Article Instrumentation & Monitoring

AGS webinar summary: Instrumentation and Monitoring: Critical Links in Ground Engineering

- by
Tags: Featured

On 28th October 2021, Jonathan Gammon (Non-Executive Director and Advisor at Geotechnical Observations Limited and AGS Instrumentation and Monitoring Working Group Leader) headlined a webinar for AGS Hong Kong on the topic, Critical Links in Ground Engineering. This virtual event was a summary of the popular webinar which took place in November 2020.

Over 350 delegates registered for this webinar which saw Jonathan describe the scope and types of instrumentation and monitoring (I&M) and identify the role of I&M as a critical link in Ground Engineering. He addressed the challenging issue of I&M data management and outlined the I&M situation in Australasia, based on a personal perspective on the challenges of I&M work in that region, which introduced a wider global dimension to the webinar.

Jonathan also tackled the subject of international standards for geotechnical monitoring, tracing their development and content to the present day. Standards currently in preparation, as well as those anticipated in the future, were also identified, as were Technical Committees that have been formed to address I&M. He also identified the UK’s strategy to develop training for installation and monitoring technicians which dovetails in with the development of Vocational Qualifications and compliance with the Standards.

If you missed this webinar, the replay is now live and available for free view on the AGS website. Please click HERE to view the webinar replay in its entirety.

Article

New AGS Members in 2021

- by
Tags: Featured

The AGS is pleased to announce that in 2021, nine member organisations, one affiliate organisation and three practitioner members were accepted by the Membership Panel and approved by the Executive. Six students and graduates were also accepted as AGS members. The new member organisations are Exploration and Testing Associates Ltd, GE Solutions Consulting Ltd, Orsted A/S, Sweco UK, Brownfield Solutions Ltd, Omnia Environmental Consulting, Eurofins Chemtest Ltd, London Bridge Associates and WDE Consulting Ltd. The new affiliate organisation is The CDS Group and the new practitioner members are Tim Rolfe, Janice Windle and Neil Chadwick.

AGS Membership is open to geotechnical and geoenvironmental companies who employ specialists who can provide competent services and affiliate companies who provide support services and supplies to the members. Students and Graduates can also become members of the AGS. Full details of membership criteria can be found at http://www.ags.org.uk/about/become-a-member/

Article

Sustainable Management Practices

- by
Tags: Featured

SuRF UK have recently published updated guidance on Sustainable Management Practices (SMP’s) which include 15 sustainable management practices posters.

The SMP’s are “relatively simple, common sense actions that can be implemented at any stage in a land contamination management project to improve its environmental, social and/or economic performance”. ‘SMPs can be used to improve the benefits (e.g. resource efficiency, community satisfaction) or reduce the negative impacts (e.g. spillages, complaints, cost) of a project, leading to project ‘sustainability gains’, without requiring a formal sustainability assessment’. The SMP document describes a simple process to encourage sustainable thinking, decision making and action across all land contamination management activities by using SMPs’. The process could also be applied to geotechnical projects.

The posters include topics such as ‘Set project milestones to ensure periodic review and optimisation of activities’, ‘minimise vehicle miles’ and ‘don’t allow plant and equipment to run for no purpose’.  These posters could be used in a variety of ways to encourage sustainable thinking, for example:

  • As a suitable ‘Sustainability Moment’ in a meeting;
  • As a slide in a presentation
  • At project commencement
  • As an aid in a site briefing

The document and posters can be accessed at the following link: https://www.claire.co.uk/projects-and-initiatives/surf-uk/21-executing-sustainable-remediation/84-sustainable-management-practices

Article

Q&A with Sarah Hey

- by
Tags: Featured

Full Name: Sarah Hey

Job Title: Project Manager (Programme Delivery)

Company: Hydrock

I have 8 years’ experience in ground engineering, specialising in site investigations and contaminated land. I was based in the Midlands for 5 of those years as a geo-environmental consultant before moving to Manchester in 2018 as a senior geo-environmental consultant. During this time, I gained my chartered geologist and scientist status with The Geological Society. As of January 2021, I side stepped into a project manager role within Hydrock’s programme delivery team. I now manage multi-disciplinary projects and have since gained the APM project fundamentals qualification in project management.

What is your background and how did you end up working within the geotechnical industry?

I graduated from the University of Leicester in 2013 with a master’s degree in geology before embarking on my journey as a geo-environmental consultant. Prior to graduation I never considered working within the construction industry as I didn’t really know much about it. However, a friend on my degree course recommended me for an internship with a firm in Burton-upon-Trent, which I started immediately after graduating. During the early stages of my internship, I primarily carried out gas and groundwater monitoring and gradually progressed to a role as a geologist undertaking ground investigations and report writing.

What does a typical day entail?

Being a Project Manager, my job varies greatly day to day and no two days are the same. I manage multiple projects simultaneously, which are all at various stages within the project life cycle, although a lot of my current projects are at the outline/detailed planning application stage. I help coordinate and facilitate our technical teams and will often be attending virtual meetings to discuss progress on a project or to run through the project requirements. I also frequently write and collate fee proposals when tendering for opportunities, as well as coordinating any due diligence work to aid our clients with the purchasing of land for a development.

My role also involves a lot of business development, as I am the main point of contact for our clients, it is important that I build a relationship with existing and new clients either through virtual or face to face meetings, which often involve catching up over a drink or heading out for something to eat.

Within your career to date, what is your greatest achievement?

There have been quite a few, I was over the moon when I got my chartered geologist status but I would say winning the Best Young Brownfield Professional in 2020 has been my greatest achievement to date.

What is your favourite part of your job?

The socialisation and networking both internally and externally. Especially with virtual meetings through the likes of Microsoft Teams, I would say team members are more accessible. Even though I am based at the Manchester office I work on projects across the UK and as a result I engage with the various disciplines and Hydrock offices so it is great getting to know my colleagues. I am also developing and growing my client relationships, which is a new experience for me.

What are the most challenging aspects of your role?

It’s probably not surprising that I’d say, dealing with problems that I have never dealt with before is the most challenging aspect of my job. However, I enjoy problem solving, where you are faced with an issue which makes you sit back and think about it for a while before deciding on the best course of action. However, as I am relatively new to project management, it does mean I am facing new challenges which I have never encountered before. I am also the point of contact between the client and the Hydrock teams so it’s my job to have those difficult conversations when they come up!

If you could do it all over again, would you choose the same career path for yourself? And if not, what would you change?

I would definitely choose the same career path as I love the variety this role provides; I have worked in some amazing places within the UK and have made some friends for life. It’s a small world within this industry so you’re regularly crossing paths with former colleagues and acquaintances. The only thing I would change differently, if I was to do it again, would be to explore international work in the early stages of my career. I have always been intrigued as to what it’s like working abroad both from a fieldwork perspective, especially to examine the geology in other countries, but also working on international projects where the standards are different.

What AGS Working Group(s) are you a member of and what are your current focuses?

I am part of the Business Practice Working Group and the first early career committee member, which I was fortunate to be asked to join after winning the Best Young Brownfield Professional award that was kindly sponsored by the AGS. Our current focuses are to really promote AGS by enhancing our methods of marketing to attract the wider population, so watch this space for some exciting content.

Why do you feel the AGS is important to the industry?

One of the best attributes of the AGS is the user-friendly guidance’s that are readily available online as part of being an AGS member. For early careers in particular I think these are a great starting point to ensure an understanding of the different elements such as how safely and correctly to conduct a ground investigation from the excavation of a trial pit to sampling of soils for geotechnical testing.

Lastly any advice or words of wisdom that would you give someone who is either considering this type of job or who are progressing towards chartership?

The advice I always give to anyone starting in this industry is to log your CPD from the word go. This is pivotal if you are applying for chartership with an organisation such as The Geological Society. It’s much harder to backtrack what you’ve learnt and remember that practically everything counts as CPD when you first start out. The Geological Society have an excellent mind map which demonstrates all the activities that count as CPD and I think this is a good starting point.

Article Geotechnical

Geotechnical Engineering in a Net Zero Carbon World Webinar Summary

- by
Tags: Featured

The AGS webinar on Geotechnical Engineering in a Net Zero Carbon World took place on 6th October. The event was sponsored by Geotechnical & Environmental Associates and WSP.

This webinar saw Dr John Henry Looney (Director, Visiting Fellow and Hon Professor at Sustainable Direction Ltd, University of Bristol and the University of Nottingham), Natalia Fernandez (Associate Director at Ramboll) and Tony Suckling (Director at A-squared Studio Engineers Ltd and A2 Site Investigation Ltd) investigate what targets we need to set, which construction methods and materials provide major sources of embedded carbon, and explore how we can all contribute to a more sustainable approach to investigation, design and construction.

The event also covered why carbon reduction is important, how to reduce emissions by measuring the carbon footprint and how the GI has helped or prevented a more sustainable solution being used.

If you missed this webinar, the replay is now live and available for view on the AGS website for free. Click HERE to view the replay and download the speaker presentations and file handouts.

Article

AGS Annual Conference 2021 – an overview

- by
Tags: Featured

This year’s AGS Annual Conference, returned to the National Motorcycle Museum in Birmingham. The Annual Conference was the first AGS face-to-face event since January 2020. The day was a great success and well attended by 132 delegates.

The presentations covered a range of geotechnical and geoenvironmental topics which were well received. The conference was chaired by AGS Chair, Sally Hudson.

The keynote speaker, Luke Swain of Network Rail presented on the importance of Geo Engineers in the response to the symptoms of a changing climate, including looking at climate change and why Geo Specialists are so critical to the response.

Julian Lovell of Equipe Group provided an update on the Third Edition of The UK Specification for Ground Investigation (Yellow Book) and the major changes involved within the third edition. The third edition is due to be published within the first quarter of 2022. Helen Townend of Amey Consulting gave a presentation on building inclusion, showing how it can appeal to the next generation and the benefits experienced of operating in an inclusive way. Duncan Scott of Vertase FLI provided a presentation on landfill reclamation, looking at landfills in the UK and how old landfills can be reclaimed. Ian Webber of Coffey Geotechnics discussed misuse of monitoring and testing. Ian used case histories to provide details on lessons learnt.

The final talk of the day was provided by Clare Brint of Network Rail, who presented on Earthworks Asset Management at Network Rail (Eastern Region). Clare provided details of how the team operate to fully understand the risks from different hazards and how they mitigate the risks by predicting, preventing and responding.

All the AGS Working Group Leaders delivered updates on what they have been working on over the past year.

Special thanks to this year’s speakers; Sally Hudson (AGS Chair and Coffey Geotechnics), Luke Swain (Principal Route Engineer (Geotech), Network Rail), Julian Lovell (Managing Director, Equipe Group), Helen Townend (Technical Director, Amey Consulting), Duncan Scott (Technical Director, Vertase FLI Ltd), Ian Webber (Manging Director, Coffey Geotechnics Limited) and Clare Brint (Route Engineer, Eastern Region, Network Rail).

Special thanks also to this year’s sponsors and exhibitors.

The speaker presentations can be viewed on the AGS website HERE.

Article Geotechnical

What is a pragmatic and safe approach to assessing the feasibility and design of infiltration systems on a site? When is it appropriate to undertake BRE365 tests, and how can we do so safely?

- by
Tags: Featured

Image credit: James Harrison – 4D GEO LTD

Article by Georgina Donbroski (Technical Director at Leap Environmental Ltd), James Harrison (Director at 4D Geo Limited) and Alex Dent (Associate Director at WSP)

Firstly, with respect to Health and Safety matters, it should be noted that CDM Regulations place duties on both the designer (of the ground investigation, including scheduling soakaway tests) and the contractor who will be implementing the tests. Based on CDM requirements, the following considers the ERIC principle, of Eliminate, Reduce, Improve and Control.

As with any site investigation process, a phased approach makes the most sense.  A good desk study should be able to ascertain the feasibility for infiltration systems to work on site and hence the potential requirement for BRE365 testing.  Consideration must be given not only to the potential infiltration rates achievable, but also the potential for contaminated land and/or groundwater, flood risk, winter (maximum) groundwater levels, designation of the groundwater resource, potential for ground instability etc, any of which may have a significant impact on the feasibility of the use of infiltration based drainage systems.

CIRIA C753 SUDs manual outlines how the above should be considered at the conceptual design stage, and encourages a preliminary assessment using desk based sources.  Assuming no other constraints exist, C753 also gives some preliminary infiltration ratings (good/poor/very poor/other)  based on soil type and notes that where infiltration rates of 10-6m/s of higher are anticipated (clays, clayey ‘loams’, structureless chalks), then an infiltration scheme may not be viable.

Thus we can eliminate (ERIC) unnecessary  testing  at an early design stage. The elimination of unnecessary  testing is clearly desirable, not only in terms of cost savings for the client but also from a Health and Safety point of view, especially when one considers the specific health and safety issues associated with soakaway testing (deep excavation and water).

Assuming the desk study indicates an infiltration based drainage system may be feasible, then is the phase 2 investigation a good time to undertake BRE365 testing?  Possibly not.  Do you know the maximum groundwater level, the detailed scheme layout, final ground levels, proposed location of SUDs?   If not, then perhaps it is still too soon to undertake large scale testing.  C753 states that “groundwater levels should be investigated to ensure the base of the proposed infiltration component is at least 1m above the maximum anticipated groundwater level (taking in to account any seasonal variations in levels and any underlying trends)”, and a greater unsaturated zone may be required by the Environment Agency if your site is located  within a groundwater source protection zone.

It is also critical for detailed design that the BRE365 test undertaken accurately replicates the zone of infiltration proposed for the final design.  An infiltration rate obtained from 2m head of water in a 3m deep trial pit will not provide an appropriate infiltration rate for permeable paving.  Similarly, a 1m shallow soakage test will not provide a suitable infiltration rate for permeable paving design if ground levels are to be significantly reduced.  And finally, particularly for sites where the infiltration potential is borderline and interbedded soil types are predominant, then testing at your proposed infiltration component location will be critical to obtain representative parameters for design.

So what can we do at the Phase 2 stage?  Unless you can prove groundwater at depth, then groundwater monitoring is key, and where groundwater is potentially high, more and more local authorities are insisting on winter monitoring.  We are also at an ideal stage to classify our soils using relatively cheap laboratory classification testing (PIs and PSDs), which will enable us as designers to more accurately estimate potential infiltration rates.  Preliminary testing may also be undertaken in boreholes, but the results should be used with caution, noting the smaller volume of water used, the potential for smearing of the borehole sides, depth tested and the need to still test 3 times.  BRE365 tests can be undertaken at this stage, but the client should be made aware that unless the testing is at the correct depth and location, additional BRE365 test should be required at the detailed design stage.

Having established the site is suitable and the type and specification of your infiltration system, then BRE DG365 sets out the method for obtaining the design soil infiltration rate.  Testing is usually within trial pits, which should be undertaken in accordance with the AGS Guidance on the safe excavation of trial pits.  BRE365 notes the pit should be to the same depth as the proposed soakaway, and 1-3m long and 0.3-1m wide, vertical trimmed sides, square and if necessary, for stability, filled with granular material.  Noting that only pits within clay soils or rock may be stable (even this is not a given), and that clay soils should have been deemed unsuitable during the desk study phase, then arguably most pits will need to have a granular backfill to adhere to the BRE DG365 methodology.

Providing a granular backfill also acts to reduce risk (ERIC)  by: significantly reducing the likelihood of trial pit collapse to the short period it remains open; removing the presence of open water filled pits; and enabling greater ease of measurement of water levels via the slotted pipe installed for monitoring.  It also enables testing to continue safely beyond a single day, removing the potential for open pits on site.

Granular backfill may be delivered to site in large bulk bags of pea shingle, enabling the excavator to easily move these to test locations. The monitoring pipe is placed within the trial pit (end covered with a bulk bag to prevent infilling), and the base of the shingle bag split to pour the gravel directly into the pit.  Above proposed invert level, the pit may be backfilled with arisings and the topsoil and turf re-laid if further testing may be required.  If trial pits are deemed stable when water is added, for example in competent chalk, then the trial pit should be covered to minimise/improve (ERIC) the risk of working next to open water, typically with a Heras fencing panel, prior to testing.  Open pits should secure, not be left unattended for any period of time and must be backfilled immediately once testing is complete.  Testing must only be undertaken by suitably trained and qualified staff, controlled (ERIC) under the Safe Systems of Work  defined in the RAMs.

Like any geotechnical design, parameters obtained from testing must first be used accordingly.  The infiltration rate is an empirical measurement which should be calculated as defined in BRE DG365 (with due regard to the use of gravel).  If it is not possible to carry out a test to the full depth of the pit, the guidance is clear that the results may be calculated based on the time for the fall of water from 75%-25% full of the actual maximum water depth achieved, with a similar correction for internal surface area.  Results should not be extrapolated to empty.  Secondly, the results must not be viewed in isolation, and must be given due consideration with respect to all the other factors known on site.  For example, an infiltration rate c10-4m/s obtained on a site known to be underlain by silty clayey sand or ‘loam’ is indicative of some other factor influencing the local infiltration rate.  Either the ground model is wrong, or some other factor, such as a void, made ground, service trench etc are influencing the result.  Geotechnical design requires experience and training,  and the selection of design parameters is critical to providing a sustainable design, including for SUDs.

So in summary,

  • Just like any aspect of geotechnical design, a phased approach to investigation (comprising desk study, preliminary investigation and detailed investigation) should be standard practice.
  • Just like any other aspect of geotechnical investigation due consideration should be given to Health and Safety issues by all parties.
  • If a GI contractor is proposing to undertake soakaway testing without use of gravel backfill (or if this is unclear) this should be queried with them at tender stage.

When client (or their advisors) are requesting soakway testing, it should be queried as to whether suitable desk study research has been undertaken.  Where this is being driven by a third party and being requested counter to the findings of desk study, for example to prove a negative to a LLFA or local drainage board, they should be reminded of the Health and Safety risks that they are introducing by demanding a test that puts personnel (and perhaps the public) at risk for very little or no technical benefit. Perhaps in this situation, if boreholes are being formed anyway for foundation design purposes, consideration could be given to testing based on BS EN ISO 22282-2:2012 Section 6.1.4 (which is also referred to in the SuDS Manual).

All good construction practice comes from experience and learning from others, including mistakes and near misses.  The authors would be pleased to hear members experience on BRE 365 soakage testing.  Have you had any near misses?  Do you use any alternative methods for assessing infiltration?  Have you had occasion to test infiltration systems and compare with original design parameters?

References

CIRIA Report C753 ‘The SuDS Manual’, CIRIA 2015

BRE DG365 ‘Soakaway Desgin’, BRE, 2016

BS EN ISO 22282-2:2012 ‘Geotechnical Invetigation and Testing – Geohydraulic testing. Part 2: Water Permeability testing in a borehole using open systems’, BSi, 2012

Article Sustainability

Climate Change and Land Contamination Risk Management: A multi-disciplinary crisis management challenge

- by
Tags: Featured

Article provided by Paul Nathanail (GHD), Claire Dickinson (Geo Environmental Matters) and Dr. Tom Henman (RSK Geosciences)

Climate change is causing extreme weather events – more intense precipitation, flooding events, prolonged droughts, extremes of temperature, prolonged periods of high or low temperature, more intense storm events leading to frequent and stronger winds and steeper drops in atmospheric pressure. In their pioneering presentation at the 10th Congress of the International Association for Engineering Geology and the Environment, held in Nottingham, Judith Nathanail and Vanessa Banks (2009) highlighted the effect of climate change on land contamination, among other aspects of engineering geology. These changes will influence the way we manage land contamination and carry out site investigations, risk assessments and design, undertake and verify remediation.

As well as influencing slope stability and rates of soil erosion, these events will affect the ground and hence the risks posed by chemical contaminants in the soil, water, non-aqueous and gaseous phases. The strength, deformability, permeability and durability of ground will change. Prolonged droughts will deepen and widen desiccation cracks in high plasticity soils. More intense precipitation will saturate and weaken ever deeper soils. There will also be effects on the water table. Higher temperatures will increase rates of chemical absorption rates, weathering and biological activity.

Extreme weather events will alter the behaviour of contaminants. Increased volatilisation will result from the higher vapour pressure of volatile organic compounds (VOC) resulting from higher temperatures. Most ground gas related incidents relate to very large falls in atmospheric pressure so their occurrence may increase unless adequately mitigated

Higher temperatures and more precipitation resulting in faster weathering could capture inorganic carbon in carbonate minerals. Increased dissolution could release nutrients stimulating microbial activity such as hydrocarbon degradation.  Heavy metal mobility can increase by acidification as more carbon dioxide dissolves in rainwater.

Remediation works will be disrupted by sudden downpours. Wet, slippery conditions increase wear and tear on tyres and make working conditions more dangerous. Worker and public safety will be threatened by stronger winds picking up hoardings or loose materials and equipment.

Risk assessments, remediation design and choice of construction materials must be resilient to modelled climate scenarios, such as extreme summer and winter temperatures and increased precipitation intensity. The probabilistic UK Climate Projections (UKCP18) are based on a limited number of future greenhouse gas (GHG) emission scenarios. Land contamination professionals will need to ensure that an appropriate range of future GHG emission scenarios have been taken into account.

In the UK, a professional is usually identified by being a chartered member of their relevant body. A chartered practitioner has demonstrated a high level of knowledge, skills and experience, and is bound by a strict code of professional conduct.

A SiLC is a senior professional with the broad awareness, knowledge and understanding of land condition to provide impartial advice in the SiLC’s field of expertise. The SiLC Register lists  professionals from the range of professions relevant to land condition matters. SiLC is also the approving body for SQPs able to sign declarations of document adequacy under the National Quality Mark Scheme (NQMS). The Register is managed by the Professional and Technical Panel (PTP) of representatives from relevant professional bodies.

There is always uncertainty within site assessments and considering potential climate change impacts should be as site-specific as possible and based on available regional or local climate projections. The NQMS mandates consideration of uncertainties and the implications for both the site assessment and decisions taken on next steps.

For climate change to be effectively accommodated in land contamination risk management, each profession needs to ensure its insight into the effects of extreme weather effects are considered at each stage of a project. SiLCs are well placed to contribute to such multi-disciplinary assessments and advise on the wider implications for the project.

The authors are members of the SiLC Professional and Technical Panel.  For more information on SILC please visit www.silc.org.uk 

You can also contact Paul via email: paul.nathanail@ghd.com

REFERENCE

Nathanail, J. & Banks, V. 2009 Climate change: implications for engineering geology practice. In: Culshaw, Martin; Reeves, Helen; Jefferson, I; Spink, T.W., (eds.) Engineering geology for tomorrow’s cities. Geological Society of London Engineering Geology Special Publication, pp 65-82, 17pp. Available at: http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprint/9308/

Article

Dyslexia Awareness in the Geotechnical & Geoenvironmental Sectors

- by
Tags: Featured

October 4th to 10th was dyslexia awareness week and having a husband and a daughter with dyslexia, I felt prompted to write this article to raise awareness and celebrate the contribution that people with dyslexia make to our industry. This year’s theme is Invisible Dyslexia. Dyslexia itself isn’t visible and is all too often overlooked in the workplace and in education. As a result, people with dyslexia often feel unsupported, unwanted and invisible.

There are many benefits of dyslexia that are desirable to the geotechnical and geoenvironmental engineering sector including spatial visualisation, lateral thinking, deciphering data and creativity. Being able to spatially visualise complex ground conditions is an invaluable skill. Each person’s experience of dyslexia will of course be different, but each will bring skills to your business. If you work with someone with dyslexia, please don’t focus on the miss spelt words -it’s easy for someone else in your team to proof read and spell check. Instead – focus on the technical content and the fact you have a much better report as a result

For anyone wanting to understand a little more about dyslexia or for anyone who need support and advice, I recommend visiting the British Dyslexia Association website.  British Dyslexia Association (bdadyslexia.org.uk) They have a number of services and resources available for people including a helpline and can provide workplace needs assessments. They have a powerpoint designed for a workplace presentation. Link: https://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=https%3A%2F%2Fcdn.bdadyslexia.org.uk%2Fuploads%2Fdocuments%2FSupport-Us%2F2021-Dyslexia-Week-Workplace-presentation.pptx%3Fv%3D1632413597&wdOrigin=BROWSELINK

Vivien Dent

AGS Chair Elect. Leader of the Business Practice Working Group

Article

Thoughts from the Chair: Time

- by
Tags: Featured

Article by Sally Hudson, AGS Chair

I have always been in awe of the commitment shown by our AGS committee and Working Group members, or in fact by anyone in industry contributing to any extra-curricular activities over and above the ‘day job’. Ours is an often demanding and fast-paced way of earning a living, requiring an extra level of effort over the norm; to travel, undertake site work and meet deadlines. So this extra-over, as it were, must be recognised and gratitude is extended to practitioners and to Member companies that sanction the considerable amount of non-fee earning contributions made by staff to the AGS and other committees and industry bodies. This is how the AGS remains a not-for-profit Association and can divert resources where needed the most. We strive to provide opportunities to all those in the wider geotechnical and geoenvironmental industry for participation in all our activities. I am also grateful to all of our seminar and conference speakers for their gifts of time and expertise, which enable the AGS to fulfil this commitment to members. I will continue to drive and actively engage in these events.

The time committed to AGS activities is particularly impactful on businesses both this year and last, and our extra-curricular roles are being tested now more than ever, as we recover from the upheavals posed by the Covid-19 pandemic, by Brexit and by the unprecedented demands of HS2 investigations, enabling works and construction. I have spoken to representatives of many companies over the last few weeks and months, from consultants, main and specialist sub-contractors and from client bodies and asset owners, and the situation seems universal in that there is a shortage of quality candidates to recruit to permanent positions. This in turn has led to an increased pressure on the existing labour force. It has been well-reported that there is a national skills shortage in the UK, affecting several sectors and engineering is one of them. This matter has been predicted for some time and I am raising it here as I perceive it as a real risk to one of the core tenets of the AGS, that of a commitment to promote and enhance quality and safe practice. How do we find our way through to ensure a balance between fulfilling our commitments to clients and maintaining a high quality of work and improving on it? As the new AGS Chair, it is my responsibility to support and guide the Association activities to ensure that we provide benefit to all of our participants. I am pleased to report that we are already exploring several routes towards helping address the skills shortage crisis (and it is a crisis). We are working with academic bodies to promote awareness of this rewarding career among students in higher education and to explore potential apprenticeship routes. We are also in the process of consulting with those early in their careers and encouraging representatives into Working Groups to ensure refreshed thinking and to capture input from that group.

There is, for some, still a sense of being under-valued as a profession. Although in the long term this situation in which we find ourselves may improve our standing and recognition in the market place, we are already seeing an increase in remuneration packages required to attract candidates, a cost that will only have to be picked up by our clients. We are seeing costs of certain major infrastructure schemes escalating and although our front-end services are only a part of those costs, it is not hard to see how this could spread across all sectors. One of the powers of the AGS is that it has a voice, along with other collaborative industry organisations within Ground Forum, for Members to lobby Government on issues affecting our members and industry. Those companies that are not Member organisations of the AGS but who are active in the community and who use AGS data, please consider joining to assist in the promotion and enhancement of quality and safe practice within our industry.

Hopefully you have seen an increase in communication on what we do as an organisation to those outside of the AGS Committees during the term of my predecessor’s Chair tenure and I will continue to support this. This is my plea for your suggestions as to how we can improve or how you can assist: ags@ags.org.uk.

Article

Missing a trick? Is an unnecessarily complex permitting regime for the re-use of materials derived from historical landfill sites stifling their redevelopment?

- by
Tags: Featured

Article provided by Danny Hope SiLC, Hydrock; Eric Cooper SiLC, Hydrock; and Liz Hart SiLC, Lithos

Since the initiative to promote brownfield regeneration through redevelopment and the requirement for local planning authorities to maintain a brownfield register, an increasing number of derelict and contaminated sites have been remediated and safely bought back into beneficial use. Available brownfield regeneration opportunities are now beginning to shift to consider historic landfills, where permits have been surrendered, and areas that were infilled prior to waste management controls.

This interest creates a fantastic opportunity to bring these sites back into beneficial use. It provides a much-needed opportunity to improve and enhance the environment whilst at the same time delivering new homes/places and enhanced employment opportunities for the benefit of the communities in which they are located. However, we are experiencing inconsistency as to how these sites are regulated via the implementation of current waste legislation.

There is an increasing insistence that remediation supporting redevelopment of these sites, reusing site won materials, should be managed under a deposit for recovery permit (Defra, 2009. Environmental Permitting Guidance. The Waste Framework Directive) rather than following well established land regeneration guidance. This approach is causing confusion and significant delays. Ultimately if a practical way forward is not identified, there is real concern that these brownfield sites will be blighted and passed over for development in preference for less challenging greenfield sites, due to the disproportionate regulatory burden.

Anthropogenic material found in historic landfill sites is often similar in composition to ‘Made Ground’ identified on many brownfield sites and can be both chemically and physically suitable for retention and reuse within the development.  Unfortunately, the current approach is that if material is deemed to have been formally disposed of i.e., placed in a landfill (as opposed to made ground that may have been deposited across a site), it must be waste irrespective of its composition; even natural soils that have been placed in a landfill would be described as waste.  Reuse of any waste can only be achieved under an environmental permit.  Once something is classed as a waste, it must be assessed in line with WM3 and allocated a hazardous or non-hazardous waste code.

Remediation carried out under a planning permission embodies a ‘suitable for use’ approach based on generic and/or more detailed quantitative risk assessment – an approach adopted by the industry for many years. However, waste codes are allocated based on absolute concentrations, irrespective of site-specific risks. It follows that because thresholds for hazardous waste allocations are relatively low, material that is deemed suitable for use based on the site-specific risk assessment may be allocated a contradictory and barrier-inducing hazardous waste code

Once material is classified as hazardous waste there are further restrictions on how that material can be used;

  • Hazardous and non-hazardous waste codes cannot be mixed;
  • Different hazardous waste codes cannot be mixed; and
  • Treatment of hazardous waste is restricted to 10 tonnes per day.

It is also an inaccurate assumption that hazardous waste can simply be remediated to non-hazardous thresholds; this is often simply not feasible with time, cost and technical constraints.

The treatment of waste deemed hazardous under WM3 is limited to 10 tonnes per day. The current alternative is the application for and implementation of an Installation Permit. In the context of most remediation schemes, this quantity is miniscule and the upshot is that another layer of bureaucracy is introduced, with contractors having to apply for permits that they have no experience of. The industrial Emissions Directive that drives this requirement was surely never meant to regulate land remediation works?

Once in place, environmental permits are detailed on the Environment Agency public register. Permits (whether live or surrendered) will then be identified during land conveyancing, again this is a deterrent to development with property being ‘blighted’ and final sales hindered. The surrender of an environmental permit can also be a lengthy and costly process, again steering developers towards an easier option.

Within a remediation and earthworks project, limiting the options for re-using physically and chemically suitable site-won material potentially increases off-site disposal which again reduces a site’s commercial viability.

The current approach to historic landfills also undermines the government’s ‘Brownfield First’ policy and could lead to local authorities not achieving their house building targets and / or decreasing the provision of employment opportunities regionally and nationally.

Moreover, the issues raised here may also contradict the government’s ‘levelling up’ agenda. Many of the aforementioned types of site are located in the midlands and the north where land values are such that viability can be a major barrier to regeneration, more so than in the south where land values tend to be higher and development opportunities more prevalent.

Restricting the reclamation of site-won material also directly opposes the drive for sustainable development, which is a core principle in the National Planning Policy Framework and even the Environment Agency has a core principle of improving the environment while promoting economic growth. Sustainability is also important in the wider context, we are a small Island, we must ensure we use available resources wisely.

It should be noted that UK industry is at the cutting edge of global remediation innovation, developing products which are exported around the world, a significant contributor to the UK economy. If re-development of brownfield sites becomes less prevalent, this innovation is likely to be stifled and income generated by the export of new technologies overseas will reduce.

Overall, it is unfortunately the case that aspects of the current regulatory regime are creating barriers to sustainable remediation and successful redevelopment of former waste disposal sites rather than facilitating it. No environmental or social benefit is accruing from the position currently being taken and there is no value in it beyond an unimaginative commitment to compliance.

CL:AIRE, with the support of the Environment Agency, has pioneered the sustainable re-use of materials via the Definition of Waste: Development Industry Code of Practice (DoWCoP) which has seen the beneficial re-use of millions of tonnes of earth across England and Wales, when the overarching EU Waste Directive threatened to stifle brownfield regeneration. SiLC and its members have always supported appropriate use of the DoWCoP and would like to ensure its continued and consistent use in line with the guidance and its overarching aim to promote sustainability and protection of human health and the environment.

We hope that a swift resolution can be found to these issues, with a clear and consistent way forward that does not stifle development opportunities, is protective of human health and the environment, encourages industrial entrepreneurship and innovation, but does not contradict government policies and site-specific approach to risk evaluation. Discussions between CL:AIRE, the Environment Agency, government and other experts has commenced and is ongoing. The SiLC PTP will also be adding its support to these discussions.

Article

Q&A with Hugh Mallett

- by
Tags: Featured

Full Name: Stephen Hugh Mallett (but known as Hugh since I was 10)

Job Title:  Technical Director

Company:  Buro Happold

I am a Chartered Engineering Geologist and Registered SiLC of forty five years professional experience. The first ten years focussed upon geological and geotechnical investigations in the UK and overseas.  After a particularly rainy day on site in South Wales, I joined the civil service and spent over four years (in the dry) as a geologist in the Minerals Planning Division of the Department of Environment.  In 1990, I joined the contaminated land team of an environmental consultancy (Aspinwall & Company) and have been involved in the investigation and assessment of land affected by contamination ever since (with Buro Happold since 2006).

What or who inspired you to join the geotechnical industry?

Courtesy of a friend in my village football team, I got a summer job as an assistant QS on the M5 construction near Weston Super Mare.  On our stretch of the motorway, there was an impressive limestone cutting which was inspected / mapped by a geologist abseiling down the rock face.  What more incentive does anyone need?  And, many years later, I got to do this myself at Treffgarne Gorge, in Pembrokeshire.  It was heaven.

What does a typical day entail?

The only thing that is typical is that there is no such thing.  It is the variety of projects, the range of tasks to be undertaken and the lovely (and not so nice) people that I work with that makes me keep coming back for more.  Although the majority of my days are spent in the office, I still love site work and get out whenever I can to do some “real work”.  Perhaps the most typical aspect is that every time I think that I know the ground conditions on a site, then the uncertainty principle rears its head and something unexpected / unknown is encountered to make you realise (again) that you know nothing.

Are there any projects which you’re particularly proud to have been a part of?

Jordan Dead Sea Potash investigation.  My first overseas project in 1977 – went for 6 weeks which turned into 9 months (it was called “Wimpey Time”).  Learned to fly a hovercraft. Got rescued by a Jordanian Air Force helicopter on the Jordan / Israel border. Found live land mines (over 1000 eventually cleared from the site).  Channel Tunnel Rail Link (HS1) contaminated land assessment in the early 1990s – really developed our understanding at the time.  Writing R&D 66 and then delivering training on it to over 300 local authority contaminated land officers with some lovely colleagues and the legendary Bill Baker.  The Olympic Stadium – cycling to site, spending the morning with our site engineer Gemma as construction happened and then cycling back to the office along the Grand Union Canal – I could not stop smiling.  Devising and delivering the “Stratigraphic Beer Tour” lecture (on many occasions – invitations welcomed!).

What are the most challenging aspects of your role?

The continual need to keep up to date with the technical aspects of our work on contaminated land is double edged.  It is really hard to do but also always keeps you on your toes, so work never loses its interest.

What AGS Working Group(s) are you a Member of and what are your current focuses?

I currently chair the Loss Prevention Working Group.  It is a very active Group and has many very committed members who are always providing really useful advice and guidance through the various Loss Prevention Alerts, articles and the rather wonderful Loss Prevention Guidance, which is worth the membership fee on its own and is due to be reviewed and re-published in 2022.

What do you enjoy most about being an AGS Member?

Being part of an organisation that is concerned about raising the standards in our industry and which does something about it by the provision of useful (and used) guidance and advice.

What do you find beneficial about being an AGS Member?

I have been an active member of the AGS since the early 1990s (being a founder member of the Contaminated Land Working Group) and can honestly say that I have learned so much from that involvement – getting out far more than I put in.

Why do you feel the AGS is important to the industry?

I shudder to think where the industry would be without it.  Think of the AGS Data Format, all of the technical and commercial advice and guidance, the support provided to all of the membership, the unselfish and collaborative behaviour of so many people.

What changes would you like to see implemented in the geotechnical industry?

At my first AGS meeting people talked about the need to raise the status of ground engineers.  Sadly, despite initiatives such as SiLC and RoGEP, we are still often perceived as people grubbing around in mud who need little, if any, consideration and deserve little if any respect.

I have a dream:  To see ground engineers knighted for their professional services, receiving the salaries of lawyers and obtaining the respect currently attributed to health professionals.