www.sagta.org.uk
Category 4 Screening Levels Phase 2
Richard Boyle
EIC
Wednesday 4th March 2015
The Authoritative Voice of Contaminated Land
Management from a Landholder's Perspective
1
C4SL’s
SP1010: Development of Category 4 Screening Levels for Assessment of
Land Affected by Contamination – Policy Companion Document
December 2014
2
CoT/CoC ‘Disagree’ with
C4SL/LLTC
•
•
•
•
“CoT/CoC have not endorsed C4SL/LLTC”
True
They were never asked to … it is not their job to do this
CoT/CoC only form an advisory function to government
• “CoT/CoC comment some aspects were ‘not scientific’”
• True
• Reflected by fact some decisions are policy decisions and it is clear
where these have been used
3
“C4SLs Don’t Protect Against
Mixtures”
• Proposed that as "no-observed-adverse-effect level" (NOAEL) is
exceeded [marginally] by LLTC there must be a risk from mixtures
• This is not true.
• CoC, SR2, IGHRC all say that issue is more complicated
– Not just must be below NOAEL, but within ‘range’ of it
– Will be dependent on a number of factors, such as their mode of
action, concentrations, dose response curve etc.
• Most compounds regularly encountered will not be an issue
– C4SL for more ‘unusual compounds’ (if done) may need
consideration, but likely to use minimal risk not LLTC anyway (due to
insufficient information)
• “CoT/CoC do not agree with this”
• True
• Because they were not asked so had nothing to agree/comment on!
4
“Can’t Deviate from Minimal
Risk?”
• Other UK regimes:
– UK air quality standard benzene = 5 ug/m3 → ELCR ≈ 1 in 34,000
– UK air quality standard BaP = 1 ng/m3 → ELCR ≈ 1 in 10,000
– UK DWS for arsenic = 10 ug/L → ELCR ≈ 1 in 2,000
– UK target level for radon = 100 Beq/m3 → ELCR ≈ 1 in 200
• Why can other environmental regimes use different risk levels but not the
contaminated land regime?
• Are we not disproportionately targeting soil quality?
5
Part 2A Statutory Guidance
• DEFRA document
• States DEFRA policy and interprets law
• Designed mainly for practitioners:
– LAs to bring Determinations
– Landowners to defend Determinations
• Secondary purpose is
‘understandability’ for everyone
• Read whichever part you are interested
in relatively independently
• Relatively plain-English
• Technically focussed so we can put
‘our’ meaning to words
6
National Planning Policy
Framework
• DCLG document
• States DCLG planning policy for
balanced sustainable development
• Planning policy draws upon many other
policies by OGDs, none of which are
discussed in detail
• Easily accessible for everyone so by
default does not get into too much detail
– Condensed ~1,400 pages to ~ 65
• Must be read together as a whole
– Can’t cherry pick paragraphs
• Plain-English
• ‘Technical’ words cannot be interpreted
by technical people to mean what we
think it does as they are layperson
words
7
What Does the NPPF State?
120.“To prevent unacceptable risks from pollution and land instability,
planning policies and decisions should ensure that new development is
appropriate for its location. The effects (including cumulative effects) of
pollution on health, the natural environment or general amenity, and the
potential sensitivity of the area or proposed development to adverse
effects from pollution, should be taken into account. Where a site is
affected by contamination or land stability issues, responsibility for
securing a safe development rests with the developer and/or
landowner.”
8
What Does the NPPF State?
121.“Planning policies and decisions should also ensure that:
• the site is suitable for its new use taking account of ground
conditions and land instability, including from natural hazards or
former activities such as mining, pollution arising from previous
uses and any proposals for mitigation including land remediation or
impacts on the natural environment arising from that remediation;
• after remediation, as a minimum, land should not be capable of
being determined as contaminated land under Part IIA of the
Environmental Protection Act 1990; and
• adequate site investigation information, prepared by a competent
person, is presented.”
9
What Does the NPPF Not State?
• “Safe and suitable for use”
10
‘Safe’ and the NPPF
• Safe is used 12 times
– If you include it as part of another word (such as safety, safeguarding,
etc) then it is used 42 times.
• Meant in the context of the development overall, so includes potentially
numerous things:
– Designing out crime;
– Knowing and interacting with neighbours;
– Decent construction that won’t fall down;
– Not having flash floods;
– Having sensible and gentle gradient changes;
– Not having rat-runs for cars, slowing cars down;
– Making sure plots can accommodate stairs that are not overly steep;
– etc, etc, etc.
11
What is ‘Safe’?
• Nothing!
• There are no UK laws or regulations that are ‘safe’ as every single one
will have had a CBA/IA done before being introduced/amended
– For example, recent proposals to reduce motorway speed limits in
certain areas to 60mph to deliver air quality improvements rejected
• Subjective statement
• A word for laypeople to understand although all will interpret it differently
at different times
• Not a word for land contamination professionals to interpret as meaning
‘no risk’
• It is toxicologically meaningless
– None of the definitions of health based guidance values for any
regime be it a tolerable daily intake, reference dose etc, points of
departures (NOAEL, BMD, etc), or guideline values/levels mentions
word
12
WHO ‘Safe’ for Drinking Water
•
•
•
•
WHO (http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/dwq/fulltext.pdf) state:
“Safe drinking-water, as defined by the Guidelines, does not represent any
significant risk to health over a lifetime of consumption, including
different sensitivities that may occur between life stages”
“The judgement of safety – or what is an acceptable level of risk in
particular circumstances – is a matter in which society as a whole has a role
to play. The final judgement as to whether the benefit resulting from the
adoption of any of the guidelines and guideline values as national or local
standards justifies the cost is for each country to decide’”
“The basic and essential requirements to ensure the safety of drinkingwater are a “framework” for safe drinking-water, comprising healthbased targets established by a competent health authority; adequate
and properly managed systems (adequate infrastructure, proper
monitoring and effective planning and management); and a system of
independent surveillance”
13
Is WHO Definition of ‘Safe’ Met
by C4SL?
• “… does not represent any significant risk to health over a
lifetime …”

• “The judgement of safety ... of an acceptable level of risk …
is for each country to decide.’”

• “… ensure safety … “framework” ... comprising health-based
targets … and properly managed systems”

14
Are C4SLs Suitable for Planning?
• Yes!
• Why? Because they meet all the ‘tests’ in the NPPF:




 “unacceptable risks”
 “suitable for its new use”
 “as a minimum, land should not be capable of being determined”
 “safe development [rests with the developer and/or landowner]”
[NOT THE LPA]
15
Planning Practice Guidance
Updated:
12th June 2014
“Defra has 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.”
16
Immediate Needs
• Uncertainty over something is precarious for the industry
• Industry to ‘move together’ to uniform and consistent ‘adoption’
• We need everyone to acknowledge the facts:
– C4SLs are the result of current Statutory Guidance and legislation
– C4SLs were derived from a comprehensive research project
– The project was undertaken by a very well resourced, flexible and
widely experienced team (that’s why they got the project!)
– The project involved a significant amount of stakeholder engagement
and SG had much discussion and debate
– Nothing was ‘forced through’ or taken for granted
– Only the latest science and research was used and applied by well
respected professionals operating within their specialism
– The output itself is quality science
• Took a long time – good that it wasn’t rushed
• Significantly more review than expected – CoC/CoT, peer review, Chief
Scientist
17
Unnecessary Uncertainty &
Inconsistency
• GACs
• C4SLs
• S4ULs
• Why?!
18
Unnecessary Hypocrisy?
• CIEH and others state cannot allow anything other than “safe”
– Major criticism of C4SLs
• S4UL is an abbreviation of ‘Suitable for Use Levels’ so are they are not
safe?
– Therefore should not be used for planning purposes?
• CIEH and others state cannot move away from ‘minimal’ / 1 in 100,000
risk
– Major criticism of C4SLs
• CIEH/LQM S4UL for TCE appears to use unmodified US EPA values
based upon ELCR ≈ 1 in 30,000
19
Production of Further C4SL’s
• Aim to produce C4SLs for ~50 (TBC) other compounds
– C4SL Phase 2 but simply known as C4SL
• Terms or Reference:
1. All outputs completely unrestricted and freely available at end;
2. Open, inclusive and transparent working;
3. Knowledge transfer of exposure and toxicological processes to
wider industry (if they wish to be involved);
4. Efficient and timely working; and
5. To support production of more C4SLs in line with Framework and
Policy and not to have debate over their use and/or existence.
20
C4SL
Phase 2
• Main elements:
– Steering Group
– Project Manager
– Exposure Modelling
– Toxicological
Assessment
21
Steering Group
• CoC/CoT recommended there should be ‘central oversight’ if more
produced, but already essential part of the C4SL Framework
• Invitees from Land Forum (except *):
•
•
•
•
•
•
DEFRA
DCLG (declined)
WA
PHE*
PHW*
EA
•
•
•
•
•
•
NRW
HCA
SAGTA
SoBRA
CIEH (refused)
NHBC
•
•
•
•
•
EPUK
AGS
SiLC (pending)
EIC (pending)
4 x LA (Flintshire, Leeds
City, Mole Valley, Lancaster)
• Requests were not for named person - organisations propose individual
to input into necessary debate and arrive at a balanced view to accept
or reject the pC4SLs
– Sufficient and rounded experience of toxicology/exposure
– Understanding of wider sustainability (balance of social, economic
and environmental) considerations
– Experience of working within such initiatives beneficial
22
Steering Group
• The Steering Group includes a wide range of organisations and
expertise, considered representative of industry as a whole.
• It shall oversee the production of further C4SLs, ensuring consistency
and agreement with the provided Framework and Policy.
• The Steering Group shall seek decisions through consensus or where
there is no consensus, through a simple majority vote.
• Consequently the views and opinions of individual member
organisations or experts may differ from the formal position of the
Steering Group.
23
Project Manager
• Needs proper coordination and ensure consistency a ‘Project Manager’
– Either an individual, provided by an organisation, or via a consortium
– Paid position although there are benefits other than money
• Draft specification of the duties is being prepared
• ‘Conduit’ between practitioners and Steering Group
• Final review of the outputs to propose pC4SL based upon
– Professional peer reviewed exposure modelling
– Professional peer reviewed toxicological assessment
• Chasing and organising practitioners
• Production of (short) Draft and Final reports
– Although toxicological reports will be prepared by the toxicologists
24
Exposure Modelling
• Volunteers as per GAC initiative
• Consistency with C4SL Framework and across compounds together
with accuracy will be crucial:
– ‘Specifications’ prepared
– Fully compliant CLEA C4SL spreadsheet prepared
– Free Workshop place
• Dual role of informing participants of the background to C4SL, policy
standing, exposure assumptions and modelling, intro to toxicological
processes, Phase 2 initiative and disseminate working elements
– Working:
• ‘Buddying up’ of groups
– Up-skill ‘less experienced’ or ‘unsure but keen’ practitioners
• Peer review and challenge information is correct/accurate
25
Toxicological Assessment
• Paid position although there are benefits other than money
• Consistency with C4SL Framework and across compounds together
with accuracy will be crucial:
– ‘Specifications’ and Standard Reporting Templates prepared
– Free Workshop place (similar but different to exposure workshop)
• Skills needed:
– LLTC considerations - expectation is requires skills criteria and more
independent working involving registered toxicologists.
– Minimal considerations - expectation is that criteria will home in on
well versed members within the industry who can demonstrate
relevant experience. This could be reviewed by a registered
toxicologist.
• Working:
– More independent
– Peer review and challenge information is correct/accurate
26
What Compounds?
• Overall consistency of approach
is essential
– Usual/common compounds
• Those that drive RA / remediation
– Hazard assessment and
ranking
• Open to suggestions and a
‘consultation’ will happen shortly
• Not all can have LLTC derived as a substantial amount of toxicological
data is required that is not available for most compounds
• Review of ‘minimal’ can bring benefits
– Bring things up to date
– May be possible to reduce conservative assumptions in minimal
derivation
27
Funding
• Funding already received from:
– SAGTA
– SoBRA
– Local Authorities
– Consultants
• Commitments from others
• Applications for funding pending with others
• More needed
– The more money, the more compounds can be done
28
Get Involved!
• Volunteer organisations/individuals for Exposure Modelling
• Nominate/apply organisations/individuals for Toxicological Assessment
• Apply for Project Manager post
• Propose compounds
• Provide ATHENS access
Contact:
Dr Richard Boyle
• Provide funding
Senior Technical Manager
Homes and Communities Agency
Email: Richard.Boyle@hca.gsi.gov.uk
Mobile: 07767 424 447
Telephone: 0117 937 7295
29