And I thought, until recently, there had been a fair consensus about this; there are, of course, reasonable limits to risk management but perhaps 'minimal risk' is a poor description - it isn't infinitessimal risk nor, especially, as Defra sought to disparage it, does it mean 'digging up the whole of Cornwall'.
Howard Price
Principal Policy Officer, CIEH
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Gareth Rees
Sent: 14 May 2014 16:09
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: C4SL
I suppose that’s why we should really apply the principle of As Low As Reasonably Practicable (ALARP) when setting remedial targets as apposed to as high as we might be able to get away with (i.e. C4SL's)
Thanks
Gareth Rees Mgeol (HONS) FGS
Contaminated Land Officer
E mail: [log in to unmask]
Mobile: 07976 431 236
Contact Centre: 01858 82 82 82
Fax: 01858 82 10 00
DX DX 27317 Market Harborough
Please Note I only work for Harborough District Council on Thursdays Fridays and alternate Wednesdays
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of [log in to unmask]
Sent: 14 May 2014 15:44
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: C4SL
Hi,
There was an interesting case in Texas US where a superfund site had been remediated (lead contamination from an old lead smelter) and fully declared as remediated and taken off the superfund list of sites.
The tox values for lead were subsequently changed a few years later by a factor of 10 times more precautionary and the site was then again declared a superfund site. Cleanup then started all over again. I seem to remember that for the second time the site was declared a state emergency. Needless to say the locals got pretty upset.
I do not
think there is any way you can ever ensure that a site declared as “not contaminated” will always remain so as our knowledge changes over time.
There always will be a risk of things changing and that is what developers and buyers have to bear in mind.
nick
Nick Merriman MSc
MRICS MIQ Mineral Valuer, Valuation Office Agency, Regent Court, 14 –
17 George Road, Birmingham, B15 1NU 01684 893 140 Tel 0771 347 0580 Mob [log in to unmask]
-----Original Message-----
From:
Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:CONTAMINATED-LAND- [log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Clive Williams
Sent: 14 May 2014
11:32
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: C4SL
Just to throw more wood onto this slow burner, reading the latest CIRIA Asbestos report and in the section on planning, development control and EPA 1990 there is this:
"It is appropriate that the
planning process adopt a more stringent standard for the levels of soil contamination than are relevant under Part 2A. This prevents developments being determined as ‘contaminated land’ in the future when, and if, acceptable exposures to contaminants change."
I can see
the sense in this approach, but where do you stop?
Clive
You can contact the Council through the website www.harborough.gov.uk, via email [log in to unmask] or by telephone on 01858 828282.
Harborough District Council
The Symington Building
Adam and Eve Street
Market Harborough
Leicestershire
LE16 7AG
Map of Council Offices:
http://www.harborough.gov.uk/site/scripts/location.php
Website: http://www.harborough.gov.uk
Customer Services e-mail: [log in to unmask]
Contact Centre: 01858 82 82 82
Text Messages: 07797 87 82 82
DX 27317 Market Harborough
Follow us on Twitter twitter.com/HarboroughDC
Notes for E Mail Users
http://www.harborough.gov.uk/site/scripts/services_info.php?serviceID=540
www.harborough.gov.uk/ccc_form
|
