1 - History:
The City has a number of expertise. Their existence is known but they remained secret
[ 1999-2001: diagnostic assays of pollution have been carried out in 1999-2001 by the BET Duke Enginneering
[ 2007:
¾ July 19: purchase of the site by the City
¾ September : GIAT gives BURGEAP mission to produce a management plan for non-sensitive (industrial) for termination of activity. This management plan is the circular of February 2007 Department of Ecology and Sustainable Development (MEDD). The circular is clearly on the arrangements for management and redevelopment of polluted sites, so as the BPI.
¾ September : the City asks the BET ANTHEA a new analysis to define the conditions of occupation of the site to use sensitive. She wants to proceed with the development plan proposed by city planners and approved by City Council in 2007 .
Note: The study is ANTHEA place already in the logical use of sensitive and therefore already in the prospect of a revision of the POS with the creation of habitat zone.
[ 2008
¾ February: surrender by ANTHEA its diagnostic use sensitive
> this diagnosis is based on previous studies that, at the request of GIAT, were within the logic of an industrial
> ANTHEA:
- perform further tests on the open parts of urbanization instrumentalities: soil analysis, soil-gas surveys (though no evidence on the possible pollution of groundwater )
- define thresholds of acceptability of the risks involved in using previous studies, cross-national regulatory thresholds, European and global structures and recommendations for public health.
¾ June: ANTHEA furnished by the management plan for a sensitive use
; > acceptability thresholds are exceeded:
; - for the occupation of the former dump site by children and adults in public facilities (around the water tower)
- for individual homes with gardens, with or without recovery of soil on the site of demolished building is currently 124. The acceptability threshold was also exceeded the air quality inside before its demolition
- a point of building 116
- on the entire site for the use of individual gardens and green spaces nonoverlapping (diffuse pollution: arsenic and lead).
Note: It seems that the management plan included measures GIAT recovery (rail system infrastructure, buildings, renew green areas on the top soil)
> p roposals of ANTHEA
- keeping blankets and recovery site
- when servitudes for treatment of pollution is not feasible, technically or economically.
[ 2009
January 21: official by sending GIAT DREAL to the additional diagnosis and management plan definitely an area established by BURGEAP
On November 13, 2009, at the time when the public inquiry for changes to the POS, the case of termination of business with the management plan is still under investigation by DREAL. The statement must be followed by a prefectural retirement.
2 - The planned rezoning subject to public inquiry
The proposed amendment is identical in areas UAA and UBC. This is old BPI "where the uses will be compatible with any residual pollution.
In these areas, it is expected to authorize "the construction and real estate transactions with private gardens and public areas or undeveloped, provided that their assignments and their use will be made compatible with residual pollution present on the base grounds.
In the area of industrial and commercial craft, ranked IU but destined to become UIB, the amendment provides authorization "structures whose uses are compatible with any residual pollution. These buildings would be permitted "without private garden, provided that their assignment is compatible with residual pollution on the ground attitude.
are therefore forbidden in the area UIB nurseries, kindergartens, schools the first degree, medical social educational institutions.
These data are complementary with respect to the current IU area.
3 - As it stands, several problematic aspects
Building permits have been secured and work undertaken before modification of the POS
[ Building permits:
¾ request of the City filed February 23, 2009 to organize the House Associations (Building 100).
The DREAL meets April 16: it can give an opinion "to the extent one or industrial use has been retained with appropriate measures and easements of drug use."
In addition, the procedure for termination of activity of GIAT is not over.
A resolution was proposed and passed by the City Council unless it has the elements of assessment.
¾ license granted by the City IRGC
City Council voted to transfer to RMC Building 119 and adjoining land. May 28 2009, DREAL finds that the intended use (the receipt of the public) "is not one defined by the former operator. In this case, she continues, "it belongs to the town of Tarbes to perform additional studies to validate the use of the future film is compatible with residual pollution.
¾ It would also be interesting to know items in the folder on the old tobacco store (southwest corner) which is currently implemented the service of municipal archives and where are trademarks collections and the Museum reserves Massey.
¾ Modification of SOP aims to open a portion of the urban site GIAT. The licensing would be framed by introducing into the regulation a notion of compatibility of use with residual pollution . However, the draft amendment of the SOP states that " up to the buyers to ensure that future use is compatible with residual pollution identified in the management plan for industrial .
[ Questions
¾ Why kept secret studies whose existence is known, including at the public inquiry?
¾ Why not have a plan for managing waste pollution in order to know the usage restrictions before selling lots, receiving the public, are not a industrial use?
¾ complementary investigations requested by the DREAL Are those reported in City Council?
¾ What offload responsibility on the contractors? How individuals, in relation to habitat, will they be informed, owners or tenants? City commits Does not his responsibility?
¾ What are the current work on the site?
¾ What remediation work conducted on the site? Are they limited to the demolition of the building 124 to the disposal and storage of excavated material according to their degree of pollution
> Class 3 when the pollution level is eligible
> treated as class 2 when they exceed those standards
> funding
> there any other cleanup?
[ Review:
For a sensitive use (habitat area), the thresholds of acceptability are exceeded:
¾ for occupation of the site of the former dump (around the water tower) by children and adults in a public facility
¾ for individual housing with or without recovery with garden soil on the site of the demolished building is currently 124
¾ a point in the building 116
¾ on the entire site for the use of individual gardens and green spaces without overlap (diffuse pollution: arsenic and lead).
> however, it is expected to authorize "the construction and real estate transactions with private gardens, with reference to compatibility with residual pollution.
> it would seem that the plan Management GIAT included measures of recovery (rail system infrastructure, buildings, renewal of the portion of green space by a layer of topsoil)
[ Nominations ANTHEA
¾ keeping blankets and recovery site
¾ when servitudes for treatment of pollution is not feasible, technically or economically.
[ result of the public inquiry launched by the city to change the SOP:
Initially, deal with technical problems, Ms. Hague investigating commissioner appointed to conduct the public inquiry, asked to have the assistance of a forensic expert .
Mr. Delmas has been designated by the Administrative Court of Pau to assist technically the investigating commissioner, helping to better understand procedures, interpretation of soil tests and recommendations for site development contained in the expert report.
Here are the remarks made by Mr. Delmas following its mission:
- in 2008, planning policy conducted by the city of Tarbes has changed, therefore residual pollution on some parcels of the site should be treated according to current standards for use sensitive
- this situation must to be managed in a strict and transparent framework based on a qualitative assessment of Health Risk (QHRA ) complete with all parcels of the site by the use to which they are for
- the QHRA, prospective management plan summary must be repeated and detailed with residual risk analysis, zone by zone, as usage fina l It should help produce a quantitative analysis of the risks or adverse effects from exposures to certain chemicals identified by the use envisaged .
[ Through these studies, Mr. Delmas said it would be possible to:
- quantify the effects associated with non-carcinogenic substances and excess risk associated with carcinogenic compounds
- recommend measures if necessary.
It concludes that this way, the legitimate concerns that generates for the public such an arrangement could be removed without seriously delaying the political and technical decisions that can be taken calmly.
In view of these remarks, Ms. Hague has finally issued an unfavorable opinion the sensitive site exploitation of previously developed land and buildings GIAT.
Indeed, the latter considered in the present state of things and given the evidence before it concerning remediation site, it only was not possible to rule in favor of the amendment to the SOP include creating habitat areas on the site.
