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  August 2007

CONTAMINATED-LAND-STRATEGIES August 2007

Options

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password

Subject:

Re: Extensions within 250m of landfill.....

From:

steve wilson <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

steve wilson <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 14 Aug 2007 15:07:24 +0100

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (232 lines)

Gareth

I disagree that there is insufficient geological data in most of the country
to allow a quick rough and ready assessment to be made.  I also stated
topography and likely gas generation rates are important, so it is not just
a matter of looking at geology.

I agree entirely with your sentiments regarding clay.  As I said it is up to
the consultants to justify their conclusions.

I am sure that if there is a real risk of gas migration people will want to
know that.  Equally it is important not to cause blight to areas and not to
spend money on a pointless exercise.

Steve Wilson, Technical Director
EPG Limited

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 Gareth
Rees
Sent: 14 August 2007 14:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Extensions within 250m of landfill.....

The statement on the risk of gas migration being negligible within 250m
and this being capable of being shown by a desk study relies on
geological, and hydrological data for the area being accurate which for
may closed landfill sites could be argued is a big assumption.  

Most consultants I have dealt with look at 1:50k or 1:25k geological
maps with drift data as this is the most widely available data, which
for fluid migration is largely useless, generating a decent model for
where gas is likely to travel requires much more detail and a good idea
of the tectonic setting of the site (i.e. faults, jointing, intrusions
etc.  

Overall geological data on the scale to perform a worthwhile desk study
to predict the movement of gas and fluids is largely unavailable for
most of the country.

Also I find that as soon as someone sees they word clay on a
lithostratic section they assume that means impermeable which for an
unfractured section may be an appropriate assumption however it does not
take into account fractures and joints caused by may mechanisms that
modify the permeability of clays and in some cases make them better
modes of transfers than some high porosity sandstones, merely saying the
site is on clay does not mean there is a low risk of gas migration.

In my opinion if you don't know if the landfill is producing gas then
you have no insite into potential gas pressure underground and where it
is likely to migrate.  If however the site is known to be either not
producing or producing an insignificant amount of gas then the
assumption that there will be no build up of gas pressure therefore no
mode of lateral migration can be made

And if I was the owner of an unprotected property close to a landfill
site I wouldn't mind spending a bit of money to know if there is a risk
of ground gas building up in my house and causing asphyxiation / an
explosion.

Gareth Rees
Contaminated Land Officer,
Harborough District Council,
 
Tel: 01858 821174

-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of steve
wilson
Sent: 14 August 2007 13:11
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Extensions within 250m of landfill.....

Mark

My view is that on many sites within 250m of a landfill monitoring and
investigation may not be required because the risk of gas migration can
shown to be negligible just from simple desk study information.  Equally
I
have seen landfill gas migrate 400m and enter a building!

Personally I would take a staged approach and first insist on a desk
study.
If the consultant cannot justify a negligible risk of gas migration, a
site
investigation and monitoring can be asked for.

The three critical aspects are likely gas generation rates in the
landfill,
geology and topography.  Is there a credible potential pollutant
linkage?
If not then monitoring is not required.

This approach does assume that there is no on site source of gas, which
is
rare these days.

Steve Wilson, Technical Director
EPG Limited

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.

Steve Wilson, Technical Director
EPG Limited

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 Mark
Newman
Sent: 14 August 2007 10:50
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Extensions within 250m of landfill.....

Hello All,

I asked a similar question a while back, but didn't get much of a
response.

I am getting a lot of planning applciations for
extensions/conservatories 
within 250m of closed landfill sites. I have recently started using the 
condition:

"Prior to commencement of development, a site investigation shall be 
carried out to include monitoring for methane gas. Monitoring should 
include sampling for methane, oxygen and carbon dioxide and should be 
carried out over a period of at least 2 months with a minimum of 8 
readings taken - spike testing will not be accepted.  The report,
together 
with any recommendations for remedial works, must be submitted to and 
agreed in writing by the local planning authority.  Such remedial works 
must be carried out prior to commencement of construction works. Prior
to 
the discharge of this condition, details of any remedial measures used 
shall be submitted to the Local Planning Authority." 

Am i justified in asking for this, or would the condition below be 
suitable for these types of applcation:

"A gas impermeable membrane should be incorporated within the structure.

Any services entering/leaving the structure should be located above the 
gas impermeable membrane or adequate seals will have to be provided if
the 
membrane has to be breached. Prior to the works commencing, details of
the 
gas impermeable membrane should be submitted to and approved by the
LPA."


We have very little information regarding gas monitoring in the past,
and 
what we do have is about 15 years old. So i cannot make a reliable 
judgement about whether or not the site is gassing. It is this
uncertainty 
that makes me want to request gas monitoring each time....

Any input on this would be very gratefully appreciated.

Many thanks,
Mark 

(Dover DC) 

 


<HTML>

**
The contents of this message do not necessarily represent the opinions,
views, policy or procedures of Harborough District Council.

http://www.harborough.gov.uk - Council Website
http://www.harboroughonline.co.uk - Community Portal
http://www.lutterworthonline.co.uk - Community Portal
**
</HTML>

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