A bit of devils advocate here but do you really need full time
supervision on a site that has made ground consisting of demolition
rubble over clay with the main risks to the development being from
potential ground gases and a little bit of leaching of heavy metals? Or
perhaps on a school playing field that was previously a green field
site? Would I be qualified to make that decision after carrying out the
desk study and site walk over?
Working for a contractor as a consultant does have some advantages in
that I have access to qualified and reputable drillers. Therefore, in my
opinion there are occasion where full time supervision is not necessary
providing you use qualified drillers, provide clear instructions and
carry out a good site induction. This may not be possible for all
consultant.
I strongly agree that full time supervision should be used in all cases
where unqualified drillers are operating window sampling equipment. I
don't think the problem lies with reputable contractors/consultants but
rather with the type of consultant/contractors who employ the cheapest
drilling contractors who claim to provide an exhalent service with fully
qualified staff but very often cut corners.
Christiaan Wilkinson
Principal Environmental Scientist
SETS
Soil Engineering
Leeds
Parkside Lane
Leeds
LS11 5SX
Direct: 0113 385 9138
www.soil-engineering.co.uk
Think before you print
-----Original Message-----
From: Contaminated Land Management Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Chris
Dainton
Sent: 08 June 2011 17:55
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Site Supervision - lack of
As far as I'm aware this practice has been going on for ages, especially
amongst geotech/engineering consultants who add on 'contamination'
testing to their Geo SI work. I'm surprised how many people are
'surprised' by it.
The fact it now seems to be spreading to companies who really should
know better is worrying.
Perhaps it's time for an industry led initiative (specific Code of
Practice or position statement) relating to this issue?. Companies
could then sign up, clearly stating what level of site supervision will
be (or was) provided to the drilling contractor/team:
Level 1 - No Site Supervision
Level 2 - Part Time Site Supervision
Level 3 - Full Time Site Supervision
The required level could then be specified in contract docs and by Local
Authorities (e.g. 'this LA will only accept contamination investigations
using Level 3 supervision'). Level 2 will need to be carefully
specified.
Is this something that CL:AIRE, EIC or CIRIA could take forward?
We need a level playing field again - I've had enough of competing
against companies who offer up a sub-standard scope of works as the real
deal.
Chris Dainton
Peak Environmental Solutions
http://peakenvironmentalsolutions.com/
****************************************************************************************************************
Vinci PLC Group of Companies
Opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the individual not the company, unless specifically indicated to that effect.
This e-mail together with any files attached is confidential and intended for the addressee only.
If you have received this in error, please delete it from your PC and inform our IT Department on 01923 640 888 or [log in to unmask]
This footnote also confirms that this e-mail has been scanned for the presence of computer viruses.
Vinci PLC
Registered in England and Wales No. 737204 Registered Office : Astral House, Imperial Way, Watford, Hertfordshire, WD24 4WW
****************************************************************************************************************
|