Hi Matt,
Hmmm tough one. I certainly wouldn’t loose sleep of 37mg/kg arsenic yet I disagree on altering the agreed validation criteria levels without prior consultation and agreement with the LPA...
Personally I would let it go as it isn't worth the hassle of altering the RMS etc but I would have a quiet word with the consultant to have a chat with me in future before deciding on such an action.
Just my thoughts
Regards
Dave
David Jackson
Land Quality Officer
Wakefield Council
Regeneration & Economic Growth | Environmental Health
Wakefield One | P.O.Box. 700 | Burton Street | Wakefield | WF1 2EB
t 01924 306924
e [log in to unmask]
w www.wakefield.gov.uk/landquality
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Matt Rhodes
Sent: 09 May 2014 16:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: C4SL
Dear List
I'm interested in gauging people's thoughts on the following.
A phase 2 and remediation strategy has been submitted using SGVs/GACs and approved. The validation switches to the new C4SL values, and in the process sidesteps an issue with elevated arsenic in cover soils which are above 32 and below 37.
Should I require that the ph2/3 is reissued taking into account the use of the C4SLs, on an all or nothing approach? Is this reasonable?
Thoughts appreciated
The WMDC Disclaimer can be found at:
http://www.wakefield.gov.uk/SiteInformation/E-MailDisclaimer/default.htm
This message has been scanned for malware by SurfControl plc. www.surfcontrol.com
|