Hi,
There was an interesting case in Texas US where a superfund site
had been remediated (lead contamination from an old lead smelter) and
fully declared as remediated and taken off the superfund list of sites.
The tox values for lead were subsequently changed a few years later by
a factor of 10 times more precautionary and the site was then again
declared a superfund site. Cleanup then started all over again. I seem
to remember that for the second time the site was declared a state
emergency. Needless to say the locals got pretty upset.
I do not
think there is any way you can ever ensure that a site declared as “not
contaminated” will always remain so as our knowledge changes over time.
There always will be a risk of things changing and that is what
developers and buyers have to bear in mind.
nick
Nick Merriman MSc
MRICS MIQ Mineral Valuer, Valuation Office Agency, Regent Court, 14 –
17 George Road, Birmingham, B15 1NU 01684 893 140 Tel 0771 347 0580 Mob
[log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From:
Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:CONTAMINATED-LAND-
[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Clive Williams
Sent: 14 May 2014
11:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: C4SL
Just to throw more wood onto this slow burner, reading the latest
CIRIA Asbestos report and in the section on planning, development
control and EPA 1990 there is this:
"It is appropriate that the
planning process adopt a more stringent standard for the levels of soil
contamination than are relevant under Part 2A. This prevents
developments being determined as ‘contaminated land’ in the future
when, and if, acceptable exposures to contaminants change."
I can see
the sense in this approach, but where do you stop?
Clive
|