A horse would still be a Part IIA receptor in its own right, assuming it is a domestic horse and not wild (bad luck Dartmoor ponies!). Unless it formed part
of a Part IIA ‘ecological system’. I think. Is there enough scientific data available on equine weight, grass consumption, soil-to-hoof adherence factors etc to develop a robust exposure scenario!
Chris Hepworth
Principal Environmental Engineer
PICK EVERARD
Main: 0116 223 4400
DD: 0116 223 4583
Mob: 07766 513 362
www.pickeverard.co.uk
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Michael Moore P
Sent: 17 October 2014 14:33
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Threshold values for metals in soils
I have investigated a number of allegations that horses have been poisoned due to contaminants in soil, every case it is due to Ragwort poisoning, not soil
contamination.
Horses also eat grass, grass close contact with soil, humans as a rule don’t eat grass. Unless ordered to by a former French Queen!
Michael Moore P
Senior Officer (Environment)
Public Protection
Rochdale Borough Council
Floor 3, Number One Riverside
Smith Street, Rochdale, OL16 1XU
To access our services go to
www.rochdale.gov.uk
For news and social media updates go to
www.rochdalenewsroom.com
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Willcox, Ruth
Sent: 17 October 2014 14:14
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Threshold values for metals in soils
Sure I remember reading somewhere about horses being poisoned and killed due to exposure to Pb originating in soils. Seem to recall caused by natural contamination but not
sure?
Potential example?
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]
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Gareth Rees
Sent: 17 October 2014 13:56
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Threshold values for metals in soils
Hi Lee
It cant the dismissed out of hand but if you have high lead i.e. derbyshire and a distinct lack of high blood lead levels how could you then say that the high natural levels are causing a significant
risk
Thanks
Gareth Rees Mgeol (HONS) FGS
Contaminated Land Officer
Please Note I only work for Harborough District Council on Thursdays Fridays and alternate Wednesdays
We want to find out what you thought of our service to you when we dealt with this case. Your answers will help us improve our service. It would be greatly appreciated if you could complete
our Customer Satisfaction Questionnaire (https://www.harborough.gov.uk/forms/form/123/en/customer_satisfaction__environmental_health_team).
Many thanks for your time
Mobile: 07976 431 236
Contact Centre: 01858 82 82 82
Fax: 01858 82 10 00
DX DX 27317 Market Harborough
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Money, Lee
Sent: 17 October 2014 13:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Threshold values for metals in soils
Hi Gareth
I think there is an important caveat in 3.22 “…..unless there is a particular reason to consider otherwise.”
What constitutes “a particular reason” is open to debate but my view is this does not allow the risks posed by high levels of background concentrations to be arbitrarily dismissed.
lee
Lee Money,
Area Environmental Health Officer Only Weds,Thurs,Fri
Web: www.horsham.gov.uk 
Email: [log in to unmask]
Tel / Mob: 01403 215410 |
|
|
Do you want to advertise to 56,000 Horsham district homes? Email
[log in to unmask] or call 01403 215242 to find out more about advertising in the council’s ‘Horsham District News’ magazine. |
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of Gareth Rees
Sent: 17 October 2014 12:19
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Threshold values for metals in soils
James
Though the strict interpretation of s78a EPA 1990 would seem to apply you seem to have forgotten the Statutory guidance on applying the definition see section 3.21 through 3.26 pg 12 and 13
I quote
“Normal” presence of contaminants
3.21 The Part 2A regime was introduced to help identify and deal with land which poses unacceptable levels of risk. It is not intended to apply
to land with levels of contaminants in soil that are commonplace and widespread throughout England or parts of it, and for which in the very large majority of cases there is no reason to consider that there is an unacceptable risk.”
3.22 Normal levels of contaminants in soil should not be considered to cause land to qualify as contaminated land, unless there is a particular
reason to consider otherwise. Therefore, if it is established that land is at or close to normal levels of particular contaminants, it should usually not be considered further in relation to the Part 2A regime and the local authority should have regard to
paragraphs 5.2 to 5.4 of this Guidance.
Thanks
Gareth Rees Mgeol (HONS) FGS
Contaminated Land Officer
Please Note I only work for Harborough District Council on Thursdays Fridays and alternate Wednesdays
We want to find out what you thought of our service to you when we dealt with this case. Your answers will help us improve our service. It would be greatly appreciated if you could complete
our Customer Satisfaction Questionnaire (https://www.harborough.gov.uk/forms/form/123/en/customer_satisfaction__environmental_health_team).
Many thanks for your time
Mobile: 07976 431 236
Contact Centre: 01858 82 82 82
Fax: 01858 82 10 00
DX DX 27317 Market Harborough
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
On Behalf Of James Nelson
Sent: 17 October 2014 11:47
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Threshold values for metals in soils
Dear Group
Just to muddy the waters further under Part 2A the definition of "Contaminated Land" refers to the presence of harmful substances with NO reference or inference that hey may be anthropogenic.
EPA: Section 78A(2): “contaminated land” is any land which appears to the local authority
in whose area it is situated to be in such a condition, by reason of substances in, on
or under the land that – (a) significant harm is being caused or there is a significant
possibility of such harm being caused; or (b) significant pollution of controlled waters is
being caused, or there is a significant possibility of such pollution being caused;
Hence naturally occurring lead in the Peak District and arsenic in Cornwall still pose harm to humans, controlled waters, buried infrastructure, plants, animals, ecosystems, habitats, etc., etc.
So "greenfield" land, with natural "background" concentrations of harmful substances could be determined under Part 2A as statutory contaminated land. This would cause its own enormous problems whereby whole counties would be condemned
and blighted - hence risk assessment and associated mitigation.
Generating generic criteria for such eventualities is by no means easy and I do not envy those who have the almost impossible task of providing such numbers - that means you Prof. Paul Nathanail!! ;o)
It is Friday - perhaps time for a Crunchie?!
James D Nelson
BSc MSc CSci CChem MRSC SiLC
Associate
Discovery CE Limited
The Granary
Broadwell House Farm
Broadwell
Warwickshire
CV23 8HF
Tel 01926 813 909
Web: www.dce-services.co.uk
On 16 October 2014 15:09, Steve Thornton <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
Folks,
A colleague of mine is looking at overland flow on grassland after biosolid application and wishes to obtain information on threshold values for metals in soils before they are classified as contaminated. The threshold criteria he is interested in is linked
to human health risk. Can anyone offer advice on sources of information for this. Thanks.
--
regards
-----------------
Dr Steve Thornton
Groundwater Protection and Restoration Group
Kroto Research Institute
North Campus
University of Sheffield
Broad Lane
Sheffield S3 7HQ
UK
Tel : 44 (0) 114 222 5744
Mobile : 07855 074692
Fax : 44 (0) 114 222 5701
|
Harborough District Council |
|||
|
The Symington Building
|
E mail:
[log in to unmask]
|
||
|
Adam and Eve Street |
Contact Centre: 01858 82 82 82 |
||
|
Market Harborough |
Text Messages: 07797 87 82 82 |
||
|
Leicestershire |
DX 27317 Market Harborough |
||
|
LE16 7AG |
|||
IMPORTANT NOTICE
This e-mail might contain privileged and/or confidential information. If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail immediately; you may not
use or pass it to anyone else. Whilst every care has been taken to check this outgoing e-mail for viruses, it is your responsibility to carry out checks upon receipt. Horsham District Council does not accept liability for any damage caused. E-mail transmission
cannot guarantee to be secure or error free.
This e-mail does not create any legal relations, contractual or otherwise. Any views or opinions expressed are personal to the author and do not necessarily represent those of Horsham District
Council. This Council does not accept liability for any unauthorised/unlawful statement made by an employee.
Information in this e mail may be subject to public disclosure in accordance with the law. Horsham District Council cannot guarantee that it will not provide this e mail to a third party.
The Council reserves the right to monitor e-mails in accordance with the law.
If this e-mail message or any attachments are incomplete or unreadable, please telephone 01403 215100 or e-mail
[log in to unmask]. Any reference to "e-mail" in this disclaimer includes any attachments.
|
Harborough District Council |
|||
|
The Symington Building
|
E mail:
[log in to unmask]
|
||
|
Adam and Eve Street |
Contact Centre: 01858 82 82 82 |
||
|
Market Harborough |
Text Messages: 07797 87 82 82 |
||
|
Leicestershire |
DX 27317 Market Harborough |
||
|
LE16 7AG |
|||
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.
This email, its contents and any attachments are intended only for the above named. As the email may contain confidential and/or legally privileged information, if you are not, or suspect that you
are not, the above named or the person responsible for delivery of the message to the above named, please delete or destroy the email and any attachments immediately and inform the sender of the error. Unauthorised access, use, disclosure, storage or copying
is not permitted and may be unlawful. The views of the author may not necessarily reflect those of Rochdale MBC.
Rochdale MBC undertakes monitoring of both incoming and outgoing e-mails. You should therefore be aware that if you send an e-mail to a person within Rochdale MBC it may be subject to any monitoring
deemed necessary by Rochdale MBC from time to time. Rochdale MBC cannot guarantee that this message or any attachment is virus free or has not been intercepted and amended.
As a public body, Rochdale MBC may be required to disclose this email (or any response to it) under the Freedom of Information Act 2000, unless the information in it is covered by one of the exemptions
within the Act.