JiscMail Logo
Email discussion lists for the UK Education and Research communities

Help for CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES Archives


CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES Archives

CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES Archives


CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES@JISCMAIL.AC.UK


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES Home

CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES Home

CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES  December 2005

CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES December 2005

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: CLR7 and averaging areas

From:

Kevin Privett <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Kevin Privett <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Thu, 22 Dec 2005 13:47:10 -0000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (249 lines)

If you read P5-066/TR (model procedures on sampling) there is some
interesting stuff on averaging areas (AA).  There is a distinction
between finding hot spots and characterising the chemical nature of a
given area.  

The document states that an AA might be 1 garden (of 100sqm).  If you
are investigating a large site you should set your Stage 1 sampling grid
to be the size of the AA (or, say 4-6 AAs). If you choose 1 AA, this is
an 11m square grid pattern of trial pits etc.

The idea is that you should pick up a hotspot equal in size to an AA by
doing this.  This tells you it exists but does not tell you anything
about the concentrations across the AA, just that there is a hotspot
which could be the same size as a garden.  This is, of course subject to
given confidence limits.

The guidance goes on to say that if you want to characterise an
individual garden, you must do a Stage 2 investigation at a closer grid
spacing.  The concept of Smallest Area of Concern (SAC) is discussed.
If the SAC is 25sqm, you will need a 5.6m grid spacing.  

Guidance on Pgs 62-63 of that document is helpful in terms of the sort
of situations where very detailed sampling would be required.

There is also an interesting paper on AAs and the CLR7 tests by Paul
Nathanail in the Quarterly Journal of Engineering Geology and
Hydrogeology (2004) vol. 37, 361-367.  

Regards,
Kevin Privett.
 
Dr Kevin Privett
Principal Geo-Environmental Consultant
 
Hydrock Consultants Ltd
Over Court Barns
Over Lane
Almondsbury
Bristol
BS32 4DF
 
Tel: (01454) 619533
Fax: (01454) 614125
[log in to unmask]
Cell phone: (07799) 430870
 
Offices in Bristol, Plymouth, Northampton, Stoke-on-Trent.
www.hydrock.com
 
Disclaimer

The information in this e-mail is confidential and may be read, copied
or used only by the intended recipients. If you are not the intended
recipient you are hereby notified that any perusal, use, distribution,
copying or disclosure is strictly prohibited.  If you have received this
e-mail in error please advise us immediately by return e-mail at
[log in to unmask] and delete the e-mail document without making a
copy. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure this email is virus
free, no responsibility is accepted for loss or damage arising from
viruses or changes made to this message after it was sent.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Ivens,
Rob
Sent: 22 December 2005 12:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CLR7 and averaging areas

I do not think that evy garden is reasonble as a first point of
approach.

We are currently doing 2 sites under part IIA.

Site 1 has 22 houses and guide hut.
site 2 has a total of 500 houses and an effec ted area of ~200 house The
current area of inspection is 60 houses.

We have commissioned ESI to provide us a statistical model to help us 

a. assess the confidence that will be achieved by the initial SI
b. how much more SI do we need to do to improve that confidence to a
reasonable level.
c. identify good bad and unknown areas.

I would argue that once you have achieve a reasonable level of
confidence across the site you should only need to up the dat collection
in the unknown/grey areas.

ps our initial SI on the 21 houses cost 7k for 12 Window sample
locations
the pahse II shallow surface SI cost a further ~20k and the avaerage
number of inspection points per property = ... well you guess.

So much to read.
So Little Time

Rob Ivens MVDC- 01306 879232 

-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of adamc
czarnecki
Sent: 22 December 2005 11:01
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: CLR7 and averaging areas


Phew,  three to four samples per garden. Even if you did this is it 
really statistically robust? So are you suggesting deriving upper 95%ile

from this data for EACH garden plot. I have seen some sites where the 
"consultant" has adopted this strategy, but do you honestly believe it 
is pragmatic or reasonable to do so?

PS Merry Xmas everyone.

Adam





Balmer, Brad P wrote:

>My view would be that if you wish to consider the gardens individually
>on this basis you do not have enough data to make an assessment and you
>should have the consultant recover 3-4 samples per garden this will
give
>you enough data to have an averaging area for each individual garden. 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Wendy
>Lilico
>Sent: Thursday, December 22, 2005 9:18 AM
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: CLR7 and averaging areas
>
>I have asked this question a while ago and got some useful answers but
>can I be a bit more specific this time....
>
>I have a large housing development subject to a remediation scheme
which
>includes testing soils prior to importation and again once the material
>is in-situ (on the basis of one sample every 2-3 plots). This is my
>preferred system as it guarantees that the material is the same, or at
>least as 'clean', as the material tested at source but source testing
>avoids importing clearly unacceptable material in the first instance.
>
>Anyway there have been a number of in-situ samples which have come back
>with results over the SSTLs for one or two determinands (usually zinc,
>boron or nickel). The consultant originally proposed that the whole
>volume of soil imported from a single source should be considered a
data
>set for the mean and maximum value tests and, whilst that may appear
>reasonable in theory, in practice it involves a large area of the site
>with discontinuous plots often at considerable distance from the
>'failed' sample. It is my opinion that once the material is placed it
is
>academic if the material at distance from the individual plot is
>acceptable - it is the exposure of the receptor at that particular plot
>which is important ("an averaging area (or area of
>interest) is that area (together with a consideration of depth) of soil
>to which the receptor is exposed or which otherwise contributes to the
>creation of hazardous conditions" CLR7)
>
>The question then is what is a reasonable 'averaging area' in these
>circumstances?? I draw a clear distinction between a planning
assessment
>and a Part IIA assessment where it will usually be necessary to test
>each area of ownership to a sufficient extent to make a definite
>determination of whether it is 'contaminated land'.
>
>Any comments would be much appreciated as usual.
>
>Meanwhile may I take this opportunity of wishing you a very happy
>Christmas and thanking you for all the help and advice throughout the
>year. I personally find this forum invaluable - and even entertaining
on
>occasions - what more could you want for Christmas !!
>Cheers
>Wendy Lilico
>Principal Environmental Health Officer (Pollution) Development and
>Environment Darlington Borough Council
>11 Houndgate
>Darlington  DL1 5RF
>Directline (01325) 388570
>Mobile 0779 088 4198
>Fax (01325) 388555
>email: [log in to unmask]
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>***************************
>DISCLAIMER
>
>1. This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are confidential and
>intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. Unauthorised
use,
>disclosure or copying is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If
you
>have received this e-mail in error please notify the sender at the
above
>address and then delete the e-mail from your system.
>2. Any opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual
and
>not necessarily those of Darlington Borough Council.
>3. This e-mail and any attachments are believed to be free of any
virus.
>It is however the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that they
>are virus free. No responsibility is accepted by Darlington Borough
>Council for any loss or damage arising from the receipt of this e-mail
>or its contents.
>
> ***************************
>
>
>The information in this email message is confidential and the contents
are not to be disclosed to anyone other than the addressee, except with
the authority of the addressee.  Unauthorised recipients are requested
to maintain this confidentiality and immediately advise the sender of
any error or misdirection in transmission.
>  
>


________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________

________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star. The
service is powered by MessageLabs. For more information on a proactive
anti-virus service working around the clock, around the globe, visit:
http://www.star.net.uk
________________________________________________________________________

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

JiscMail Tools


RSS Feeds and Sharing


Advanced Options


Archives

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003
December 2002
November 2002
October 2002
September 2002
August 2002
July 2002
June 2002
May 2002
April 2002
March 2002
February 2002
January 2002
December 2001
November 2001
October 2001
September 2001
August 2001
July 2001
June 2001
May 2001
April 2001
March 2001
February 2001
January 2001
December 2000
November 2000
October 2000
September 2000
August 2000
July 2000
June 2000
May 2000
April 2000
March 2000
February 2000
November 1999
July 1999


JiscMail is a Jisc service.

View our service policies at https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/policyandsecurity/ and Jisc's privacy policy at https://www.jisc.ac.uk/website/privacy-notice

For help and support help@jisc.ac.uk

Secured by F-Secure Anti-Virus CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager