MJAC Founded 1928 Contaminated Land Update 3 rd October 2014 Walsall T

Letter 3 rd September Lord de Mauley Contaminated Land Grants available. Urgent cases Ongoing remediation Worth submitting? Grants

Category 4 Screening Levels Confirmed C4SL results and companion document for 6 substances released. Risk management decisions taken are clarified. States the methodology has been established. Expects industry to develop more… and therefore LAs to be able to review and approve use? States developed on basis would be used in Planning regime as a simple test. Consistency with the Welsh Regime Clarity?

Category 4 Screening Levels CIEH position statement (from July 2014) Argue that C4SLs derived from combination of modified exposure parameters and changes of approach to toxicology believe not to be precautionary enough engineered to reduce remediation costs the increase in ELCR unacceptable CIEH rallying its members to resist accepting C4SLs in Planning Regime.

Category 4 Screening Levels A lot of comments and concerns – Why? Worried C4SL will be used in Planning context and level of risk they represent (safe? Not contaminated? Acceptable risk?) DCLG state Defra published a policy companion document considering the use of ‘Category 4 Screening Levels’ in providing a simple test for deciding when land is suitable for use and definitely not contaminated land. Planning Practice Guidance updated 12 June 2014 on Planning Portal. Key consideration is the change in ELCR from 1:100,000 (SGV) to 1:50,000

Category 4 Screening Levels LQM/CIEH S4ULs Autumn publication Soil Assessment criteria updated in line with developments in UK human health assessment guidance and development in toxicology, fate and transport of substances since 2009 for an extended range of substances (89) Based on HCV representing minimal or negligible levels of risk under planning Each substance has a S4UL derived for 6 current generic land uses and range of SOM.

Category 4 Screening Levels So what should the CLO do? Much discussion in community regarding the wording of NPPF… –Preventing unacceptable risk –safe development –Suitable for use C4SL are by their very nature not contaminated land and therefore do not represent any significant risk of significant harm over a lifetime. But this relates to significant harm

Category 4 Screening Levels

Simpler system? Not really More numbers, yes. Consultants will throw us a variety of screening levels depending on the site, their budget and their abilities. SGV/S4UL (representing minimal risk) C4SL (representing Low risk) DQRA Dose Response Maps and other lines of evidence. [Establishing whether Cat 2 or 3 ] Our role is to scrutinise the supporting information providing confidence in the source, nature of contamination etc to get a good degree of confidence.

For assessing risks on Building land Advice on sampling and who can do it If suspect it then should be done before chemical contamination testing Suggests that would consider anthrax only where documentary evidence of confirmed case Advice for dealing with a positive result with PHE and HSE Errors in document Suggests transmission rates are low Focus on Sampling and PPE Note: its illegal to dig up any cattle carcass or part of under Animal Health Act 1981 – if found, stop and contact AHVLA Anthrax Guidance

Planning Practice Guidance NPPF came into being 31 March; Void of guidance DCLG consulted on this late Technical Guidance to be issued Guidance published

Planning Practice Guidance Land affected by contamination Published 6 th March Outlines why contamination should be considered Applicant advice? Guidance on when contamination should be considered Planner’s advice? Concerns over inferred role of LPA

‘…An applicant may be required to provide at least the report of a desk study and site walk-over. This may be sufficient to develop a conceptual site model of the source of contamination, the pathways by which it might reach vulnerable receptors and the options to show how the identified pollutant linkages can be broken…’ [page 4] Planning Practice Guidance

Guidance on Significant Pollution with respect to Groundwater in relation to Part 2A sites Drinking water Guidance EA Guidance on the move… Guidance