If the EA are now saying that PAH's and cyanide are being published by
the end of June 2009, I hope this doesn't mean arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, lead, nickel, dioxins and dioxin-like biphenols have now been
further delayed!!
Their website still says the following, so I'm keeping my optimistic hat
on for now...
During April, May and June 2009 we anticipate publishing reports for:
* arsenic
* cadmium
* chromium
* cyanide
* lead
* nickel
* dioxins
* dioxin-like polychlorinated biphenyls
* polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons
Gareth Wills
Project Manager, Communities
44-(0)117 9339 335
Think before you print
________________________________
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of
Clennell-Jones, Simon
Sent: 06 May 2009 15:08
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CLEA timescales
FYI
The Environment Agency intends to publish toxicological and soil
guideline value reports for cyanide and polycyclic aromatic
hydrocarbons, including benzo(a)pyrene, by 30 June, environment minister
Huw Irranca-Davies told John Howell MP in a Commons written answer.
Hansard
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Nik
Reynolds
Sent: 06 May 2009 14:25
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: CLEA timescales
Just a thought - would it be advantageous for a motion to be put to the
CLEA
team to produce tox reports in lieu of SGV values. I think the general
consensus is that the SGV's have very limited use, however the tox
reports
may allow us to undertake site specific risk assessments. The SGV
reports
are every detailed and obviously a lot of work goes into their
production.
Maybe this can be diverted into the production of tox reports.
Having reviewed the variation in 1% SOM results of the current workbook
for
all land uses based on the most conservative parameters (land use type
and
soil), compared to previous threshold values, there is a massive
potential
for 'unnecessary' disposal of soils which may be considered suitable in
the
next few months/year. Considering the current economic climate this
could
make or break many developments currently being moth balled or the the
edge
of viability.
Would it also be prudent, considering the revised concentrations which
appear to be suitable for use, to have acute thresholds also noted on
the
risk assessment.
___________________________
NOTICE: This communication and any attachments ("this message") may contain confidential information for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any unauthorized use, disclosure, viewing, copying, alteration,
dissemination or distribution of, or reliance on this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this
message in error, or you are not an authorized recipient, please notify the sender immediately by replying to
this message, delete this message and all copies from your e-mail system and destroy any printed copies.
