 |
 |
Hopefully someone in DEFRA will read it and realise that all this costs money! Steve Wilson, UK Registered Ground Engineering Adviser Technical Director on behalf of EPG Tel 07971 277869 www.epg-ltd.co.uk -----( Disclaimer )----- > > Information contained in this e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee only, and is confidential and may contain commercially sensitive material. Any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication, other than for which it is explicitly intended, without the permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Whilst all e-mails are screened for known viruses, the company cannot accept responsibility for any which have been transmitted. -----Original Message----- From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of David E Jackson Sent: 01 February 2014 11:11 To: [log in to unmask] Subject: Initial Observations of DEFRA’s Contaminated Land Expert Panel Aplogies for starting a new string, but although I received this posting through JISC but cant see the string on the system... Initial Observations of DEFRA’s Contaminated Land Expert Panel From the cases reviewed to date, the panel has prepared a short document on their initial observations to help local authorities in their determinations of sites. The information is presented under the four key areas in line with what is required to be included within a risk summary as per section 3.35 of the EPA 1990: Part 2A Contaminated Land Statutory Guidance April 2012. The headings include: understanding the risks, understanding the uncertainties, putting the risks in context and possible remediation that could occur on the site. See CLAIRE’s web pages (Publications) Congratulations to the 'Expert Panel’ on publishing its first findings. In order that regulators and practitioners can learn from the experiences of others it would be very helpful if the Panel could include a brief synopsis of the site(s) and issues, with suitably anonymity, to provide some context. It is pleasing that the Panel highlight the requirement for a justified and rational investigation strategy, sufficient sampling and analysis to characterise the nature, extent and distribution on contaminants of concern, the use of 3D-CSMs, appropriate use of statistics (ensuring sufficient and representative sample populations), bio-accessibility and hydrocarbon speciation testing - all of which should be, but rarely is, common practice, but I have concerns whether regulators need to attach so much weight to, so called “background conditions” - whatever these are?, or the distinction between "voluntary and involuntary risk” in their public health protection capacity. Now that the National Expert Panel is starting to make such welcome definitive statements on the minimum requirements for investigation and risk assessment practice can we look forward to these standards being applied to all contaminated land work, not only Part 2A - my recent experience suggests that some practitioners have barely move on from the 1980s, i.e. 6test pits, 3bores (which dont intercept groundwater) and a quick comparison of 12 samples against GAC. Keep up the good work! David E Jackson Sometime freelancer