– Site costs (including but not limited to, excavator hire, welfare provision, security, etc, etc)

If you have a large volume of material then clearly a bigger excavator, or even 2 or 3 will be required. But watch out if you have a small volume as smaller excavators often do not have the reach to load a typical 8-wheeled tipper lorry.

– Haulage rates (totally dependant on distance to disposal site)

Normally hauliers will levy a waiting time fee if it takes longer than say 15 minutes to load the lorry.

Some disposal sites will permit articulated lorries though many traditional landfill sites will not (as they have a tendency to fall over when on soft ground…!).

For small volumes you may want to consider using roll-on-off skips or builder skips. These can be loaded by mini excavators and scissor dumpers.

– Landfill site gate fees (how much the site will charge you per tonne for disposal)

Correct waste classification is vital here. We often see waste soils classified as being Hazardous when in fact they can be correctly classified as being Non-Hazardous.

Hazardous soil disposal rates vary across the country from around £40/t – £150/t depending on the type of contamination and volume. Essentially the greater the volume the better gate fee you will get.

Non-hazardous soil disposal again varies across the country from around £10/t – £50/t. The higher rate is indicative of soil treatment centres where Landfill Tax may not be applicable.

– Landfill tax (LFT) (standard rate £102.10 per tonne as of April 2023 / Lower rate £3.25 per tonne)

For some disposal sites LFT is not applicable, providing considerable savings.

If in doubt or need more help why not give us a call on 0131 538 8456 or email us as we have close relations with many landfill operators and national hauliers, allowing us to give you preferential rates.

Have you thought about treating your soil and retaining it on site…?  Give us a call if you want more info.

FREE EBOOK

2021

Soil remediation guide

Approaching soil remediation without any prior knowledge can be difficult and uncomfortable at times, especially when it can potentially be very costly. This free eBook will help you understand the whats, the whys and the hows of soil remediation in the simplest terms.

• Email*
• First name*
• Last name
• Consent*
  I agree to the privacy policy.
• CAPTCHA

Δ

The post How much does contaminated soil disposal cost? first appeared on Soilutions.

Thank you very much, The Site Team were a credit to Soilutions,
Luke, Michael and Craig, very professional, polite and hard working

This message was received from John at BBC Formwork Limited, following some Phase 2 Site Investigation works at their site in Scarborough yesterday.

At Soilutions, we always aim to provide a pragmatic, respectful and successful service to our clients – today’s feedback seems to show we do.

Thanks John, we hope our reporting in the new year meets with your expectations and hope to work with you again in the future.

We can be contacted in a number of different ways including our new Text Chat facility during working hours. Our updated Contact Us page is now up and running – we’d love to hear from you.

The post An early Christmas thank-you letter first appeared on Soilutions.

In fact, the Remediation Strategy states what is intended, or should happen to remediate a site. Inevitably, things rarely go fully to plan and pragmatic changes need to be made and approaches altered.  It is the purpose of the Verification Statement to record such changes, but also check that intended actions did actually happen, and to the intended specification.

The Verification Statement should provide confidence to involved parties (for example the site owner, future purchasers, regulators, investors, insurers etc) now and in the future that remediation works at a site were undertaken to an appropriate standard.

Soilutions had been assisting a housing developer construct residential properties in the Midlands, having undertaken a Phase 2 Site Investigation and authored the subsequent Remediation Strategy.   When the site was being remediated and houses constructed, Soilutions gathered data for the Verification Statement including inspections of gas membranes and geotextile barriers, checks on the thicknesses of soil cover systems and the quality of imported soils in comparison to agreed permissible levels for a number of chemicals/elements.

The latter demonstrated the need for documented verification.  Lead concentrations in soil were required to be below an assessment criteria of 200mg/kg (based on the Defra Category 4 Screening Level, C4SL).  All lead testing results from a UKAS accredited laboratory are presented in the following graph (note that the concentration axis uses a logarithmic scale to accommodate the frankly huge range of values):

Soils were tested before we began importing them to the site (samples 1, 2 and 3) and passed all relevant criteria, including lead.  Material was imported to the site and laid in accordance with the Remediation Strategy with periodic quality soil samples collected (samples A to I).  When reviewing the quality sample results it was apparent that an elevated result for lead (sample G) was significantly above the specific criteria (an eye-watering 23,552mg/kg compared to our criteria of 200mg/kg – 117x or 2 orders of magnitude!!).  Soilutions contacted the laboratory who confirmed no errors in reporting (such as units or sample ID).  The sample was subsequently retested at the laboratory and the elevated result confirmed, albeit at a lower concentration – this emphasises the imprecise nature of trying to determine a representative sample for environmental assessment purposes, but we digress!

The unsuitable soils were removed from the site and replaced with materials which testing indicated was suitable for use.

Even though the soils were independently tested prior to purchase/import and were from a reputable producer/supplier operating under a Quality Management system, problems occur and “things happen”.  The Verification Statement should provide comfort to stakeholders that such “things” have been caught and dealt with accordingly.

FREE EBOOK

2021

Soil remediation guide

Approaching soil remediation without any prior knowledge can be difficult and uncomfortable at times, especially when it can potentially be very costly. This free eBook will help you understand the whats, the whys and the hows of soil remediation in the simplest terms.

• Email*
• First name*
• Last name
• Consent*
  I agree to the privacy policy.
• CAPTCHA

Δ

The post Demonstrating the need for a Verification Statement first appeared on Soilutions.

What was curious though was the apparent cause of the spill – the copper pipe connecting the fuel tank in the back garden to the residential central heating system, passed through an area used as a toilet by the homeowners’ dog. The dog urine had corroded the pipe over time, eventually causing it to fail.  ‘Spending a penny’ has ended up costing a lot lot more!

Guide

2022

Visit our oil spill clean up guide

Here we present answers to lots of your questions about Oil Spill clean up. We also cover prevention, health and safety, clean-up, as well as response plans and spill response services.

CHECK IT OUT

The post Are you taking the p***? first appeared on Soilutions.

In the eBook we classify an example soil and explain:

• how we identified the appropriate LoW code
• how we describe the Hazard Properties

We also discuss where WAC testing fits in, ‘inert’ waste and the different off-site disposal routes available.

We fully appreciate that it can be a very daunting task to classify waste soils and then identify appropriate disposal routes.  It can also be costly if mistakes are made.

Soilutions are a knowledgeable & licensed waste broker as well as an established environmental consultancy – get in touch and take advantage of our experience!

FREE EBOOK

2022

Waste soil classification and disposal options

Classifying waste soils for disposal without any prior knowledge can be difficult and uncomfortable at times, especially when it can be very costly if you incorrectly classify the material. This eBook will help you understand the whats, the whys and the hows of waste soil classification in the simplest terms.

• Email*
• First name*
• Last name
• Consent*
  I agree to the privacy policy.
• CAPTCHA

Δ

The post Waste Soil Classification and Disposal Options eBook updated first appeared on Soilutions.

Of course, the walkover is only one line of evidence used in a complete Preliminary Risk Assessment, but without one the following may have remained as unknowns:

We’re always pragmatic regarding the need for a walkover and don’t always undertake them if there is a good reason not to, reasons may include:

• an isolated greenfield site where preparatory groundworks have already been undertaken or
• a site with known contamination where a Phase 2 Site Investigation will inevitably be required

So, in response to the oft asked “do you really need to visit the site?”, we’d suggest “yes, probably”.  As always, we’re happy to discuss any potential assessment and agree the best approach to meet client needs.

FREE EBOOK

2021

Phase 1 Desk Studies / Preliminary Risk Assessments

Do you want an insight on Phase 1 Desk Studies / Preliminary Risk Assessments for Contaminated Land? This eBook has been written specifically for those new to contaminated land and provides an overview for the uninitiated of what steps you need to follow.

• Email*
• First name*
• Last name
• Consent*
  I agree to the privacy policy.
• CAPTCHA

Δ

The post Site-walkovers, a necessary part of a Preliminary Risk Assessment first appeared on Soilutions.

This is the last of three articles where we share some commonly overlooked issues that could impair your water level data and subsequent assessments. In other articles we have explored the selection of the ideal datum and thought about the selection, use and maintenance of a water level dipper.  Unfortunately, these alone cannot guarantee precise and accurate groundwater surface elevation data.

Water level monitoring is a doddle, right? Chuck one of those water level dipper tapes down a monitoring well until it goes “beep” and note the depth it says at the surface? Well, not really – in these days of millimetre accurate topographical surveys, we really should be able to consistently, precisely and accurately measure the depth to groundwater at a site.

Water level monitoring: Have you considered…?

At Soilutions, we use our collective experience to help spot other issues during site-works, or during subsequent data assessment which may impact the measured water elevations.  Seemingly anomalous water elevations may be caused by other factors, or indeed be true.  Here are some of the more typical considerations made when collecting or processing water elevation data (beyond datum selection and water dipper functionality):

• Verticality of monitoring well. An experienced technician should be able to “feel” if a monitoring well is angled or kinked, perhaps due to subsidence.
• Artesian groundwater. Is the monitored water body artesian or part of a confined aquifer?
• Light non-aqueous phase liquid (LNAPL). A LNAPL is a layer or film of product which floats on the water surface.
  • A regular water level dipper probe is unlikely to detect the surface of a LNAPL layer. The dipper probe will pass through the layer without sounding.  Depending on the viscosity of the layer/film and how “coated” the probe gets, it may not start sounding when it does reach the water below the LNAPL.  An experienced technician should become aware of product once the probe is returned to surface.  More specialist oil-water interface probes allow the measurement to LNAPL surface and water surface.
  • Depressed water levels. A significant layer of LNAPL floating on top of the groundwater table can effectively reduce the groundwater surface elevation.  With some assumptions or laboratory analysis we can mathematically compensate for such depression.
  • Well acting as sump. It is a known phenomenon that a monitoring well intersecting a plume of LNAPL may act like a sump and have a thickness of product far thicker than in the surrounding aquifer.  Correct purging and sampling techniques can help minimise this effect.
• Tidal influence. If a monitoring well is connected to a water body influenced by tides, the water elevations measured will be dependent on the tidal level at the time.  There may be a time lag between the local tide and levels within the well. There would typically be a need for more intensive (temporally) monitoring using a datalogger and pressure transducer instead of a manual dipper.  Soilutions have a number of these in our monitoring stock.
• Localised influencers. Other inputs to and outputs from a groundwater body (either natural or anthropogenic) may temporarily alter the groundwater surface elevation.  These might include:
  • Broken drains
  • Rainfall (or lack thereof)
  • Irrigation
  • Water abstraction
  • Ground loading/unloading
  • Pump tests

• Monitoring protocols. Datasets collected over a long time period may involve different collection protocols, different equipment and/or changes in personnel.  Apparent step-changes over time may be due to datum changes, repaired tapes, incorrectly identified monitoring wells, typo’s, rounding of measurements to nearest centimetre or various other factors which would need to be accounted for.  Plotting the data in time-series (see the example at the top of this article) can help visually identify such step-changes for investigation – remember they may also be real!
• “Air lock”. Where the slotted section of a monitoring well is fully submerged in groundwater and where the monitoring well is sealed at the surface with a gas tight cap, changes in groundwater elevation may not be represented in the well.  A rise in groundwater elevation would require air in the monitoring well to be displaced – this cannot happen if the well is air-tight (and vice-versa for falling groundwater).  This issue can be mitigated by unsealing the well.
• Depth to base. It is good practice to periodically check the depth to the base of the monitoring well either with the water level dipper or a heavier plumb-line tape.  Remember that some water level probes have a sheath over the sensor, increasing overall length – dips to base will have to be corrected by this increased distance. With this knowledge we can determine if the well is silting up but also whether measured “water levels” are true or likely just moist sediments at the well base.

That summary of considerations ended up being quite a dense read – but it feels good to share the knowledge and to remind us all that measuring water levels is not as straightforward as to “chuck one of those water level dipper tapes down a monitoring well until it goes “beep” and note the depth it says at the surface”.

FREE EBOOK

2021

Phase 2 Site Investigations

Do you want an insight on Phase 2 Site Investigations? This eBook has been written specifically for those new to contaminated land and provides an overview for the uninitiated of what steps you need to follow.

• Email*
• First name*
• Last name
• Consent*
  I agree to the privacy policy.
• CAPTCHA

Δ

The post Water level monitoring: Have you considered…? first appeared on Soilutions.

This is the second of three articles where we share some commonly overlooked issues that could impair your water level data and subsequent assessments – this time we’re looking at water level dippers. In other articles we’ll explore your choice of datum and look at other factors which may influence your results.

Water level monitoring is a doddle, right? Chuck one of those water level dipper tapes down a monitoring well until it goes “beep” and note the depth it says at the surface? Well, not really – in these days of millimetre accurate topographical surveys, we really should be able to consistently, precisely and accurately measure the depth to groundwater at a site.

Water level monitoring: Is your equipment up to the job?

Having established the datum to measure from, we now need to ensure that the measuring equipment is reliable and accurate. From our extensive combined experience of monitoring with water level dippers over the years, Soilutions suggest that the following should always be considered either as part of yearly maintenance, or as part of every monitoring visit.

Stretching

The measuring tape component of water level dippers can stretch over time. We have noticed this more with cheaper models and for longer (and thus heavier) tapes. Stretching will affect accuracy and is likely to impact deeper wells to a greater degree. Use of different dippers over multiple monitoring rounds will also impact precision where one or more tapes have stretched.

Verticality

The tape and water probe must hang vertically within the monitoring well for depth measurements to be precise and accurate. We have found that taking care to respool the tape back on the dipper prevents kinks and folds in the tape which will influence verticality. The connection between the tape and the probe can also be a weak point and cause for the probe to hang at an angle. Again, we find that correct storage by ensuring the probe is placed in the supplied holster between uses minimises this issue.

Kinks and knots

If you’ve got knots in your measuring tape then you really should be re-examining your monitoring protocols! Kinks and twists on the other hand can be quite common, but easily avoided if care is taken when respooling the tape back onto the dipper reel.

Repairs and length changes

It’s a fact of life that dipper tapes are subject to nick’s and cuts which can break the electrical connection to the probe and renders them useless. Repairs typically involve the need to remove a small section of tape, re-establish the electrical connections and then waterproof the repair. Such repairs will obviously change the tape length and impact any measurement of water deeper than the repair point. Even when removing a full 1m of tape (to allow cm and mm elements to be correct) an experienced field technician can still forget to deduct that metre from the measurement. Ideally the whole tape or dipper should be replaced to remove this chance of error.

Flat battery

There is nothing worse than travelling to a site for groundwater monitoring only to find your water level dipper is not working. Whilst this may be due to a broken tape (see above), another common cause is a simple flat battery – depending on the remoteness of the site, this could waste hours to replace. At Soilutions, we have got in the good habit of

• Testing the dipper before leaving the office/storeroom (most have a test button, or use a cup of water);
• Carrying a spare battery in our tool kits (remember to keep it in a packet or with terminals taped over to prevent shorts); and
• Turning off the dipper after use and ensuring the probe is dry and correctly stored.

Dipper sensitivity

Dippers react differently to differences in groundwater, monitoring well moisture levels and condensation. A sensitivity dial is essential to enable the monitoring technician to be able to differentiate between the real depth to water and for example: moisture of the well sides at shallow depths (false-positive); or low conductivity groundwater (false-negative). The dial increases or decreases how sensitive the probe is to water and is present on all dippers used at Soilutions.

Buzzers and bulbs

The probe touching the water surface in a monitoring well is usually accompanied by a buzzer sounding and an LED lighting. It’s a good idea to have both since the LED might not be visible in bright sunlight and a buzzer may not be audible in a noisy environment.

Friction

The continual lowering and raising of the dipper tape into and out of monitoring wells will invariably mean the tape rubs against headworks and well liners. Over time, this friction can wear away the depth markings on the tape and also expose the electrical wires within the tape. Soilutions suggest the use of good quality tapes and to always unspool and spool the tape with the reel directly over the centre of the well to prevent the tape being dragged across the lips of headworks etc.

Conclusion

Overwhelmingly from the above summary, it is clear that for quality results which are both precise and accurate, correct treatment of the water level dipper is paramount.  They may well be able to continue working when maltreated in the field, never cleaned nor maintained – but some robust monitoring protocols and checks, combined with occasional TLC, should ensure your dipper continues to provide superior water level data for many years.  Here at Soilutions, we have confidence with all stages of our data collection – including water level monitoring – so can rely on it as the basis for important assessments and decisions.

The post Water level monitoring: Is your equipment up to the job? first appeared on Soilutions.

It’s the “no risk” part that makes me wince.  I really doubt it’s true for the vast majority of times it is used.

To the author of “the reported benzene concentrations pose no risk to human health”, I would counter that there is always some risk to human health from benzene, no matter how small the concentrations or the perhaps convoluted exposure pathway it would have to take to reach a human.  At best, anybody reading the report will infer the likely meaning from the statement that benzene concentrations are not really a concern to human health at the site and have no issues with that.  At worst (and acknowledging that I’m not a lawyer), someone with a litigious streak could argue that the statement is misleading or untrue as there will always be some (perhaps infinitesimal) risk – leading to a non-payment of fees or other consequence, why risk your PI insurance or premiums?

To reach their conclusion, the author had probably compared the reported concentration to some kind of assessment criteria.  These are often risk based and derived based on minimal risk thresholds.  Having reported concentrations below such a threshold does not equate to “no risk”, but more likely “acceptable risks” or “not potentially significant risk”.  Of course, some assessment criteria are based on parameters such as odour, tainting or detection limits – being below (or above!) such criteria would have no bearing on “risk”.

So why the picture of a meteor approaching Earth you ask?  It’s my goto scenario for explaining my thinking regarding “no risk”…

Meteorites are space objects, such as an asteroid or comet, which crash into the Earth’s surface.  I also use the Earth’s surface when I’m walking my dog or driving my car.  Whilst most people would accept there is “no risk” of being hit by a meteorite, it’s not strictly true – there must always be some chance I could be hit by one!  So I submit a pedantic “there is an acceptable risk of being hit by a meteorite” instead.

(Don’t get me started on Lottery tickets – I doubt they’d sell many if they advertised them as “no risk of winning the jackpot”!)

The post Do you really mean “No Risk”? first appeared on Soilutions.

This is the first of three articles where we share some commonly overlooked issues that could impair your water level data and subsequent assessments, starting with datum choice. In other articles we’ll explore if your faithful water level dipper has had its day and look at other factors which may influence your results.

Water level monitoring is a doddle, right? Chuck one of those water level dipper tapes down a monitoring well until it goes “beep” and note the depth it says at the surface? Well, not really – in these days of millimetre accurate topographical surveys, we really should be able to consistently, precisely and accurately measure the depth to groundwater at a site.

Water level monitoring: Datum dilemma!

Following the installation of shiny new monitoring wells at our site (or even if re-using existing ones) we’ll need to know exactly where they are spatially, so employ the services of a topographical surveyor to provide co-ordinate (x, y) and elevation data (z), ideally to Ordnance Datum, but a site datum may also be used.  We’ll assume metres above Ordnance Datum (m.AOD) for the rest of this article.

Here we are most concerned with the elevation of our monitoring well, so that when we measure the depth to water using a water level dipper we can calculate the elevation of the groundwater surface.

Water elevation (m.AOD) = Datum (m.AOD) – Depth to water (m)

With accurate and precise groundwater elevations across the site from numerous monitoring wells we can plot the groundwater surface over the site and derive hydraulic gradients, spot recharge mounds, cones of depression etc.

Always confirm with your surveyor what they are actually surveying when they provide an elevation for your monitoring well – it may be nearby “ground level”, the top of the headworks or manhole cover, the top of the internal well liner, the top of well cap, or the surrounding concrete pad for instance.  If this is unknown then you’ve already lost the accuracy battle.

Let’s examine some of the datums commonly selected and discuss their pros and cons – the following image shows a cross-section through a typical above ground (“top-hat”) headworks and shows five common datums.

Removable datum

Headworks

Deviation from vertical

The depth to water must always be measured with the water dipper tape being fully vertical. As the well liner is typically positioned in the centre of the headworks, it is tempting to use the headworks lip as the datum and thus introduce some additional (false) depth to the measurement, impacting accuracy. Where the well liner is not centrally positioned in the headworks, the choice of position on the headworks lip will also influence precision.

In the following example, some typical dimensions have been used to illustrate the impact of deviating from the vertical (not to scale).

The middle dipper tape presents the precise and accurate measurement of 5.000m, due to measuring over longer diagonals, or “deviation from vertical”, the tapes on the left and right would present measurements of 5.005m and 5.036m respectively – quite a variation.

Monitoring well liner

Concrete pad

Ground level

Conclusion

At Soilutions we typically ask surveyors to provide elevation data for the top and centre of the headworks and use careful measurement to calculate the elevation of the top-most point on the well liner to use as datum. This is true for both “top-hat” headworks above ground and manhole headworks flush with the ground.

Whatever datums you select (or inherit) at a site, marking them permanently on each monitoring well will help ensure consistency (and therefore precision) of the collected monitoring data. The deviation from vertical can be avoided by placing a straight edge across the headworks and directly over the well liner to use as datum.

The post Water level monitoring: Datum dilemma! first appeared on Soilutions.