LQM is a specialist environmental consultancy based in Nottingham (UK) with an international reputation for assessing and managing the risks posed to human health and the environment by contaminants in soil. Increasingly this is being done within a context of sustainable development and specifically sustainable brownfield regeneration.
We provide consultancy, peer review and expert witness services, contract research and training courses on all aspects of the management of land contamination to problem holders, developers and local government.
If you would like us to email you updates, such as detail of forthcoming training etc., please subscribe below.
An introduction to five new British Standards in the ISO 18400 series (free webinar)
Wednesday 19 December at 1130 AM
The next in an occasional series of webinars from LQM to raise the sector’s technical awareness will summarise the content of five new British Standards in the ISO 18400 series.
The newly published standards are:
• BS ISO 18400-104:2018 Soil quality – Sampling – Strategies
• BS ISO 18400-202:2018 Soil quality – Sampling – Preliminary investigations
• BS ISO 18400-203: 2018 Soil quality – Sampling – Guidance on the investigation of potentially contaminated sites
• BS ISO 18400-205: 2018 Soil quality – Sampling – Guidance on the procedure for the investigation of natural, near-natural and cultivated sites
• BS ISO 18400-206:2018 Soil quality – Sampling – Guidance on the collection, handling and storage of soil for assessment of biological functional and structural endpoints in the laboratory
This free webinar will be delivered by Paul Nathanail and last for about 20 minutes. Places are limited to 99.
If you register for a place and are unable to attend the webinar, you will be sent a copy of the slides and access to the recording afterwards.
Delegates will gain an understanding of the scope and contents of each of these standards.
BSI have indicated that registrands will receive a code entitling them to a discount for the five new documents.
Get the chance to ask Paul questions!
Who should attend
This webinar is mainly relevant to regulators (including local authority staff) and consultants involved with sampling of potentially contaminated soil, of soil from natural, near-natural and cultivated sites and of soil for the assessment of biological functional and structural endpoints in the laboratory.
The Environment Agency has withdrawn the Soil Guideline Value (SGV) for mercury and the supporting reports following discussions with Public Health England (PHE) about a revised opinion from the European Food Safety Authority (EFSA). The SGV Report, the TOX Report, and the Supporting Information Document for Mercury will remain available for historical reference on the Government and Environment Agency archives and on the CL:AIRE Wall
The SGV for mercury was published in 2009. In 2012, EFSA published their scientific opinion on public health risk from inorganic mercury and methyl mercury in food. A summary and the full report are available here: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2985.
EFSA recommended oral TDI values for both inorganic mercury and methyl mercury that are lower than the oral HCV that was used in deriving the SGV. The EA are withdrawing their reports in light of this expert opinion. The Agency will not be updating these reports as it no longer undertakes work to derive new SGV or TOX reports, but it will continue to recommend that relevant public health bodies are consulted where industry has published or is developing alternative criteria for mercury which would also include elemental mercury.
A Note on the S4ULs for Mercury
In deriving the S4ULs for inorganic mercury and methylmercury LQM cited the EFSA (2012) opinion on the Provisional Tolerable Weekly Intakes (PTWIs) established by the Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives (JECFA) for methylmercury and inorganic mercury. LQM derived oral Tolerable Daily Intakes (TDIoral) based on TWIs established by EFSA (2012) that, as stated in Nathanail et al (2015), were lower than the oral TDIs used in deriving the SGVs by the Environment Agency (2009). LQM considered UK sources of information with respect to background intakes (food, water and air) as described by Nathanail et al (2015), including the 2006 UK Total Diet Study (FSA, 2009) that was used by EFSA in their dietary exposure estimates.
EFSA (2012) EFSA Panel on Contaminants in the Food Chain (CONTAM); Scientific Opinion on the risk for public health related to the presence of mercury and methylmercury in food. EFSA Journal 2012;10(12):2985. [241 pp.] doi:10.2903/j.efsa.2012.2985. Available online: https://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/2985
Nathanail CP, McCaffrey C, Gillett AG, Ogden RC, & Nathanail JF. (2015). The LQM/CIEH S4ULs for Human Health Risk Assessment. Land Quality Press, a Division of Land Quality Management Ltd: Nottinghamshire, UK. Available online: https://www.lqm.co.uk/publications/s4ul/
According to the then Secretary of State, in November 2016 the Ministry of Defence estate covers almost 2% of the United Kingdom’s land mass—an area almost three times the size of Greater London. In March 2016 the Secretary of State for Defence announced “an ambitious programme of estate rationalisation” and identified 10 sites for release from the Defence Estate that would generate some £1billion and contribute up to 55,000 homes. These sites included barracks, training land, former RAF maintenance unit, fighter airfield and other former land uses. Other sites have been added to the list.
Under Part 2A of the Environmental Protection Act 1990, certain defence related activities would result in a determined contaminated land to be a special site.
Many defence activities, past and present, have or have had the potential to contaminate land. Such contamination could be of the sort encountered on non-military post-industrial brownfield sites – heavy metals, fuels, solvents, asbestos. However, there are also contaminants particularly associated with defence related former land uses: explosive ordnance from WWI and WWII aerial bombardment, munitions, pyrotechnics, firefighting agents, chemical weapon residues, propellants, radioactive luminescent paint.
For example, chemical weapons (CW) contamination is mainly associated with burial or burning pits, generally on current or former MoD (Ministry of Defence) and MoS (Ministry of Supply) land. CW agents were produced at only a small number of known sites in the UK. However, containerised or weaponised CW agents may be present on any MoD site since during WWII CW munitions were distributed widely rather than being concentrated at production and storage sites or the few Forward Filling Depots (FFD) as had been thought previously.
Explosives sites were built for both military and commercial use. Military explosives sites mainly manufactured explosives or involved ammunition filling with activity peaking during the two world wars and the Korean conflict. The period when a specific site was operating may indicate the types of explosives that could be present in the soil. Such sites are found across the entire UK but the largest sites had good access to the rail network.
Former military sites will contribute much of the new housing over the coming years. Ensuring future residents will be safe and demonstrating that the land is suitable for this sensitive land use requires a sound understanding of the nature and distribution of contamination across a site. Whether a naval dockyard, former air-force base or army barracks, understanding how a site has been used is an essential pre-requisite to developing an informed conceptual site model and designing an appropriate sampling and analytical strategy as well as eventually designing a successful remediation strategy.
Whether former aircraft hangars, vehicle maintenance, ordnance depots, weapons manufacture or fuel storage, military sites are an important part of securing safe and suitable for use land for new homes. Their rural or peri-urban location makes them very attractive to future residents – and therefore developers.
The topic of our next Professional Practice Webinar is Redeveloping Military Sites. The webinar will discuss the unique sources of contamination and unusual pathways that are present on military sites, review key sources of information, describe established and emerging methods of remediating military sites. LQM will be delivering this webinar at 1-3pm on 21 November 2018. You are most welcome to book a place via https://www.lqm.co.uk/webinars/rmsweb/
Paul Nathanail, Managing Director of Land Quality Management Ltd, will deliver this new series of lunchtime Webinars (1300-1500). Attendees at other Webinars Paul has delivered have enjoyed his authoritative, accessible and informal style of delivery.
In deriving generic or site-specific assessment criteria for soils, SR3 (Environment Agency, 2009) generally recommends using default inputs intended to be protective in all but the most extreme exposure scenarios. For example, with respect to the consumption of six groups of homegrown fruit and vegetables considered by the UK Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment (CLEA) model, it recommends that consumption rates that would be protective of 90% of the UK population (i.e. 90th percentile consumption rates) should be adopted.
In 2014, alternative guidance was published as part of the SP1010 research project (Defra, 2014), which also derived the initial six ‘Category 4 Screening Level’ (C4SLs). SP1010 generally recommends the use of “central tendency” inputs to avoid generating overly cautious assessment criteria. However, in order to ensure that assessment criteria are adequately protective, SP1010 recommends a “middle ground approach” with respect to consumption rates where by the 90th percentile is used “for the two homegrown produce groups expected to give the highest exposure” and mean consumption rates for the remaining four groups. This is known as the ‘Top Two’ approach.
CLEA V 1.071
There is functionality within the latest version of CLEA (Ver. 1.071) to implement the recommendations of SP1010, and so generate C4SL-like assessment criteria. However, in order to apply the ‘Top Two’ approach the user must first be able to identify and definethe ‘Top Two’ produce groups within the chemical-specific database. Therefore, in order to produce C4SLs (or any other SP1010-compliant assessment criteria) a risk assessor must first identify which are the ‘Top Two’ produce groups. This is not straightforward or readily decided and requires a series of calculations.
But how can the ‘Top Two’ be identified?
LQM have developed a ‘Top Two’ Calculator, which rapidly and easily identifies the Top Two, and we have been using internally for sometime. To find out more about the ‘Top Two’ approach, and how to use the Calcuator to identify the ‘Top Two’ produce groups please join us for a one-hour lunchtime webinar on the 5th of Sept 2018. To book your place please visit our website.
** Each delegate will also receive a free complimentary copy of the LQM ‘Top Two’ Calculator. **
Note: webinars can only be booked via online card payment but you will receive a 20% discount making the overall cost £50 excl. VAT.
On the last day before the summer break, the government published an updated version of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF2018) for England.
* Focuses on house building
* Partly addresses the interim recommendations of the Letwin review
* Affects the weight given to neighbourhood plans
* Seeks to embed good design to accelerate house building
* Tweaks the provisions for land contamination
Intended audience: Consultants, planners, neighbourhood plan makers, town and parish councils, developers, house builders.
Paul Nathanail, Managing Director of Land Quality Management Ltd, will take you through NPPF2018 and associated policy documents in this webinar so you are ideally placed to help shape England’s green and pleasant land over the coming months.
If you are unable to attend this webinar we will send you the recording of the presentation and you will also get to ask any questions you have to Paul by email.
PLUS! When you register for this webinar you are automatically entitled to 20% off our Building Sustainable Towns and Cities conference in September.
The demise of the What’s In Your Backyard (WIYBY) web site from the Environment Agency may have brought a sense of loss to many in the contaminated land (and wider) community but it has provided a stimulus to environmental search providers to issue open environmental data viewers with some limited tools, such as a distance measure. They may be easy to use and may provide a useful “look-see” to help you gather some pre-intelligence on your sites but can you interact spatially with any historical site investigation data or the expanding open datasets out there? Can you add your own knowledge to a static data viewer platform, such as walkover photographs, borehole logs, annotations or generate your own 3D model for the site integrating the latest offering of LIDAR data? Will you be able to evaluate any future site investigation data, utilise your AGS data more effectively, delineate groundwater contamination plumes, animate your time-series gas monitoring data, evaluate risks more effectively, calculate subsequent remediation volumes, costs, monitor and clearly communicate site verification?
Hence, the demise of WIYBY also provides a stimulus to companies and regulators looking to more effectively utilise their own datasets and integrate them with environmental datasets to make use of open source GIS options such as QGIS.
So you can be in control of What’s In Your very own Backyard (WIYvoBY) for all of your projects, to develop your initial conceptual site model, plan your preliminary or staged site investigations (SI), interpret and communicate any risks or verification, to improve efficiency in regulatory decision making, volume calculations and costs to clients.