Hi Chris
Can't see that wider debate on point 2 would do any harm at all.
Kind regards
Ruth
Ruth Willcox
Environmental Protection Officer
Office of the Director of Public Health
Plymouth City Council
Civic Centre
Plymouth
PL1 2AA
T +441752304154
E [log in to unmask]
www.plymouth.gov.uk
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris Dainton
Sent: 16 July 2014 17:17
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CIEH Statement
I agree a lot with the sentiment of the CIEH position.
The range of changes to the 'CLEA SR GAC' approach put forward in the C4SL documents fall into two broad types:
1. Those consistent with the ethos of GAC calculation (e.g updating the AC inhalation rates from Draft USEPA to final USEPA).
2, Those that represent a 'riskier' departure from the Ethos of GAC calculation (e.g 'default' ELCR reduced from 1:100,000 to somewhere in the region 1:10,000 to 1:50,000, with the Generic C4SL Position at 1:50,000)
Type 1 changes are just updating our science base and could/should be adopted for GACs calculation and should be acceptable in the planning regime.
Type 2 changes (IMO) need wider debate before adoption in planning regime as the 'default' position.
Chris Dainton
Peak Environmental Solutions
http://peakenvironmentalsolutions.com/
********************************************************************************************************************************************
IMPORTANT: This e-mail (including any attachments to it) is strictly confidential and intended solely for the person or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged, confidential or sensitive information. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not copy or distribute it to any other person or take any action in reliance. If you have received it in error, please notify your system manager and the sender as soon as possible and then delete it from your system.
|