Dear All,
This doesn't answer the questions but the it reminds me of a site that I visited in about 1980 with Dr Sheila Cromwell, the Department of Health's representative on the Interdepartmental Committee on the Redevelopment of Contaminated Land. Sheila was a former GP who had become an expert on plant uptake and other toxicological aspects of contaminated land. We visited a number of "already developed" (potential Part IIA?) sites together to meet the local EHO and occupants.
The site was occupied by 1920s/1930s council houses. In the front gardens of the houses there were roses which seemed in reasonable health but there was no under planting - I never learned whether this was local practice or whether nothing would grow. Running across the back garden among the vegetables was a blue band. The site only became an issue when the mortar in a newly repaired inspection chamber in the road disintegrated due to acid /sulphate attack. I have no idea what the Council then did once they had received our advice that the situation in the gardens was unacceptable.
Then there was the council housing site in London where the gardens on gasworks wastes had to be dug-out when the roses wouldn't grow, the circular vegetable patch in the filled gasholder base, the "den" dug into spent oxide, the adventure cycle track created by children on a steep bank of spent oxide, and finally the heap of spent oxide partly covered by blue snow and spilling into the canal/river.
Regards,
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
M A Smith Environmental Consultancy
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: 13 December 2017 22:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Christmas Conundrum!
Dear List,
The recent “Expert” Panel (non-advice) reminded me of a Part 2A case….
An elderly lady, in her eighties, owned and lived all her life at “Gasworks Cottage”. She enjoyed gardening and had a productive vegetable patch, and had won prizes for her roses for which she was very proud! She loved having her two children and 12 grandchildren to visit, and sometimes they stayed with her over the school holidays.
Of course, the garden was part of a former gasworks. The LA-CLO had identified it as part of his Part 2A strategic inspection program and prioritised it for further detailed investigations.
The LA-CLO conducted a well-designed site investigation and identified B(a)P and other carcinogenic substances, in the near surface garden soils exceeding appropriate health screening levels. The LA-CLO refined the Conceptual Site Model to reflect the bioavailability of the contamination and the elderly lady’s low intensity and seasonal use of the site, but still found that the levels of carcinogens were well above the acceptable risk level. There was no doubt that the site met the SPOSH test for human health. The LA-CLO identified the previous users of the site (Class A) and the owner/occupier (Class B) with a view to initiating regulatory action under Part 2A.
My question for the List is,
a) Is this Part 2A “Contaminated Land”?
b) If so, what Category (1, 2, 3, or 4) should this site fall under and why?
c) What action should the LA-CLO take?
This is not a trick question! Answers please.....
David
|