CONTAMINATED LAND ADVISORY GROUP (CLAG)
amended
Note of Meeting held in Victoria Quay on Monday 12 November 2012
Present
(FB)
(FW)
(AC)
(CT)
(MH)
(AM)
(FM)
(CR)
(AW)
Francis Brewis
Fiona Welch
Anthony Carson
Caroline Thornton
Mike Hayes
Alison McKay
Frances McChlery
Colin Ramsay
Alan Wyper
Scottish Government (Chair)
Central East Pollution Liaison Group
SPCCC / South & East Pollution Liaison Group
Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)
North Pollution Liaison Group
SCLF (McKay Environmental)
Law Society of Scotland, EPUK/EPS
Health Protection Scotland
Scottish Government (minutes)
Apologies
Andrew Hursthouse
Ann Connolly
Tom Henman
Will McMinn
Robin Mackenzie
Andrew Mackenzie
Andy Parsons
Kenneth Ross
University of the West of Scotland
Society of Chief Officers of Environmental Health
EIC (Consultancy Sector & Parsons Brinckerhoff)
Central West PLG (and Glasgow City Council)
Independent researcher (Perth and Kinross Council)
ERS independent Remediation Contractor
EIC (Environmental Industries Commission/IKM Cons Ltd)
Brodies LLP
Introduction
1. The minutes of the meeting held on 26 March 2012 were accepted.
Matters Arising
2. Groundwater and Land Contamination – Caroline Thornton reported that a
meeting of SEPA and the Scottish Government had been held recently to
discuss the interactions between legislation on water and contaminated land.
SEPA will draw up by mid-December a list of the issues identified and will then
consider whether new directions / guidance are needed. Currently it is not
clear whether guidance based on the existing legislation will suffice, or if a more
radical overhaul will be needed.
3. Registers of Contaminated Land– Francis Brewis referred to criticisms that
once land had been identified as contaminated land it was permanently
classified as contaminated. He drew the Group’s attention to the planned
Better Regulation Bill which is being prepared. This may include a provision,
which could be a power or a duty, for local authorities to remove from the
register of contaminated land any land which they would consider no longer
meets the criteria, eg once remediation work has been completed. The
intention is that this would remove, or at least reduce, the ‘blight’ that results
from a site remaining on the register of contaminated land, depressing its value
and discouraging possible redevelopment in some cases.
1
4. Frances McChlery thought the proposal sounded positive and that it would be
welcomed by the Law Society of Scotland, but was surprised that it was being
brought forward through the Better Regulation Bill, as she did not recall it being
mentioned in the consultation. [The question had arisen in connection with
radioactivity found at Dalgety Bay.] Anthony Carson and Michael Hayes
expressed reservations, as they felt the existing arrangements already allowed
for the clear recording of remediated land and that any move to take sites off
the register would undermine transparency. Members valued the function of
the Public Register in recording the remediation that had been carried out on
the land identified; the remediation statement should record the local authority
decision making and should remove the ‘contamination status’ of a piece of
land that was no longer contaminated. FB said that the Scottish Government
was not intending that anyone should hide the fact that a site had once been
identified (such facts would be releasable under Environmental Information
legislation), but to help show, where appropriate, that sites were no longer
‘contaminated’. There was general agreement that it was desirable for
remediated land to be seen as such, but simply allowing local authorities to
remove sites from the contaminated land register was not regarded as
acceptable.
5. There was also a suggestion that this could provide an opportunity for the
register requirements to be wider i.e. to record actual activity under Part IIA
including detailed inspections and the findings of those inspections
(contaminated land or not contaminated land). This would provide a more
transparent record of land that had undergone detailed inspected, and where a
conclusion had been reached that it does NOT meet the statutory definition LAs
should be empowered to say it should no longer be called “Contaminated
Land”. FB asked FM if she could provide advice based on Law Society (or
panel) earlier consideration of the question.
Commissioned Research: Contaminated Land and Human Health
6. The commissioned research report, Review of methods to assess risk to
human health from contaminated land, produced by Alison Searl of the Institute
of Occupational Medicine was put to the Group for discussion. The draft report
had been through two rounds of comments by the steering group, though it has
not been endorsed.
7. The general opinion of the Group on the report was positive. Dr Colin Ramsay
thought that the remit to take a comparative look at different methods and
regimes for dealing with contaminated land had been fulfilled well. The report
was particularly helpful from a medical point of view and provides a very good
explanation of the Significant Possibility of Significant Harm (SPOSH) concept.
8. There was some doubt expressed by MH and AC about the proposal on initial
assessment, specifically whether checking a limited data set against Generic
Assessment Criteria (GAC) would be compatible with the British Standard.
There was also some concern about the degree of fit between the report and
the existing guidance. Alison McKay felt the report devoted disproportionate
2
attention to setting out the Contaminated Land Exposure Assessment process.
However, FM thought that setting out the process in this kind of detail could
prove to be useful in the event of future legal cases.
9. The Group was positive about the Benchmark Dose (BMD) / Margin of
Exposure (MoE) approach presented in the report. It was noted that it would
need further studies designed to give ‘reference doses’ representing
unacceptable intake for specific contaminants. It was thought that this should
be taken forward by the Scottish Government, as local authorities would not
have the toxicological expertise or the resources to develop these kinds of
standards. It would also be unwise to potentially have different standards
applied in different parts of the country. It was agreed that the Scottish
Government should look into the possibility of funding a pilot research project to
develop a method for the generation of standard reference doses that would
represent unacceptable intake and to trial the method on (say) 6 substances
which are commonly encountered. A suggestion was made to base the study
on a particular substance, or group of substances, such as those found at the
sites of former gasworks, with a view to expanding this to develop a full
programme of Scottish standard reference doses. It was suggested that the
report author, Alison Searl, should be invited to prepare a scope of works for a
possible research project on a possible method of generating standard
reference doses.
Action Point 1 – FB to approach Alison Searl about scoping a pilot study and to
look into seeking Scottish Government funding for it.
10. FB asked the Group whether they would be happy for the Scottish Government
to publish the report on its website, as it normally does with research it
commissions. There was some concern about publishing Section 5 of the
report on Draft Guidance, as the Group have not fully considered it yet and may
not agree with all of it. However, FB stressed that publishing the document
does not necessarily constitute endorsement and that convention would
strongly support publication. FB asked if there were any specific points of fact
or clarification, with a view to amendments to the text, which members could
email to him in the next week, to be passed on to Alison Searl.
Action Point 2 – Comments and amendments on the report to be sent to FB.
[None received.]
Any Other Business
11. FM raised the possibility of EPS organising an event in the New Year on
contaminated land issues, and this was welcomed by the Group.
Date of Next Meeting
12. The next meeting should be held in January 2013 to discuss the way forward
on the criteria for identifying land, both in relation to human health, following the
IOM Report and the water environment, building on SEPA’s consideration of
the issue.
3
Alan Wyper and Francis Brewis
December 2012 (revised March 2013)
4