A sensible framework approach, but you also need to consider site variability and look at the bigger picture. One or two samples at 2/3 E would not be problematic amongst a larger population of lower level material, IMHO.

Surely it just comes down to some good old common sense and a desire to leave the world a better place (even if only slightly).

I think the following (amended) terminology provided by the JIWG 'Decision Support Tool for CAR2012 Work Categories' can be useful here:

1. No visible ACMs/fibre bundles or ‘Trace’ Levels
2. Occasional/random occurrences of visible contamination by ACMs
3. Sporadic/random occurrences of visible contamination by ACMs
4. Moderate/frequent occurrences of visible contamination by ACMs
5. Gross/very frequent occurrences of visible contamination by ACMs

A. No detectable or ‘Trace’.
B. Very Low quantities - <0.001 to 0.01 %wt/wt
C. Low quantities - >0.01 to <0.05 %wt/wt
D. Moderate quantities - >0.05 to <0.1 %wt/wt
E. Large quantities - >0.1 %wt/wt


Here's my (generalised) personal take (my own internal ethical scale) for re-use:

- Would want to be at 1/A.
- Pretty comfortable (in an appropriate risk based well designed remedial scheme of course) to reuse materials with characteristics of 2/3 and B.
- Can be pushed to C.
- Start to get pretty uncomfortable at 4 and D (but not out of the question)
- Would find it hard to be involved with 5 & E


Chris Dainton

########################################################################

To unsubscribe from the CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES list, click the following link:
https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES&A=1