Following on from this note, I also am aware of an accredited driller in the early 90s who was unsupervised and had to prove natural strata (chalk) through a historical landfill. The site being inside a chalk quarry and after a couple of meters, he took a leap of faith and took a sample from the sides of the chalk quarry instead and fudged the depth to be 5m. Unfortunately for the company, the actual depth was in excess of 10m in places and the volume of material requiring excavation doubled.
I am yet to meet any independent driller that uses a PID for onsite screening. Also, being contractors means that they will only follow the given spec and hence one is not able to adjust the scope to meet with the findings on site.
When cost becomes the main selection criteria, then quality goes out of the window and there are likely to similar stories that surface due the current climate.
Kind Regards
Simon Ware
Managing Director
Tel: 01442 825570
Fax: 01442 891410
Mob: 07748653021
www.wdenvironmental.com
Brownfield Developments - Land Acquisitions - Pollution Incidents - Waste Management & SWMP
Tring Head Office: 62a Western Road, Tring Herts HP23 4BB
Tel: 01442 825570 Fax: 01442 891410
NOTICE: The contents of this email and any attachments are strictly confidential and intended solely for the attention and use of the named addressee(s). If you are not the addressee(s) you may not disclose, copy, distribute, or retain this message without our prior written authority. If received in error, please contact WD Environmental Ltd on (01433) 620030 quoting the name of the sender.
Consider the environment. Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Steve Wilson
Sent: 08 June 2011 14:30
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Site Supervision - lack of
Appalling! Same also applies to boreholes. In this industry we rely totally on fieldwork and yet clients seem to begrudge a few quid to supervise it correctly and get the most out of it. Same for gas monitoring - send the cheapest person out.
We spend forever arguing about a few mg/kg difference in an SGV and ignore the important things such as this.
This is not down to regulators - it is down to the industry to sort it out. And it's not new - I remember one site many years ago where the driller was taking double U100's in one borehole so he could use them as samples from another hole that he would not drill to full depth!
Steve Wilson, Technical Director
on behalf of EPG
Tel 07971 277869
www.epg-ltd.co.uk
-----( Disclaimer )-----
> >
Information contained in this e-mail is intended for the use of the addressee only, and is confidential and may contain commercially sensitive material. Any dissemination, distribution, copying or other use of this communication, other than for which it is explicitly intended, without the permission of the sender is strictly prohibited. If you have received this e-mail in error, please advise the sender immediately and delete it from your system. Whilst all e-mails are screened for known viruses, the company cannot accept responsibility for any which have been transmitted.
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Marc Fawcett
Sent: 08 June 2011 13:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Site Supervision - lack of
A developer has highlighted to me that some consultants don't supervise the drilling of 'window' sample holes!
Those familiar with small diameter percussive holes will instantly flag the issues with this practice.
It appears that a subcontract driller logs on site and then transport the samples back to the consultants office for logging and sampling. It actually states this in the interpretive report.
Clearly there are many issues with this.... mix up of sample within the liners, sample preservation and missed observations from the drilling progress on site / odours / small lenses etc.
Can I bring this to the attention of the regulators - we really need to stamp this sort of practice out as the results will be pretty meaningless IMO.
Yes engineering supervision does cost, but on such an important exercise cost should not be an issue.
Comes back to 'rubbish in rubbish out' when it comes to modelling on naff field data.
No wonder I often loose out on competitive tenders when people are saving the cost of an engineer on window sampling jobs!
Best Regards
Marc Fawcett
Director
Betts Geo Environmental
http://uk.linkedin.com/in/marcfawcett
Head office
T – 01244 288179
F – 01244 288516
Old Marsh Farm Barns, Welsh Road, Sealand, Flintshire, CH5 2LY
www.betts-associates.co.uk
STRUCTURAL CIVIL GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL FLOOD RISK ANALYSIS
STRUCTURAL SURVEYS CONTAMINATED LAND ECOLOGY
ïï€ Please consider the environment before printing this email.
ELECTRONICALLY TRANSMITTED INFORMATION
This electronic transmission is strictly confidential and intended
solely for the addressee. It may contain information which is covered by
legal, professional or other privilege. If you are not the intended addressee,
you must not disclose, copy or take any action in reliance of this
transmission. If you have received this transmission in error, please notify
us as soon as possible. All emails transmitted by Betts Associates are virus
checked. This does not guarantee that transmissions are virus free. Reference
should always be made to the hard copy of any electronically transmitted
files. Electronic data does not constitute contract documentation. Use of the
content of our files is at your own risk. You remain responsible for anything
produced using all or part of the data supplied.
|