|Good Game! Good Game!|
We hear that PCC employee Simon Machin is lying awake at night over the latest 'Horlicks' created over the Fletton Parkway contaminated land fiasco. Thats what he told PCC concillors last night, during the call in over the Parkway 'unexpected' £4 million extra to contract cost hike ( 40% over budget ...).
He said that no one could have known. HOW WRONG IS THAT ?!
Leave the porkies to the convicted lag Cllr Hiller!
The PBOROTRIB wondered why Cllr Cereste hadn't been more helpful to the hapless gaffe prone council officer, after all the Borges Boulevard working daylight office hours only development with its day and night seven days a week traffic gridlock must have been planned into the overall scheme? People now shop and drink elsewhere like Milton Keynes which is as they say 'rammed' SEVEN DAYS A WEEK! No tumbleweed in that City...
The document (small part below) has already been paid for by the PCC and sets up a simple framework for testing for contaminates.
Adapted this testing could have saved the PCC a few millions. It took us 10 minutes to find it. Still young Simon Machin isn't a civil engineer, but more a planner type, so we understand why he might not ever know about such things?
We've left enough clues in the piece, so he should be able to find it on his computer. That is if Cllr Cereste still won't let on!
By the way Marco ( who still blocks us on Twitter....) before you let BBC Look East film on your Larkfleet Energy Solar farm site, its a very good idea to ensure all the smashed solar panels have first been replaced. Security on site not that hot? Is the PCC getting one like it? And who in 'the family' is sourcing the many and various components? Will the accounting be transparent?
The LarkFleet Energy spokesman forgot that the BBC's Emma Baugh is a highly experienced videojournalist and broadcaster, she picked up most of the broken solar panels in her sweeping long shots. Broadcasting Gold. Hopefully some of the councillors seeking re-election picked upon it too...
/5075275 Peterborough Geoenvironmental Assessment Report.doc
ATKINS SSVs - Basis for HUMAN HEALTH SOIL ASSESSMENT In 2002, the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra) and the Environment Agency (EA) launched the CLEA (Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment) model software (CLEA 2002) together with associated documentation and a suite of Soil Guideline Values (SGVs). The SGVs have been derived using the CLEA model according to three typical land-uses, applicable to long-term human exposure to soil contaminants.
The three types of land-use are:
• residential with plant uptake (for example, home grown vegetables) or residential without plant uptake;
• allotments; and
To date, Defra and the Environment Agency have released 10 CLEA SGVs comprising arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury (inorganic), nickel, selenium, toluene, ethylbenzene and phenol. Where CLEA SGVs were not available, it was the intention of Defra and the Environment Agency that soil screening values could be calculated using the CLEA methodologies set out in CLR7 to 10 and the later updates in CLEA Briefing Notes 1 – 4. In November 2005, an update to the CLEA 2002 software was released, called CLEA UK.
The CLEA UK software was released as a beta version and has currently only been tested by the Environment Agency for a limited range of chemicals and scenarios. The Environment Agency withdrew CLEA 2002 in October 2006 and stated “Since its (CLEA UK) release in November 2005, feedback from CLEA UK beta users has suggested that this software has performed effectively in the majority of cases. It is therefore recommended by the Environment Agency for use in human health risk assessment in conjunction with advice found on our CLEA web pages”.
Advice on the CLEA web pages states that “we recommend that it is used cautiously when applying it to user created chemicals and scenarios until the final version is released”. Atkins has developed a set of screening criteria, referred to at the Atkins Soil Screening Levels or Atkins SSVs, in accordance with the CLEA Model (the CLR documents and Briefing Notes), using RISC Workbench.
The Atkins SSVs are for a selection of contaminants for which SGVs have not been published and retain the receptor parameters that define the standard residential with and without plant uptake, and commercial/industrial land-uses. The SSVs include a significant number of user-created chemicals as well as the user-defined scenarios for parks, playing fields and open spaces.
Given this, and that a final version of CLEA UK has not been released, Atkins has not currently derived SSVs using the CLEA UK model (NB. the current SGVs were derived using CLEA 2002). The process followed to derive the Atkins SSVs has many similarities with site-specific risk assessment and in order for this semi-quantitative approach to be valid, the conceptual model has been made sufficiently sensitive for the resulting criteria to act as relatively conservative screening values.
As with the SGVs, an important aspect of using the SSVs is that the generic assumptions contained within the values are critically assessed against the actual site conditions. SSVs have been generated for over 44 contaminants, including all those for which an Environment Agency TOX report has been published.
These include: • PAHs - acenaphthene, anthracene, benzo(a)anthracene, benzo(a)pyrene, benzo(b)fluoranthene, benzo(ghi)perylene, benzo(k)fluoranthene, chrysene, dibenzo(ah)anthracene, fluorene, fluoranthene, indeno(1,2,3-cd)pyrene, naphthalene, pyrene;
• beryllium, zinc, vanadium and copper;
• benzene, xylenes and phenol;
• carbon disulphide;
• free cyanide;
• several chlorinated solvents, including 1,1,1-trichloroethane, 1,2-dichloroethane, vinyl chloride, trichloroethene, tetrachloroethanes, tetrachloroethene, carbon tetrachloride; and
/5075275 Peterborough Geoenvironmental Assessment Report.doc
• speciated and fractionated total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) using the TPH Criteria Working Group (TPH CWG) approach.
• SSVs for parks playing fields and open spaces for the 10 compound for which SGVs have been published. TPHs include a wide range of different compounds and consequently two identical TPH results could represent two quite different mixtures of contaminants. Therefore it is not possible to use the CLEA methodology to derive a definitive SSV which would be applicable to TPH across all sites.
The Environment Agency guidance on TPH outlines current methodology for assessing the health risks from petroleum hydrocarbons in soil, and concludes that the TPH CWG methodology is appropriate.
The Environment Agency also suggests that indicator compounds (such as BTEX and PAH) should also be assessed when considering TPH mixtures. Individual SSVs have been developed for the majority of these compounds where SGVs are not available. The SGVs and SSVs are based on the following standard CLR10 exposure pathways, relevant to the standard land uses:
• ingestion of soil and soil-derived dust;
• dermal contact with soil outside;
• dermal contact with soil-derived dust indoors (through tracking back of soil)
• inhalation of soil vapours outside; • inhalation of soil-derived dust outdoors;
• inhalation of soil-derived dust indoors (through tracking back of soil);
• inhalation of soil vapours indoors;
• ingestion of site-grown vegetables; and
• ingestion of soil attached to site-grown vegetables.
Pathways which are not included in the SGVs or SSVs are:
• Inhalation of vapours from groundwater
• On-site use of water
• Produce from fruit trees and bushes
• Other home produce such as milk, eggs, cheese, poultry, meat. In November 2006, a consultation document entitled ‘Soil Guideline Values: the Way Forward’ was published by Defra in order to present emerging conclusions and issues relating to the production and applicability of SGVs, including the definition of ‘significant possibility of significant harm’ under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990 in relation to human health risks.
Defra reported on the consultation exercise in July 2008, and in August 2008 the Environment Agency and Defra withdrew the existing CLEA guidance and supporting documentation, including CLR9 and CLR10. It is their intention to publish replacement documents containing revised exposure scenarios and toxicity data which will be used to generate alternative screening values. The replacement documents are currently undergoing a review period, and Atkins are currently carrying out validation of the revised model and inputs in order to generate alternative values. As this is still at the QA/QC stage, we are unable to use alternative values. In light of this, the previous guidance and supporting documentation (including SGVs and Atkins' SSVs) have been adopted for the purposes of assessment in this report.
E&OE google.com/+JulianBray All Enquiries 01733 345581 BROADCAST ISDN DIRECT LINK: 01733 345020 [G722 Codec] . . http://feeds.feedburner.com/BraysDuckhouseBlog