Like it or not first impressions count. There is nothing more depressing than opening a report and reading "XYZ was engaged to conduct a PSI on the land located on railway Street. On Thursday we went to the site and drilled 7 boreholes. 3 samples were collected from each borehole at depths X, Y and Z. One sample from each bore was analysed for contaminants A, B, C and D. Sample X-A had an analysis result of 123, and sample Y-B had a result of.456, below the guideline of EFG. Refer to a plan in appendix A and a table in appendix B. The investigation was conducted in accordance with..."
Okay, I've either dropped off, found something more interesting to read or I've realised my keyboard is in desperate need of cleaning. Either way, I'm preparing for a long haul.
I've been doing this for more than 25 years and I simply cannot form a picture in my mind of what's going on from this style of data presentation, particularly when the amount of data gets large. Context is everything.
Compare that to "The site has been subject to 100 years of railway yard use and is anticipated to be covered by a layer of fill material resulting from railway activities. The fill is suspected of being intrinsically contaminated in addition to surface-derived point sources of contamination possibly being present. In a railyard, possible contaminants include X, Y and Z. In this site setting, these contaminants are expected to be of low mobility and therefore concentrated at the surface and within the fill. The natural regional geology is clay rich and it is expected to have low contamination potential due to its low permeability, however, contaminants may concentrate at the fill-natural interface along with infiltrating water. To test this hypothesis, X boreholes were drilled in an evenly spaced grid pattern across the site with a spacing of XX metres, to capture a hot spot of a minimum diameter of 10m, considered typical of that expected in railway yard use. X, Y, and Z samples were collected from the fill material at each location with a focus on the surface, as well as the fill natural interface, as being the most likely locations to exhibit contamination."
With a sprinkling of references to evidence to support the hypotheses (site history documents, aerial photos, interviews, site inspection notes) it makes for a much easier and more informative read.
The first example concentrates on what was completed in the investigation. Whilst this is important information, it is not the lead story. It is the backstory that demonstrates how you went about confirming what was hypothesised about the condition of the land. The second example focuses on the land and its expected, and then confirmed, condition. In the industry, this is called the conceptual site model (CSM).
The story of the land, or the CSM, should be the core of your investigation and your report. There is no other reason to do the work but to develop and confirm the CSM.
The CSM is not a table of source-pathway-receptor linkages (important, but they come later) that you put in section 7 after you've completed the work to satisfy a guideline requirement. It is a model (made of pictures and words, or even a 3D computer model) of what you think is going on at the site. How could it have been contaminated, where would the contamination be, and where would it go? Where and how should I look for it? It starts out blurry and with each piece of evidence, the picture becomes clearer. It is how you plan your scope or write your investigation proposal., even if you're not conscious of it. All sites are different and you need to understand them to assess them. If you're applying a one size fits all approach to your investigations, you're doing your clients a disservice.
Don't just pay lip service to the planning process, including data quality objectives. These force you to think CSM. The guidelines around these can be convoluted so look for examples and apply them to your project. Setting clear objectives determines the focus of the work. The rest of the planning process determines what information to collect and how to collect it so that we can meet our objective. Revisit the process after each scope (testing of the CSM) now you have a clearer picture.
Keep it simple, think logically and deduce. Write down the thought process. as if you're explaining it to your client so they can understand it. Novel I know. Focus on telling the story of the land and secondly, how you went about confirming it.
#ContaminatedLand #ContaminationSimplified #CLIDReporting#Communication#ScienceReporting
Christian Atkinson is a contaminated land auditor and a suitably qualified person for contaminated land assessment in Queensland with more than 25 years of experience. Any discussion is general and does not consider your specific circumstances. If you are considering acting on any matters discussed, you should seek advice from qualified and experienced professionals.
Comentarios