1

The Authoritative Voice of Contaminated Land Management from a Landholder's Perspective

www.sagta.org.uk

Category 4 Screening Levels Phase 2

Richard Boyle

EIC

Wednesday 4th March 2015

2

C4SL’s

SP1010: Development of Category 4 Screening Levels for Assessment of Land Affected by Contamination – Policy Companion DocumentDecember 2014

3

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

4

“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!

5

“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?

6

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

7

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

8

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.”

9

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.”

10

What Does the NPPF Not State?

• “Safe and suitable for use”

11

‘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.

12

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

13

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 drinking-water are a “framework” for safe drinking-water, comprising health-based 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”

14

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”

15

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]

16

“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.”

Planning Practice Guidance

Updated:12th June 2014

17

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

18

Unnecessary Uncertainty & Inconsistency

• GACs• C4SLs

• S4ULs

• Why?!

19

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

20

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.

21

C4SL Phase 2• Main elements:

– Steering Group– Project Manager– Exposure Modelling– Toxicological

Assessment

22

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 *):

• 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

• 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)

23

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.

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

29

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

• Provide funding

Contact:Dr Richard BoyleSenior Technical Manager

Homes and Communities Agency

Email: Richard.Boyle@hca.gsi.gov.uk

Mobile: 07767 424 447

Telephone: 0117 937 7295