I think that suggesting some soils won't require any testing at all is
naive and dangerous. Once again, given the critical role that topsoil
plays in many exposure pathways I don't consider that a requirement for
proportionate testing is onerous and I think that approach is in keeping
with the requirement for multiple lines of evidence. I also think, given
the opportunities for cross contamination etc,  that the most relevant
point for validation testing is after the soil has been placed in the
garden areas. It is no good simply proving that the top soil was
uncontaminated when it was delivered to site, you must confirm that it
is still suitable for use by the time it has been placed in the cover
system.  If that was the standard universally adopted I'm sure that many
developers would be a bit more careful about soil management on their
site!

Regards,
Mark. 


Mark Seaman
Waveney District Council
Environment Protection Officer
01502 523153
[log in to unmask]
website: www.waveney.gov.uk ( http://www.waveney.gov.uk/ )
twitter: www.twitter.com/waveneydc 
 

>>> Simon Ware <[log in to unmask]> 28/11/2012 08:4Not saying that at all.  NHBC have developed a pragmatic guidance
document
that will be really useful for the industry and presented the key
points of
the new guidance document.   British Sugar explained where their
topsoil
comes from, how it is processed, stored and validated.  It would be
nice if
all other topsoil suppliers could be as open and transparent.  Also
giving
talks on the day were Chris Taylor from Brent Council and Tim O'Hare
who is
familiar to many on this list.

The British Sugar topsoil passes all of the NHBC requirements and I
believe
there is only one other source that has obtained a similar product
status.
Having scheduled about 500 tests on the stuff I am yet to find a
single
exceedance. The only issue is the occasional growth of sugar beat.

No conflict of interest as far as I can see


On 28 November 2012 08:23, david Jackson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> Simon,
>
> "NHBC conference on 7th Nov that was co-hosted by British
> Sugar.......whereas good quality topsoil, such as the British Sugar
> supplied topsoil, may comply."
>
> Are you saying that British Sugar assisted in developing a guidance
> document that presumes that British Sugar's own top soil is
exemption
> testing?  Can you not perceive a potential conflict of interest
here?
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2012 23:33:11 +0000
> From: [log in to unmask] 
> Subject: Re: New NHBC coversytstem / topsoil validation guidance.
> To: [log in to unmask] 
>
> Mark,
>
> I attended the NHBC conference on 7th Nov that was co-hosted by
British
> Sugar and they have come up with some pragmatic solutions that will
greatly
> assist the testing of imported topsoils.  The suggested
sampling/plot
> frequencies will be very useful as this was always a little
uncertain.
>  What they have stated is that suppliers of topsoil will require a
desk
> study as a minimum followed by either compliance with BS3882 if no
> potential sources of contamination are present or additional
chemical
> testing if sources of contamination have been identified.  At the
receiving
> site where no contamination is present, on site testing may not be
required
> if a copy of the suppliers certification is provided that is relevant
to
> the material being delivered, the frequency of testing is appropriate
to
> the source and where there are good controls in place.  Skip waste
derived
> topsoil will fall down on the majority of these criteria whereas
good
> quality topsoil, such as the British Sugar supplied topsoil, may
comply.
>
> NHBC have stated what their minimum requirements are, which might not
be
> the same as is required by Local Authorities. I would always advocate
some
> on site testing of imported topsoil, regardless of its source. 
However the
> scale of the verification testing may be able to be reduced if good
quality
> topsoil is imported that meets with the NHBC criteria.
>
> It is interesting to note that NHBC endorse the use of the BRE465
cover
> system model, which might lead on to another debate about soil mixing
zone
> depths.
>
>
>
>
> On 26 November 2012 15:06, Mark Seaman <[log in to unmask]>
wrote:
>
> Afternoon all,
>
> A local consultant has made me aware that the NHBC have just
published
> revised guidance on validating cover systems / topsoil in issue 8 of
> Technical Extras:
> http://www.nhbc.co.uk/Builders/ProductsandServices/TechnicalExtra/ 
>
> I had a brief discussion with the consultant about the guidance and
we
> shared the same concerns. Consequently I wondered whether list
members were
> aware of the guidance and whether others had similar concerns. My
concerns
> include:
>
> 1.      I can't agree that soils raised from agricultural land would
not
> need testing (pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, fertilisers, PAHs
> (stubble burning) etc etc);
> 2.      I would also need convincing that any topsoil manufactured
from a
> waste stream, green or not, would not require any testing at all
(although
> in reality I guess it would probably be subjected to a certain degree
of
> testing as part of manufacturer QA/QC?); and
> 3.      I cannot agree that imported topsoil which is, "...not being
used
> as a cover system as part of a contamination remediation strategy..."
will
> not require testing. There is no logic to that statement at all. If
you
> place contaminated top soil over clean or contaminated subsoil the
result
> is the same: a viable pollutant linkage. In my opinion a developer
must be
> able to PROVE that ANY topsoil / subsoil imported onto site is
suitable for
> the intended end use. If that use is residential then the chemical
> composition must be judged against current SGVs / GACs etc etc.
>
> Maybe I’m being overly conservative so I would be very interested
in other
> opinions. I’m not convinced that this document is very helpful and
I expect
> that it will be cited in many validation reports to justify no / low
level
> testing. I am curious as to how the HNBC formulate such guidance and
> whether any regulators etc are consulted during the process so if any
NHBC
> list members could comment I would be very grateful.
>
> Thanks,
> Mark.
>
> Mark Seaman
> Waveney District Council
> Environment Protection Officer
> 01502 523153
> [log in to unmask] 
> website: www.waveney.gov.uk ( http://www.waveney.gov.uk/ )
> twitter: www.twitter.com/waveneydc 
>
>
>
>
> --
> *Simon Ware  **(Managing Director)*
> *WDE Consulting Ltd *
> Specialists in *W*aste *D*evelopment and *E*nvironment
> *Tel:* (01442)825570
> *Mobile:* (07748)653021
> *Website:* www.wdeconsulting.co.uk 
> *Address:* 62a Western Road, Tring, Herts, UK. HP234BB
> Follow us on:  <http://www.linkedin.com/company/wde-consulting-ltd>
>
>


-- 

*Simon Ware  **(Managing Director)*

*WDE Consulting Ltd *

Specialists in *W*aste *D*evelopment and *E*nvironment

*Tel:* (01442)825570

*Mobile:* (07748)653021

*Website:* www.wdeconsulting.co.uk 

*Address:* 62a Western Road, Tring, Herts, UK. HP234BB

Follow us on:  <http://www.linkedin.com/company/wde-consulting-ltd>

Please consider the environment: think before you print this email


Confidentiality: This email and its attachments are intended for the above named only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you must take no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please reply to this email and highlight the error.

Security Warning: Please note that this email has been created in the knowledge that Internet email is not a 100% secure communications medium. We advise that you understand and accept this lack of security when emailing us.

Viruses: Although we have taken steps to ensure that this email and attachments are free from any virus, we advise that in keeping with good computing practice the recipient should ensure they are actually virus free.